Sitting of 15 February 1933

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock.

MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE.
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.
Dewsbury and Ossett Passenger Transport Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday. Manchester Corporation Bill (by Order),
Read a Second time, and committed. St. Helens Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday.
Southern Railway Bill (by Order),
Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
York Corporation Transport Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Chester and Lancaster) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Eton Joint Hospital District) Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  ARMS TRAFFIC.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the resolution before the United States Senate proposing to authorise the President to make an international agreement for an embargo on arms and munitions of war, His
  978
  Majesty's Government are willing to state their readiness to co-operate in such action?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): On the initiative of His Majesty's Government an exchange of views has taken place between the Governments of the United Kingdom, the United States, France and Italy with a view to an agreement between them to prohibit the export of arms and munitions of war to Bolivia and Paraguay, in anticipation of any prohibition of a more general character that may be arranged through the agency of the League of Nations. Efforts to bring about early action by international agreement are being continued, but have not yet succeeded.
  The purpose of the resolution mentioned by the hon. Member is to empower the President of the United States to proclaim illegal the export of arms to such countries as he may designate after securing the co-operation of such other countries as he may consider necessary. While the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate have reported favourably on this proposal, the resolution has not yet been adopted by the Senate.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Do we understand that His Majesty's Government would be willing to co-operate with the United States Government to extend the suggested limitation and restriction beyond Paraguay and Bolivia?
  Sir J. SIMON: As I have already said, His Majesty's Government took the initiative in this matter and made communications to the other Governments. I think the Bolivia and Paraguay case is a very good case to take, and, if we could establish an arrangement about that, I should have hopes that it would spread.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of extending this very wise provision to apply to the case of Japan and China?

  YUGOSLAVIA.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information as

  979
  to the present political and economic situation in Yugoslavia?
  Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir.
  Mr. DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Yugoslavian Govt. have now arrested the leaders of the Croats, Slovenes, and Mussulmans, and that these arrests are in violation of the provisions of the treaty which set up the Yugoslavian State, and in view of the fact that the British Government was a party to that treaty, will he inquire into those arrests?
  Sir J. SIMON: The question I was asked was the perfectly general question whether I could give any information. I think I must reply by saying "No," and we must remember, after all, "that if we take an undesirable method of interfering with the domestic affairs of a friendly country, that will redound to the injury of the interests of His Majesty's Government, which is deeply concerned with the maintenance of peace and stability in the countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe.
  Mr. DAVIES: When the British Government is a party to a treaty that provides rights and privileges for these nations within Yugoslavia, have we no concern at all when the provisions of that treaty are broken?
  Sir J. SIMON: We have every concern when the provisions of any treaty are broken, but I do not think that that can be dealt with by supplementary questions and answers.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS COVENANT (ARTICLE 16).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government adhere to Annex F of the Locarno Treaty defining our interpretation of the obligations of Article 16 of the Covenant as meaning that each State member of the League is bound to co-operate loyally and effectively in support of the Covenant, and in resistance to any act of aggression to an extent which is compatible with its military situation and takes its geographical position into account?
  Sir J. SIMON: Yes, Sir; they do.

  DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Government is prepared to give a lead to the Disarmament Conference by stating precisely and publicly the figures it would be prepared to accept both in tonnage and number for a limitation of the various types of military, naval and air weapons?
  Sir J. SIMON: His Majesty's Government consider that they have already given a lead to the Disarmament Conference by the proposals which they submitted on the 17th November last (Cmd. 4189), and by the programme of work put forward on behalf of His Majesty's Government by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at Geneva recently.
  Mr. MANDER: In view of the fact that in that programme there are no definite figures as to numbers or sizes, will my right hon. Friend consider making proposals on that head and not leave the initiative to others?
  Sir J. SIMON: I think it will be quite clear that, if the question of figures and sizes arises, that must be a matter for negotiation, and I am not sure that negotiations are always best begun by making a public statement by one party in the House of Commons.
  Mr. MANDER: Then do I understand that at the right time, and possibly in private, proposals will be made on these points by the British Government?
  Sir J. SIMON: My hon. Friend may really rest assured that at the right time anything proper will be proposed.

  RUSSIA (BRITISH CLAIMS).
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has considered the memorandum, addressed to him from the Association of British Creditors of Russia, containing a scheme whereby some satisfaction might be obtained by British claimants from the Soviet Government in respect of confiscated properties and repudiated loans; and what action is being taken thereon?
  Sir J. SIMON: I have recently received the memorandum in question, but I have not yet been able to study it closely.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these unfortunate people have now been waiting years for the redress of their grievances, and will he assure the House that no fresh agreement will be entered into between this country and the Soviet Government without an integral part of that agreement dealing with the claims of these unfortunate people?
  Sir J. SIMON: I doubt whether it is really in the interests of these people that I should be asked to give a definite assurance, but I can certainly say that the memorandum, which I have only just received, shall be most carefully studied.
  Mr. MAXTON: When the right hon. Gentleman is considering this question, will he consult his Cabinet colleagues to see if something cannot be done to recover the large sums of money that have been lost in recent years by imprudent investors in this country?

  BRAZIL (BRITISH INVESTORS).
  Major Sir ALAN McLEANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received further information from His Majesty's Ambassador in Rio de Janeiro as to what the Brizilian authorites have done with respect to the interests of British investors in the Leopoldina Railway and the Leopoldina Terminal Company in so far as they relate to the ferry and tramcar fares; and will be place in the Library a report of the information thus far available?
  Sir J. SIMON: A report on this subject was received from His Majesty's Ambassador at Rio on the 31st August last. As requested by my hon. and gallant Friend, a copy of this report, which gives all the information so far available, will be placed in the Library.
  Sir A. McLEAN: Will my right hon. Friend press on the Brazilian authorities at an early date the necessity for seating these British investors justly?
  Sir J. SIMON: I think all proper steps ire being taken in that regard, but jutting the report in the Library will give everybody the opportunity of knowing low the matter stands.
  Sir ADRIAN BAILLIEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
  982
  whether his attention has been drawn to the hardship which is being inflicted on small holders in this country of debentures in the Companhia America Fabril by reason of the withholding of the necessary sterling remittance by the Brazilian Exchange Control Commission; and whether he will make representations on this matter to the Brazilian Government?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): My right hon. Friend wishes me to apologise for his absence. The particular instance referred to by my hon. Friend has not been brought to my right hon. Friend's notice, but if he will provide him with details, he will be pleased to consider whether it is possible for him to take any steps in the matter.

  CHINA (SHANGHAI SPECIAL DISTRICT COURT).
  Mr. NUNNasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now make a statement as to whether the agreement relating to the Shanghai Special District Court has been extended by an exchange of Notes between the Chinese Foreign Ministers and the representatives of the six Powers concerned; and, if so, for how long?
  Sir J. SIMON: An exchange of Notes took place at Nanking on the 8th February providing for a renewal of the agreement. In a subsequent Note the Chinese Government have given assurances that they have under contemplation measures for checking undue delay in civil proceedings with special reference to matters of appeal and execution of judgment. The agreement is to be extended for a period of three years from the 1st April, 1933, and will continue in force until denounced by either party, of which denunciation six months' prior notice must be given. I may add that His Majesty's Government will continue so far as may be necessary to bring to the notice of the Chinese Government any defects that may show themselves in the administration of justice in Shanghai with a view to remedies being found for them.

  POLAND AND LITHUANIA.
  Captain CUNNINGHAM - REIDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign

  983
  Affairs if he has now any further information regarding an improvement in relations between Poland and Lithuania likely to result in the re-opening of the Polish-Lithuanian frontier?
  Sir J. SIMON: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will allow me to explain that, although he asked for this question to be deferred, the Foreign Office has got no notice of it, and that is why the answer is already printed.
  The question of the resumption of timber floating on the River Niemen, which is, I presume, the matter to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, continues to engage the attention of the two Governments concerned. I regret, however, that so far as I am aware no agreement is yet in sight.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    RUM ISSUE (WEST INDIES).
    Captain HAROLD BALFOURasked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) if Jamaica rum is supplied for the rum issue to naval ratings on the West Indies station;
    (2) if rum for naval issue on the West Indies station is bought by local purchase or by the Admiralty on the London market; and whether, in the latter case, shipment is made from England to the West Indies station?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): Navy rum as issued to the Fleet is a blend of rums bought on the London market, all Empire products, including Jamaica when price permits. The blend is in such proportions as long experience has shown to produce the flavour preferred by the men. The blending process is carried out at the Deptford Victualling Yard, where the rum is stored in vats before issue to ships. This procedure is the most economical and the most practical.
    Captain BALFOUR: Could my right hon. Friend say what proportion of the rum used is Jamaica rum?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: A very small proportion, owing to its price and owing to its not being liked by men in the Navy.
    Captain BALFOUR: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the comment of the men on shore does not bear out his contention that they do not like the rum, and that the Government laboratories say they can make any blend of rum of any kind that is required?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that most of the men of the British Navy prefer a money allowance to rum in these days?
    Mr. LAWSON: Is it not possible to give the Cabinet a dose of this rum?

    SUBMARINE M.2 (REPLACEMENT).
    Rear-Admiral SUETERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is intended to replace seaplane carrying submarine M2?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: No provision has been included in the current Estimates for an aircraft carrying submarine to replace M.2, but the question is being kept under review.

    WELFARE REQUEST, 1932.
    Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the Admiralty decision on the 1932 welfare request will be published to the Fleet?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: It is hoped to publish the decisions by means of a Fleet Order within a few weeks.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    CROWN COLONIES AND PROTECTORATES (PREFERENCE).
    Mr. DAVID G REN FELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in conformity with the Ottawa Agreements he has invited the Governments of the non-self-governing Colonies to accord to the signatories to the agreements any preference which may for the time being be accorded to any other part of the British Empire; whether in each case his request has been brought before the respective legislative councils; and if he will communicate to the House any replies which he may have received?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister)I issued the necessary invitation to all those Governments which granted preference otherwise than on an Empire-

    985
    wide basis, and the necessary change has now been made in every case by legislation passed by the local Legislature in the usual way.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in pursuance of the Agreements concluded at Ottawa by His Majesty's Government with the Governments of Canada, Australia and India, he has invited the Governments of the Colonies and Protectorates concerned to accord to Canada, Australia and India the new or additional preferences on the commodities and at the rates shown in the appropriate schedules to these Agreements; whether he will state in each case which organs of the respective Governments have considered his request; and whether he will communicate to the House the replies which he has received stating, where the legislative council of a Colony has been consulted, whether the decision of the legislative council was readied with the unanimous assent of the elected members thereof?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer to the first part of this question is in the affirmative. With the exceptions hereafter stated, the Legislatures of, all the territories "concerned have endorsed the agreements. The only exceptions to this are Malta; Ceylon, where the State Council did not think fit to give full affect to the Ottawa agreements; and certain Malay States, where one or two of the minor duties are still under consideration. I am not in a position to reply to the last part of the hon. Member's question.
    Sir WILLIAM JENKINS (for Mr. JOIHN)asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state for each British Colony in Africa, excluding mandated territories, which are precluded by international treaty from granting preferences, the value of imports from, exports (domestic produce), and re-exports of merchandise to the United Kingdom, other British countries, and foreign countries, for 1929, 1930, and 1931; and the corresponding total values in the trade of such Colonies?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As the statistics for which the hon. Member asks are very voluminous, I am sending them to him direct.
    Mr. GORDON MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the Colonies in Africa which, not being mandated territories, are yet precluded by international treaty from granting preferences; the dates of such treaties and the parties to them; the provisions with regard to termination; and the legal effect of termination by any party to such treaties in respect of preferential duties and other matters?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I assume that the hon. Member intends the term Colony to include Protectorates. The dependencies in question are:

    Kenya.

    Uganda.

    Nyasaland.

    Part of Northern Rhodesia.

    Zanzibar.

    The Gold Coast.

    Nigeria.

    The international treaties in question are those printed as Command Papers:

    No. 6557 of 1892.

    No. 9334 of 1899.

    No. 477 of 1919.

    I think that the hon. Member will find all the information that he desires in those papers.

    IMPORT DUTIES (EMPIRE CONTENT).
    Colonel GOODMANasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has made any representations to Colonial Governments as to the desirability of raising the percentage of Empire content in those cases where the qualification for preferential treatment is 25 per cent.; and, if so, with what result?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As soon as copies of the Order made recently in the United Kingdom are available I propose to send copies of the Order to the Colonial Governments concerned and invite them to make similar regulations.

    WAR MATERIAL (EXPORTS).
    Mr. MANDERasked the President of the Board of Trade what arms and material of war were exported under Government licence to China and Japan since the month of September, 1932?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): Particulars of the war material covered by export licences issued

    987
    for China and Japan during the months of October and November, 1932, were given in answers to questions by the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) on the 30th November and the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) on the 22nd December, copies of which I am sending to my hon. Friend. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT similar particulars for the months of December, 1932, and January, 1933. I cannot say how much of the material covered by these licences has actually been exported.
    Following are the particulars:

    Statement showing material covered by export licences issued for China and Japan during December, 1932, and January, 1933.

    China.

    Japan.

    December, 1932.

    20·5" machine guns with spare parts.

    40 7·7 m.m. machine guns with spare parts.

    1 machine gun lock.

    26 sets of rounds counter gear for use with machine guns.

    8,500 13·2 m.m. machine gun cartridges.

    68,000 40 m.m. shells.

    January, 1933.

    4,000,000 7·92 m.m. rifle cartridges.

    Nil.

    RUSSIA.
    Mr. LEWISasked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in the negotiation of the new trade agreement with Russia?
    Mr. E. BROWN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which was given to the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) and the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) on the 13th February.

    SHEEP-SHEARING MACHINERY (AUSTRALIA).
    Mr. PERKINSasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has yet received any statement from the Australian Government with regard to the imports into Australia of sheep-shearing machinery; and whether it is the intention of the Australian Government to continue the existing State factory for manufacturing agricultural machinery?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I gave to the hon. Member, in reply to his question on 20th December, all the particulars available on this subject. I will communicate with him again should any further information reach me.

    IMPORT DUTIES (REPAYMENTS, LIVERPOOL).
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the delays in making repayments of duty overpaid on imports into Liverpool; and if he will take steps to overcome the delays?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): Every effort is made by the Liverpool Customs to adjust the deposits of duty on imported goods as soon as may be after receipt of the necessary particulars from the importers; but I am informed that in a large proportion of cases in which the goods have been delivered on deposit no attempt has yet been made to produce confirmatory evidence of value and that in many other cases the evidence produced is unsatisfactory.

    ORNAMENTAL EARTHENWARE (IMPORT DUTY).
    Mr. HALESasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that garden gnomes manufactured in earthenware, and therefore subject to an import duty of 20 per cent., are being imported from Germany as garden ornaments, these articles being only subject to an import duty of 10 per cent.; and will he see that the Customs officers exact the proper duty on any future shipments?
    Mr. HORE - BELISHA: No, Sir. Garden ornaments of earthenware whether in the form of gnomes or otherwise are liable to an import duty of 20 per cent, ad valorem. If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of the cases to which he refers, I will inquire into the matter.

  TRINIDAD.

    LEPER SETTLEMENT.
    Mr. D. GRENFELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the present occupant of the post was appointed to act as superintendent of the

    989
    leper settlement in Trinidad, his age at the date of appointment, and the nature of his special qualifications in the treatment of leprosy; and whether it is proposed to make a new and permanent appointment at an early date?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The information which the lion. Member requests is not available in my Department, but I will ask the Governor of Trinidad for a report in the matter.

    RIFLE RANGE.
    Mr. DAVID ADAMSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he was informed by the Governor of Trinidad that the area to be acquired for the purpose of a new rifle range in Trinidad was also intended to accommodate certain other public institutions; what is the nature of those institutions; and whether he has received any further communications from the local government on the subject?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The original intention was that the area to be acquired for the new rifle range in Trinidad should accommodate also the Young Offenders Detention Institution and the Preventive Detention Prison. The Governor has, however, recently reported that owing to the financial situation, he decided that only the actual area of land necessary for the range should be acquired and that consideration of the question of transferring the institutions mentioned should be postponed.

    WATER SUPPLY.
    Captain CUNNINGHAM - REIDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been drawn to the existing water supply of the Colony of Trinidad; and whether, in view of the importance of adequate water supply to the health of the community, he will consider putting into force the Quare River scheme or some similar scheme for the amelioration of the water supply?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir. The Governor of Trinidad has been authorised to proceed with the scheme, and the necessary arrangements for beginning the works are in hand.

    SIERRA LEONE (IRON-ORE DEPOSITS).
    Mr. D. GRENFELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, with regard to the loan from the Colonial Development Fund for the development of the iron-ore deposits at Marampa, Sierra Leone, he will state the amount and conditions of the loan; the total amount already advanced and outstanding to date; to whom and on whose behalf the loan was granted; and the total subscribed capital of the commercial company concerned?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The amount and main conditions of this loan are given in Table A' appended to the First Interim Report of the Colonial Development Advisory Committee—Cmd. 3540—of 1930, to which I would refer the hon. Member. Of the total loan of £500,000 the amount issued to date is £362,500, leaving £137,500 outstanding. Advances are made by instalments equal to the amounts from time to time called up and paid on the ordinary shares of the Sierra Leone Development Company. The loan was granted to the Sierra Leone Government, who re-lent it to the company. The subscribed capital of the company to date is £362,500 out of a total capital of £600,000.

    KENYA GOLDFIELD.
    Mr. HICKSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the memorandum of the chief native commissioner, Kenya, explaining the process of prospecting licences and mining leases, was submitted to him before publication; the date of such submission; whether he suggested any amendments to the memorandum, and the nature of the amendments: what date appears upon the memorandum as published; what was the date and mode of publication; and whether the memorandum was issued by the chief native commissioner in English or in the vernacular?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second and third parts do not therefore arise. The date borne by the memorandum is 17th October, 1932. As I have already explained to the House, there appears to have been some delay, due to local misunderstandings in the

    991
    translation of the memorandum. Its contents have, however, been fully explained to the natives by the administrative officers, and it has now been printed in Swahili and the local vernacular and is being generally circulated in the district concerned.
    Mr. VYVYAN ADAMSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the memorandum drawn up by the Chief Native Commissioner of Kenya, which was translated into the vernacular, was issued to the natives of the Kakamega area; into which of the several vernaculars of that area it was translated; and who was the translator?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would invite my hon. Friend's attention to the reply which I have just given to a similar question by the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks). I presume that the vernacular used was that which is most readily intelligible to the natives concerned. I do not know the name of the translator.
    Mr. ADAMS: Would my right hon. Friend consider some information which I can give him on this point, which would not be in order in a supplementary question?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am always glad to receive information.
    Mr. GEORGE HALLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the date upon which the draft Bill to amend the Kenya Lands Trust Ordinance was submitted to the Morris Carter Commission for consideration; the dates of the meetings of the Commission when the Bill was considered; whether the Commission suggested any amendments to the draft Bill, and, if so, the nature of the amendments and whether they were accepted; and whether the agreement of the members of the Commission to the draft Bill was unanimous?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Governor informed me in a telegram of 7th November that the Carter Commission had been consulted and had agreed to the draft Bill as an interim Measure, without prejudice to any recommendations which they might make in their Report; and that they had further agreed that the economic prospects were such as to justify and require prompt action in the
    992
    matter. I have no reason to suppose either that the Commission suggested any amendment, or that their agreement was not unanimous.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it is likely that the Morris Carter Commission will report?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, I cannot say for certain.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS (for Mr. LUNN)asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether gold has been found on any land alienated to Europeans in Kenya; and whether any prospecting rights or exclusive prospecting licences have been granted in respect of such land?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Discoveries of reputed gold bearing have been made on alienated lands near Eldoret, Kitale and Sotik and claims have been pegged. Prospecting rights are not granted for any particular area but are operative over all open areas in the Colony. No exclusive prospecting licence has yet been granted over the alienated lands to which I have referred but I understand there have been several applications.
    Mr. WILLIAMS (for Mr. LUNN)asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the period from date of issue for which prospecting rights may be granted in Kenya under the mining ordinance in force; whether, at the expiry of this period, a prospecting right may be renewed; and whether he proposes to instruct the local government to refuse to grant any further prospecting rights for the present?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: A prospecting right is in force for one year from the date of issue. At the end of a year a fresh application would be necessary for the issue of a new right. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. WILLIAMS (for Mr. LUNN)asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that under the Kenya Mining Ordinance, No. 1, of 11th February, 1931, the area of an ex clusive prospecting licence was limited to eight square miles; whether this pro-

    993
    vision of the ordinance has since been amended; and, if so, whether he will state the date and terms of the new provision and the object of the amendment?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Sub-section of the Mining Ordinance to which the hon. Member refers reads as follows:
    "18 (4) An exclusive prospecting licence shall not. be granted in respect of any area exceeding eight square miles, provided that under special circumstances the Governor may at his sole discretion grant exclusive prospecting licences over areas exceeding eight square miles upon such terms and conditions as he may think fit."
    This Sub-section has not since been amended.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the last part of the question?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The last part of the question asks me to state the date and terms of the new provisions and the object of the amendment. The answer is that this Sub-section has not been amended.
    Sir W. JENKINS (for Mr. JOHN)asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies under what instrument minerals in Kenya were vested in the Crown, the date of such instrument, and the provisions?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Member's reference is invited to Section 7 of the East African Order in Council made on the 11th August, 1902, which provided that all mines and minerals in, under or upon lands in native occupation should vest in the local representative of the Crown. The Kenya Colony Order in Council of 27th June, 1921, which, repealed the Order of 1902 declared that all lands in the colony were Crown lands and that all rights in them should be vested in the Governor in trust for His Majesty.
    Mr. TINKER (for Mr. PARKINSON)asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has been invited, under the Native Lands Trust Ordinance, 1930, Section 15, to approve of the exclusion of any areas of land exceeding 200 acres from a native reserve in Kenya on the ground that the local native council or the African member or members of the local board have objected to such exclusion; and, if so, whether
    994
    such approval was given and will he give full particulars?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part does not therefore arise.
    Mr. G. MACD0NALDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many exclusive prospecting licences have been granted in the Kavirondo reserve of Kenya; the names of the persons or companies to whom they were granted; the date of the licences; the period for which they were granted; and the area covered by each licence?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am asking the Governor of Kenya to furnish me with the particulars desired, and I will communicate them to the hon. Member on receipt.
    Mr. G. MACD0NALDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he proposes to take any steps to prevent the grant of prospecting rights in Kenya to persons from overseas or adjoining territory; and whether he will consider as one of the means of doing so a statutory provision that no prospecting right shall be leased to a person who cannot prove at least 12 months' continuous previous residence in the Colony or Protectorate?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. The Governor is fully alive to the importance of preventing the entrance to the goldfields of undesirable persons; but I see no justification for excluding prospectors from outside the Colony who comply with the conditions laid down.

  AVIATION.

    PAN-AMERICAN AIRWAYS (FACILITIES, NASSAU).
    Captain BALFOURasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has obtained any report from the Bahamas Government with regard to their granting to Pan-American Airways, receiving a subsidy from the United States of America Government, a further subsidy in respect of a flying-boat service to Nassau; if he will inquire whether Pan-American Airways are to be allowed the sole right to construct and use a slipway for aircraft in Nassau Harbour;

    995
    and whether the use of these facilities is now forbidden to British aircraft landing in this British territory?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I was consulted by the Governor of the Bahamas and approval was given for the payment of a subsidy to Pan-American Airways since it was clear that no British company was then in a position to provide equivalent services on the same terms. The contract concluded with Pan-American Airways is for a period of three years only and does not confer upon them any monopolistic rights as against companies of other nationalities. It was stipulated, when approval was given for the conclusion of the contract, that any landing facilities provided by Pan-American Airways must be available, on payment of appropriate fees to be approved by the Governor, for use by any other aircraft.
    Captain BALFOUR: If I bring to the right hon. Gentleman's attention a case where a British aircraft was refused the facilities, will he investigate it?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Most certainly.

    GAS HOLDERS (LIGHTING).
    Mr. PERKINSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware of the loss of life that has resulted from the recent explosion of a gasholder in Germany containing, approximately 2,000,000 cubic feet of gas; and that there is a new gasholder over 300 feet high containing, when full 8,000,000 cubic feet of gas on the direct air route between Heston and Stag Lane Aerodrome; and whether in view of the possibility of an aeroplane flying into this gasholder in foggy weather, he will take immediate steps in the public interest to place a warning light on the top of this gasholder as is done in similar instances in America and Germany?
    Sir VICTOR WARRENDER (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): The
    general question of the lighting of gasholders, as well as the action which might properly be taken in the particular case referred to, is under active consideration in conjunction with the various interests concerned.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is the Air Ministry satisfied that grave danger may not be caused to the civil population in the event of an aeroplane carrying petrol colliding with one of these vast gasholders which are being set up throughout the country?
    Sir V. WARRENDER: That is the reason the matter is being inquired into.

    FUEL (CUSTOMS DUTIES).
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he has now been able to secure any action with regard to the fact that, whereas foreign aircraft enjoy freedom from Customs duty on fuel taken on board by them in England, British machines purchasing fuel in foreign countries have in many eases to pay full Customs duty on such fuel?
    Sir V. WARRENDER: I have been asked to reply. I regret that there is nothing as yet to add to the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend on the 7th December last.
    Captain MACDONALD: Can the hon. Gentleman state whether any action is being taken at the moment with this-object in view?
    Sir V. WARRENDER: As is stated in my reply, the matter is still under consideration.

    CEYLON (CRIMINAL LAW ADMINISTRATION).
    Mr. V. ADAMSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet heard from the Governor of Ceylon as to whether any steps have been taken by him to obtain the consent of the Ministers and State Council to legislation required to set up a system of criminal appeal on the lines of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. I will, however, inquire of the Governor what action has been taken in the matter?
    Mr. ADAMIS: In view of that, could the right hon. Gentleman have a shorthand note of the Judge's charge to the jury rendered available for the defence before the Privy Council in the event of an appeal?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's question. I was asked whether I have heard
    "from the Governor of Ceylon as to whether any steps have been taken by him to obtain the consent of the Ministers and State Council to legislation required to set up a system of criminal appeal on the lines of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907."
    My answer to that is that I am making inquiries.
    Mr. ADAMSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of probation orders made by the criminal courts in Ceylon in the year 1931; the number of first offenders sentenced to imprisonment during that period and the number sentenced to terms of imprisonment of six months and under; the annual cost of maintenance of a prisoner in Ceylon and the average cost of super vision on probation of an offender for a period of one year; and whether he will take steps to bring to the notice of judges and magistrates in Ceylon the value of the probation system and the advisability of using it more freely in the interests of economy and of crime prevention?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: During 1931, 161 probation orders were made by the Courts in Ceylon; 9,976 first offenders were sentenced to imprisonment, including imprisonment in default of payment of a fine; and the average cost per head of prisoners was Us. 73.49 cents. The information at my disposal does not disclose the length of the terms of imprisonment imposed on first offenders or the cost of supervision of offenders on probation. The advisability of adopting the probation system for juvenile offenders has been the subject of correspondence with the Governments of all the Colonies, etc., in recent years. Its value is recognised in Ceylon, where a Central Probation Board has been set up, but I understand that the carrying out of the scheme proposed by that body has been deferred on financial grounds.

    IRAQ (OIL PIPE LINES).
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the latest information available as to the date at which pipe lines to the coast from Iraq oil fields will be ready for operation; and whether the branch to the
    998
    English port of Haifa will be completed before that to Beyrout?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am unable to say when the pipe lines will be ready for operation, but it is provided in. the agreement between the Iraqi Government and the Iraq Petroleum Company of the 24th March, 1931, that the pipe line system, that is to say both branches, shall be completed by the 31st December, 1935, and that if both branches are not completed simultaneously, the branch to Haifa shall be completed not later than six months after the other.

    POUND STERLING (RISE).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether he will give an opportunity for the discussion of the Motion on the Paper standing in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) relating to the effects of the rise in the value of the pound sterling:
    "That, in the opinion of this House, the rise in the value of the pound sterling is having a bad effect on our export trade, a bad effect upon our Dominions and other countries in the sterling convoy which are now slipping off sterling, and a bad effect on the book profits of the Exchange Equalisation Fund; that His Majesty's Government's embargo on free export of sterling capital, an export which must translate itself into British manufactured goods, is part cause of the rise in sterling; that a removal of the embargo would cause the pound to fall; and that this restriction on the free movement of goods and capital should be removed."
    The PRIME MINISTER: I regret, but it does not appear to be necessary to give any special facilities.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the inconsistency between preventing a rise in sterling by selling sterling and buying gold, and encouraging a rise in sterling by maintaining the embargo on the export of gold?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.
    Mr. MAXTON: Arising out of the original reply, in which the right hon. Gentleman said that no special facilities would be granted for a discussion on this important subject, will he say what facilities will be available apart from special facilities?
    The PRIME MINISTER: There are various occasions when discussion on this matter would be in order.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the disastrous effects on the trade of this country that the rise of sterling is having?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman must not attempt to raise a discussion now.

    GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (DISCUSSIONS).
    Mr. MABANEasked the Prime Minister whether the recent speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the American journalists to the effect that the American War Debt must be treated as an isolated problem is now to be regarded as representing the policy of the Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My right, hon. Friend made no such statement. On the contrary his speech was primarily concerned with considerations other than war debts affecting the present world depression, but he made it plain, in answer to questions, that while he did not regard the discussion of war debts as an occasion for bargaining he was anxious that all questions which delay world recovery should be discussed by the two Governments in a spirit of co-operation for a common end.
    Mr. MABANEasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government, while discussing with the United States of America other matters of economic importance, to preserve the discussion on war debts in isolation; and whether he will give an assurance that in those discussions the cancellation of war debts will be treated not as a concession to us but as an act to the mutual and equal benefit of the United States of America and of this country?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the full statement which I made on Monday last in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Booth by). I do not think that it would be desirable for me to say more pending the forthcoming discussions.
    Mr. MABANE: Is the Prime Minister aware that in very responsible quarters,
    1000
    both in this country and America, his statement on Tuesday has been interpreted in an opposite sense to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and will he assure the House that no such contradiction exists?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is perfectly true, and I hope the answer I have just given will remove that misunderstanding.
    Mr. LANSBURY(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to assure the House that, before a Government delegation is sent to Washington to confer with the United States Government on War debts and world economic problems he will, in circumstances which will permit debate, make a statement outlining the broad principles of the policy the Government proposes to pursue.
    The PRIME MINISTER: To agree to my right hon. Friend's request before we have had at least preliminary discussions with the United States Government would obviously not conduce to a successful outcome of those discussions, and I cannot, therefore, give the assurance asked for in the question.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he wishes for preliminary discussions. What I am asking for is that this House, before the vital discussions take place, shall have an opportunity of knowing what is in the Government's mind, and be able to discuss these questions.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am very much obliged to my right hon. Friend for his explanation. In dealing with this question of the Government delegation, I assumed that he meant now. My reply only refers to now, and perhaps my right hon. Friend will be good enough to repeat his question later on.

    AIR FORCES.
    Rear-Admiral SUETERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he can give a statement showing the air strength of the principal nations that have developed air forces, and classifying the various great Powers according to their air strength?
    Sir V. WARRENDER: I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the Armaments Year Book for 1932. That volume contains the figures of strength rendered to the League of Nations by the Powers participating in the Disarmament Conference.

  TRANSPORT.

    TOLL ROADS AND BBIDOES.
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Minister of Transport how many toll roads and bridges were purchased and freed by local authorities during 1932; how many such roads and bridges still remain; and whether, as financial circumstances prevent him from assisting such schemes with grants at the present time, he will consider encouraging local authorities to purchase and free them of their own initiative and recoup the whole or part of the cost by continuing the tolls for a certain period, as provided for in Sub-section (2) (b) of Section 20 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): Two toll roads and one toll bridge were purchased and freed by local authorities during 1932. According to information at my disposal there remain 53 toll roads and 77 toll bridges in Great Britain. My Department issued a circular to all local authorities on the 2nd March, 1931, drawing attention to the powers conferred upon them by the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and I doubt whether any advantage would be gained by bringing the matter again to their notice.

    ROAD SERVICES LICENCES (LONDON AND SOUTH MIMMS).
    Lieut.-Colonel APPLINasked the Minister of Transport what road transport services have been licensed by the Traffic Commissioners between London and South Mimms?
    Mr. PYBUS: As the answer to this question is somewhat long I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    I am informed by the Traffic Commissioner that no service has as yet been licensed to operate between London and South Mimms, other than Metropolitan
    1002
    short-stage services. An application has, however, been received by the Commissioner from Mr. H. E. Hill for the variation of the conditions of the licence authorising him to provide a service between King's Cross Coaching Station and Luton so as to enable him to carry passengers between London and South Mimms. The Commissioner informed Mr. Hill on the 6th February that he will, be prepared to authorise a fare of Is. single and 2s. return between London and South Mimms. In accordance with the Road Traffic Act the Commissioner is consulting the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to the fixing of a suitable picking-up point in South Mimms. Mr. Hill appealed to me against the original decision of the Commissioner limiting his picking-up points on this service, but my decision has been held up pending certain proceedings which are still before the High Court.

    ROAD ACCIDENTS.
    Mr. LEWISasked the Minister of Transport if he can give the House any figures to show whether the passing of the Road Traffic Act has reduced the number of cases of death and injury due to accidents on the roads?
    Mr. PYBUS: As the answer to this question involves a number of figures, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL-REPORT.
    Mr. LEWIS: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us, in the meantime, whether he is now satisfied with the present rate of mortality among pedestrians?
    Following is the answer:
    The figures compiled by the Home Office relating to the number of persons killed or injured in street accidents in Great Britain for the years 1928–1932 are as follows:

    Total Killed or Injured in Street Accidents.

    Killed.

    Injured.

    1928

    …

    …

    6,138

    164,838

    1929

    …

    …

    6,696

    170,917

    1930

    …

    …

    7,305

    177,895

    1931

    …

    …

    6,691

    202,119

    1932

    …

    …

    (6,651)

    (206,410)

    (The figures for 1932 are provisional.)

    Of the above the following were the number of persons killed or injured in

    1003
    accidents which were reported as being attributable to mechanically-propelled vehicles:

    Killed.

    Injured.

    1928

    …

    …

    5,489

    133,431

    1929

    …

    …

    6,017

    140,248

    1930

    …

    …

    6,551

    146,243

    1931

    …

    …

    5,936

    164,406

    (The figures for 1932 are not yet available).

    The provisions of Part I of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, came into operation on 1st January, 1931, and in that year the figures for fatal accidents for the first time showed a decrease. If the provisional figures for 1932 are confirmed, there was a further slight decrease during that year. On the other hand the number of persons injured shows a continued increase. This may be due to a considerable extent to the new requirements in the Road Traffic Act, 1930, with regard to the reporting of accidents.

    MILL STREET CANAL BRIDGE, BRIERLEY HILL, STAFFS.
    Mrs. WARD (for Mr. ALAN TODD)asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the unsafe condition of Mill Street canal bridge at Brierley Hill, Staffs; and what steps he proposes to take to assist the local authorities concerned to repair it?
    Mr. PYBUS: My attention has been drawn to the condition of this bridge, but I have received no application concerning it from the Staffordshire County Council, who are the responsible highway authority, and I am asking what degree of urgency they attach to its reconstruction.

    ROAD MATERIAL (GRANITE).
    Mrs. WARD (for Mr. TODD)asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider circularising municipal and other authorities advising the use of granite for road making in preference to less durable materials?
    Mr. PYBUS: Materials used for road making should be selected with due regard to the nature and volume of the traffic and to economic and other considerations. I do not think it would be advantageous to issue a circular to high-
    1004
    way authorities which would tend to fetter their discretion in regard to the use of a particular material.

    NEW FOREST (ELECTRICITY PYLONS).
    Mr. PERKINSasked the Minister of Transport whether any decision with regard to a line of pylons over the New Forest has been arrived at by his Department?
    Mr. PYBUS: I regret that I am not yet in a position to make any announcement with regard to this matter.
    Mr. PERKINS: Can the hon. Gentleman state when he will be in a position to do so, in view of the discussions going on?
    Mr. PYBUS: I cannot add anything to the answer that I have just given.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS (CLOCK).
    Mr. HALESasked the First Commissioner of Works if, in the interests both of Members and visitors to the public galleries of this House, he will consider the installation of a clock in the centre of the reporters' gallery, immediately above the Speaker's Chair, provided that no expense falls upon public funds?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I shall be happy to discuss this matter further with my hon. Friend and any other hon. Members interested.

    COAL INDUSTRY (FIREDAMP ALARMS).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary for Mines if he can inform the House whether the Ringrose firedamp alarms which have been used in the recent trials have been examined in accordance with the conditions of Safety Lamps (Firedamp Indicator) Order, No. 744, of 11th September, 1929; and, if so, will he state the results?
    Mr. E. BROWN: The examination required by Clause 2 (ix) of the Order to which the hon. Member refers, has been

    1005
    carried out by the makers of the Ring-rose alarms at present undergoing trial, and the results are understood to be satisfactory.

    LIGHT HORSE BREEDING.
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what means the War Office proposes in future to encourage the breeding of light horses in Great Britain following the withdrawal of the light horse breeding grant?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 11th July last to my noble Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Earl of Dalkeith). No special steps involving expenditure can be contemplated.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    POOE LAW RELIEF.
    Mr. WHITEasked the Minister of Health whether the Government will consider introducing legislation for the purpose of charging to the National Exchequer the expenditure which now falls upon local authorities by reason of the transfer of unemployed persons from unemployment benefit to assistance from local rates?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): My right hon. Friend is not aware of any such change in the position of persons disallowed unemployment benefit as would give reason for considering the provision of special financial assistance to local authorities from the Exchequer on the lines suggested by the hon. Member.
    Mr. WHITE: Is my right hon. Friend not conducting an investigation into this matter, in view of the representations made by a number of local authorities?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The whole question is under review by the Government at the present time.

    PUBLIC ASSISTANCE COMMISSIONERS.
    Mr. HICKS (for Mr. THORNE)asked the Minister of Labour whether
    1006
    the salaries and emoluments of the commissioners appointed to supersede various public assistance committees are paid by the Government or by the respective local authorities?
    Mr. HUDSON: Under Article 7 of the Unemployment Insurance (National Economy) (No. 2) Order, 1931, the remuneration and expenses of these commissioners are defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.

    TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS, OLDHAM.
    Mr. HICKS (for Mr. THORNE)asked the Minister of Labour whether any report has been published in connection with the interview which took place between a representative of his Department and the Oldham Municipal Council arising from the refusal of the public assistance committee to administer the means test; and, if so, whether a copy can be circulated for the use of Members of this House?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): No official report has been published.

    NORTH WALES.
    Major OWENasked the Minister of Labour what was the total sum paid in unemployment benefit in each of the six North Wales counties for each month in 1932?
    Mr. HUDSON: As the reply consists of a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. RHYS: Could the Parliamentary Secretary give the totals in each case?
    Mr. HUDSON: The total amounts of insurance benefit and of transitional payments paid in the six counties of North Wales in 1932 amounted in each case to £500,000, making a total of £1,000,000. The contributions paid by employers and workers amounted to £275,000.
    Mr. RHYS: May I take it that if Home Rule for Wales is adopted North Wales would have to make up a sum of £700,000.
    Mr. HUDSON: Yes, Sir, I think that is correct.
    Following is the statement:

    AMOUNTS* PAID IN INSURANCE BENEFIT AND TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS AT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES IN THE SIX COUNTIES OP NORTH WALES IN EACH MONTH IN 1932.

    Period.

    Anglesey.

    Caernarvon.

    Denbigh.

    Flint.

    Merioneth.

    Montgomery.

    Totals.

    I.B.

    T.P.

    I.B.

    T.P.

    I.B.

    T.P.

    I.B.

    T.P.

    I.B.

    T.P.

    LB.

    T.P.

    LB.

    T.P.

    1932.

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    5 weeks ended 25th January

    …

    5,301

    2,908

    11,507

    8,256

    17,677

    13,813

    12,853

    12,699

    5,172

    1,651

    2,477

    1,332

    54,987

    40,659

    4 weeks ended 22nd February

    …

    5,359

    2,899

    11,804

    8,450

    16,351

    16,585

    12,739

    11,630

    5,311

    1,733

    2,310

    1,426

    53,874

    42,723

    4 weeks ended 21st March

    …

    3,149

    1,835

    6,461

    5,420

    10,503

    10,281

    6,245

    7,194

    1,957

    1,087

    1,381

    896

    29,696

    26,713

    5 weeks ended 25th April

    …

    4,635

    3,246

    9,544

    9,179

    15,358

    18,155

    11,718

    12,601

    3,416

    1,895

    2,302

    1,548

    46,973

    46,624

    4weeks ended 23rd May

    …

    4,071

    3,371

    8,430

    9,551

    15,520

    19,390

    11,988

    12,957

    4,295

    2,075

    1,821

    1,469

    46,125

    48,813

    5weeks ended 27th June

    …

    2,749

    2,864

    5,848

    7,754

    12,379

    15,664

    10,313

    10,391

    4,395

    1,992

    1,309

    1,057

    36,993

    39,722

    4weeks ended 25th July

    …

    2,339

    2,700

    5,544

    7,937

    15,380

    15,854

    10,765

    10,071

    4,293

    1,846

    1,316

    1,042

    39,637

    39,450

    4weeks ended 22nd August

    …

    2,793

    3,332

    7,435

    10,402

    22,599

    20,709

    13,378

    12,421

    4,806

    2,208

    1,840

    1,155

    52,851

    50,227

    5 weeks ended 26th September

    …

    2,483

    3,103

    9,140

    8,858

    19,980

    16,915

    9,094

    10,124

    3,373

    2,005

    1,429

    940

    45,499

    41,945

    4 weeks ended 24th October

    …

    3,400

    4,234

    14,664

    10,742

    23,903

    21,494

    12,267

    13,027

    5,467

    2,688

    2,045

    1,231

    61,746

    53,416

    4 weeks ended 21st November

    …

    2,861

    3,549

    12,680

    9,625

    18,145

    17,796

    11,411

    10,549

    3,940

    2,433

    1,719

    1,064

    50,756

    45,016

    4 weeks ended 19th December

    …

    2,435

    2,756

    10,216

    7,521

    12,463

    13,577

    8,953

    7,932

    3,787

    1,926

    1,387

    887

    39,241

    34,599

    Totals.

    …

    41,575

    36,797

    113,273

    103,695

    200,258

    200,233

    131,724

    131,596

    50,212

    23,539

    21,336

    14,047

    558,378

    509,907

    * Exclusive of amounts paid through associations for
    which figures are not available.

    I.B.—Insurance Benefit.

    T.P.—Transitional Payments.

    STREET PROCESSIONS
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now inform the House of the decision of the Government as to strengthening the existing Jaw as regards the holding of processions which are likely to obstruct traffic and interfere with the freedom of the general public in the use of the streets?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): Yes, Sir. The Government have fully examined the question whether it is necessary, in the public interest, to strengthen the law relating to processions. Provision is already made, under the existing law, to enable local authorities to regulate the routes of processions and to make orders for preventing obstruction of the streets and thoroughfares; and the Government as at present advised are of the opinion that traffic difficulties, where they are likely to arise from this cause, may better be met by the appropriate application of existing statutory powers than by legislation designed to strengthen the existing law. The Government are anxious to maintain, to the utmost extent compatible with the general interest, the right of holding public processions, provided they are orderly and well-behaved. They cannot, however, lose sight of the ever increasing difficulty of coping with the problem of street traffic under modern conditions, and if, in the light of experience, it became manifest that further measures were needed for the control of processions, the Government would not hesitate to ask for further powers.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there is a provision now under which, if there are to be two processions on the same day, one of them can be prohibited in order to avoid clashing? There have been instances recently of two processions being likely to clash.
    Mr. STANLEY: I understand that various Acts give local authorities power to make orders which prescribe the routes, and it is within their competence to make such orders as would prevent a clash.
    Captain P. MACDONALD: Are cooperative societies permitted to send all their mechanical vehicles to take part in processions, thus adding to the traffic blocks?
    Mr. LAWSON: Have the Government been really disturbed by the last procession in London?
    Mr. STANLEY: I imagine they did not see it.

    COMPANIES ACT.
    Sir PARK GOFFasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will, until suitable additions have been made to the 1929 Companies Act by way of criminal clauses, continue and widen the embargo regulations on new capital issues so that they apply to home issues, in order that there may be a reduction of opportunity by company promoters, finance and issuing firms, flotation brokers and others, of inflicting losses similar to those suffered by investors in recent years as a result of their having subscribed to capital flotations issued under limited liability?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would refer any hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, North (Sir B. Falle) on the 20th December.

    GAMBIA (CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE).
    Mr. TINKER (for Mr. PARKINSON)asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the terms of reference of the committee recently appointed in the Gambia Colony to examine the Ordinances relating to criminal law and procedure and to prepare a penal code?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The terms of reference of the committee in question are:
    "To examine the Ordinances and Statutes relating to criminal law and procedure now in force in the Colony, in other African Colonies, and in England; and to prepare a Penal Code Bill and Criminal Procedure Code Bill consolidating the enactments relating to criminal law and procedure now in force in the Colony, and incorporating in such Bills any provisions of the criminal law and procedure found in the enactments of other African Colonies and England, which the Committee consider suitable for the Colony."

    OTTAWA AGREEMENT (CROWN COLONIES).
    Mr. TINKER (for Mr. PARKINSON)asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies which organs of the Governments of non-self-governing Colonies were consulted by him before he went to the Ottawa Conference as their representative and which organs of Government will be consulted by him in future in regard to any matters which may have to be considered arising out of the Agreements?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: All communications to the Colonies from the Secretary of State for the Colonies are addressed to the officer administering the Government of the Colony concerned.

    AFRICAN COLONIES (PROSPECT ING LICENCES).
    Mr. PRICEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, under the mining Ordinances in force in British colonies and protectorates and mandated territories in Africa, Africans are being permitted to apply for and obtain licences to prospect for minerals; and, if so, under what conditions?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: So far as the territories under the supervision of the Colonial Office are concerned, an examination of the laws relating to the grant of prospecting licences shows that, while in several territories certain standards of literacy and intelligence and of financial ability to discharge the incidental obligations are required in applicants for such licences, there is nowhere any discrimination on racial grounds.

    INDIA (ARMY OFFICERS AND OFFICIALS).
    Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the Secretary of State for India whether, taking into consideration the burden imposed upon officers of the Army and Imperial Services in India by import duties on articles of European food and clothing, he will suggest to the Government of India the adoption of the system in vogue in the French colonial empire, where French colonial employees are permitted to import such articles for their own consumption duty free?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): My right hon. Friend is sorry that he cannot accept my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.
    Sir A. KNOX: Surely it would be possible, as this concession would mean very little to the revenue of the Government of India, to help these people who are struggling in very hard circumstances?
    Mr. BUTLER: I feel sure that, if my hon. and gallant Friend were to take the circumstances of these officials into consideration, he would find it very difficult to differentiate between their circumstances and the rest of the community.
    Mr. MABANE: Seeing that the import duties have caused a reduction in the price of food, would not the adoption of this suggestion be a hardship on the officers?

    COMMUNIST MESSAGE (BROAD CAST).
    Mr. BROCKLEBANK (for Mr. DORAN)asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that a message addressed to Communists was broadcast from a private transmitting station in this country, operating on a wave-length of 149 metres, on Friday and Saturday nights, 3rd and 4th February; and is he prepared to make a full investigation of the circumstances and take steps to trace the whereabouts of this station and prevent a recurrence of this incident?
    The POSTMASTER - GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): Since the statement of the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. Doran) in the Press concerning the alleged transmission of this message, to which some publicity was given, I have made all possible inquiries and have been in communication with the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Radio Society of Great Britain; but I have only been able to trace one person who claims to have heard the message.
    Mr. BROCKLEBANK: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who was the favoured recipient of this message?
    Sir K. WOOD: I understand that it was the gentleman who acts as secretary to the hon. Member for North Tottenham.

    SCOTLAND (LOCAL LEGISLATION).
    Mr. LEONARD (for Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM)asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the amount disbursed by local authorities in Scotland on expenses incurred in respect of the promotion of Bills in Parliament in the 12 months ended 31st December, 1932; and whether it is proposed to take early action giving local authorities more control within the area of the authority and thus avoid the necessity of appeal to Parliament?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): My right hon. Friend regrets that he is unable to give the information asked for in the first part of the question. Returns of such expenses are not made to him. No legislation is in contemplation for the purpose mentioned in the second part of the question.

    AKBITRATION LAW.
    Mr. HARTLANDasked the Attorney-General whether, in view of the representations of commercial bodies in the City of London, he proposes to give statutory effect to the recommendations contained in the report presented by the then Lord Chancellor, Viscount Cave, to Parliament in March, 1927, for the amendment of the law of arbitration to remedy admitted defects?
    The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I fear it will not be possible to do so during this Session.

TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS, DURHAM.
Mr. BATEY: I should like to ask your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Last Thursday, some answers by the Minister of Labour were so unsatisfactory that I gave notice that I would raise the matter on the Adjournment. Last Thursday I was prevented from doing so because the Minister of Labour could not attend. On Monday night I was prevented from doing so, again because the Minister of Labour could not attend. Last night I expected to be able to take advantage of the Motion for Adjournment. The Prime Minister was very clear in stating the business yesterday. He said that, if the London Passenger Transport Bill were
1014
disposed of before Eleven, the Committee stage of the Austrian Loan (Guarantee) Bill would be taken. We found last night, however, that the Government Chief Whip took some Orders affecting the Home Office, which he need not have taken, and the purpose —
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am not quite sure what the hon. Member's remarks are going to be. I thought he was rising for a particular purpose.
Mr. BATEY: I am, but I was prefacing that particular purpose by these remarks. I consider that we were badly treated last night, and, because of that, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the starvation of men, women and children in the county of Durham by the operation of the means test as administered by commissioners appointed by the Minister of Labour."
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid it is quite clear that I cannot admit this as a matter coming within the terms of the Standing Order. It is not sufficiently definite, being based upon an allegation as to a particular set of circumstances which, if existing, has existed for some considerable time past, and, therefore, it might have been raised previously.
Mr. LAWSON: May I ask you when we are going to get an opportunity of discussing this matter? May I draw your attention to the fact that Mr. Speaker was asked a fortnight ago whether, in the case of money voted by Parliament and administered by appointed commissioners, the House was going to have an opportunity of discussing the commissioners such as in the past, in these circumstances, the House has had? Apparently the House is not going to have either an opportunity of discussing these matters on the Adjournment—[HON". MEMBERS: "To-morrow !"]—it is all-right for you; you can afford it; you ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is really a question of business; it is not a question that should be addressed to the Chair at all.
Mr. BATEY: On a point of Order. You say that we cannot raise this matter on the Adjournment. Surely private Mem-

1015
bers have some rights in this House, and is it not the duty of the Chair to protect private Members? Is it not the right of a private Member to raise matters on the Adjournment; and, if steps are taken to prevent it, surely it is the duty of the Chair or someone else to see that the right is maintained?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid I must recommend the hon. Member to study the Rules of Procedure in regard to this House. What took place last night was, no doubt, unfortunate from the point of view of the hon. Member, but these Motions were down on the Order Paper in a perfectly proper way in the ordinary course of business, and were exempted business; and, therefore, it was the hon. Member's misfortune that time was taken up in that way without leaving him time to raise the question that he wanted to raise on the Adjournment.
Mr. BATEY: It may have been unfortunate, but the Prime Minister said yesterday that the business would be limited to the two questions mentioned, and these Orders could have been left over for another day. I submit that we were badly treated last night.
Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask you, Sir, whether, in the circumstances described by my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), it would not be possible for each intimation that a question would be raised to be forestalled by the simple process of putting down such Orders as these? In this case it is perfectly true that no one deliberately did anything out of order, but, although the Minister of Labour had been warned, and Mr. Speaker had been warned, that the question was about to be raised, and officials from the Ministry of Labour were present at 11 p.m., the Patronage Secretary persisted in taking these Orders, which he was legitimately entitled to do. In these circumstances, would it not be possible on every occasion, so long as there was any Order on the Paper that was exempted business, for the intimation that a question would be raised to be avoided by the simple process of debating such an Order?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member seems to have interpreted the procedure of the House correctly. I can
1016
only suggest to the hon. Member who wanted to raise the question that, if he has tried and failed two or three times, he can still try again.
Mr. BATEY: I have tried and failed, but it was to oblige the Minister of Labour that I put it off on two nights, and, therefore, the Government might have obliged me last night.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS.
  DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT.
  Sir PERCY HURD: I beg to give notice, that, on this day four weeks, I shall call attention to the remains of the Defence of the Realm Act and kindred matters, and move a Resolution.
  WORLD ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.
  Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: I beg to give notice, that, on this day four weeks, I shall call attention to the position of this country at the forthcoming World Economic Conference and the need for a policy directed to the restoration of conditions favourable to international trade, and move a Resolution.
  RURAL INDUSTRIES.
  Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: I beg to give notice that, on this day four weeks, I shall call attention to the plight of rural industries, and move a Resolution.
  COMPANIES ACT, 1929.
  Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: I beg to give notice that, on this day four weeks, I shall call attention to the need for amending the Companies Act, 1929, so that it may give better protection to the public, and move a Resolution.

RATING (AMENDMENT).
Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable local authorities to exempt improvements from assessment and rating, and to levy rates instead upon land values."
I am obviously conscious that, although the House always listens to me with consideration when I speak on any other question, yet when I approach the matter of the land there is a sort of instinctive hostility against any proposal which I

1017
may make. I beg of the House on this occasion, when I am moving that leave be given to bring in a Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule, not to regard it as a hostile Measure of a hostile party, but to consider the Bill on its merits. We are all, on both sides of the House, desperately anxious to do anything that we can to improve trade, and this Bill which I am proposing now is to my mind by far and away the best way of improving domestic trade. The other day I was present at a Chamber of Trade dinner when the two questions raised by all the people present —shopkeepers, bankers, agents and whatnot—I might say it was a thoroughly Conservative dinner party—were the increased provision of allotments for the out-of-work miners, and some change in our rating law which should cease to penalise every owner of property who improves his property.
I expect that many hon. Members are in a somewhat similar position to that in which I find myself. I want to put up a new shed on one of my farm houses, and I want to put up a new garage and a new arrangement for chickens on my own property. We are all in the same boat. Many people want to put up an extra room in the roof of their bungalow. All these schemes are in the interests of the community as a whole. They are the only way in which a man can improve his property. They involve the employment of the working class at present out of work. Every reconstruction of a house and every improvement in the street of a town gives employment. Tradesmen who want to put in a plate-glass window in the front of their shop—all those people at present are being prevented from doing so, or at least checked in their desire, because they know that the immediate result of effecting any improvement of their property will be a visit from the assessment officer and an enhancement of the tax which they have to pay to the local authority. It was not so bad in the old days, but now the reassessment takes place every five years. Every person anxious to employ labour in improving his property is up against the constant threat of an increase in his local taxation if he does that piece of work or allows it to be done. One of the first questions asked of the owner of property on the re-assessment papers which I have recently received is:
1018
"Have you effected any structural improvements in the property during the last. five years."
Instinctively you say, "How can I conceal the fact that I have put in a new lavatory?" People can still improve their property if they can keep it dark, but, if it is in the main street of a town, that is impossible. I will not say that it is entirely impossible, but it does involve a tax of 50 per cent, of the annual value of the improvement which has been made. Therefore, there is a constant and an ever-growing check upon any improvement of existing property in England. It is equally a check upon every new house put up. The man who is contemplating building a house, whether for himself or for anybody else, has to face the fact that, as soon as he has built the house, half the annual value has to go to the local authority, and, therefore, he is not building for himself but for the local authority. This sort of thing acts as a constant deterrent on anybody doing anything. May I, in parenthesis, mention that the Bill has not been introduced for a period of 28 years, and that it was carried in 1905 in a thoroughly Conservative House of Commons as far as the First Reading was concerned. It was carried as I hope it may be carried to-day. You will at any rate give us a chance to have the Bill in print so as to see whether there is or is not any atrocious Bolshevist principle involved in it.
What is the purpose of the Bill t It is simply to give to local authorities, that is to say, to the municipal and county councils, if they choose to exercise the power, the right to exempt improvements from local rates. The late Government did it in 'the case of business premises where those business premises were used for manufacture. They allowed the manufacturer to escape, I forget whether it was two-thirds or three-quarters of his rates, because it was realised that the rate upon a factory acted as an overhead charge upon the industry, increased the cost of production, and limited our power of competing with our manufactured goods. That was a right thing to do, but why not extend exactly the same principle to the production of houses and housing improvements in this country? We want the houses and we want the employment. Why, therefore, insist on riveting upon every local authority,

1019
whether they chose to have it or not, an obsolete system, of rating invented in the time of Queen Elizabeth and never changed since?
What we ask is that the local authorities should have the power to base the rates not solely upon the annual value of the premises under present conditions but to levy an alternative rate, great or small, upon the land value of each hereditament. The same people would pay the rate in future as pay at the present time, but they would pay upon a different basis. They would pay upon what the land would sell for as against what the property is at present used for. Our present system of local rating is a tax on use. What we want to substitute, in part, is a tax upon that form of so-called property which is in use or is not in use—suburban land unbuilt on, empty house sites, unoccupied land in our towns, the value of which has not merely been created but is being maintained by the local expenditure of those towns. In all honest fairness the owner of that property should contribute his fair share towards the local expenditure of government. You make great street improvements, construct new playgrounds, widen roads, spend local money on policing property and in providing an admirable education system. All these things are presents to those who come along to live in the town, but when a person comes to live in that town he is asked by the owner of land which has not paid one penny piece of taxation, to pay an enhanced price for the privilege of living in that town, because of the public expenditure to which the man owning that' land has not contributed.
In asking the House to agree to the First Reading of the Bill I am asking them to agree not to anything revolutionary but to something so elementarily just, as well as expedient, that I cannot think why the old system should have gone on so long. In the United States of America and in all our Dominions they have a 3ystem of local taxation different from ours. In all our Dominions they levy rates upon the capital value, the selling value of the property. In Australia and New Zealand and parts of Canada they exempt the buildings from local rates. Even in America they levy
1020
upon the selling value, whether the land or building is used or not, so that empty sites contribute a fair share to local taxation. After the War they were faced in New York with preclisely the same difficulty that faces us in this country, namely, a shortage of houses and the absolute necessity of new houses being built. They met the problem in New York by the simple method of saying that for a period of years—I forget whether it was for five years or for seven years—new houses would be exempt from local taxation. The result was that there was a boom in housing.
I would ask the Minister of Health whether he does not agree with me that the greatest possible benefit he could confer upon the building trade in this country would be the exemption for a period of years of all new houses from local rates. It seems to me that by that means we should have a way of getting not merely an increase in the numbers of the employed by the increased number of houses that we need. The objection which is always raised is: "Yes, but where are you going to get the funds?" The local rates being levied as they are, you will get no improvement. You will have unemployment increasing and the possibility of trade recovery stopped. If you allow any local authority so to change their basis of taxation that they levy the rates in whole or in part on the land value then, and not till then, will you get a stimulus in building and a sufficient penalisation upon those dogs-in-the-manger who keep God's earth idle.
Mr. RHYS: I am sorry not to be able to respond to the invitation of my right hon. and gallant Friend to allow this Bill to receive its First Reading without any protest. As he has rightly said, it is a hardy annual, and I think it will be a sorry day for this House when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is not able to be with us to produce the Bill. I a/m afraid, however, that this year it must fall upon stony ground. There are several reasons why I think the Bill should not be printed and why I invite the House to reject the Motion. In the first place, I will take the question of economy. The Bill, if it be the same as that which has been introduced hitherto, could only result at the present time in a large expenditure on valuations. Not very long ago the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) introduced

1021
certain land tax proposals and, without going into any details, and recognising that they are possibly slightly different proposals from those that the right hon. Gentleman has put forward to-day, one does not forget that the valuation on that occasion, incomplete as it was, cost the country £5,000,000 and only brought in revenue of £1,500,000 before the legislation was finally repealed.
The proposed Measure is rather more ambitious than that which was introduced by Lord Snowden in his Budget two years ago. Lord Snowden allowed certain exemptions to take place. I was not quite clear from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech to-day whether he proposes any exemptions. According to the Bill introduced last year all land of every kind was liable to the land valuation tax, which would mean the re-rating of allotments, agricultural land, and the rating of those industrial undertakings which were exempted under Lord Snowden's proposals. I am very much afraid that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is a little too transparent. I recollect that, about nine years ago, when he was a Minister in the first Socialist Administration he made a speech in which he said that in his opinion by such Measures as this nationalisation of land could be effected. I do not think the House will be, if he will allow me to say so, altogether taken in by the very fair arguments from his point of view that he has put forward to-day.
I will only invite the House to consider what might possibly lie behind legislation of this kind if it ever became law. The local authorities would have complete power to direct land valuation wherever they felt inclined. We should be giving them carte blanche to spend vast sums of money. I have always maintained that in matters of this kind this would be an unfair form of taxation. Let me take a simple illustration. You may have a man in business, occupying
a building of several storeys in which he carries on a profitable business. The site of the building is extremely small. Next door you may have a dock or a shipbuilding yard, a large undertaking covering acres of ground. It seems to me unfair not to consider services received and capacity to pay rather than the theoretical value of land, perhaps put forward at the whim of some Government official.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman rightly referred to the need of houses, and I agree with him that that is what we require. But the facts are against him. I will trouble the House with only one figure. In 1909–10, the year before the Land Valuation proposals were introduced, the number of small dwelling-houses erected in that one year was 102,464. In the following year, when the Land Valuation proposals were law, the number was only 36,000, and we know, on the authority of no less a person that Dr. Addison, who presided over a Commission on this matter in 1919, that the result thus obtained was entirely due to the Land Valuation proposals which were then law. Last year this House decided that the law on the Statute Book relating to this matter should stand suspended. We on this side of the House hope that in the next Budget we shall see it entirely removed from the Statute Book. It will therefore be a retrograde step, in my view, if the House allows, by a back-door method, the local authorities to introduce proposals which are entirely against its sense and its feeling at the present time. I, therefore, invite the House to reject the Motion proposed by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.
Question put,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable local authorities to exempt improvements from assessment and rating, and to levy rates instead upon land values."
The House divided: Ayes, 55; Noes, 191.

Division No. 45.]

AYES.

[4.2 p.m.

Acland, Rt. Hon. sir Francis Dyke

Edwards, Charles

Holdsworth, Herbert

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

Janner, Barnett

Attlee, Clement Richard

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Carn'v'n)

Jenkins, Sir William

Banfield, John William

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

Batey, Joseph

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

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

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

Cape. Thomas

Groves, Thomas E.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Cocks. Frederick Seymour

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

Lawson, John James

Daggar, George

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Leonard, William

Davies. David L. (Pontypridd)

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

Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Harris, Sir Percy

Lagan, David Gilbert

Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

Parkinson, John Allen

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Mabane, William

Price, Gabriel

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Rathbone, Eleanor

Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

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

Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Maxton, James

Summersby, Charles H.

Colonel Wedgwood and Mr. D. Grenfell.

Owen, Major Goronwy

Tinker, John Joseph

Palmer, Francis Noel

White, Henry Graham

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Gower, Sir Robert

Penny, Sir George

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P- G.

Granville, Edgar

Perkins, Walter R. D.

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

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Petherick, M.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

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

Atholl, Duchess of

Grimston, R. V.

Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

Guy, J. C. Morrison

Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Hales, Harold K.

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

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

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Ratcliffe, Arthur

Belt, Sir Alfred L.

Hanley, Dennis A.

Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

Harbord, Arthur

Held, William Allan (Derby)

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Hartington, Marquess of

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

Bossom, A. C.

Hartland, George A.

Robinson, John Roland

Boulton, W. W.

Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

Rosbotham, Sir Samuel

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

Ross, Ronald D.

Brass, Captain Sir William

Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Broadbent, Colonel John

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Runge, Norah Cecil

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Hepworth, Joseph

Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

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

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

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

Hornby, Frank

Salmon, Sir Isidore

Browne, Captain A. C.

Horobin, Ian M.

Salt, Edward W.

Burnett, John George

Horsbrugh, Florence

Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

Butler, Richard Austen

Howard, Tom Forrest

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Caine, G. R. Hall-

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

Savery, Samuel Servington

Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

Kurd, Sir Percy

Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

Castle Stewart. Earl

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

Shute, Colonel J. J.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

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

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

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

Ker, J. Campbell

Slater, John

Cazalet. Thelma (Islington, E.)

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Smiles. Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

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

Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

Knox, Sir Alfred

Smithers, Waldron

Christie, James Archibald

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

Somervell, Donald Bradley

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

Cochrane. Commander Hon. A. D.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

Conant. R. J. E.

Levy, Thomas

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

Cook. Thomas A.

Lewis, Oswald

Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

Cooke, Dounlas

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

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

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Crooke, J. Smedley

McConnell, Sir Joseph

Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

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

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

Stones, James

Cross. R. H.

McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

Strauss, Edward A.

Crossley. A. C.

McLean, Major Sir Alan

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Dalkeith, Earl of

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

Davison, Sir William Henry

Macmillan, Maurice Harold

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

Danville, Alfred

Maitland, Adam

Sutcliffe, Harold

Dixon. Rt. Hon. Herbert

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

Templeton, William P.

Doran. Edward

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

Thomas. James P. L. (Hereford)

Duckworth, George A. V.

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

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

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Elmley, Viscount

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Morris. Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

Morrison, William Shepherd

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Evans. Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

Munro, Patrick

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Everard. W. Lindsay

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Forestier-Walker. Sir Leolin

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Fremantle. Sir Francis

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

Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

Fuller, Captain A. G.

Normand, Wilfrid Guild

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

Ganzoni, Sir John

North, Captain Edward T.

Wise, Alfred R.

Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

Nunn, William

Womersley, Walter James

Gledhill, Gilbert

O'Connor, Terence James

Worthington, Dr. John V.

Glossop, C. W. H.

Patrick, Colin M.

Goff. Sir Park

Pearson, William G.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

Peat, Charles U.

Mr. Charles Rhys and Captain Peake.

CIVIL ESTIMATES (EXCESS),1931
Copy presented of statement of the sum required to be voted in order to make good an Excess on the Grant for
1024
the privy council office for the year ended 31st march, 1932 [by command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FEOM THE LORDS.
Consolidation Bills; That they have come to the following Resolution, namely: "That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills in the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament."

SCHEMES FOR UNEMPLOYED.
4.11 p.m.
Colonel BALDWIN-WEBB: I beg to move,
"That this House, while endorsing the action of His Majesty's Government in limiting expenditure on local authorities schemes of a non-productive nature, urges His Majesty's Government to keep under constant and active review the means of reducing the number of unemployed by assisting local authorities to undertake essential works of a revenue producing nature and by encouraging productive industry in general, whereby men and women can be employed in their own crafts."
The problem of unemployment is still the most serious one before the country, and must of necessity engage the attention of this House a great deal during the year. I, therefore, make no apology for initiating this discussion, because I feel that by this means Members may have an opportunity of bringing forward ideas and suggestions that may be fruitful to the Government when dealing with this most terrible problem. The patience with which the unemployed are submitting to continued inaction must appeal to us, and I do suggest that we must give prompt attention to the subject. I would like to say that, in my opinion, the House ought to have frequent opportunities of discussing this subject, and I hope that this may be the case during the year. The country is still in a state of emergency. When the National Government were returned 18 months ago they were asked to balance the Budget, to balance the trade, or, at least, to reduce considerably the adverse trade balance, and they were asked to take every possible step to reduce unemployment. These problems have been tackled and great progress has been made under heads 1 and 2, and it is necessary that progress should be made under those two heads in order to be able to approach satisfactorily this third problem.
How far better off we are than we were when the Government were forced to stop expenditure on non-productive public relief works, and on other schemes that might be considered revenue-producing, only the Government are in a position to know. I suggest that they are the only people who can know the true facts and can give a decision. Therefore, I sincerely hope that this afternoon we may be able to receive a
1038
statement to guide the country, the municipalities and all those others who are waiting to hear what is the position. It has been proved conclusively during the last 10 years that to provide work merely by subsidising public works does not have the effect of giving employment. It has the reverse effect. It throws more and more men out of work. This kind of policy was mainly responsible for the crisis 18 months ago. The previous crisis, that of 1922, did bring along, among other palliatives, the system of relief schemes, the effect of which upon unemployment was very trifling.
It was the reduction of Income Tax from 6s. to 5s. in 1922, and then to 4s. 6d. in 1923, that had the effect, of stimulating trade and employment, and of helping the country generally. In 1924 we had a Socialist administration, and their policy led to a reaction. After that the Conservative Government of 1924 had to deal with the difficult problem of the coal dispute and then the general strike, but by 1928 the folly of relief schemes had been practically abandoned, and trade was improving. The year 1929 came in well; trade began to expand and commerce improved. Then we had a Socialist administration, with an exaggerated expenditure on all forms of relief schemes, and confidence departed. This, coupled with the Stock Exchange collapse in America, brought about a second crisis. The policy of public extravagance, in which the financing of relief schemes played a large part, aggravated the commercial and trade conditions, and resulted in the crisis which brought about the formation of the National Government.
The gap which had to be filled in the Budget, necessitating increased taxation, has had the effect of reducing the possibility of commercial activity for a time, but we are now in the interesting point when it is necessary for a decision to be taken; not a decision as to whether we should repeat the follies and mistakes of the past hut whether we can continue to proceed on normal healthy lines of expansion and development, both by the way of municipal enterprise in those public works of a revenue-earning character and those that are essential to the public health and well-being, money is cheap; credit is ample: but confidence will not return unless it is made

1039
clear that the follies of the past will not be repeated. The patient, having partaken of those drugs that are so injurious, has survived a long regime and is now able to take moderate stimulants, but must avoid at all costs the drugs that were responsible for his collapse. It is interesting to note the position of the industry which is supposed to have benefited more than any other from these unnecessary public schemes: public 'works contracting. The figures show that from July, 1929, to July, 1932, when public works were still in full swing, the number of men attracted to the industry had gone up from 164,000 to 270,000 while unemployment had gone from 44,000 in 1930, 27 per cent., to 115,000 in 1932, or 42 per cent. It reached a figure of 128,000 in December, 1932, or 44 per cent.
In the building industry, from June to December, 1929, unemployment rose from 72,000, or 8.9 per cent., to 139,000, or 17 per cent. That was during the time when the Socialist Government was supposed to be building as fast as they could. Let me quote figures which are already widely known. Whilst the Socialist Government were in office we spent £200,000,000 and unemployment went from 1,100,000 to 2,700,000, and the number of men directly employed on relief schemes was only 114,000. There is no doubt that the dangling of Government loans and subsidies before public authorities has led to their undertaking many costly and unnecessary schemes, and in this way local rates have been increased until they have become an intolerable burden on industry and a fruitful source of further unemployment. In the House last week the Minister of Health said that he intended to bring in the building societies to assist in housing because they have the money and experience. I understand it is necessary, in Whitehall and in the country, to replace Government buildings which are now obsolete, and that to save money in administration other buildings are required. But this cannot be done because of the Treasury policy that money for Government buildings must be found from revenue. Therefore, this natural development is held up. I understand that insurance companies and other bodies are prepared to finance any Government building if allowed to do so. The question of giving a lease to the
1040
Departments concerned should be quite a" simple" matter. By that means we should be able to build these necessary buildings and employ men in their own trade.
With reference to housing, we are still far behind in the type of house to let at a rent between 8s. and 9s., including rates, per week. I prefer the lower figure; but it is to be noted that whilst we have made an advance of 60 per cent. in the better-class house we have only made an advance of 13 per cent, in this particular class of house. Some assistance in this direction could be given by removing some of the restrictions on housing. At present the average density is 13 per acre, I suggest that we should go to 20; and also that we should put in cheaper fittings and make the houses quite comfortable, yet plain. I would also suggest that where a builder is prepared to build the type of house I have mentioned he should be granted facilities to acquire the land at a reasonable rate. If this was done I am convinced that money would be forthcoming. Private investors would invest in this kind of property, because solid bricks and mortar is still one of the best investments.
Let me turn to industry for a moment. I asked a tile manufacturer in my constituency the other day what form of Government action, if any, he would recommend in order to get his men at work again, and he informed me that his industry had been exporting tiles to South America for the last nine months at a loss of 10 per cent., in order to retain that market against the competition of Germany, where both the exports and shipping are subsidised by the Government. That is the case of a private subsidy having to fight a subsidy from a Government. In my opinion there should be more adequate protection at home or some measure to counteract these foreign subsidies.
Just a few words about the industries allied to the brewing trade. That industry has been taxed more than any other, and it is our greatest revenue producer. Unemployment is beginning to become acute, particularly in the ancillary trades, and unless something is done we shall be faced with a good deal of unemployment. During four recent years the brewers have rebuilt 13,542 inns at a cost of £12,300,000. There are some

1041
79,000 public houses in England. The work of improvement, and in most cases even of necessary decoration, has stopped. In Birmingham alone, during the last ten years, there have never been less than ten or a dozen annual applications for new buildings where new licences have been granted, involving an annual expenditure of roughly £100,000 to £120,000. Last year only one application was made, and even that was abandoned owing to the fact that the brewer concerned was not able to find the money. At the next Brewster Sessions in March there was again only one application, and that of a special kind because it was the result of a contract with the corporation. It shows that the necessary development in that industry is at a standstill. I should mention that a licence for a new building in Birmingham is only granted in exchange for three old ones, and it therefore means a reduction in the number of public houses.
Agriculture also is suffering from the excessive taxation of the brewing industry, particularly arable farming, and I urge that this is a case where special inquiry should be made to see whether employment in the industry may be regained quickly. It is unpleasant to note that in one midland town there has been a reduction of 18 per cent, in the gross rateable value of public houses, and it is estimated that next year the reductions will go down to 30 per cent. In Liverpool an increase of 1½d. in the £ has been necessary owing to the revaluation of this kind of property. A good deal of harm has been done to this industry by unfair taxation and steps should be taken to remedy the position. The Government should be courageous. It should be bullish, not bearish.
The figures concerning road transport employment also show that a worsening is taking place, and definite steps should be taken immediately to clear up the indecision in regard to the Salter Report. It is not for the general good that road transport should be so embarrassed as to remove initiative and competition. The policy of the Minister of Transport in supporting the railways against road transport has come very forcibly to my notice in my own constituency during the last few days. There, the Road Traffic Commissioners refused an application by
1042
local omnibus companies who desired to reduce their fares to meet a reduction recently made in local rail rates. Between two towns in my division, Oaken-gates and Wellington, the railway companies recently reduced the fare from 4½d. single to 3d. return against a rate fixed of 4d. single journey by road. The result of this will be that the road transport services will be stopped and men thrown out of work.
If this policy is followed throughout the country I can imagine a serious reduction in an industry that has employed as many as 1,000,000 people in making and operating public service vehicles. It is interesting to note that the railway companies are allowed to make special representations to the Commissioners in respect of road fares whilst the road transport interests are denied a corresponding right. This is a matter which should be put right without delay. It is wrong to subordinate road interests to rail interests, and we must not forget the part which road transport played in the general strike. The effect of the Salter Report has been very damaging to manufacturers of road service vehicles. In Birmingham we have held up the purchase of 50 electric trolley omnibuses for the last nine months because of the threatened excessive and crushing taxation on these vehicles.
The final report of the Commission on Road Transport Services stated that tramways were an obsolete form of transport, and that they should ultimately disappear in the interests of other road users, and they made very strong representations for railless vehicles. If, however, the recommendations of the Salter Conference become law tramways will enter on a new lease of life, and if the tax on railless vehicles and omnibuses is to be the same, any economy in the use of railless vehicles will be wiped out, to the further discouragement of the coalmining industry. It has been urged by many that railless vehicles by using electricity in addition to helping coal-mining avoid the necessity of purchasing large quantities of petrol from abroad. Employment can be assisted materially in this direction. I am compelled to mention Birmingham as an example of the places where unemployment is being created by the Salter report, because the facts are within my own knowledge. I

1043
understand that the silk industry is engaging the attention of the Government. Here the raw material tax has practically nullified the advantage of the import duties. I gather that some 70,000 men could be employed in the industry in addition to those already employed if proper measures of protection were granted.
I await with interest the results of the Government's policy on agriculture. I sincerely hope that their efforts will be successful. If they are not, particularly as regards the pig industry, steps should be taken to subsidise the production of bacon in this country or a tariff on imports should be imposed. I suggest that our imports of bacon and pig products should be reduced by at least one-half. The question of Government assistance in the shipping world is, I hope, to be discussed, and I trust we may find means to employ men in building those Cunarders that are now at a standstill. The cotton industry has been dealt a severe blow by the abolition of the preferences in Ceylon. This is a case for energetic and immediate action by the Government. I believe that we should reduce the imports from any country that does not give us equal trading facilities. In regard to the wool industry, we might make representations to Canada.
It is interesting to note that while the general position in unemployment may not have improved during the last 18 months, there has been a marked advance in the position of manufacturing industries. The monthly return of men employed during 1932, compared with 1931, showed an average increase per month of 111,000. Comparing December last with January, 1932, there were engaged in the manufacturing industry 160,000 more persons. That is a step in the right direction. I hope that tariffs will be obtained and modified as suits the situation, because it is due to these instruments that that great improvement has taken place. Let me say a few words in reference to the voluntary schemes for helping the unemployed. A scheme was started in Bristol and followed in Birmingham for getting people to carry out necessary repairs and to do what they could to create employment locally during the bad time of the year. I hope that all districts and organisations, and political parties
1044
of every kind, which have not, up to now, joined in this campaign will do their best to help the general position.
My purpose in moving this Motion has been to point out the need for courageous action by the Government throughout the whole field of industry and municipal enterprise. Trade is convalescent and it wants a tonic. The Government are in a position to give that tonic. It will not be by a return to the profligacy of the past; that would be fatal. The finest remedy would be a bold reduction of Income Tax. I believe that the time is ripe for prompt and decisive action, according to the needs of each industry scientifically surveyed in turn, whether that action takes the form of a repeal of legislation that has proved harmful to industry, or of a freeing of restrictions similarly harmful, or the mobilising of the resources of private finance and energy for the development of productive schemes of public utility. The criterion of such action must be its capacity to create new wealth, the aim not to find non-productive work for the unemployed but to re-employ men and women in their own industries and at their own crafts.
4.35 p.m.
Sir ISIDORE SALMON: I beg to second the Motion.
There have been many Debates in this Chamber on the important question of unemployment, but I am bound to say that we have made but very little headway. Members of all schools of thought have given us their views from time to time, but we have had very little real product from their suggestions or observations. In reviewing the position we have to recognise that since they have been in office the National Government have done an immense amount of good work in the country. We have also to recognise that the problem that faces the country to-day is not wholly within the hands of the Government. It is true that world conditions have very largely contributed to the large amount of unemployment we have in this country. I suggest that it is important that the Government should take a big view of the position. The Government say to industry, "Take a long view. We think it is desirable that you should do this, that and the other." I say to the Government, "I would like to see you practise what you are preach-

1045
ing, and the best way in which that can be done would be by coming out with a big and bold policy and by taking the long view."
Let me for a moment try to assume that a large and progressive company or firm found that their business was static, or that the turnover was falling. The first thing that that firm would do would be to say, "We will make a bid for trade. We will reduce our prices, because we hope that in a short time we shall more than recoup the business by the reduction in prices." I ask the Government to take a view similar to that which would be taken in a successful business organisation. In my mind the long view is that the Government should say that they are prepared in the next Budget to reduce Income Tax by a shilling in the pound. The effect of that would be to reduce the revenue by £60,000,000, but that money could be found by suspending the Sinking Fund, and it would still be possible to balance the Budget. The point I make in that connection is that the effect of such a policy would be very striking. It would be found that industry would have the confidence that is so essential, and it would at once get a move on by increasing work and by employing more people.
The real problem that we are up against to-day is a human problem, the problem of how we are to find work, permanent work, and not work by mere palliative methods. The Prime Minister and other Ministers have very truly said that palliative work, State-aided work, is of no real use in dealing with this problem. It is a truism to say that the very breath of this country depends upon trade. Therefore what better can the Government do than to give a stimulus to the trade of the country? The way to give that stimulus is the way I have suggested, by boldness. It is true that the Government say it will cost that sum of money, but if the nation can get that money back, as I believe it would within two years, by increased revenue from Income Tax and Surtax, the Government would be more than justified in spending that money on a remunerative proposition. If this relief were given to taxation I do not think any business man in the country would deny that the effect would be not only gratifying to the people of the country, but gratifying to the Chancellor
1046
of the Exchequer himself, because within a reasonable period he would more than recoup himself for the money that he had foregone. And he would still balance his Budget. It is essential that the Budget should be balanced.
A second point I wish to make is this: I realise that it is of no use to spend money on unremunerative and unproductive work. On the other hand one must weigh up and deal with problems as one finds them. I would call attention to the fact that in the building industry to-day the costs of building are lower than they have been for years or are likely to be in the near future. I was an unfortunate member, if I may say so, of an unofficial committee that had an opportunity of studying one or two problems in connection with Government offices. I was amazed to find that in one particular Government Department they had six different offices scattered all over London—it was a very important Ministry—and they were paying something in the region of £45,000 to £50,000 a year in rentals. If that were capitalised at 3½ per cent, the sum would be £1,350,000. The Government could build on a site which they have, a building suitable for these offices and that would have three effects. First, there would be the saving of more than the capital sum that it would be necessary to find for the building, because we are paying more than that sum in rental at the present time. Secondly, there would be a more efficient organisation and there would be, unquestionably, a saving of staff. Thirdly, the Department would be better run if it were concentrated instead of being spread over six different places.
Similar observations might be directed towards Employment Exchanges. I would remind the House that as long ago as 1927 the Government of that time had a programme for dealing with temporary Employment Exchanges throughout the country. They had taken then and they still hold certain premises as offices in busy districts—generally shops turned into offices. They had army huts and so forth and it was intended within a few years to substitute for those premises offices of a more permanent character. I venture to say that this is the psychological moment for rebuilding those places which are of a necessary and should be of a permanent character.

1047
The point then arises as to how money for these purposes is to be found without affecting the Budget. I suggest that the money can be obtained from the National Debt Commissioners or from other suitable available funds without affecting the Budget. It has been no novelty in the past for a Government to use such funds for the building of Government offices. I think I am correct in saying that Governments have spent £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 on buildings such as the Admiralty, the extension of the British Museum and part of the Patent Office out of money borrowed on the lines that I suggest. The only reason, I believe, why the Government or the Departments, or the Treasury, hesitate to-day to adopt this method of finance is the report made by the Public Accounts Committee as long ago as 1904 expressing the view that it would be better in order to maintain efficient control over expenditure if those services were included, as formerly, in the annual Estimates. But that was in 1904 and we live in different times to-day. We have to consider the position as it is now.
Much water has flowed under London Bridge since the date of that report and there are two important considerations to be borne in mind. First, by adopting this building method we could avoid the kind of serious mistake that was made by a very important local authority some few years ago. I regret to think, although the experience is useful, that I was one of those who took the view that it was desirable to postpone the building of the new London County Hall. We did postpone the building; we built the Hall some years later with the result that the cost was over double what it would have been had it been built at the time originally proposed. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition will probably remember that occasion because I think he was a member of the London County Council at the time. Secondly, as I have said, to-day is the psychological moment for providing these essential buildings at an economic figure. Not only will it be economic to do so, but it will also have the effect of finding real work for a large number of individuals for whom it is very desirable to find employment and the Government at the same time would save transitional benefit.
1048
I recommend the Government to review the position to-day and to see what is essential, not from the point of view of finding work merely for the sake of giving an occupation to those who are unfortunately unemployed, but as a sound business and economic proposition. If they did so it would give a great fillip to the country as a whole. I recognise and realise that the Government have many serious problems to consider. One can sympathise with Ministers when certain Members want one thing and certain other Members want something else. I suggest that they ought to take a big broad view. It is necessary of course to avoid going into those extravagant methods which were prevalent until the economy campaign began. I think it was a very good thing that everything was stopped dead at that time but I also think that it would be wise and prudent to review the position to-day because the situation now differs from what it was 18 months or two years ago. Therefore, in seconding this Motion I hope that it will receive the support and consideration of His Majesty's Government.
4.53 p.m.
Mr. BATEY: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from the word "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
"recognises that unemployment is a national responsibility which should not be thrown upon impoverished localities by expenditure upon Poor Law relief, and urges His Majesty's Government to render such financial assistance as will enable local authorities, particularly those in necessitous areas, to undertakes works of a useful character, in order to reduce the number of unemployed and stimulate employment in other industries."
I wish to thank the hon. and gallant Member for the Wrekin (Colonel Baldwin-Webb) for having selected this question for discussion to-day. There are two points on which I agree with the hon. and gallant Member. One is the importance of this matter. What we want is work for the unemployed. Work is preferable to doles. The second point on which I agree with him is that the Government need courage. As a matter of fact the Government's failure and the increase of unemployment are due to lack of courage on the Government's part, and therefore we are not at all surprised that Members supporting the National Government have at last been forced, by that lack of courage on the

1049
part of the Government, into coming forward with a Motion urging the Government to do something.
I like the word "urges" in the Motion. I think it was never more necessary than now for supporters of the National Government to urge upon that Government to do something. After 16 months, during which the National Government have done nothing except to make things worse and increase unemployment, I am glad that the supporters of the Government are coming along now and urging the Government to get a move on. [An HON. MEMBER: "Get on or get out."] I am glad to thank another supporter of the National Government for supplying me with those words "Get on or get out." They come not from the Labour benches but from a supporter of the National Government, and the Government have done so badly in the past 16 months that they ought either to get a move on or to get out of office.
There are three important points in this Amendment. We desire to stress, first, the fact that unemployment is a national responsibility. Secondly, we desire that expenditure on Poor Law relief owing to unemployment should not be thrown on the local authorities. The Minister of Health could give the Prime Minister a very useful lesson as to the increased cost of Poor Law relief owing to the unemployment policy of the Government. All over the country, especially in the distressed areas, especially in the North of England Poor Law relief is increasing enormously. In this Amendment we urge that the burden ought not to be thrown on the local authorities but ought to be borne by the National Exchequer. The third point which we desire to stress is that the Government should render financial assistance to enable local authorities, particularly in distressed areas, to undertake works of a useful character. I know that in urging that third proposition we are running up against the view expressed by the Prime Minister in the letter which he sent to Bethnal Green, and in which he said:
"State-assisted public works as a policy for the relief of unemployment hare been abandoned by the Government."
I hope the Government are not going to stick there. It is all very well to say that, even at the peak, in 1929, there were only a certain number of unemployed
1050
men who could be employed. What is essential to-day is that unemployed men should be assisted as far as possible to get work or at least that local authorities should be assisted to employ men as far as possible. When the Prime Minister writes to Bethnal Green to the effect that State assistance for the provision of employment is to cease I ask him to tell us what is he going to do? Is he going to stop there? Does that simply mean that the Government are not going to assist the local authorities. I think the Prime Minister is not entitled to leave such an important matter just there. If it is his view that the Government should not spend any more money to assist the local authorities in that way then he ought to tell the House what the Government are prepared to do. One of the Prime Minister's late colleagues Lord Snowden has been urging that owing to this policy there is going to be no help for slum clearance, for improved water supplies, for land drainage, for smallholdings and allotments. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Lord Snowden has said so. The Prime Minister himself is here and I want to give the Prime Minister an opportunity of saying whether Lord Snowden is right or wrong.
I want the Prime Minister to tell us what really is the policy of the Government. Are we to understand from his letter that the Government are not going to assist local authorities in the least to do any of this work? I am glad to see the Prime Minister here. It gives us an opportunity that we do not often get. While we are dealing with letters, he sent another to the Labour party at the More-ton Colliery in the division that he represents. He said the Government were doing their very hardest to relieve distress. Our difficulty is that we cannot see where the Government are doing anything to relieve distress in the miners' homes or to provide work for them. Instead of helping the unemployed, I submit that the policy of the Government has been to injure trade and industry and to increase unemployment. They have certainly done that in the North of England with the trade in which the people are employed whom the Prime Minister represents. The policy of the Government in the last six months has certainly injured the coal industry. If we compare last year with 1930, when

1051
Labour was in office for the full year, we find that in the former year we sold 54,000,000 tons of coal to foreign countries while last year we sold only 38,000,000 tons.
Viscountess ASTOR: Why?
Mr. BATEY: Because of the policy of the Government. The Prime Minister in his Bethnal Green letter praised the tariff policy of the Government and the Ottawa Agreements. The tariff policy of the Government and the Ottawa Agreements are the answer to the "Why?" Because they have destroyed the coal industry in foreign markets by upsetting foreign countries. In 1932 we sold to France only 8,000,000 tons. In 1930 we sold 12,000,000 tons. To Germany last year we sold only 2,000,000 tons and in 1930 we sold 4,000,000 tons. To Italy last year we sold only 5,000,000 tons while in 1930 we sold 7,000,000 tons. Last year we sold to Belgium only 1,500,000 tons while we sold in 1930 2,500,000 tons. There is the answer to the "Why?" The Government policy has upset Germany, France, Belgium and Italy. There is no question about it. You may laugh as much as you like. The fact is there, that the Government policy so upset these countries that they retaliated on the coal industry.
Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: The French Government started their quota system when the Labour Government were in power.
Mrs. WARD: May I ask the hon. Member if it did not start at the time the Labour Government passed the Coal Mines Act?
Mr. BATEY: It started many years ago. It is no use talking about when it started. It is no use for the Prime Minister to say this Government is helping to solve the unemployed question. The Government have simply made unemployment worse, and, until they make up their minds to put some of the important basic trades upon their feet, we shall be no better. I am glad that at last the Admiralty have done a small thing in purchasing oil taken from British coal. That is a small but an important step. Here is an experience that ought to teach the Government the possibility of solving unemployment in the mining
1052
industry. I want the Prime Minister to tell us whether they are prepared to go further and assist in. the extraction of oil from coal and so help to put the industry on its feet again. One of the things that surprises me is that so many supporters of the National Government, especially in the North of England, are starting what they call a wise spending campaign. I never heard or read such humbug in my life. I have here a letter which tells me that a campaign has been set on foot to find work for as many unemployed as possible during February, March and April, when unemployment is usually at its worst. There is a list of 80 things that have been done to assist unemployment. One of them is umbrella covering. That will not solve unemployment. But even that is better than what the Government are doing. Another suggestion is that people who have gardens should have crazy-paving done. Another is new carpets in motor cars. The Government do not want to feel that they can do nothing, and they let their supporters in the country go forward with this wise spending campaign, hut the responsibility still lies upon the Government.
We stand for maintenance of the unemployed, and what we want is work for the unemployed. We believe that the authority which is responsible and which could best find work is the Government. We have been born into a wonderfully planned world. It may be turned upside down to-day, but to-morrow it will be all right. We may be in winter now but the winter will he followed by spring, the spring by summer and summer by autumn. It is a wonderfully organised and well-planned world. All that is needed is that industry and trade should be planned and organised, but we cannot do that. We have been prepared to leave trade and industry to a small section of the community, and they have failed miserably to organise it so that no one can find work. Where that small section has failed, we ought to say to the Government that they should take this matter up and should plan and reorganise industry so that men can find work and live by work rather than by the dole.
5.11 p.m.
Mr. TINKER: I beg to second the Amendment.

1053
I am glad to see the Prime Minister here, because the subject is well worthy of his attention. I am also glad that the Minister of Health is here, as there are points to which we wish to draw his attention. The Mover of the Motion must have been in some difficulty, because the first part of it attempts to praise the Government for limiting expenditure by local authorities on nonproductive schemes and then it goes on to ask for money to be spent on revenue-making schemes. I have been, listening to the arguments brought forward to find out the difference between one scheme and another, but I have not been able to find out what the Mover and Seconder actually meant. What they said was that money is cheap and plentiful, and something ought to be done. They say that relief schemes only throw men out of work. They may cost a lot of money, but they do not throw men out of work. For a certain length of time they put men in work and give them some idea of their work.
The Mover said something about putting up buildings. Putting up more houses for people would be far better than putting up buildings. He also advocated a reduction of taxation on the brewing industry. Most of us on these benches attempted on the last Budget to get that carried against the Government, but we failed because their supporters did not help. One would not have expected Income Tax reduction to be brought into this Debate. That is the last thing that should be attempted until the unemployed are better looked after. If one section of the community can bear their pockets being touched more than another, it is those who can afford to pay Income Tax rather than those who have no incomes. Most of us on these benches have to pay Income Tax, and we are very lucky to be able to pay it compared with those who are not. I am prepared, so long as my pocket will stand it, to pay Income Tax rather than make the burden on the poor greater than it is. I could not follow exactly what these hon. Members asked the Government to do apart from these points.
I find that the Secretary of State for War has taken a very strong stand on this kind of thing. He said that one of the difficulties of the present Government is that they had done so well up
1054
to the present that they have been too successful. Why he should say that, I do not know, in view of the speeches of the two hon. Members who moved and seconded this Motion against the Government. However, the Prime Minister, by being present to-day, is helping us somewhat, and I would like him to answer some questions. Is it the Government's intention now not to provide any more money to municipal authorities for any of these schemes at all, and can the Prime Minister defend that portion of his letter to Bethnal Green in which he says that the National Government have stemmed the rising tide of unemployment Can he honestly back that up to-day in this Debate? If so, then the figures given out by the Minister of Labour must be wrong. The hard core of unemployment, as it is called, which means the number of men who have been out of work for a long period, is greater now than it has ever been in our history. The increase in the numbers unemployed for a year or longer was one of 125,000 in 1932. In January, 1932, they numbered 337,500, and in December, 1932, they had grown to 460,000. In the aggregate we have a growing volume of unemployment and in what is termed the hard core of unemployment there has also been an increase. I therefore want to know whether the Prime Minister can tell us how he justifies the statement in his letter to Bethnal Green that the Government have stemmed the rising tide of unemployment.
To-day we stand for organised planning of our national life. We think that that is the only way to deal with the present situation, and we claim that until the Government can make that effective, whoever is in power ought to see to it that those who are out of work are provided with some kind of employment. There are many useful schemes that could be put in hand. Will anyone opposite say that housing is adequately dealt with at the present time? I am glad that the Minister of Health is in his place. He has recently brought in two Bills dealing with housing, an English Bill and a Scottish Bill. In the first Bill he practically takes away all subsidies, apart from those for slum clearance, and I understand that in the Scottish Bill some subsidy is being left. Does that not mean that housing will be slowed up and,

1055
therefore, that unemployment in what may be termed a necessary occupation will be greater? We should have expected that at least the Government would have kept on the subsidy under the Wheatley Act, so that building could have gone on until the Government were in a position to feel satisfied about the position.
Will anyone say that road-making is not a necessary thing? We have in Lancashire the Liverpool-Manchester road, 26 miles long, and it cannot be said that that is revenue-bearing. I do not think any road can be made revenue-bearing in a direct sense, but by improving conditions of transport it can be made a general benefit to the whole community, and we shall have that benefit from Manchester to Liverpool through the cheaper transit that will be possible owing to a good road being made. It also employs a large number of men on very useful work. Then there are many hundreds of bridges in this country that could be taken in hand and reconditioned; and until the Government are quite satisfied that they can alter existing conditions, they ought to start all the relief works possible and give all the help they can to those poor people who are at present unemployed.
To refer again to the Prime Minister's letter, he speaks in it about help being given by the council that he has called into action in providing schemes of recreation for the unemployed. I want to pay a word of credit to that activity. During the Recess I have been to several meetings of the unemployed, where the local men are getting them together, organising them, having concerts, and helping them to recognise that someone is taking notice of their plight. It is doing a good work in that way for the time being, but any prominent man who goes to these meetings is asked Before he leaves by scores of the people if there is any chance of getting a job through the council. For the time being the unemployed are glad of these central attempts, because they feel that someone is paying attention to them.
It is doing good in this respect, that men are seeing the plight of other men, and there is a common bond of feeling between them, from which there is arising a keen desire to help, but they are ask
1056
ing, "How long has this to continue? How long have you and I to be out of work?" And if something is not done within a few months' time which will show to these people that at least the Government have some idea of finding them work, it may be that that co-ordinated effort may be turned in another direction. Could anyone blame men, meeting together like that, if they see no hope under the present system, deciding to do something more drastic? No one could say that they were doing wrong. When we speak to them, we urge them to recognise their position and to try to get some alteration of it if they can. The question is a burning question, but will they wait long enough until society recognises their claims? I am just afraid that they will not.
In his letter to Bethnal Green the Prime Minister said he was confident in the Government's work. The Government have had nearly 18 months in office, and they may go on for four or five years. If they fail in their allotted task of bringing confidence to this country, it will be a sad state of affairs when the people recognise that they cannot do anything. We on these benches do not believe any good can come from the present Government's work, but we hope that every effort will be made by the Government while they are in office; and no Government can rest content while there is this big volume of unemployment in the country. I would advise the Government to try to give some hope to the unemployed by providing some work, some help, while their plans for trade recovery are being put into effect. It is not fair to allow things to remain for so long in their present condition.
I think something could be done with regard to research work in the mining industry. More grants could be given to help that position. In reply to a question yesterday, the Government said what they were doing in that direction, but they should do more, because the only hope of the coal industry is to get from the coal all the by-products possible. I think the time has now come to recognise that the coal mining industry can never recover its position by trying to out-sell our competitors in the foreign markets. I saw in to-day's paper that in Nova Scotia, I think it was, or somewhere in Canada, they are objecting

1057
to our under-selling them in. their own markets. When we take foreign markets in that way, it is only done by underselling them, and it only hits us back in the long run. But there is hope in research work, and in trying to produce the valuable by-products contained in British coal. I ask the Government not to set about trying to under-sell our foreign competitors in the markets of the world, but to enable us to produce our own oil arid to see if we can do without buying it from oversea.
We move this Amendment believing that the Motion before the House cannot help our present position. We think that nation-wide unemployment cannot be left to be dealt with by any particular part of the country, but must be treated as a whole by the country, and that the burden must be borne equally by all.
5.28 p.m.
The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I should like to congratulate, in the first place, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Wrekin (Colonel Baldwin-Webb) upon raising an interesting Debate in an interesting speech, which was welcome above all because it was full of practical suggestions which ranged over so wide a field that I could not deal with them all. I can only assure him and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Harrow (Sir I. Salmon), who seconded the Motion in a speech which equally dwelt on the practical side of affairs, that those suggestions shall not fall upon infertile ground. They dealt in particular with the advantages of a reduction in the Income Tax this year. Even if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were replying, I know my hon. and gallant Friends would not expect an answer to those representations to-day, and in his absence I can only say that what they have said will no doubt attract his interested attention.
The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) struck a note which is the one that I would desire to repeat, a note of warm concern at the growing gravity of some of the aspects of the ill-effects of unemployment. How well we realise it, those of us who have had an opportunity of seeing those effects at work in the most depressed areas of the country, in particular those bad effects, upon the minds of people who desire nothing more than
1058
honourable toil, which come with a prolongation of the inability to earn their living in the way in which they desire to do it. This prolongation is the source of the worst evil with which we realise we have to grapple. May we not assume in these Debates, then, that we agree upon the gravity of the condition with which we have to deal? We are agreed upon the necessity of wasting no energy and no opportunity in seeking a remedy for these evils, and our differences are only the differences of reasonable beings as to the best course to adopt in order to secure that cure which we desire.
I am glad that the House is presented with so sharp a choice on the matter of policy for remedying unemployment— the choice between the Motion and the Amendment. The Mover of the Motion made an appeal to the courage of the Government. Let us remind ourselves, however, that courage is as necessary to continue long-term policy steadfastly against the temptation to turn aside as it is for the strenuous tasks of the moment. It is to that courage in the heart of the House and the nation that the Government appeal in their present policy, because the choice before the House to-day is a choice between the long-term policy of the reconstruction of productive industry from the foundations upwards, so that men and women may find their occupations honourably in their own toil and the continuation of the policy of hon. Members opposite, the policy of subsidy, of relief works, and of other artificial aids.
The question has been thrashed out in long theoretical arguments between the champions of the long-term policy and the champions of the short. We have had speeches, papers, books and articles by experts on the one side and the other, and by partisans on the one side and the other, and by experts disguised as partisans and partisans disguised as experts. Amidst these contending forces, naturally, the common sense of the nation may find it hard to decide on a theoretical basis, but fortunately the justification of the policy which we are pursuing is set in no theoretical basis, but in the actual experience of the country. We have tried the policy of artificial relief, subsidies and relief works, and we have found it fail. To the nation we can appeal for the

1059
judgment of actual experience, and I am confident the Government will continue to receive support for their long-range policy. The policy of subsidies, of relief works, has been tried, and it has failed. As the hon. Member who moved the Motion said, it was tried during the tenure of office of the last Government, which spent nearly £200,000,000 upon it, and unemployment increased by over 1,500,000 persons. That disastrous fact, disastrous to the theorist, to the official Opposition and to the nation, has to be overcome before we can persuade the nation to turn again to such a process.
On the other hand, although it is yet early days, we have actual experience that the long-range policy of the Government for the reconstruction of industry, without resort to these artificial aids, is showing signs of success. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) pointed to the positive increase in unemployment, but we say, "Look abroad; see what has been happening in other countries during the last 18 months, and you will see there such a state of affairs as to satisfy you that something has already been achieved in the way of the protection of our people from these evils by the policy which we have pursued." There unemployment is worse than here. The depression of international trade is worse than it is here, and we see the confusion and doubt, the depression of mind and material, worse there than we have it in this country. There are, then, these two facts to which we point with confidence to encourage this country in deciding, namely, the fact that the short-range policy has been tried and failed, and the fact that the long-range policy is being tried and that it shows encouraging signs of success.
The Motion points in particular to the policy of the Government in relation to the work of local authorities. I should like to take this opportunity of dealing with the matters raised by my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Motion by dwelling upon the policy of the Government in relation to the matter which is of so much concern and interest at the present time, namely, the promotion of public works by local authorities. I find the expressions of the Motion are very pertinent and just, and let me say, both on this matter and on the larger
1060
matter of policy, that the Motion is so much in accordance with the views of the Government that we propose to accept it. On the matter of local authorities' works, the Motion is particularly just. It refers to the necessity of promoting essential works and revenue-producing works. There is, I believe, a very widespread misconception about the policy of the Government in relation to the undertaking of public works on borrowed money by local authorities—a widespread misconception amounting at times to what I might call positive misrepresentation.
The misconception is that there is a definite blockade, based upon Government policy and carried out by the Ministry of Health, against the undertaking of fresh expenditure by local authorities on borrowed money. Of course, it is only with the expenditure on borrowed money that we are concerned; expenditure out of revenue is entirely within the control of the local authorities themselves. Let me say as clearly as I can that the idea that there is this iron, arbitrary blockade imposed upon local authorities by Government policy through the Ministry of Health is a complete misconception. It is not so. There is no such arbitrary blockade at all. As proof of that circumstance, I point to the most revealing figures of the actual applications which have been received from local authorities for loans for public works, and the amount which has been refused by the Ministry of Health. The amount actually applied for in the last 16 months by local authorities amounted to £32,500,000. Of this, the amount refused was only £2,500,000.
Mr. LAWSON: Did they get anything from the unemployment grants in aid of that?
Sir H. YOUNG: That is completely irrelevant to my present purpose.
Mr. MACMILLAN: Could the right hon. Gentleman give figures of applications during the previous 16 months?
Sir H. YOUNG: I will if my hon. Friend will allow me to expound the matter. The amount refused represented only 7 per cent. There were substantially no refusals for trading services and half the refusals were for expenses on public offices. In the year before, the amount applied for, in comparison with the estimated £41,000,000 for the 12 months

1061
ending next March, was £57,000,000; and the year before that £80,000,000. The House must realise that that £80,000,000 came at a time when under the Labour Government every effort was made to force expenditure upon the local authorities, so that if there is a reduction in the amount which they have applied for, it is simply the cessation of that artificial effort on the part of the central Government to stimulate the expenditure of local authorities. It may be said that it is true that of the applications we have received, we have refused a negligible amount, but what about the applications we have not received?
It may be said that, owing to the belief in this blockade against public works, the local authorities did not send in applications. Let me at once remove all misapprehensions on that score. I do not believe that the local authorities are under that misapprehension, but, if there be such a misapprehension, let me remove it. The Government policy in this matter is still controlled by the circular issued in September, 1931. Let me remind the House of its terms in order to show the absence of any blockade. In the first place, the circular recommended to local authorities that they should not embark upon any wholesale or ill-considered course of cutting down expenditure whatever be its character; such a policy would seem neither necessary nor desirable. That is a general caution against indiscriminate and harmful cutting down. Then the circular, which is still the governing document in this matter, recommends a general survey on the part of local authorities of their expenditure and directs attention to the question whether a service is or is not likely to be remunerative. Secondly, whether it is required on urgent grounds of public health or similar grounds of public urgency. The Minister of Health would naturally be expected to put the grounds of public health in the foreground of matters to be considered by local authorities in deciding what expenditure is essential. Lastly, the Circular refers to the necessity of considering whether expenditure is justifiable on the grounds of the contribution which it makes to the provision of employment for local workmen. That is, as I understand it, precisely the kind of matter which hon.
1062
Members opposite would put in the forefront of the consideration of local authorities.
I believe that that Circular can allow-no grounds for misconception on the part of the local authorities as to the policy of the Government in promoting works of that sort. In the first place, it is that in regard to remunerative works which, will support themselves there is not now, and there was at no time, any bar at all on the part of Government policy. On the contrary, it is the policy of the Government to promote such works and to recommend them to the attention of local authorities. If there be any possibility of misunderstanding on the part of the local authorities such as would lead them to hold back works which might otherwise be brought forward, it may arise from misconception of the word "urgency." It is not the intention that loans should be sanctioned in the case only of works which must be undertaken immediately. If public services are to be maintained at a proper standard, works of this kind are obviously necessary, but there is much work outside that category which can properly be regarded as urgent also. Urgency is intended to imply that a good case can be shown for proceeding with the work at once either on the ground that to do it now would, in the long run, be more economical, or that the execution of the work will meet a real and a present need. Each case must, of course, be considered on its merits and in the light of that description of the word "urgency."
I would like to give two examples to illustrate the policy in the application of the word "urgency." Among urgent public health requirements should certainly be classed maternity and child welfare services, which cover the questions of maternal mortality and morbidity. Further, there is the provision of general hospital accommodation where that is necessary, and institutional provision for the needs of the mentally deranged where a shortage of accommodation is in sight. Another example of the proper application of the word "urgency" in the case of the authorisation of loans is found in the interests of the numerous seaside towns and other popular resorts which have a town's business to conduct as resorts. In considering their needs attention must always be paid to the business

1063
of the town, and the necessity of maintaining its business as a popular resort, and the indirect effect on that of public services and works which tend to promote the town's welfare and prosperity.
To summarise this matter, I believe that in the interpretation of the actual phrases of the circular and the manner in which they are to be applied, and are applied, by the Ministry of Health, it will be found that they impose no bar on all those useful and remunerative works which have been advocated by various people.
Let me turn to the other side of the picture, the position of the local authorities at the present time. I ask the House to realise their anxieties and their difficulties. Just as we are struggling, in bad times, with a difficult financial position, so the local authorities have their difficulties and anxieties, and attention must be paid to them when consideration is being given to the degree of expenditure which they can confront. When the great crisis came two years ago we stopped in caution and regarded all aspects of national solvency and national credit, and in the same way local authorities stopped and regarded the situation from the point of view of their own budgets and reviewed the expenditure which would add to the accumulated burdens upon the assets of the rates, and they were prudent in doing so. Let me remind the House of a very striking caution expressed about that period by the Estimates Committee of the House, which had had under review the accumulation of debt by local authorities. Their words of caution could not be disregarded either by this House or the local authorities. In their report for 1931 they called attention to the fact that the total outstanding loan debt of local authorities in the United Kingdom amounted to £1,300,000,000, and they noted that in the years immediately preceding the financial crisis borrowing by local authorities had been taking place at the average rate of more than £100,000,000 a year. The Committee stated that some remedy must be found for that unsatisfactory state of affairs, and suggested measures to ensure that a local authority did not incur liabilities in excess of its capacity to meet the consequential charges and to ensure that the aggregate of all local authority borrowing during any period
1064
did not overstrain the lending capacity of the country. I only mention that to remind the House that local authorities before undertaking fresh expenditure with borrowed money have anxious matters to take into consideration, and there is an anxious responsibility also upon the Ministry of Health to go into those cares with them.
There is another matter to consider on the other side when we are contemplating what expenditure can be prudently undertaken by local authorities. The trading undertakings of local authorities are subject to the same depressed outlook as other undertakings. A return on the capital invested in municipal electricity and gas enterprises is as doubtful as if it were invested in private enterprise undertakings. A local authority may not be able to see their way to getting a remunerative return on their money when there is so little demand for those services in the present general depression in trade and industry. Therefore, there must be anxious consideration before they bring forward gas and electricity undertakings, because enterprises which may be lightly judged to be remunerative may not, on a careful examination, turn out to be so remunerative under present conditions. Another aspect of affairs to be considered by local authorities concerns the question of the future of our population. Estimates may have been made in connection with capital expenditure which provide for a certain increase in the population, but statisticians now warn us that that increase may not be realised. That is another influence making for caution on the part of local authorities.
Lastly, the House will reflect that local authorities are representative bodies, that they are bound to represent the public opinion of their constituents, just as we represent the public opinion of ours. Local authorities realise that they are bound to reflect any strong opinion among their constituents against anything in the form of needless or luxury expenditure. The House will realise, therefore, the necessity of looking at the other side of the picture when considering what can be done for the promotion of useful outlay by local authorities. We must hold the scales equally. The Minister of Health in particular has a high responsibility to hold the scales equally. In the first place, he must be practically and

1065
deeply concerned for the maintenance and the proper development of essential services which are of the first importance to the nation—the great health services. At such a time as this he must be deeply concerned to join with all others responsible in the common task of promoting useful work in order to assist in reducing unemployment. That is, perhaps, the first and most important aspect of his duties, and a responsibility of this House; but there is another aspect of them, and that is to act as a watch-dog, to ensure prudent economy on the part of a local authority, and to remember the benefits and the stimulus to be derived by the community as a whole from a reduction of the burden of rates as well as the burden of taxes. Of late, owing to a policy of economy on the part of local authorities, there has been some alleviation of the burden of the rates. There has been some actual reduction of rates. The number of local authorities levying rates higher than 15s. in the £ has fallen, and a number of authorities levying rates under 10s. has risen; and, more important than the actual reduction, there has been a cessation of that constant increase of the rate burden which has been the subject of incessant complaints from trade and industry in the last 30 years.
When we are looking in this direction for further work, useful work though it may be for assistance in our national difficulty, we must remember that we cannot eat our cake and have it, that we cannot promote expenditure and at the same time expect not to see an increase of the burden of rates. The wise policy consists in a proper co-ordination of the two interests. That can be found in this direction: first, the promotion of all work which is of a remunerative nature —and that there is any bar against such work is a complete misconception—and, secondly, the promotion, with the assistance of the organisation of the Ministry of Health, of all normal development on the part of local authorities to the fullest extent compatible with the present financial condition. The third essential foundation stone of a wise policy in this matter is the steadfast maintenance of a reasoned and systematic economy in the sense of the prevention of wasteful expenditure and the avoidance of mere relief work of a sort which is contrary to the general policy of the Government.
1066
I trust that the House will remember how necessary it is to support the local authorities in maintaining those same standards of reasoned economy and the avoidance of waste on expenditure as we desire to see in the nation's central budget.
Those are the aspects of the relations with local authorities which are specially raised by to-day's Motion. "With regard to the general principles, there should be a sharp and clear choice between the long-range policy of the Government, the policy of the re-creation of productive industry in its manifold forms through the normal courses which alone can permanently maintain it, and, on the other hand, the policy of artificial aid to tide us over, again to tide us over and ever to tide us over, and all the time the tiding-over process is exhausting those resources which ought to be employed for the permanent re-creation of our productive system. When I came down to the House this afternoon, I saw an old broken-down horse towing along a magnificent motor-car. I said to myself "What a type of Socialist policy, in regard to our productive system." While our productive system is being towed along by subsidies, doles and relief works, it is not worth while to devote energy, time and money to speeding up the horse. What you need to do is to get the motorcar back to work.
6.2 p.m.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The House is to be congratulated on the fact that two days are to be devoted—or at least a day and a half—to the examination of the gravest economic and social problem of our time. To-day is the day for private Members, and therefore I thought that it was an appropriate time for me to intervene. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has devoted the greater part of his speech to a careful and detailed analysis of the attitude of his Department towards the expenditure of local authorities. I shall have a word to say about that later on. The first part of what was in many respects a most interesting speech was the survey which he gave us of the position, and also of the general attitude of the Government towards it. There can be no doubt about the gravity of the position. There can be no doubt about its growing gravity. Since the last Debate

1067
that we had on unemployment, initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) it has got worse. The condition is viewed in some exalted quarters with great complacency. The general public are afflicted with a sort of stupor. They do not know what to think.
We have heard from the right hon. Gentleman to-night that there were encouraging signs. I have heard that certainly for some time. What I have noticed is this: that every prediction of that kind is followed by a steady deterioration in the conditions. Take every test. Take the numbers of the unemployed. I have heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I think it was in the Debate on my right hon. Friend's Motion —say in this House—I think it was in November or December—that in a few weeks he expected to see, in regard to the numbers of the unemployed, that there would be a change in the contrary direction. The change has been in an adverse direction. The numbers have gone up. The numbers, since the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health came into office, have gone up by hundreds of thousands, and not far from' half-a-million. If you take into account the elements of change in the methods of registration, and if you take the addition not merely of the registered unemployed but of the number of paupers, you are not far off half-a-million. I would not call that an encouraging sign.
There is an aspect which is hardly ever introduced into a discussion of this subject, but which must be present to the mind of every hon. Member who examines his correspondence. I can appeal to their experience as to the number of black-coated unemployed who are not on the register and who are in sheer, dire distress. The Postmaster-General every day carries in his mail-bags some of the most poignant appeals for help from people of that character. They are on the increase, I notice. I have talked to business men who are in great concerns, and they have told me that they have made a very great effort to keep their staffs together when there was no real need for their services, and it is very much to their credit that they should do so, but you cannot carry a burden of that kind, when things are bad, beyond a certain point. Now, here and
1068
there, you can hear accounts of the way in which those staffs are dropped in batches into the abyss of worklessness, without any national scheme for keeping them and their children from utter and abject penury.
There is far more of that kind of distress in this country than we care to recognise. The hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate referred I think to the transport figures. They are not a bad test. I have called attention to them repeatedly. On the whole, they are not a bad thermometer of the state and condition of trade. You must make an allowance for increasing motor traffic, but that has not been very considerable the last year or two. On the whole, I think that the figures have gone down. In 1930 as compared with 1929 there was a decrease, and a substantial decrease, in the goods and merchandise carried on the railways. In 1931, compared with 1930, there was a still further decrease. In 1932, compared with 1931, there was still a startling decrease. I ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to look at that corner in the "Economist" and "Statist" each week and find out what is happening now. There is not a week in this year where, in comparison with January and February last year, there is not a substantial drop. At the present rate, there will be a drop which will be represented by something like £8,000,000 or £9,000,000 of traffic.
I cannot see—I wish I could—these encouraging signs, that make the right hon. Gentleman feel that you need not hurry, and can take the long policy. It has gone on during 1929, 1930, 1931 and 1932; it is still going on. Will he mind telling me how long? I have asked a great many people who know all about it, and they say that here and there you get a flutter, but that beyond that they cannot see any real improvement. One very reliable City paper the other day said about the railway traffic returns that "they were too bad to be true." Let us just look at them. I wish that the Government would tell us what are their plans to meet that situation. I have asked repeatedly and quite candidly I cannot see that they have taken a comprehensive view of the whole situation and that they are prepared for some bold, and—to use the phrase of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health—

1069
courageous scheme for grappling with it. I know that they say that you must do this gradually. I remember very well in the middle of the War, when we were not doing too well and when I had some sort of feeling about the rather sporadic way in which it was being conducted, that I ventured to ask a very distinguished general: "Would you mind telling me what is your idea as to how this terrible war is to be brought to a successful end?" He looked at me as though he thought it was just the sort of question that a civilian would ask, and he was rather startled with it. He said: "We must keep pegging away." So far as I can see, the Government's policy is a policy which is described by them as a step by step, and a long policy. Do this little thing, then the next and then the next.. That is the long policy. What does it mean? May I just summarise it?
Their first step was the pegging of the Gold Standard, the pegging of the sovereign up to an artificial value. That was the first step that they undertook. It was very costly. I do not know if anybody has the actual figures, but it certainly cost us £50,000,000. When they failed and the sovereign went, this country was all unstable. It would have been far better to have let it go. It gave an advantage to our trade. Now we have put aside £150,000,000 in order to see that it does not go too high. That was the first step. There was a gentleman the other day speaking in Manchester, the President of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, and he said how he hailed the joyous mom when we went off the Gold Standard. £50,000,000 to prevent the dawn ! That was the first step, spending £50,000,000 in order to keep the sovereign at its artificial value. It was thrown away. The first step taken by the Government was a goose-step. Then comes the balancing of the Budget; that is the next step. It is alluded to as a great triumph, I observe, in one or two of the official organs that give the Government uncritical support. The "Daily Mail" and the "Times" walk arm in arm. The other day they were pleading for unbalancing the Budget. They said that what was wanted was lower taxation with a deficit. That is their particular view of the second step, but it does not commend it-
1070
self to all the supporters of the Government.
Then there are the methods that are known as economy—the methods which have been defended so ingeniously and persistently, and in such detail, by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, in his own Department—the cutting down of grants for research, afforestation, drainage, land settlement, housing. These methods are adopted, and they are producing a revolt at the present moment, which has been reflected in a very tentative way by the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Motion, though he was not very bold about it. So far as I could follow his speech, he clearly wanted expansion—he wanted money spent on housing, and so on. And the revolt against that policy is not coming merely from hon. and right hon. 'Gentlemen on these benches; it is coming from Conservatives, it is coming from some bankers, and from some business men. For instance, a very remarkable speech was delivered by Mr. Rupert Beckett the other day. I always read his speeches with great interest, because he has far less jargon and shows more virile sense in his annual addresses than all the other bankers put together. He criticised this policy, and appealed to the Government to be a little more enterprising, to utilise more fully the enormous reserves that are lying idle in the banks at the present moment. That step, they are beginning to discover, was wrong. The next was that the adverse trade balance must be reduced, and the way to do it was to reduce imports. Then it was curiously discovered, apparently for the first time by some right hon. Gentlemen here, that if you reduce imports you also reduce exports; and you reduce re-exports and you reduce invisible exports; so you are no better off—as a matter of fact you are worse off. Unfortunately, invisible balances can be adjusted when the accounts are presented. That is what has been done so far.
Then it was said that international debts must be settled. Yes; we said so in 1922–11 years ago—but we did not get very much support then. Now we are told that they are standing in the way of the trade of the world. We have tried to settle international debts without the

1071
one big creditor who mattered, and we came to an agreement which was hailed with enthusiasm; but there were conditions, conjectural, subjunctive, full of "ifs." The agreement was a good one if all the Parliaments concerned ratified it —not one of them has ratified it yet; if France, Italy, Great Britain and Belgium could come to an agreement with the United States of America—not one has come to any agreement, or started to come to an agreement; if France and Italy could come to an agreement with us —it has not even been discussed; if Germany paid £150,000,000 in reparations— does anyone believe it? It is a steeplechase with a great succession of "ifs," and we have not even cleared the first obstacle. It will be found that the United States of America has her "ifs" —if you buy more of her goods; if you disarm to suit her; if you reduce tariffs against her; if you go back to the gold standard. Now it has all to be gone over again.
The question of international debts has to be settled—I thought it was settled already at Lausanne. The Chancellor of the Exchequer thought it had been settled. Honestly, it was a great surprise to him to get a demand for £24,000,000 from the United States of America—a really genuine, honest surprise. It was such a surprise to him that he had not even taken the precaution of giving notice that he was going to ask for an extension of the moratorium. Now it has all to be gone over again; and it is interesting to note that the "Times" to-day says that you must send someone to America, not to transact the business, but to have a friendly talk around the subject with Mr. Roosevelt. He must not come to grips with the subject; he must settle nothing; he must decide nothing; and the "Times" says that the one man who is obviously fitted to do that is the Prime Minister. The "Morning Post," on the other hand, says: "You must not send the Prime Minister; we cannot spare him—our Socialist Prime Minister. We must keep him here for emergencies." There was an. idea of sending two guardian angels with him, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade. Where the matter stands at the present moment I do not know; we may hear either to-
1072
day or to-morrow how it is situated. It is interesting from the personal point of view as well as the broader aspects of the situation. But one thing is clear: you have not settled international debts; you have not even begun to settle them. The policy is: Take the long view— every step in the wrong direction, but take your time and you will get there.
The next step is to be an international conference. I wonder whether one dare ask in this House what line we are going to take there? I am told by the Ministerial spokesmen and by the Ministerial Press that it is to be on the model of Lausanne. Heaven defend it! Nothing decided except subject to conditions, if certain events happen and so on. "We are forced to settle these things; what you want is a provisional agreement that will look like a settlement." Or is it, perhaps, to be modelled on the Disarmament Conference, which has gone on for five, six, seven or eight years? Can anyone in this House tell me what is going to be settled, what it is proposed to settle 1 What is important is whether the Government have any clear idea as to what they are going to propose to that Conference. I am not going to say that, if they have, they should tell us in the House the limits of the concessions which they are prepared to make, because I can well understand' that they would say that that would embarrass them in bargaining. Therefore, I do not press it. But I would like to know whether they really have a clear plan—clear ideas; whether they have been thinking it out. Or is there one section of the Cabinet who are proposing one thing, and another section of the Cabinet who are going in exactly the opposite direction?
I will say at once what I mean. What are the issues that are to be settled there? There are the debts—a very important issue. The United States of America have made quite clear what they mean. They mean to exact a very substantial payment from us. They are prepared to offer a reduction, as far as I can see, but on definite conditions—with regard to tariffs, with regard to restrictions, with regard to allowing their goods to come here, with regard to disarmament. What is the other great issue, and, perhaps, the most important? Here I rather agree with President

1073
Hoover that perhaps, on the whole, the debts part may very well be exaggerated, that there are far more important issues. I think that that is true. What are they? The tariff barriers and restrictions that are, to use the phrase, I think, of a very expert economist, squeezing the life out of international trade. What is our policy there? Then there is currency— what is. our policy about that? Are we going back to the gold standard? It is an obvious advantage to us not to go back to the gold standard; it is an obvious disadvantage to France and Germany and the United States of America that they should be fastened on to gold.
Then there is the point raised by my right hon. Friend about the hours of labour, a matter which, in my judgment. you cannot settle except on an international basis; it is quite impossible. I should like to ask the Government with regard to tariffs, have we really decided upon what we are going to propose at the Conference? If so, have we consulted the Dominions? They have, obviously, a say in the matter. All nations are going to this International Conference to secure conditions which will improve their international trade. America wants restrictions against her goods reduced. So do we. So do the Germans. They all want to improve their exports, and nobody seems to realise that you cannot increase the exports of every country without increasing the imports. Can we ask America to reduce her tariffs against us unless we are prepared to lower our tariffs against her goods? Are the Government prepared to go there definitely with a policy which will increase the imports of manufactured goods from the United States of America to this country? I will ask them another question. Are they prepared to go there to propose the removal of the restrictions and the reduction of the tariffs which keep the raw material and the food supplies of America from our markets? If not, for what purpose are we going there? Unless we are prepared to do it does anyone imagine that we can come to terms there? The trouble of this International Conference is that everybody is going there to demand concessions and nobody is going there to make them. I ask the right hon. Gentleman this question. We have been bound by an arrangement at
1074
Ottawa in such a way that I very much doubt whether what is known as the bargaining weapon of tariffs can effectively be used. It is. no use having a sword if your sword arm is tied. That is what is happening, and it is one reason why I am not very sanguine as to what may happen at the International Conference.
Two years and a-half have passed since this terrible world slump. The nations have never yet met to examine the causes and to consider how they can be removed. They have been too busy carrying measures to increase the difficulties to have had time to spare to find a way to get them removed. You are going to meet this summer. The Prime Minister thought they were going to meet in November, and, as he was chairman, we all thought that he knew. The preliminary speeches were to be over by Christmas, and then we were to have a business meeting. When will they meet? In the summer? How long have we to wait? It is a gigantic task, and if at the end of it you come back, and all nations come back, from that fateful Conference, towards which everybody is looking, with nothing accomplished except a provisional agreement which does not materialise in any way, what will be the condition then? You may have something before the summer or before that Conference is over so catastrophic—I will not say here; it may be in America; it-may be in Germany; it may be elsewhere —that the nations will be frightened. And sanity is not an attribute of panic. You are now considering the Conference. You may have a complete success. Do you anticipate it? You may have a partial success. You may have a substantial failure, They are all possibilities. I would not like to say which of them is the probability. But none of them is unlikely except the first—a complete success. I ask the Government in all solemnity, Have they thought out what they will do in that case? What next? Long policy? Wait and see? You can go to that Conference on two assumptions, but it must be one or the other.
You are a tariff Government. You believe in it. You have made it. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Conservative party said, "Give it a trial." You can go there and say, "We stand by that policy, and we are going to wait and find out how it works." That

1075
is one thing. The other is that you can say, "Tariffs are shattering the trade of the world. You cannot conduct business with all these barriers on the road. You must remove them, and we are prepared to set the example by doing so." I am putting these as the alternatives. I will draw my conclusion in a moment. I say that you are a tariff party. I see your difficulties with regard to the second. It is this to which I am coming. If you say, "We are going to stand by the tariff policy, stand by Ottawa, stand by tariffs which will keep the manufactured goods of the United States of America, France, Germany and Italy from this country; we are not going to have any reduction in these tariffs at the International Conference which will increase the imports of those goods," you ought to prepare the next step. I am putting that alternative. I am not arguing the proposition of tariffs, because I know that it would be futile with such an overwhelming majority. What next? You ought to be prepared for it. What is it? What is your proposal to face it? You will have 3,000,000 unemployed. Are you quite sure that you will have only 3,000,000? You are boasting that you are better off than other countries. Do not boast prematurely. The figures for January are not among the encouraging signs to which the right hon. Gentleman was alluding, probably. You will, therefore, be thrown upon your own resources in this country. You may be in a state of siege. You must remember that if we are better off in some respects than some countries, we are worse off in other respects. We have had chronic unemployment for over 12 years when other countries had not enough labour.
We are more dependent for our food supplies upon overseas trade than any other country in the world, and we have to pay for them in exports, re-exports or invisible exports. There is no country in such a position in that respect, and if you are prepared, if that is your policy, work it out courageously. The right hon. Gentleman gave us a definition of courage, and there is no man in this House who has a better right to give a definition of courage than the right hon. Gentleman. He may be confronted before this year is out with a tremendous decision if the Conference
1076
fails. What are you going to do to develop your resources here? Have you any idea? You have £2,000,000,000 lying idle in the banks. The banks say that we cannot use it, and the shrewdest of them say that this is the time to use it. This is the answer. We get the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I do ask the Government to consider a little more carefully what the Prime Minister said the other day, that even if this thing were a success, you would have a long period of unemployment. It is quite right. I think he gave the figure of 2,000,000 as being the possible number of unemployed. That is, if it is a success. What are you spending now on unemployment? £130,000,000 a year. At the present rate, if the claim of the Prime Minister is going to be made good that you have arrested the growth, before this Parliament is out, you will have spent over £600,000,000, and have nothing to show for it. The right hon. Gentleman says: "What is the good of spending all this money on relief work? The Labour Government spent £200,000,000. They did nothing." I can tell the story why. They committed themselves to great schemes. They did not spend one-sixth of that amount. What is the good of talking of their spending £200,000,000?
I remember in the last Parliament asking the Prime Minister a question when he came in with a long string of things which they were going to do, and he gave a tremendous figure. I said to him, "Would you mind answering me two questions. The first is, how much is that expenditure above the normal, and the second is, over how many years is it to be spread?" The Prime Minister said: "That is the sort of spiteful and mischievous question that he would put." He said, in effect: "I refer him to my subordinates." There were great commitments, but there was no expenditure. I look at the speech delivered by the Prime Minister in June, 1931, before he came into a state of grace. He said then that the peak of our figures is 114,000 men. Does anyone imagine that the Labour Government spent £200,000,000 on relief works? That would mean 800,000 men at work. It is no use saying that we have had experience of these things. Your plans were not brought into fruition. You did not start them in time. When you had a big scheme of land settlement, you scrapped it.

1077
You really must face the problem of the possibility of the failure of your International Conference. You must have some plans to deal with the unemployed. You cannot keep 3,000,000 sturdy strong men in idleness year by year. I am opposed to relief work. What is relief work? Relief work is made work, work with no purpose, work with no profit. You ought to anticipate the work that ought to be done, that must be done and, sooner or later, will be done if this country is to become healthy, efficient and prosperous. Do not invent work. Find the work that, sooner or later, you must do, and then utilise the reserves of this country for the purpose of carrying it out, now. Why do I say that? Because at the present moment you have plenty of labour, you have plenty of cash, which is lying idle and which you can borrow cheaply. You have got, in addition to that, a thing which is of vital moment to-day, raw material, which is cheaper than it has been since the War, and some of it cheaper than it was before the War. When we built houses and settled some of the ex-service men on the land, it cost us more than twice, and sometimes three times as much as it would cost today. Your houses cost now 45 per cent. less than they did between 1919 and 1922.
What is the work that must be done? Does anyone doubt that you have to clear all the slums sooner or later? Then why not do it now? Surely, the right hon. Gentleman does not think that his scheme is going to clear all these slums. You cannot do it. The very simile that he used in his speech is appropriate. He has been feeding up an old crock of a horse, to put it in front of a great scheme to clear the slums. It must have petrol in it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I mean, petrol in the motor car. You cannot clear your slums unless you are prepared to put cash into the work. What about the telephones? We are about the seventh or the eighth on the list. We ought to be the second, if not the first. Let the Postmaster-General undertake that task. There is nobody who could make a better job of it than he could, but he cannot do it unless you give him some of the profits of his own Department for that purpose.
1078
The railways want electrification, they want great improvement in their wagons, they want improvement in their sidings. They have been starved for lack of capital for a great many years. What about the roads? The Road Fund exists for the purpose of dealing with the roads. Then there is land reclamation, reconditioning, drainage, afforestation, rural housing, land settlement and allotments. This is the time to do these things. Every other country in the world is doing them at this moment. Take the great scheme of the President of the American Republic, the Mississippi Valley scheme. Even in a country where there is 30 to 40 per cent. of the population on the land they are promoting a scheme which, he says, will find settlement for 800,000 people in the Mississippi Valley. It is a bold, strong scheme, but in this country, where we have more uncultivated and under-cultivated land than any other civilised country in the world, we have actually withdrawn grants that we were making for allotments, and we offer a £10,000 subscription. It is a mockery.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the local authorities are burdened with debt. Yes, but it is not quite fair to refer to the £1,300,000,000 of their debt without saying that most of it represents assets—houses, gas and electricity undertakings, trams, in some cases omnibuses, waterworks, schools. There are enormous assets against that indebtedness. The £1,300,000,000 of local debt is about one-fifth of the burden that the War has left upon our shoulders. I am going to make this suggestion for the consideration of the Government. If they come to the conclusion that they are not going to undertake the task as a national undertaking—which is the right way to do it, because they have the credit and they could organise it as a great plan—why do not they allow some of the local authorities to make an experiment? I will tell them how they could do it. They could say to a local authority: "If you have any scheme of drainage, or reclamation, or housing, or whatnot, for your area, for every unemployed man who is put on we will pass the dole on to you towards his wages.". They could do more than that. Every man that you put on for a direct job represents another man who is employed behind him. The Government could give double the dole

1079
in respect of every man put on, and they would be actually saving on the £130,000,000 which they are spending to-day.
If they allowed a few of the local authorities to submit schemes to them and gave them encouragement, I believe it would succeed. Further encouragement would have to be given. The local authorities would have to borrow for the purchase of materials and to meet whatever cost there was over and above the grant from the Unemployment Insurance Fund. The Government should enable them to borrow the money at the price which the Government are paying. What would happen? This is not relief work. If you put a scheme of that kind in hand you would take throughout the whole of England hundreds of thousands of people off the dole, and turn them on to something which would be useful, profitable and valuable. You could judge each scheme as it came before you. No wildcat scheme would go through. The schemes would have to be submitted to the Government of the day for examination, and at the end what would happen? You would have lands which are now absolutely waste, cultivated, you would have houses built and productive work done, you would have land which was under-cultivated growing crops. You have your agricultural policy to secure prices. Here is the opportunity for building upon that plan a great reconstructive policy for reviving and regenerating the rural life of Britain. Instead of having 7 per cent, of your population on the land, a condition of things which is not comparable with the condition of things in any other country, you would be gradually putting people on to the land and you would be employing more and more people.
This is a time of opportunity and not of disaster. This is a chance and not a moment of fear and of panic. Seize it. Seize it like men. Take your chance. This is an opportunity that you may never get again. The country is calm and quiet; it is a marvel to everybody that it is so, whether it is stupefication, whether it is despair or whether it is hope. This is the time for well-considered, thoughtful schemes, worked out with all the machinery that the Government have at their disposal. It is the best opportunity you have. Pray God, it may not be lost.
6.59 p.m.
Mr. MACMILLAN: The right hon. Gentleman holds so high a place in the esteem of the House that he is a law unto himself. But I think he will forgive me for saying that a great part of his speech, vastly interesting as it has been to the House, has ranged over a very wide field not wholly germane to the Motion with which we began this afternoon's discussion. The right hon. Gentleman cannot, at any rate, be accused of being too late. In fact, he is a day too early, because the greater part of his speech would have been very much more appropriate to the Motion that will come on to-morrow. Therefore, I hope he will not think it disrespectful on my part if I confine my remarks to the comparatively reduced scope of the actual terms of the Motion which we are debating, instead of ranging over the whole field of international affairs.
The Mover of the Motion observed that he hoped the Government would show a "bullish" spirit. We have had only one statement from the Government, and I do not think anyone could make the accusation that the speech of the Minister of Health was the speech of a bull. It had a distinctly "bearish" tendency. He gave us a very detailed account of the attitude of the Government, and there were certain passages in it which may cause some alarm to many who hoped that the Government would take a much more courageous and expansive view than they have taken. I cannot help thinking that the Minister of Health, although he has discarded Liberalism, has not yet discarded laissez faire. He is a kind of natural deflationist. I hope that the effect of the great change of opinion which is, clearly, sweeping over the country will not be lost upon his Department, as upon the rest of the Government.
We did, however, get from the Minister a statement of the present meaning of the famous circular of September, 1931, which was very hopeful. It is a well-known fact that a work of art, a piece of music, or any created effort of that kind, depends for its effect on its interpretation. The Minister to-day gave us a fresh interpretation of the circular which was certainly more hopeful than its original form. We were told that there was no intention of preventing the local authorities from undertaking works if they would be re-

1081
munerative, and the word "urgent." was held not to rule out a large number of works which might have been held by the local authorities to be ruled out under the terms of the circular. We are grateful for this rather wider interpretation than it has ordinarily received from the local authorities. At the same time, the figures he gave as to the proportion of applications for loans for capital expenditure which had been refused did not seem very convincing. The whole point is not what proportion of the loans was refused, but what was the total of the loan application as compared with previous years. There we have to face the fact that, in comparison with the total applications for £32,500,000, we had two years ago applications for £80,000,000 of capital expenditure from the local authorities.
While I would venture to differ from. the views put forward by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last, I think there is a very strong case for a new attitude in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman gave us an account of the history of the last two years—1931 "and all that." The right hon. Gentleman's great difficulty about the history of these years is that the right hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Government. It is one of the most terrible tragedies of the crisis that, at the moment, the right hon. Gentleman was, unfortunately, prevented by physical considerations—deplored by the whole nation—from taking his part in the national effort required at that time. When what is generally admitted to be the weakest and most ineffective Government of modern times broke down it was the great misfortune of the country that the right hon. Gentleman was hors de combat. But he was understood to give support through the deputy-leader of his party to all the acts of the National Government during the first three months. At any rate, he never protested against these acts, until he protested against the act of the National Government in seeking a dissolution.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member is inaccurate.
Mr. MACMILLAN: I regret if I have misrepresented the right hon. Gentleman. But certainly the then Home Secretary was believed to represent the views of the Liberal party, and took part in all the acts of the first National
1082
Government. Up to that point it seemed to me that the Liberal party, from which the right hon. Gentleman had not completely disassociated himself, was equally responsible. The defence for a change of policy now is the very success of the Government's policy during the last year. I am not attacking them; I am supporting them. One of the reasons why I am asking the Government to take a more hopeful and courageous view is that they are now in a position to do it. This country was not, by the circumstances of the time, in a position to do it under the Government which held office in 1931. There is now a balanced Budget and there is a re-establishment of the strength of British finance in the eyes of the world. At that time there was a possibility of a flight from the pound. There is more likelihood to-day of a flight from the franc or the dollar. The whole technical situation in the banking world is different from what it was in 1931. We have the great advantage of no longer being tied to the policy we had followed since 1925—of trying to maintain at all costs a stable rate of exchange, even at the cost of letting the internal price level go.
Since we left the Gold Standard we need no longer fear its dangers, the capital expenditure and expansion in this country which operated when we were on the Gold Standard. We have by conversion of debt cleared the way, and we are now in a position to do things we could not do then. Lastly, and most important of all, by the policy of balancing imports and exports, the policy of Protection, we have provided a situation by which it is now possible to make an attempt to raise the internal price level without the certainty that the greater part of the freshly created money will go in fresh imports. The trouble of the late Government was not that they did not spend public money. Their trouble was that they were in the position of trying to fill a bath with hot water without having put the plug in the bottom of the bath. As long as you had the Gold Standard, and tried to balance exchanges rather than the price level, and failed to achieve some relation between imports and exports—as long as you had the old laissez faire, free market policy, and no planned economy, it was no good pouring out money, because you could not

1083
avoid the fact that, if you created £50,000,000, £200,000,000 or £300,000,000 of credit, you would not necessarily raise the internal price level. All you did was to dislocate further the lack of balance between exports and imports. We have changed that policy. There I am coming to agreement with the last sentence in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I think the free market policy and orthodox financial policy must go together, for the Gold Standard and a free market are bound together. But I have never understood the Labour party's fiscal policy. The Motion put down for to-morrow is a pure Free Trade Motion with a view to trying to catch the votes of some of the Members opposite.
Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: At the time did not the hon. Member approve of going on with the Gold Standard?
Mr. MACMILLAN: I am not talking of what I approved. I am not arguing that there is not a great deal to be said for it. It would be foolish to say there were no tremendous arguments in favour of free markets or othodox financial policy. But we must pursue a logical course. Having got a new system on which to work I ask, and with a feeling of great confidence, that the Government will proceed with a policy which is a logical sequence of the policy they have already put into effect. The official Opposition's attitude is to put down a Free Trade Motion when they want to attract a few Liberal votes to their Lobby, but in their agricultural policy of 1932 we have suggested a complete system of import boards and regulated imports, a system of protection even more complete than any upon which we have ever ventured to embark. The point of course is that, in the present circumstances, we have to raise the internal price level and to distribute more purchasing power, but not by employing men making consumption goods. Men employed in making consumption goods must produce somewhat more than they consume. There is a margin for profit and interest. If some wealthy millionaire were to spend money giving work to 100,000 people to produce consumption goods he would only add to unemployment. We want the production of capital goods, because the men employed on producing capital goods are, by receiving purchasing power, spending
1084
on consumption without adding to the total volume of consumption goods. The total of consumption must thus rise and a rise in prices is regarded as desirable in every quarter of the House.
As a result of the Government's policy we can more easily do that than ever before. The point was never more happily put than in Manchester two days ago where Sir Arthur Salter is reported to have stated that last year the bank deposits had increased by £246,000,000 and the bank advances by £130,000,000. He said that it was the demand for consumption and how to stimulate it that was important. There was one way which had been suggested by Mr. Rupert Beckett, and it was the only method by which we could act quickly and decisively. It represented in his view the most fruitful issue, and that was an immediate and profound modification of the policy of restricting public expenditure. That is public expenditure on capital account. That is what is desired. Public expenditure which, if possible, shall be remunerative and revenue producing. For if you spend £100,000,000 and get £3,500,000 revenue you are balancing your account, but remember, even if you get only £3,000,000 or £2,000,000 your budget is only disturbed by the difference between that amount and £3,500,000.
We want to get capital sums into circulation, and we must choose the best and most useful schemes. Obviously, housing comes first. It is not only revenue producing but health producing and life producing. We must choose that first. It must be the declared policy of the Government. We have put the plug in the bath, but we have turned off the hot water. We have been having cold baths for two years, let us now turn on the hot water. Do not let us plug the bath and forget to turn it on at all. I am certain that the justification for the policy of the Government is the success which attended it last year, and I beg the Government to pursue its logical sequence with strength and vigour, because every economic authority in the country is agreed upon it and the demand of the people is that strong measures should be taken by which consumption can be increased, prices rise, and large numbers of people be re-employed as they deserve to be.
7.18 p.m.
Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: No one on these benches would attempt to blame the Government, when it was first formed in the moment of crisis, for adopting an extremely Conservative policy with regard to expenditure on public works, as in other matters. There was a crisis, and it was necessary to act in order to avoid positive danger. As action had to be taken in a hurry it was necessarily indiscriminate and some things which were closed down were right and others, probably, wrong. Now, after a time of testing, there is an opportunity to review what has been done, and that is what the Government should do now. I hope they will listen to the eloquent plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Macmillan) who represents a district where the circumstances are very much like those in my own constituency.
It is the justifiable pride of the Government that they have restored financial credit to such a remarkable extent that in that matter, at any rate, we need not fear comparison with any other country. This has not been secured alone by statesmen or by municipalities. It has been secured by actual sacrifice by people who produce various kinds of things. They made the sacrifice willingly in the belief that it was for the good of the nation, but unless this credit is used for the general good of the country they will begin to think that they were deluded in the first case. Wise statesmanship should know not only when to use the brake but also when to use the accelerator. In the changed circumstances I think that a forward policy is demanded. That is why the epistle to Bethnal Green, as the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) described it, was extremely un-fortunate in its terms. It may not have meant what it said; communications from that quarter very often do not, but it has produced an effect. The denunciation of relief works in that letter is extremely misleading. No one on these benches, or on the benches opposite has ever demanded relief works, and certainly not the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). Relief works mean digging a hole and filling it up again. No one has suggested anything like that.
If I have to choose I prefer the language of the Amendment moved by
1086
the hon. Member for Spennymoor to that of the original Motion. The original Motion confines itself to works which are proved to be directly revenue producing, whereas the hon. Member for Spennymoor uses the word "useful." That is the better definition. If you restrict yourself to revenue producing works it means that you can start a swimming bath, if you charge an entrance fee, but that you will not be able to construct a sewer. You will be able to construct a new tunnel, if you charge a toll, but you will not be able to repair an old bridge. Distinctions of that kind cannot be defended. We should be able to do work which is for the good of the community, for the benefit of its health, and not necessarily to see cash as the result of the operation. That kind of work is part of the equipment of the nation, and should be undertaken. This is not the demand of a few irresponsible Liberals or Socialists, it is the demand of what the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) would call quite decent people. I have a letter from a most respectable source, which was communicated to the Government but receiving no satisfactory reply it was communicated to the Press. In the letter it is stated:
"There is not, in our opinion, adequate justification for a complete abandonment of the policy of financial co-operation between the Government and local authorities. With a full sense of responsibility, we assert that there are at present civil engineering and building projects (sewerage, houses, schools etc.) which could be put into operation if assistance is forthcoming."
That letter is signed by the Mayor of the county borough of Middlesbrough and the Mayors of Stockton-on-Tees, Hartlepool, Thornaby-on-Tees and Red-car. The first name, the Mayor of Middlesbrough, will be well known to many hon. Members because Mr. Wesley Brown sat in this House as Conservative Member for Middlesbrough East. For this year he has laid his politics aside, but from what I know of him his Conservative views will be unchanged when his year of office expires. It is people like that who are demanding from the Government a policy which is not that outlined by the Prime Minister in his letter to Bethnal Green. The Government will be making the greatest mistake if they do not realise that the policy of closing down adopted in an emergency may

1087
become a danger to the nation if it becomes a permanent feature of our national policy. If you are never going to spend you will never be able to build up. I remember the speeches made by the Prime Minister in 1928 when he was still under the Red Flag and had not come out under the Gold Standard. I remember how he urged us to come out with him into the fields of the country— it was picturesque, and he took no notice of boundaries—where he said he could show us how the nation could be developed. I wish he could remember something of the same kind now.
The need for development is as great now. I could take him to some back streets in Middlesbrough and show him people who have been waiting for a revival of trade, which he says is the thing for which we must all hope, during six successive Governments, three of which have been headed by himself. The most tragic thing I have read recently was the statement of Sir Arthur Salter, when he dealt with the remarkable way in which we had recovered from the War, how our losses were soon made up, and how by 1929 we had reached what he called the peak year of prosperity for the world and for this country. I thought of the condition of things which existed at that time in Middlesbrough, and in the coal mining districts and in Lancashire, and imagined that a full recovery of trade would still leave us only as we were then, a condition of things which broke the heart of my predecessor Mr. Trevelyan Thomson. We have to face facts on that basis. In 1928 there was a report from the Industrial Transference Board. They found that there were 200,000 people in the coal mining industry, 100,000 in iron and steel, and 100,000 in textiles, whom they regarded as a permanent surplus to the requirements of those industries. There, at the peak of our prosperity, were 400,000 men to be dealt with as a permanent surplus to the requirements of industry; and if that committee were to report now they would make the figure larger.
There must be some constructive suggestion, some plan, a five-years plan if you like, but a plan of some kind for bringing these people back into the service of the country. It is not impossible. Housing has been mentioned. That ques-
1088
tion need not cut across the plans of the Government. The plan put forward by Sir Tudor Walters, for rural housing, could be put into force without interfering with the plans of the Government. Take bridges, only a small matter, but in the opinion of the Traffic Commission 1,000 bridges need reconditioning every year. That is the kind of work to which the Government should lend their hand. It is work which would bring people back into their own trade. I want them to drive out that spirit which denies, that imp which seems to come from Whitehall with every red box the Minister brings to this House and which makes the most optimistic and courageous Minister the most discouraged and despairing Minister when on the Front Bench. They must show a spirit of courage and determination to make the best possible use of the genuine achievement they have to their credit, that of restoring the financial position of this nation. There is the opportunity; and I beg the Government to use it without any fear at all.
7.29 p.m.
Mr. G. NICHOLSON: Only one minute is left to me, and I desire to put to the Government one single question. They have heard many plans and suggestions from all quarters of the House. There is one point in common between them all. What the nation is demanding is some sign that the Government have a plan for the future.
Colonel BALDWIN-WEBB Colonel BALDWIN-WEBB 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.
Mr. NICHOLSON: The whole nation is demanding not that the Government should put a large scale plan in operation, but for some evidence that the Government have a plan; that they realise that in dealing with unemployment there is a residue of unemployment which will always remain, and that they have some plan for dealing with it.
Colonel BALDWIN-WEBB 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.
HON. MEMBERS: Go on with your speech.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 58.

Division No. 46.]

AYES.

[7.30 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Ganzoni, Sir John

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

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Glossop, C. W. H.

Palmer, Francis Noel

Alnsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

Patrick, Colin M.

Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)

Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

Peake, Captain Osbert

Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

Goff, Sir Park

Pearson, William G.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

Penny, Sir George

Apsley, Lord

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Percy, Lord Eustace

Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Perkins, Walter R. D.

Atholl, Duchess of

Grimston, R. V.

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

Atkinson, Cyril

Guinness, Thomas L. E, B.

Petherick, M.

Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Guy, J. C. Morrison

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

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Harbord, Arthur

Potter, John

Balniel, Lord

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

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

Pybus, Percy John

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

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

Beauchamp, sir Brograve Campbell

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

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

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

Hepworth, Joseph

Ramsbotham, Herwald

Belt, Sir Alfred L.

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Ray, Sir William

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Hopkinson, Austin

Remer, John R.

Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Renwick, Major Gustav A.

Blindell, James

Hornby, Frank

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

Boothby, Robert John Granam

Horsbrugh, Florence

Robinson, John Roland

Borodale, Viscount

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

Ropner, Colonel L.

Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

Bosbotham, Sir Samuel

Broadbent, Colonel John

Hume, Sir George Hopwood

Ross, Ronald D.

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

Hurd, Sir Percy

Rose Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

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

Runge, Norah Cecil

Browne, Captain A. C.

Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

Burnett, John George

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

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

Butt, Sir Alfred

Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

Salt, Edward W.

Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

Carver, Major William H.

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Savery, Samuel Servington

Castlereagh, Viscount

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

Levy, Thomas

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Llewellin, Major John J.

Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Shute, Colonel J, J.

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

Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)

Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

Charlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

Mabane, William

Slater, John

Christie, James Archibald

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

Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

Clarry, Reginald George

MacAndrew, Capt. J.O. (Ayr)

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

McConnell, Sir Joseph

Somervell, Donald Bradley

Cook, Thomas A.

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

Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

Cooke, Douglas

McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

Soper, Richard

Cooper, A. Dun"

McKie, John Hamilton

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

McLean, Major Sir Alan

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

Crooke, J. Smedley

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

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

Macmillan, Maurice Harold

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

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Magnay, Thomas

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

Crossley, A. C.

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

Stones, James

Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

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

Storey, Samuel

Culverwell, Cyril Tom

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Stourton, Hon. John J.

Dawson, Sir Philip

Martin, Thomas B.

Strauss, Edward A.

Denville, Alfred

Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Dickie, John P.

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

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

Donner, P. W.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Summersby, Charles H.

Doran, Edward

Mitcheson, G. G.

Sutcliffe, Harold

Drewe, Cedric

Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

Templeton, William P.

Duckworth, George A. V.

Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

Thorp, Linton Theodore

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

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

Titchfield, Major the Marques of

Eastwood, John Francis

Morrison, William Shepherd

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

Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

Moss, Captain H. J.

Train, John

Elmley, Viscount

Muirhead, Major A. J.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

Munro, Patrick

Turton, Robert Hugh

Emrys- Evans, P. V.

Nall, Sir Joseph

Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

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

Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

Normand, Wilfrid Guild

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G,

Everard, W. Lindsay

North, Captain Edward T.

Weymouth, Viscount

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Nunn, William

Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

Ford, Sir Patrick J.

O'Connor, Terence James

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin

O'Donovan, Dr. William James

Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

Fuller, Captain A. G.

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Wills, Wilfrid D.

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

Womersley, Walter James

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

Colonel Baldwin-Webb and Mr.

Wise, Alfred R.

Worthington, Dr. John V.

Brocklebank.

Withers, Sir John James

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

NOES.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

McKeag, William

Attlee, Clement Richard

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

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Banfield, John William

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw vale)

Groves, Thomas E.

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Buchanan, George

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

Maxton, James

Cape, Thomas

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Nathan, Major H. L.

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Harris, Sir Percy

Owen, Major Goronwy

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Holdsworth, Herbert

Parkinson, John Allen

Daggar, George

Jenkins, Sir William

Price, Gabriel

Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Rathbone, Eleanor

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

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

Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

Edwards, Charles

Kirkwood, David

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Thorne, William James

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

Lawson, John James

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

Leonard, William

White, Henry Graham

Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Carn'v'n)

Logan, David Gilbert

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

McEntee, Valentine L.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

McGovern, John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. Batey and Mr. Tinker.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
"That this House, while endorsing the action of His Majesty's Government in limiting expenditure on local authorities' schemes of a non-productive nature, urges His Majesty's Government to keep under constant and active review the means of reducing the number of unemployed by assisting local authorities to undertake essential works of a revenue-producing nature and by encouraging productive industry in general, whereby men and women can be employed in their own crafts."

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  HUMBER BRIDGE BILL (By Order).
  Order for Third Reading read.
  7.40 p.m.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): On the calling of this Bill, it is my duty to give a Ruling in regard to it. The case regarding this Bill is very unusual. The Ruling that I have now to give has been arrived at after very careful consideration of all the circumstances and all the interests concerned. The Bill was carried over not only from one Session to another, but from one Parliament to another, by special Standing Orders, dated 6th October, 1931, and 8th July, 1932. Under these Standing Orders, the Bill that was to be carried over was to be the same Bill in every respect. Now, in this new Parliament, the Bill is put down for Third Reading under the Standing Order. Technically speaking, the Bill itself is the same Bill. But
  1092
  when the Bill obtained a Second Reading in the previous Parliament and went through Committee and Report and Second Reading, and indeed Third Reading, it was on the understanding that 75 per cent, of the cost was to be defrayed by the Government. A year ago, and again recently, the Minister stated that it was not possible to make the 75 per cent, grant towards the cost of the Humber Bridge scheme. That being so, although the Bill itself is the same Bill, the conditions are so fundamentally altered that I could not allow the Question to be put in this House, "That the Bill be read the Third time"; I should have to rule that under the altered conditions the Bill would have to be re-committed. If that procedure were adopted, the Motion for the re-committal of the Bill would have to be moved as an Amendment to the Question, "That the Bill be read the Third time." But before that is done I must warn the House that if the Bill were re-committed and the Bill were altered in Committee so as to conform to the new conditions that have arisen, when the Bill is returned to the House on Report, I should have to rule that the Bill was not the same Bill which the previous House had sanctioned, and that it would have to be withdrawn.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: With reference to the Motion standing on the Order Paper in my name and the names of certain of my hon. Friends, do I understand that even in the event of the House being willing to re-commit the Bill and the Committee to

  1093
  which it is re-committed agreeing to pass the Amendments, you would even in those circumstances hold that the Bill could not have a Third Reading?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is the effect of the considered ruling I have given. If the Bill were re-committed and amended in accordance with the notices on the Order Paper, it would then have to be refused a Third Reading.
  Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: Is it then your ruling that nothing the promoters can possibly do would enable this Bill to have an opportunity for Third Reading?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is so.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: Without disputing your Ruling Sir Dennis, may I say that I am particularly concerned about this Bill, because I am connected with the steel trade and because of the amount of Labour which would be entailed in the building of this bridge and I desire to ask for that guidance which you are always so kind and courteous in giving to hon. Members. I understand that you rule out the Bill because the Minister of Transport has withdrawn the grant of 75 per cent, originally arranged. Assuming for a moment that the promoters of the Bill were able to prevail upon the Minister of Transport to make a grant of 1 per cent, instead of 75 per cent., in order that this work might be carried on, would that affect your Ruling? As you know, Sir Dennis, some 20,000 tons of steel were to be used in the construction of this bridge and the work would give employment to a large number in the steel industry and also in the coal industry. If the Minister agreed with the promoters to substitute a 1 per cent, grant for the original 75 per cent, grant would that alteration induce you to give a different Ruling?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No, I could not possibly do so. The whole basis of the Ruling which I have just given from the Chair is that a substantial part of the finances on which the Bill depends has been withdrawn.
  Sir BASIL PETO: In view of your Ruling, Sir Dennis, would I be in order, so as to avoid wasting the time of the House, in moving that the Bill be withdrawn?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet cannot move a Motion of that kind with regard to this Bill. Such a Motion must be moved officially, either by the Chairman or Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Captain Bourne): I beg to move, "That the Order be discharged and the Bill withdrawn."
  In view of the Ruling which has just been given from the Chair, it is obvious that to proceed further with this Bill would be a waste of the time of the House and of the money of the promoters.
  Mr. GRIFFITHS: I do not agree with that.
  Captain BOURNE: I may add that I have consulted with the promoters and that in the event of you, Sir, giving the Ruling which you have just given from the Chair, they were prepared to agree to this course.
  Order for Third Reading discharged, and Bill withdrawn.

TOTALISATORS.
7.50 p.m.
Captain NORTH: I beg to move,
"That this House approves the action of the Government in postponing any legislation which may be necessary for dealing with totalisators on greyound racing tracks until the final Report of the Royal Commission has been received, but urges the Government to give very careful consideration to the interests of all those who will be affected by their final decision, be they owners, employés, or frequenters of such tracks."
The primary object of this Motion is to give hon. Members an opportunity of having a free and frank discussion on the question of totalisators on greyhound racing tracks. There are some people, I know, who strongly disapprove of any form of gambling or betting whatever it may be, and the recent decision of the Courts with regard to totalisators on greyhound racing tracks will be regarded by those people as at least a step in the right direction. But I do not wish to enter to-night into an argument about the merits or demerits of betting as a whole and in passing may I say that so

1095
far as I and the constituency which I represent are concerned, neither of us have any interest whatever in greyhound racing. My sole reason for raising this question to-night is because I feel that the present position is both impossible and illogical and is one regarding which legislation ought to be introduced on the earliest possible occasion. Whether this House will agree or disagree with the proposals which I shall presently make those proposals at any rate will have this merit that they come from an unprejudiced and I hope an impartial mind.
Even at the risk of repeating facts already known to hon. Members it is necessary to give a short history of the circumstances which have brought about the present position. For many years it was believed that the Betting Act of 1853 made totalisators illegal. I think it is no exaggeration to say that this belief was shared by the public and by this House alike. When Parliament decided to legalise totalisators on horse-racing courses they considered it necessary to introduce special legislation for that purpose and the Racecourse Betting Act of 1928 was passed. There is little or no doubt in my mind that that Act was responsible in some degree for the legal proceedings which ensued. Before that Act had been long in force, the case of the Attorney-General v. The Luncheon and Sports Club was brought in the courts and it was held in that case that the totalisators were legal under the Act of 1853. Owing to that decision, or at any rate shortly after that decision, totalisators on greyhound racing tracks and in what are known as tote clubs first made their appearance. For some time that position continued. Then there was the case of Shuttleworth v. The Leeds Greyhound Association in which it was held that the totalisators were illegal. For a short time it was thought that totalisators might—I say "might" though I think there was not much doubt felt about it—be legal provided that they were operated on a non-profit basis. But in a recent decision the Cardiff stipendiary magistrate has ruled that that is not so.
That is the position as far as England and Wales are concerned. Any totalisator is illegal in this country other than
1096
those upon horse race-courses. The position in Scotland appears to be different. I do not think however that I can attempt to fathom the mind of the Scotsman and whether it is now legal or whether it will be illegal in a few weeks time in Scotland has not I think any particular bearing on the case with which we are dealing. I only make one comment on the legal position. If the learned judges and counsel whose business it is to interpret the law, at one moment hold that totalisators are legal, and the next moment that totalisators are illegal, it is difficult for the ordinary citizen to know what is right and what is wrong. Further, it is my opinion that legal decisions of that nature have not the effect of creating that respect for the law which it is essential to maintain in every well-ordered country.
I come now to the question of the greyhound racing tracks as they are. Before proceeding to discuss that subject I would like to say that although, in law, there may be no difference between the totalisator operating in a tote club and the totalisator operating on a greyhound racing track, in fact, the difference is considerable. I venture to express the hope that the Government will not fail to differentiate between these two entirely different sets of circumstances in any future legislation which may be found necessary. As I see greyhound racing tracks, they are by no means perfect. I divide them into two categories. There are those which, for organisation and efficiency and for protecting the interests of the public against unscrupulous and undesirable persons, will compare favourably with the best racecourse in this country. There are also those where almost every kind of undesirable practice is of daily occurrence. I do not wish my words to be misunderstood. I speak, of course, of the two extremes. Perhaps I ought to say that I greatly regret that the Royal Commission in their report have not emphasised these facts more clearly.
What are the principal objections in the mind of the average person to greyhound racing tracks? I think the first and principal objection is that there is no controlling body over the sport as a whole. Everyone will probably agree that the fact that there is no controlling body allows undesirable practices, which

1097
would be stopped if such a body were in control. Then there is the question of betting. It is, of course, most undesirable to have a greyhound track which merely exists through profits which are made by betting. Betting ought to be an incidental part of the proceedings and not an integral one. Then some people object to Sunday dog racing, and that, I think, is definitely undesirable. I know that there are a great many other arguments that might be well advanced against greyhound tracks, but those are the three main arguments. For instance, it is said that the operation of totalisators on greyhound racing tracks has enormously increased the volume of betting, but I do not take that view. Since totalisators have been set up on horse racing tracks, there is no real evidence to prove that the volume of betting has increased and, even if it has, there is no reason to believe that it is through the totalisators. If you study the financial position of the Betting Control Board, you will come to the conclusion that, certainly as far as the totalisator is concerned on horse racing tracks, that is not the case. I therefore see no reason to suppose that it should not be so on greyhound racing tracks.
The question that this House has eventually to decide is what action should be taken to deal with the present position, because it is clear that you cannot stop now. You have definitely to go on. The position that we are in at present is both impossible and illogical, and, if we were to leave things as they are, it means that you are not stopping betting at all. You are only handing over the public to the tender mercies of the bookmakers. I think it is undesirable that there should be any large increase in the facilities offered to the public for betting and gambling as a whole, and I strongly approve of the action the Government-have taken up to now, because I think it was inevitable. At the same time, providing a sport like greyhound racing is properly controlled and regulated, there can be no fundamental difference between operating a totalisator on a racecourse track and operating it on a greyhound track. I do not suggest for a moment that there is not a difference between the horse-racing industry and the greyhound industry, but, whatever may be said for or against greyhound racing, it
1098
has become an industry of very considerable size and importance and, as such, I think it merits the consideration of the House.
It is with these facts in mind that I suggest that the Government should consider the following proposals. I suggest that all dog racing tracks should be controlled, that a Betting Control Board should be established, that totalisators should be legalised on greyhound racing tracks subject to licence from the courts, that all profits from totalisators should vest in the board, that the board should allow promoters of dog racing tracks to deduct reasonable working expenses, which would include the interest on the capital which they had invested in the totalisator machines, that the number of races per meeting and the number of meetings per week should be limited, that a minimum entrance fee should be charged on all dog racing tracks and, finally, that Sunday dog racing should be prohibited. I am aware that these proposals are quite opposed to the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and it is only reasonable to say exactly why one differs from their general conclusion. In paragraph 75 of their report, referring to the establishment of a Board of Control, the Royal Commission say:
"There is no reason in the public interest why such a board should be set up and, in view of the considerations set out in paragraph 72, we consider it definitely undesirable that such a step should be taken."
In paragraph 72 they say they have already referred to the increase in the number of these tracks,
"an increase which is still continuing, without any control."
If you say it is an awful thing that these tracks are springing up here and there and it is entirely because there is no control, the only way to regulate it is by having some form of control, and that is the reason why I differ in one of my recommendations from the conclusions of the Royal Commission. Neither I nor any of my colleagues who are associated with me on this question wish to embarrass the Government. We realise that the action that they have taken was almost inevitable. At the same time, we want to urge upon them that it is impossible to leave matters where they are. This House is and always must be divided on questions of party politics, but when it comes to a plain straightforward issue

1099
which requires ordinary logic and swift justice, I know of no better judges in the whole world than the House of Commons.
8.9 p.m.
Mr. WISE: I beg to second the Motion.
I am sure the House is grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for his lucid explanation of the problem of the totalisator on the greyhound racecourse as it stands to-day. The House appears to be mainly in agreement with those of us who feel that some degree of latitude should be allowed to the comparatively new sport of greyhound racing. After all, it is an agreeable spectacle, and it is an entertainment for people of all classes. I cannot see any essential moral difference between racing with greyhounds and racing with horses. Both are run for the public amusement, in both cases people bet, and both animals proceed at very much the same speed. If there is no moral difference, it is very difficult for us to understand why a distinction should be drawn and why betting should be legalised for one form of racing contest and not for another. The old argument that has always been put forward in favour of horse racing is that it is necessary in. order to preserve the breed of livestock. I never believed that people raced horses to preserve the breed of livestock. They race horses because they like racing horses. That argument, which was advanced by no less weighty an authority than the "Times" some time ago, is in these days weaker than it ever was in the past. In the past the horse was necessary to us both for military and commercial purposes. The commercial purpose, unfortunately, is disappearing daily, and the military purpose has almost entirely disappeared. In fact, if it is necessary to subsidise or encourage any form of racing for military purposes, the racing that should be encouraged is that of the dirt track.
If, then, we admit that this is a harmless spectacle and that, as such, it should be encouraged as an amusement, what is the objection that is generally raised to the sport of greyhound racing? It is that people actually make bets on the relative efficiency of the dogs that take part in it. This may be. a hideous thing. It may be in some way immoral to make bets on anything and in any place, but betting, as far as we know, is to a large
1100
extent engrained in the composition of the human race. The earliest bet that I can recall in history is that between Apollo and Marsyas, a singing contest—the first known example of a man putting not only his shirt on an event but his skin as well. I think people will wager, whether you supply greyhound races for them or whether they have to provide crown and anchor for themselves at the street corner. Therefore, I think we must assume that betting will continue whatever action is taken. I will go further and say that from the national point of view it is desirable that betting should continue. In these unenterprising days, when the citizen has very few responsibilities and almost no rights remaining, I think anything that will encourage some spark of that old spirit of enterprise is a desirable thing. If they gamble, it is at least some evidence of enterprise.
Then we come to the point that betting within limits is a desirable thing. Therefore, I think it would be germane to the issue to consider what limits, if any, are necessary, and surely the first limit that is necessary is that betting should cease to be the hole-and-corner business which it is on many occasions now and should be permitted in the proper places at the proper times without any unnecessary hindrance on the people who desire to make their wagers. Another necessity, if betting is to be accepted either as a necessary evil, a harmless pleasure, or a slightly desirable asset, is that those who make their bets shall get the largest possible return from the money which they risk. I submit that by the use of the totalisator for betting purposes the public who make their bets do in fact get a larger return than they would or did under any old form of betting, and the proof of that seems to me to be that the whole problem that we have recently had over the totalisator was started by the people who were feeling the effects of its competition. The bookmaker, who may be, and sometimes is, a good and worthy citizen, was undoubtedly having to offer longer odds in order to compete with the totalisator, which was working on a 10 per cent, gross profit, which is a gross profit on which no bookie can profitably work.
The advantages, then, of the totalisator are that betting takes place under more

1101
pleasant conditions than it does in the case of betting which has to be done with a bookmaker; I think the totalisator tends to reduce in size the sums of money wagered, and that possibly is again a desirable thing; and another of its great advantages is that, being 'a large and very cumbersome machine, it is not liable to be absent at the end of the race when you go to collect your winnings. Further— and this should appeal very much to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer—it is impossible for the totalisator not to return an accurate account of its takings and profits throughout the financial year, whereas it is not only possible for a bookie to defraud the Inland Revenue, but it is in fact frequently done. I have known very few bookmakers in my life. Some of them, I think, possibly do fill in a reasonably correct Income Tax return, but they cannot help themselves, because they are paid by cheque, and it is very difficult to conceal the receipt of a cheque.
So we have an industry now which we have allowed to grow up without suppressing it, as it should have been suppressed, if it was undesirable, the moment it started; we have very considerable interests involved, and not only the interests of capitalists; we have a very considerable industry in the manufacture of the totalisator; and we have a very considerable staff employed at the various greyhound racing tracks. I think we must assume that the intention ultimately must be, if it is to be held that the totalisator' is illegal on the greyhound track, to make the bookmaker illegal as well, and I do not think anyone who is a supporter of greyhound racing or of betting in general would be either so foolish or so hypocritical as to claim that any sort of attendance of the public would be found on a greyhound track if they were not able to bet on the races which they go to see. I think that must be admitted. Therefore, the adoption of proposals for the prohibition of betting would in fact mean the closing of greyhound racing courses all over this country, whether or not they were well conducted and whether or not the public actually enjoyed visiting them.
So far, for very many years, this House has regrettably been an instrument for the curtailing of the liberties of the people. Among hon. Members on all
1102
sides of the House, and even regrettably sometimes among right hon. Members as well, there has been an epidemic of what might be called the Prohibition mind, and I think this is one occasion when this House, while approving of the Government's reserving its decision until the Royal Commission has finally reported, can urge upon the Government, first of all, not to do, as has been done with some reports of Royal Commissions, namely, delay their presentation for a very long period, but to bring some form of pressure on the Royal Commission to-report as soon as they can, and, further, that whatever that report may be, not to be too pedantically attached to carrying out its provisions if those provisions mean a further restriction of the pleasures and the liberties of the Englishman.
8.21 p.m.
Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I do not think anyone can complain of the fairness of the manner in which the case has been put by the two hon. Members who have just spoken. That is a great advantage on all occasions in discussing an issue of this kind. I want to make it quite clear that I speak entirely on my own behalf to-night. This is a private Member's Motion, and everyone on such an occasion is entitled to speak his own mind. This Motion ought, for clarity's sake, to be divided into two parts, and if I had a complaint at all, it would be that the hon. Members who moved and seconded it did not do that. I will attempt to do it myself. The Motion reads:
"That this House approves the action of the Government in postponing any legislation which may be necessary for dealing with totalisators on greyhound racing tracks until the final report of the Royal Commission has been received."
If the Motion stopped there, I do not think I would have got up to criticise it, but it goes much further than that, and it appears to me that there has been more than one mind, and even more than two minds at work, in drafting the latter portion of it. I would not be a bit surprised if the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans) were able to explain the latter portion of the Motion, which reads as follows:
"but urges the Government to give very careful consideration to the interests of all those who will be affected by their final decision, he they owners, employés, or frequenters of such tracks."

1103
If the Motion had been worded to include the community as a whole and the well-being of the State as well, then I still do not think I would have criticised it. But when the mover and seconder confine their attention to these persons— owners, employers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Employés !"]—I meant employés then, I must protest. Hon. Members are always very jealous of the employés of every concern in which they are interested financially, but when we put the ease of the employés in any industry or amusement business for better wages and labour conditions, we never see those hon. Members on our side then. They use the employés, as a rule, just in order to support their argument for something else. That is their history, so far as I remember it.
I have taken a little interest in this problem of betting, gambling, lotteries and the totalisator. I was on the Committee upstairs which considered the Racecourse Betting Act of 1928, and there are other Members present to-night who will remember what transpired then. I do not think I am wrong in saying that it was understood by everybody in that Committee that in giving the Betitng Control Board authority over the totalisator, it was with the deliberate intention of using the profits from it for the purposes of horse-breeding. That was the argument, and I think that it was understood by everybody, and so far as Parliament itself was concerned, and so far as it could speak then, the totalisator was to be limited absolutely to the horse-racing business.
Major HILLS: I have always said the contrary, and I think that the hon. Member will remember that I did. I always said that if you granted the totalisator for horse racing, you could not refuse it to greyhound tracks.
Mr. DAVIES: I thought that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman used that argument because he was on my side against the totalisator being installed at all. That was surely his argument against the use of the totalisator anywhere. I am sorry to find such a paradox in the House to-day. At 7.30 to-day we finished a discussion which went to show that the countries of Europe including our own are more or less on the
1104
brink of economic and financial disaster. Yet a little later the same day we are arguing in favour of granting more facilities for spending money on a mug's game. That is what the report of the Royal Commission on Betting said. In their official documents they said that betting was a mug's game and that nobody benefited on such transactions but the bookmaker himself. I am therefore rather irritated that we should descend at once to deal with a foolish problem like this when we spent the rest of the day on an issue that is of vital importance to the State and to our people. As stated I have no complaint against the first part of the Motion, although there are some people who argue that we should secure legislation on this issue alone in order to clarify the situation, but I am not very much impressed by that argument. We must thank the mover of the Motion for clarifying the legal position as he did, but I think that it is understood by everybody that there would be no dog-racing tracks in this country at all were it not for the incentive of profits from the totalisator.
HON. MEMBERS: That is not true.
Captain ARTHUR EVANS: They existed before totalisators.
Mr. DAVIES: It is a matter of opinion, and I have stated mine.
Captain EVANS: Dog-racing was a commercial success in this country long before totalisators were introduced.
Mr. DAVIES: Am I not right in putting it the other way, that as soon as totalisators became established on a profit basis on dog-racing tracks, the tracks multiplied enormously merely because of the profits gained from totalisators? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear !"] Both my arguments are right then. Let us carry the point a stage further. The seconder of the Motion mentioned that there is, after all, a difference between horse-racing and dog-racing. I can see very little sense in putting forward the argument that you must breed dogs to run after an electric hare in order to produce better dogs. Really that argument will not stand.
Mr. LEVY: I ask the hon. Gentleman to say whether the two are not identical in principle. Will he kindly give us the difference apart from the animals?
Mr. DAVIES: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman himself will be able to enlighten us later as to how dogs and horses fall into the same category for the purposes of the bloodstock of the country. I have yet to learn that anybody puts forward the argument that there is the same necessity for breeding dogs as for breeding horses. I should have thought that the breeding of horses was much more important than breeding dogs. I am astonished that a Motion of this kind should be brought forward immediately after the interim report of the Royal Commission was published, for every word uttered by the two hon. Gentlemen who supported the Motion to-night is contrary to the report of the Commission. The Commission consisted of a body of representative people, and, as far as I know, they are not men and women who themselves object to betting and gambling. They are drawn from all sections of the community, and they listened for months to evidence from witnesses of all kinds. The Government and the House will be bound to take greater heed of their report than of the speeches of the two hon. Gentlemen, however eloquent they may have been. This is what the Royal Commission said on page 14 of their report:
"We have been impressed by the spread of the organised facilities for betting and gambling, and of the habit of betting and gambling. The weight of the evidence shows that serious social consequences are ensuing. The gambling instinct of the population at large is being increasingly exploited by persons for their own financial gain."
There was never anything more true in connection with the use of totalisators on dog racing tracks than that. The Commission goes nearer to the point which we are arguing to-night when they state that:
"Regarded from this point of view, the totalisator appears to us to be a grave danger. As a method of betting it is easily understood, and its appeal is widespread. Experience has shown that totalisators provided only that they can be operated continuously on several days a week in large centres of the population, rapidly attarct to themselves a large volume of betting transactions which prove extremely profitable to the promoters. This leads to a rapid increase in the opportunities for organised betting."
I entirely agree with one observation which the hon. Gentleman made about betting. I confess that I have no tendencies of that kind, although I do
1106
not claim to be a saint. The hon. Gentleman argued that there is a tendency in all human beings to bet. What I object to is that a group of capitalists come along to organise facilities and to exploit for their financial gain this obvious weakness in human beings. That is the whole of my case.
Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Do I understand that if this method of betting were run on a non-profit basis the hon. Member would not object to it?
Mr. DAVIES: I not only object to betting on a non-profit basis, but I object to betting because I have seen a number of families in want through the foolishness of the father in spending his money in gambling.
Mr. WILLIAMS: That was not the point you raised.
Mr. DAVIES: That is one of my strong points. The hon. Gentleman is half a Welshman himself, and ought to understand me better. The totalisator on dog racing tracks is, as I said, definitely condemned by the Royal Commission; and, further, let me read what Lord Askwith said recently in addressing a meeting:
"We want to see the law rationalised. What we advocate is the reasonable limitation and control of greyhound race-courses, with statutory approval and control of the totalisator on these courses. Last year '20,000,000 people went to the dogs."
So far as I can judge, 20,000,000 going to the dogs means that this nation is metaphorically half-way to the dogs. He then said that:
"The Exchequer received nearly £250,000 in entertainments' tax, and £17,000 went to charities."
How familiar the last sentence sounds— £17,000 to charity ! A sort of conscience money! I appeal to hon. Gentlemen to consider a point of view which was put to me by an eminent American some time ago. I said to him: "I hope you will let us off our debt." He said: "It is my duty to look round to see what is happening here. Every dog racing track is full, all your cinemas are crowded. You spend, so it is said, £200,000,000 a year on drink, £200,000,000 on entertainments and amusements and about £200,000,000 on betting. In those three directions you spend very nearly the total revenue necessary to run your country." It is very difficult for Americans to say: "We will forgive you your debts" when we can

1107
still find £600,000,000, £700,000,000 or even £800,000,000 a year for what they regard as wasteful expenditure.
I will say this finally. I am not acquainted with the technicalities of betting. Up to now I have not touched betting at any angle. If hon. Gentlemen will read the history of nations they will find, at a casual glance, that when commerce declines and industry falls into ruin the people are very often told by their leaders to turn to amusements and other diversions as a relief from their anxieties, but the end of the nations who have done so is the story of their ultimate decline and fall. Although I am a Socialist, I am proud of most of the institutions of this country, and I would not raise my hand in this House to do anything for the owners of dog tracks, the frequenters of dog tracks or the employés of dog tracks if I thought that by so doing I should be destroying the fibre of the nation. Therefore, I oppose this Motion.
8.40 p.m.
Captain A. EVANS: I feel the House ought to be truly grateful to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) for the very entertaining manner in which he has endeavoured to make bricks without straw. If I may say so with respect, he did it with far more success when he was such a distinguished Member of the Committee upstairs which considered the Racecourse Betting Control Bill some years ago. In view of the fact that the hon. Member has hinted at financial interests, I would like to take the first opportunity of telling the House quite frankly that I do not possess and have never possessed any financial interest of any kind whatsoever in any greyhound track in Great Britain; but, as chairman of the British Totalisator Manufacturers' Association, I am empowered to do, and propose to do, what little I can to prevent at least 5,000 highly-skilled and highly-paid artisans being thrown out of employment, as we think unnecessarily, in addition to many thousands who are engaged in the operation of totalisators.
The position to-day is this, that, as a result of the Interim Report of the Royal Commission, betting with bookmakers on greyhound tracks has not only been favoured but, in fact, made imperative,
1108
whereas betting by the alternative mechanised form of the totalisator has been totally prohibited and made impossible. Many hon. Members, not to mention the Press and the public at large, fail to see why the Royal Commission have gone to such lengths to differentiate between these two forms of betting. Only two means of betting are available to the public. If they wish to place a bet they have to do it either through the human agency of the bookmaker or through the mechanised form of the totalisator, which latter, I think, is rightly recognised as being specially designed to protect the interests of "punters." Not only is the profit of the totalisator on betting transactions limited, but that profit, which is deducted from the turnover of the totalisator, is clearly shown to the public, whereas the basis on which the bookmaker works is an uncertain one, and there is nothing to tell the investor what percentage of profit he is rightly entitled to enjoy.
The Government have told the House that before they can deal with this very important subject they must await the full findings of the Royal Commission, and although it is unusual for hon. Members to criticise the findings of a Commission until its report has been published, I feel that in view of the importance which the Home Office has given to the findings presented in the Interim Report we are entitled to make one or two observations on those recommendations, and particularly on the basis on which they were founded. In the first place, I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that any unbiased person reading the Interim Report of the Royal Commission would come to the conclusion that it is special pleading from beginning to end, and that it can in no wise be termed an unbiased and unprejudiced argument. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am expressing my own opinion, and am speaking on behalf of nobody except myself, when I say that I feel it is special pleading in favour of betting with bookmakers as against betting with the totalisator. It has been alluded to in the Press as nothing more nor less than a bookmakers' charter. I shall produce arguments to-night to show that that criticism is based upon a fair and just foundation. To justify betting upon horse racing and to condemn betting on greyhound racing because they

1109
believe, and state definitely, that the former sport is of national importance, is nothing more nor less than sheer humbug. No hon. Members are anxious to do or to say anything to-night which would have a detrimental effect upon horse racing in this country. It is a sport which has been recognised for a number of years, and which is enjoyed by many people. We are entitled to observe that the number of people who feel it worth while to visit a racecourse for pleasure is only 4,000,000 a year, whereas the people who frequent greyhound racing for the same reason number 20,000,000 a year. It is an absurd deduction to say—
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): May I interrupt the hon. and gallant Member to say that I do not think we can accept those figures. Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest that 20,000,000 different people visit greyhound tracks annually?
Captain EVANS: Not at all. I would not venture to do that. Nor would I venture to say that the 4,000,000 who frequent a racecourse annually are 4,000,000 different people. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the vast majority of the 4,000,000 people who frequent race tracks throughout the country are made up of a professional class who go there for the purpose of making money. We have to remember that we are not debating, and that the Government are not considering—in fact, the House of Commons has not been invited to consider— whether greyhound racing is legal or illegal. All that we are debating to-night, and all that we are asked to consider, is the question of the alternative form of betting on greyhound racing tracks. The figure of 4,000,000 people, as against 20,000,000 people, is a comparison which should be given very serious consideration by the Under-Secretary of State, and by other hon. Members.
The Royal Commission say that totalisators on dog tracks are bad because of the vast amount of money which changes hands on those courses, and because of the inducement to betting provided by the alternative form of mechanised betting. The House, when considering that statement, should bear in mind the figures. I do not think it will be challenged from any side of the
1110
House when I say that the amount of money which is alleged to pass on racecourses—meaning of course horse racecourses—as against greyhound tracks is in the vicinity of £200,000,000 a year. That is the figure which was accepted by the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) when he was chairman of the Betting Commission. We also know, from the figures which were published last year, that the amount of money which changed hands on the greyhound track was £18,000,000 as against £200,000,000 on the horse track, of which 75 per cent. was credit betting. I suggest to hon. Members that, in the light of those figures, the whole case, based upon that wrong premise, immediately falls to the ground.
If the Royal Commission thought it right to allude to the amount of money which passes and changes hands on the greyhound tracks, they might also have mentioned the fact that £30,000,000 is attributable to street betting in this country. There are some who feel, and feel rightly, that, if you allow betting to be above board and recognised by the authorities, it can be better controlled than by the subterranean form which is indulged in by street betting and among bookmakers' agents. The hon. Member for Westhoughton, who hails from the Principality, will, I am sure, bear me out when I say—
Mr. H. WILLIAMS: He comes from Manchester.
Captain EVANS: He has the honour to represent a Manchester constituency, but he has the greater honour to hail from the principality of Wales.
Mr. J. JONES: Where the Welshers come from.
Captain EVANS: What is known as street betting has reached alarming proportions. In certain parts of the country, the milkman and the tradesmen who deliver goods to the householders of modest means are in many cases the agents of bookmakers.
Mr. BUCHANAN: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but he has made a statement. How docs he know all this? [Interruption.] I am quite serious. He comes here as a Member of Parliament with a certain responsibility, and he says that that is

1111
happening. It is a serious thing to say about decent working people. We ought to require some evidence when he makes those statements about decent people.
Captain EVANS: Certainly, I shall be very happy to deal with that question immediately. In the first place, I do not share the view that those people are doing any wrong.
Mr. BUCHANAN: If they are milkmen receiving an income as milkmen for delivering milk, or if they are unemployed people, and they are doing what the hon. and gallant Member says they are, obviously they are committing a grave wrong against the State and would be dealt with if discovered. I do not agree that it is done.
Captain EVANS: The hon. Gentleman knows as much about the workers' life as I do, and more—
Mr. BUCHANAN: That is why I say it.
Captain EVANS:—and he must realise that it is a practice in the great industrial cities—
Mr. BUCHANAN: I do not know it at all.
Captain EVANS: I am putting this point to the House of Commons for its consideration. It is not unusual to find in very big factories that on certain floors and in certain departments is a local bookmaker's agent who is only too pleased, for a small commission, to take the bets of the factory workers to the bookmaker for registration in the hope of successful results. The attitude of mind which says that we must discourage betting in all its forms would be more persuasive and more telling in its argument if, at the same time, it ventured to express the opinion that you could put down betting as a whole by legislation. Hon. Gentlemen know full well that, in spite of whatever legislation this House might consider and pass, betting would continue to take place in this country.
I share the view that if people bet within their means—I think that the vast majority of people do that, although you will always find a minority who exceed the bounds, but they subsequently regret it, as I have done on many occa-
1112
sions—there is little wrong. We have to realise those facts, because the House of Commons should to-night consider the facts of the case, apart from the theoretical recommendations of a Royal Commission. If we do that, we shall be in a position to decide whether there is any justification in differentiating between one form of betting and another. Since we know as a fact that that object cannot be achieved, it is most singular that in an interim report the Royal Commission, while referring to the activities of bookmakers, refrain from criticising their industry in any way whatsoever, and yet single out an alternative form of mechanised betting for their disapproval. I venture to say that the danger and menace which faces this country to-day is not the question whether a working man is running a grave risk by investing 2s. in a totalisator. A far greater menace is the inability of the country to absorb at any rate the larger proportion of the 3,000,000 men who are unemployed today, and, as representing an influential group of manufacturers in this country, that is the point of view that I desire, if I may be permitted to do so, to submit to the House of Commons for its consideration to-night.
I am not speaking on behalf of a number of unimportant firms of mushroom growth, but of people like the Automatic Electric Company, Limited, of Liverpool; the Bell Punch Company; Bell's Asbestos; British Automatic Totalisator, Limited; British Insulated Cables; Drake and Gorham; Ericsson's Telephones; the General Electric Company—not a small company; Hall's Telephone Accessories; Henley's Telegraph Works: Lightning Automatic Totalisators, Limited; Opperman, Sons and Tasker; the Phoenix Telephone and Electric Works; Siemens Brothers, of Woolwich; Small Electric Motors; Totalisators, Limited, and the Union Totalisator Company. These are companies which are at the present time, or were until a few days ago, employing upwards of 5,000 highly skilled and highly paid artisans; and, at a time when the Prime Minister and His Majesty's Government are imploring everybody in authority in this country to do everything in their power to encourage employment, I am surprised to find that they are even considering a policy which would immediately have the effect of throwing out of employment at least 15,000 men—

1113
because that is the total including the whole of the operators employed at the same time—and telling them to join the already dispirited army of 3,000,000 unemployed. The House listened with considerable interest this afternoon to a very important Debate on unemployment, and many of us were much impressed by the facts brought out in that Debate. Here is an instance in which the House of Commons can take a practical step, not only to prevent people from being thrown out of employment, but also to give a vast number of highly skilled men employment who are not employed to-day.
Mr. STANLEY: Will my hon. and gallant Friend say how?
Captain EVANS: The hon. Gentleman asks me how. He will surely realise, as I do, that it is impossible to capture a foreign market in the absence of complete support from the home market. I should like to give the House one or two instances. It was not until eight High Court decisions had been given in favour of the legality of totalisators in this country that manufacturers such as those I have just enumerated decided to invest large sums of money, not only in plant and machinery up and down the country, but also in research work, and I do not think it is any exaggeration to say that, as a result of their work and research, the most perfect form of adding machine and the most perfect form of totalisator equipment has been produced in this country, the like of which the world has never seen before. My hon. Friend need only consult the Racecourse Betting Control Board in order to bear out what I say, namely, that, subject to proper control and to proper and expert examination by chartered accountants, it is absolutely impossible for the modern fully mechanised electric totalisator to defraud the public in any manner whatsoever. If I may say so with great respect at this stage, I do not think that the Royal Commission has any right whatsoever to make a statement of the kind that they made in their interim report, that totalisators are subject to fraud, unless at the same time they tell us exactly how and why they have arrived at that extraordinary opinion. As a result of the market which has been created in this country, vast endeavours have been made to capture the world market, and I am very pleased to say that, as a result of the existence
1114
of the home market and of the reduction of production costs in Great Britain, a certain firm has been successful in obtaining a very important contract in America.
Only this afternoon the Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and other important speakers alluded to the necessity of doing all we can to obtain foreign trade. In view of the fact that, if the recommendations of the Royal Commission are accepted, many thousands of men will be thrown out of employment, I feel that the House will be interested to know of the activities of this industry, not only in the home market, but abroad. Lately a firm which has its factory at Uxbridge was fortunate in securing a contract, in the face of very intensive competition, for the supply of the necessary parts of a totalisator equipment for Miami, Florida, and also another important contract for Chicago. I have here an extract from an American paper, which, I think the hon. Gentleman will agree, pays an enormous tribute, not only to British ingenuity, but to British enterprise and commerce. Mr. Mortimer Mahoney, the generalissimo of pari-mutuels at Miami, who is recognised as America's outstanding authority on pari-mutuel operation, after seeing the British machines at work, is reported, according to the "Baltimore Sun," as predicting that within the next year every major track in America will be equipped with its automatic totalisator, a visualisation which, in view of the number of race-courses in the United States, would mean a notable addition to British exports. He is stated to have declared that he had seen nothing comparable with these machines for ingenuity and efficiency, recording, as each of them does, the number of tickets issued on each horse, thus furnishing a cross check on the totals of the operators' records and the indicator board, and likewise affording the betting public absolute protection against mistakes or manipulation.
I say on my own personal authority that it was only possible for this firm to obtain that contract because they had a home market to cater for, and were able to spread the Vast amount of money which they invested in plant, machinery and research over a far wider area than they would otherwise have been in a position to do. There is not the

1115
slightest doubt that, if you nip in the bud, or, to use another expression, strangle in its infancy, a vast and important industry of this kind, there is no likelihood of our being able to compete with America in the future, especially when we have to jump a tariff barrier of no less than 27½ per cent. I know that other Members desire to speak in the Debate, and I will conclude by saying that there are two alternatives facing the Government to-day.
If the Government accept the first alternative and bring in legislation to effect the recommendations of the Royal Commission, they will throw out of employment permanently many thousands of people. They will strangle at its birth a new and an important industry which stands a very good chance of catering for a world demand. They will also deprive the Chancellor of the Exchequer of a vast amount of money annually, because it must be realised that even at the present moment the greyhound tracks throughout the country pay no less than £250,000 annually to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not to mention Entertainments Tax and a similar amount of money paid to local rates. They will create a position which, I suggest to the House, could not be defended even by facts or by arguments. I say, as a very resolute Conservative, that they will be indulging in class legislation of an order such as I would not be a party to defend on a public platform in the country.
On the other hand, they have the opportunity of giving practical support and encouragement to an industry and to a sport catering for no less than 20,000,000 people annually, and paying at the moment £250,000 to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and prepared to pay far more. It is an industry which contributed no less than £14,000 to charities last year. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton rather lightly criticised that contribution. We all know full well what very good work the Royal Veterinary College is doing at the present time in the face of the very gravest difficulties, and I think that if the Government consulted Professor Hobday they would find that that very distinguished gentleman in veterinary circles was indeed very indebted to the National Greyhound
1116
Society for the amount of money received for the college last year. It will result in the employment of many thousands of people and will afford a healthy and normal form of entertainment for a vast number of our people who, in the absence of the sport, will be forced to frequent places of a less desirable character.
9.8 p.m.
Sir ALFRED BUTT: It is a case for great regret, I think, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Cardiff (Captain Evans) should have suggested that the Royal Commission were biased in their judgment. It is very difficult in these days to secure eminent people to give up their time to sit on Royal Commissions, and in this particular case we have no reason to believe that any of the members of the Commission, none of whom is personally known to me, have done other than give their time and judgment for the benefit of the country. Whatever one may think in regard to the conclusions which they have reached, I do not think that it is possible to read the interim report without feeling alarmed at the evidence which is produced therein of the rapid growth of facilities and incentives to gambling in this country. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that he regretted very much that the Royal Commission had not dealt with the question of bookmakers. I think that that is probably due to the fact that the Government asked the Royal Commission to make an interim report solely in regard to the operations of all totalisators on greyhound tracks, and in some respects it is to be regretted that we are discussing the question of totalisators on greyhound racing tracks before we have the full report of the Royal Commission.
I do not think that any hon. Members will in any way disagree with the Motion which is now before us. They will approve of the action of the Government in delaying any legislation until they have in their possession the full report of the Royal Commission. I think the House would wish, as the Mover said in a most moderate and fair speech, the Government to give the fullest consideration to the interest of everyone now engaged in the greyhound industry. I can only say that I regret exceedingly, ever since the issue of the Interim Report, that the propagandists on behalf of grey-

1117
hound racing have been so very intensive and aggressive in their activities. They are doing their case a disservice. When the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers to class legislation, and to one law for the rich and one for the poor, he is endeavouring to create prejudice, which is not justified.
It is probably well known to most Members of the House that I, at all events, am interested in horse racing both as an owner and as a breeder. I not infrequently visit racecourses, and I not infrequently have a bet on a race horse, and I have had a bet on dogs. I do not wish to deny to anyone else, of whatever station in life, the same facilities which I enjoy, but I wish to point out to the House the great difference which exists between horse racing and greyhound racing. I was one of those who had the honour of sitting on the Select Committee on Betting in 1923, and the evidence at that time was very convincing that the amount of betting which was taking place in this country was appalling. We came to the conclusion at that time that, while it was practicable, it was undesirable to tax betting, because if we did so it meant recognising it and probably increasing the facilities for it. Subsequently a Private Member's Bill was introduced into this House for the purpose of establishing totalisators on racecourses for use for horse racing only. I have been consistent throughout. I opposed it because I thought that ultimately we should not be able to deny those facilities to other forms of sport. I opposed it because I did not think that in our existing conditions totalisators would be successful in this country.
However, I think it appealed very much to the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time as a probable means of securing his Betting Tax. I believe that the authorities who govern racing conscientiously thought at that time that it would have the effect of not only improving racing but providing funds which could be used for the benefit of racing. Ultimately, a Measure was passed through this House creating a statutory authority to control totalisators on racecourses, and on racecourses only. The ultimate destination of any profits was clearly defined. It was definitely laid down that no profits of any kind what-
1118
soever should accrue to private individuals. The result of totalisators on racecourses has been a disastrous failure. According to the last published report of the Racecourse Betting Control Board, there was a capital expenditure of £2,300,000, a revenue of £370,000 in the year 1931 and an expenditure of £415,000.
Captain EVANS: Is it not true to say that these unfortunate financial results are due to the fact that the Racecourse Betting Control Board have financed and paid for the setting up of the totalisators out of bank loans, because they had not any capital at their disposal?
Sir A. BUTT: I do not think that it would be relevant to the present discussion to enter into a lengthy explanation of why the Racecourse Betting Control Board has failed in its objective. I do not agree with the explanation interjected by my hon. and gallant Friend. I have no doubt that during the year we shall have an opportunity of discussing the finances of the Racecourse Betting Control Board. What I want to point out is that whilst the totalisator was specifically limited to racecourses, the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time said that if it had been proposed that they should be extended to the greyhound racing tracks that were then in existence, he would have opposed it. The greyhound racing tracks at that time were declining. The novelty had fallen off considerably and the tracks were rapidly declining. The proprietors of the tracks saw in the totalisator a new and attractive addition to their courses and they installed totalisators on the greyhound racing tracks. The result was that, in consequence of the fact that they had an unlimited number of meetings, the totalisators became extremely profitable on the greyhound racing tracks and their multiplication has only been a question of the rapidity with which they could secure suitable sites, develop them and procure plant from my hon. and gallant Friend.
I understand that the great outcry to-day is that if you have greyhound racing tracks and race-courses for horses and you permit a totalisator for one, you ought not to deny the totalisator for the other. There arc two substantial reasons why you are justified in differentiating. First of all, because racing has been a

1119
national sport for many centuries in this country. Certainly, since the year 1750 it has been controlled by the Jockey Club, which is not a statutory body.
Mr. H. WILLIAMS: It is.
Sir A. BUTT: It is not and never has been a statutory body.
Mr. WILLIAMS: It is now.
Sir A. BUTT: I am sorry to differ from the hon. Member, but I do not think the Jockey Club is a statutory body.
Mr. WILLIAMS rose—
Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I think we should be better without these interruptions.
Sir A. BUTT: I am very much indebted to you, Captain Bourne, for your intervention. The Jockey Club, which, as far as I understand, is not a statutory body, has grown up as the result of 250 years of tradition, and everyone associated with racing—owners, jockeys and the public—have the utmost confidence and belief in it, and its decisions and regulations are accepted not only without criticism or discussion in this country but all over the world. Those gentlemen have no pecuniary interest whatsoever in racing. I have never heard it suggested that any member of the Jockey Club is interested financially in any way whatsoever so as to make profit out of racing.
In the best interests of this country the Jockey Club have strictly limited the amount of racing which takes place. I believe I am right in saying that, after many centuries, there are at the present time only 105 race-courses in this country, but the greyhound racing enterprises, after seven years, according to the figures of the Royal Commission, have at the present time 190 tracks, with 55 projected or in course of erection. The proprietors of the greyhound racing tracks have thought fit to endeavour to create their own Jockey club for the purpose of controlling greyhound racing but, apart from their own affiliated groups, which I think number about 50, they have obviously not inspired the unanimous confidence of greyhound racing enterprises, because there is a competitive organisation and a very large number of organisations which are not affiliated.
1120
These enterprises are being run wholly and solely for profit and wholly and solely for the purpose of exploiting the public.
Perhaps it may be very illuminating if I give the House some figures that I have prepared, which are almost unbelievable. If I was not in a position to substantiate them, I should say that they were totally unbelievable. I have mentioned that the Jockey Club allows a maximum of 331 flat racing days this year, and the National Hunt, which controls steeplechasing, allows 283 racing days this year. For greyhound racing, including Scotland, there are 21,000 racing days. In the London area, within a radius of 15 miles from Charing Cross, there are 63 race meetings during the year and in the same area there are 4,000 dog track races. I have drawn a circle round three or four other areas and I have found that, in the Manchester area, there are 17 race meetings during the year and 624 dog races. In the Midlands area, round Birmingham there are 18 horse race meetings and 1,646 dog race meetings. Lastly, in the area of York there are eight race meetings and 590 dog races.
I know that the argument is that dog racing takes place in the evening and therefore it is very much easier for people to go to it, but I would put the reverse position. There are still some people in this country who prefer horse racing to dog racing. I am not drawing any comparisons between the two sports. I should have thought that the unbiased imagination of the House of Commons would be sufficient to differentiate between horse racing and dog racing after a mechanised hare. Coursing, so far as greyhounds are concerned, is, I believe, truly carried out by the National Coursing Association. What I would like to point out to the protagonists of greyhound racing is that it is quite conceivable that there are many people in Manchester who can only afford to go racing in Manchester and who go racing for the love of the sport. They are permitted 17 days during the year, whereas the greyhound racing enthusiasts are permitted 624 days. I hope the House will not accept the statement that it is one law for the rich and one law for the poor. It seems to me that the poor have far the best of it as far as the numbers of meetings go.

1121
I am opposing this Motion, first of all, because, if we are to have greyhound racing with totalisators, it should be under Government control. It should be controlled by a statutory body which is not composed of the present financial interests behind greyhound racing, but is a totally independent statutory body. It should also be severely curtailed. If you lay that down as a principle, you are going to be up against the great difficulty of how you can deny to Wolverhamption what you give to Sheffield. In practice you will be bound to permit dog racing all over the country. I am one of those who believe that at the present moment the poorer classes frequent racecourses quite as often as the so-called richer classes—if there are any left. Whenever I go to a race meeting I find the cheaper enclosures are much fuller than the dearer enclosures. While I do not want to deny anyone the right to normal enjoyment, I feel very strongly—and I am risking passing unpopularity in my constituency, which is less important to me than saying what I conscientiously believe—that the totalisator is the most seductive and attractive form of gambling.
A great deal has been said to-night about the volume of betting. It is obvious that the amount of betting at greyhound racing can never compare with the amount of betting at horse racing, because on horse racing the average bet is very much greater. But the person who bets £10 or £20 on horse racing is probably much more able to afford to lose—and in the long run he will lose— than the person who bets 2s. or 4s. at a greyhound racing meeting. There is no doubt that it is the attraction of the easy method of betting by the totalisator which is so pernicious. I am not standing here to hold any brief for the bookmaker, and indeed 11 years ago I expressed the view that I would like to see it a criminal offence to have any gambling away from racecourses in this country. There are, however, an enormous number of people who will go to a greyhound racing track because there is no inconvenience, no embarrassment, no rudeness in going to a totalisator. If they win, no one knows how much they win, and, if they lose, no one knows how much they lose. If you confine it to the bookmaker, greyhound racing will decline and will be extinct in the next four or five years. On that point, perhaps I may quote from a paper
1122
which has been sent to me in no friendly spirit. The "Greyhound Express" says:
"There appeared to be fewer women present last night than is usually the case at White City, and one of them stated if she could not bet with a ' tote ' she preferred not to bet at all. That appeared to be the general attitude of most women present who were unaccompanied by men."
The quotation I have read is one of the best justifications for opposing the totalisator on greyhound racing tracks. I do not know what will be the final recommendations of the Royal Commission. I hope they are going to deal fearlessly with the question of gambling in this country. I do not know what will be the decision of the Government in regard to totalisators and greyhound racing, but I am convinced that, if we allow mechanised roulette wheels—because they are very little else—at every street corner, we are going to undermine our national character, and to jeopardise that economic recovery which all well wishers of this country are anxious to see. France is looked upon as a country of gambling, but they are far more logical. They do permit gambling and allow chemin-de-fer, baccarat and various other games. They do not permit roulette in France; it is permitted at Monte Carlo. But they are sensible in France; they do not allow casinos in their industrial towns. You cannot name one industrial town in France where they have a casino. They put them in seasonal watering places and have strict supervision in regard to admittance. The only people who can get in easily are visitors. Finally, they are logical; they deduct no less than 60 per cent. penal taxation, which is used by the State for various purposes. I hope the House will not be carried away by false sentiment in regard to greyhound racing. It appeals to the worst instincts of people who have the least money and can least afford to lose it, and it will be one of the greatest tragedies for this country if a National Government, put here with the overwhelming confidence of the nation, is going to allow gambling to run amok.
9.36 p.m.
Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELD: When I read this Motion I realised that the skill and wisdom of the Whips room had by no means diminished since I left it, and I congratulate my hon. Friends in the Whips room on the tactful manner

1123
in which they have worded this Resolution. It says that all the interests concerned should be carefully considered. The report of the commission is hardly as sympathetic. In fact, it threatens the annihilation of everything for which the dog totalisator stands. I do not wish to say anything to-night, even if I ever could say anything, to embarrass any Government, which might embarrass my hon. Friends below me, nor will I follow the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Cardiff South (Captain A. Evans), which reminded me more of a meeting of commercial travellers than the House of Commons.
I do not think that the commission has written a very wise report, and I should advise the Government to take very little notice of it. They advise that the totalisator should be abolished on all greyhound courses, and they say that later on they will give advice on the matter of the bookmakers. Why all this hesitation in giving advice about the bookmaker? If gambling is wrong on the totalisator, it is surely wrong with the bookmaker. You cannot get away from that fact. Surely there are some logical people on the commission, and they might have said that several weeks ago when they issued their report. Of the two forms of gambling, totalisator gambling is surely the better. It gives fair odds, and, if properly controlled, cannot welsh. I do not resemble Apollo nor do I know anything of Marsyas, two people who have been mentioned, nor, indeed, have I ever put my shirt on a horse, but I am proud to say that I spring from a famous racing family, like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office. I am assured by my family that bookmakers on the whole are a very decent set of people, but bookmakers do not give such fair odds as the totalisator, and, as we know, welshing is not unknown.
Nor can the question of right or wrong come in. We as a House of Commons have decreed, rightly or wrongly in our wisdom or in our unwisdom, that betting on the totalisator on racecourses is right and proper, but the Commission says that to bet on a greyhound totalisator is wrong. What is the reason that the Commission gives for this statement? They say that if you bet on the
1124
totalisator on racecourses you are helping horse racing, which helps horse breeding. By sin, I suppose, we shall produce virtue. I wonder if William Wilberforce, many years ago, would have used that argument when he was working so hard to abolish slavery all over the Empire and all over the world. The argument which the Commission uses is sheer humbug. One word about betting generally. I think I am right in saying that everything that is nice in life is bad for us if we over-indulge in it. I will go further and say that everything we do in life is bad for us if we do it too much. There are, I understand, some people in this world who overwork. I realise that my hon. Friends opposite and I have never been guilty of that, but because some people overwork that is no argument for abolishing work altogether. No one, or very few people, in this House, except perhaps the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) would abolish beer or wine because a few people over-indulge in those two commodities. Wine is one of God's greatest gifts. It makes us forget our troubles and does not spoil our health if we take it in moderation.
Gambling in moderation can do no harm. A fool and his money are soon parted, whether it is on a racecourse, or on a dog course, or on the Stock Exchange, or anywhere else. That is an inexorable law of humanity. It is the advantage of the wise, and, therefore, it is obviously a very good thing. There is a greyhound track not far from my home, the clients of which are the most sporting crowd in the world, the Nottinghamshire collier. These men live 600 yards underground for seven and a half hours a day. I have never heard a complaint about their behaviour when they go dog racing, nor have I ever heard of a miner who ever ruined himself by betting more than he could afford.
The point is that you cannot stop gambling in this country, and for these reasons: First, because people love gambling; and, secondly, because the majority of people see no harm in gambling. But that is no reason why we should not control the dog totalisator as we control other things at the moment. We might easily decree that there were to be no more greyhound racecourses

1125
built. We might easily say that there should be fewer races per day. I understand that under National Hunt Rules only six races are allowed during a day. We have every right in this House to say to the totalisator owners, "You are making large profits and we must have some of them," but for goodness' sake do not let us say that what is right at Epsom is wrong at Harringay. When the sins are identical it is sheer humbug to try to differentiate between them, and if we do "We deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us."
Let me say a few words to the Conservative party. That party has always been the defender of private property. Dog totalisators, I understand, are legal in Scotland and are illegal in England. What a Falstaffian position to have got the whole question into. Many people in perfectly good faith have spent large sums of money in this business. If the Government follow the views of this Commission many of these people will be rained, and a certain number of people will be added to the unemployment list. If that happens it will be the fault of the House of Commons and Parliament generally and not the fault of the people who lose their money. Do let us take the common-sense point of view. Do let us turn deaf ears to the Grundys and the Doras and the Dismal Desmonds, not only in this House but outside—those people who would ruin without reason a clean and healthy outdoor amusement.
9.48 p.m.
Major HILLS: The speeches have been so comprehensive and the time is so short that I shall not detain the House for long. I would like to refer to the admirable speech to which we have just listened. I would say of its humour and its wit, sharpened by very acute common sense, that behind the apparently humorous remarks of my Noble Friend there were very shrewd thrusts at those who oppose the totalisator on greyhound courses. I agree with the hon. Member for Balham and Tooting (Sir A. Butt). He and I both opposed the totalisator on racecourses, but I think we both said —I certainly said—that if we did grant the totalisator on racecourses it would have to be granted to the dog tracks. I confess that I did not follow the reason why my hon. Friend was not led to the
1126
same conclusion as I reached. He said that he realised that if we did grant the totalisator to racecourses it could not be denied to the dog tracks, and yet to-day he pleads with the House in eloquent and moving words to deny the totalisator to the humbler pursuer of the dog racing sport.
I do not believe that the question here is really a question of gambling or no gambling. The House does not mean to put down betting altogether. It never has done and never would do that. What is more, the report of the Royal Commission never said that. It advised against extra facilities for gambling, the exploitation of gambling and private profit from gambling. I could deal with all those points, but I merely say now that surely they can all be dealt with by regulations. They had been dealt with in the racecourse totalisator, and there is no reason why they should not be dealt with on the greyhound tracks. Those things are not the fault of the system' itself, but the fault of the misapplication of the system. If you had a proper authority for the government of greyhound racing similar to the Jockey Club in horse racing I believe that all these evils would be abolished.
In attempting to distinguish between the horse race and the dog race it is said that racing by horses is an old and honourable sport. Greyhound racing, of course, is a new sport, but new things are not all bad. Greyhound racing would never have come in but for new conditions. It is necessary to have flood lighting, electricity and cheap transport. All those facilities did not exist 150 years ago. We are not out to condemn gambling. If we are not, if we admit that betting is allowable, why in heaven's name is hot the man who goes to a dog race to be allowed to bet on the totalisator? By implication you allow him to bet with a bookmaker. I have no quarrel with the bookmakers. The few times I have come in contact with them they have always got the better of me, but I bear bookmakers no grudge. But why are you to exclude the totalisator and allow the bookmakers to take bets on the dog courses? You cannot possibly stand on that ground, except by stating that the totalisators are run for profit and that the owners exploit the public. All that you could meet by proper regulation.

1127
I really got up to state the simple fact that a Parliament which has granted the totalisator to racecourses cannot refuse it to dog tracks. I objected to the original Totalisator Bill; I did not like legislation that was limited to one section of the community, and I did not think it would succeed. An hon. Friend who has spoken to-night has said it is a big failure. But since it is the law of the land, since no one talks of repealing the horse race totalisator, since it could not be repealed without harm to a great many people, and since there has been no general corruption of public morals arising from the totalisator on racecourses, I do not see how you can say that it should not be extended. It is a question of social justice. I do not say that all the people who go to racecourses are rich, and all those who go to dog tracks are poor, but the only person who uses the racecourse is the man or woman who can afford to spend all day in going to a race meeting whereas the dog track is accessible in the evenings. Therefore, it is a leisured class that go to the race meetings and an occupied class that go to the dog races and one may be leisured whether one is rich or poor.
Mr. BUCHANAN: Why stop at the greyhound race track? Why not have it in a shop? Why should only the person who can afford to pay 6d. to get into the dog-racing track be allowed to bet? Logically, why not have it in a shop for anybody?
Major HILLS: Because there is reason in all these things and because you can push anything to an absurd extreme. If you have a reasonable sport which millions of people enjoy like greyhound racing and if these people wish to stake money on the dogs I think they should have the same advantages as other people have in the same respect. The Government will be called upon soon to review the whole betting system. As a matter of fact, the tax on betting put on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) gave a shake to the whole crazy system of our betting laws. The whole system will have to be reviewed. I am not sure that the most logical Member of this House in regard to this question will not turn out to be the hon. and learned Member for East
1128
Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley), who was chairman of the committee on betting and who wanted to legalise all betting. But I hope that the Government will take a reasonable, a right and a human view of dog racing. We are apt to
"Compound for sins we are inclined to By damning those we have no mind to."
I hope that we shall not, as Parliament sometimes does, think that we can make the people good by making their lives dull, or that what is right for the rich is wrong for the poor. There is no thought or idea of restricting the large sums which go on betting on horse racing as compared with the comparatively small sums which go on greyhound tracks. Dog racing is a sport which attracts millions of people and will attract more, and I can see no possible harm in it. As long as this Parliament has sanctioned betting, and I do not think it ever declared betting illegal or tried to put it down, it cannot resist the demand for the totalisator on greyhound racing tracks.
10.0 p.m.
Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I intervene for a few minutes to put a Scottish point of view on this question. To my mind our view of it must depend very largely on the importance which we attach to recreation. Personally, I believe that second to food and employment, there is nothing more important than recreation to keep people happy and contented. The greyhound race track provides many thousands of people with healthy and regular and, to my mind, innocent recreation. This it does in districts where there are peculiarly few opportunities for amusement. The totalisator at these greyhound tracks is a facility which certain people have shown that they enjoy. It is a facility which those people demand and which they have now come to regard as a right. Further, the totalisator as an alternative to the bookmaker has a great deal to recommend it. First and foremost credit betting is not possible on the totalisator and it may be remarked that a great many of the tragedies which have occurred as a result of too much betting, have been as the result of credit betting. With the totalisator there is only cash betting.
Another advantage is that it is possible to have control. If these numerous grey-

1129
hound racing tracks are-to exist throughout the country it is essential that some statutory body should exercise definite control. That is more easily done by control of the totalisator than by any other means. Yet a further advantage of the totalisator over the bookmaker is that there is straighter running of the dogs. There is less temptation to corruption. I do not wish to weary the House with details of the tricks of the track, but it is evident that if a large sum is placed on the totalisator the odds will at once be swamped. If a person wishes to put heavy money on a dog and to ensure the dog winning he will only put that money on with a bookmaker at odds which make it worth while. A further reason in favour of the totalisator is that from it the country can draw revenue. I agree that it is impossible to contemplate as satisfactory the present state of affairs in which large sums are passing daily from the poorest districts into the pockets of speculators. But if a proportion of this money were going to some good cause, were going to the Exchequer or to the benefit of the community, then I should be the last to declare it wrong that people should pay a small proportion of the money which they set aside for gambling, in helping the community.
I am not saying that gambling on the totalisator is a good way of spending money. If I were convinced that preventing the totalisator on greyhound courses would ensure the money which is now spent there being spent to better purpose, I should be the first to agree that there is a strong case against the totalisator. But the contrary is the fact because if the totalisator is banned on greyhound courses, it will only mean a greater proportion of money going to the bookmaker, and if it does not go there, it may be spent in public-houses and cinemas or in street-comer betting. It seems to me that it is no worse to allow it to be spent on the totalisator on the greyhound track. By nature I very much resent any Government dictating to a private individual how he may or may not spend his own money. There is, of course, the one proviso that while one has liberty that liberty must not interfere with other people. It may be that in some districts the suggestion to erect a greyhound course and with it a totalisator will offend the majority of the
1130
inhabitants. In that case it might well be a matter for considering local opinion, and even considering the question of local option on the subject.
In urging the Government, as I do, to consider the people who derive much amusement and enjoyment—and, believe me, there are only too many people who get little enough amusement and enjoyment in all conscience—I also find myself in the most hearty agreement with the Motion, which suggests that the Government should wait until the full report of the Commission is published, because it will show us whether they take the extreme "pussyfoot" view of gambling and racing as a whole or whether they take a moderate and rational view of every other phase of betting and sweepstakes and only nail down this one point of the totalisator on the greyhound track. Upon that will depend the weight we attach to their recommendations in the Interim Report. Further, in delaying until the full report comes, an opportunity will be given to see whether the greyhound racecourse is dependent entirely on the profits it makes from the totalisator, and that I believe to be a very important point. In coming to their decision on this I ask the Government not just to consider individual cases of hardship where foolish persons have ruined themselves, as those people would be gamblers and are hopeless in any case. I ask them to consider the enormous majority of level-headed men and women who look upon, the greyhounds and the totalisator as an innocent form of amusement where they can spend the money that they have set aside for their recreation. I think the Government must think very carefully indeed before they come to any decision which might deprive those people of the benefit of the totalisator on racecourses which they have now, rightly or wrongly, come to regard as their right.
10.8 p.m.
Mr. STANLEY: I am afraid I rise to detain the House only for a few minutes. In the circumstances in which the Motion is moved the House will have realised already that there is nothing that the spokesman of the Government can say in reply to it. It is only a few days since I gave the decision of the Government on this matter that we should await the final report of the Royal Commission before

1131
coming to a final decision. But, if it is impossible for me to contribute anything either novel or useful to the Debate, it does not mean to say that the Debate has in any way been a waste of time. On the contrary, I think it has been of great value certainly to the Government in enabling us to get at the various channels of thought in the House and the relative strength of various opinions. I should like to congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Motion on the very clear and able speech in which he did it. I have a quasi paternal interest in my hon. and gallant Friend, who is a constituent of mine. However, I am unselfish enough to hope and believe that, owing to pressing engagements elsewhere on polling days, he will be for many years unable to cast a vote for me. I do not agree at all with the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) when he attempted rather to ridicule the Debate by contrasting it with the important subject that was discussed on the earlier Motion. It came certainly rather oddly from the hon. Gentleman whom I recollect only 48 hours ago covering with adulation an hon. Member who was detaining the House at a late hour in the evening in a discussion whether the cinema interests were using too big posters in the elections. It is true that there are subjects far graver than this and far more important in their results, but, at the same time, this is a subject which interests, which affects and which may well annoy a great many people, and I do not think the House is at all wasting the three and a-half hours that it is spending this evening in discussing it.
Hon. Members will remember the terms of the Government statement. I would point out to the Mover of the Motion, who begged the Government to differentiate between tote clubs and totalisators on the greyhound racing track, that with regard to tote clubs there are no extraneous circumstances and no alternatives once the totalisators in those clubs have been dealt with, and that we were not only enforcing the law as it stood but were prepared to strengthen it if the necessity arose. But we pointed out that the question of greyhound racing tracks stood on a rather different footing and that there, unlike the tote club, there were alternative facilities for betting available and, if you closed the totalisa-
1132
tors on the greyhound racing track, you did not thereby close betting. We told the House that we felt that in those circumstances it was impossible, properly and fully to consider the question of the totalisator unless we were in a position at the same time to consider all the alternative forms of betting that might be available on the greyhound racing track, and that we proposed, therefore, to wait until the final report of the Royal Commission was received before we came to a decision.
That report, as I said in reply to a supplementary question, we hope to receive within a reasonably short time, and it is, I am sure, a report to which the public and Members of the House will give full weight. I very much regret that the hen. and gallant Member for Cardiff, South has seen fit to use such an epithet as "biased" against these gentlemen. We do not accuse the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who quite frankly and properly told the House that he has a large financial interest in the production of totalisators, of being biased by that when he supports on quite other grounds the use of totalisators on greyhound racing tracks. I think he might extend the same charity as we do to him to these ladies and gentlemen who are performing this public service, with whom of course any of us are at liberty to disagree but whose good intentions we all recognise.
Captain EVANS: If I said anything that might be understood as a criticism against the individual members of the Royal Commission, I beg leave to withdraw those remarks absolutely and entirely. The point I wished to convey was that the opinion had been expressed that, while they had dealt with the case of the bookmakers on the one hand and the totalisator on the other, they had only singled out one form of betting for criticism while leaving the other without any remarks, and that opinion has been expressed by the Press throughout the country.
Mr. STANLEY: I am sure the House is glad to hear the explanation of the hon. and gallant Member, but when he refers to the absence from this report of any mention of bookmakers, he knows as well as I do the reason for that absence. It is that when the House assembled last autumn the sudden and rapid growth of

1133
tote clubs was causing anxiety to a great many people, and, in view of that anxiety, we particularly asked the Royal Commission to present us with an interim report on the question of totalisators. The hon. and gallant Member knows quite well that it was because of that fact that the report deals with totalisators and with nothing else. As I said, the Government have declared their intention of keeping an open mind on this subject until the final report is received, and I personally hold the view that the best complement of an open mind is a closed mouth. I do not therefore propose to pursue the subject further to-night.
It might, however, interest hon. Members if I gave them some account of what has happened since the Government made their announcement. We declared our intention of enforcing the law strictly, with regard to both tote clubs and totalisators on greyhound racing tracks, and when those instructions were sent out to the police of the country, we asked them at the same time to forward us a report as to how the matter stood in their localities. I have not yet received reports from, I think, about 26 police areas, but most of them are comparatively small and will not affect the total very largely, and with those exceptions the figures I give to the House are accurate. On the 16th December there were 240 tote clubs in the country, and 15 were opened subsequent to that date, making at one time a total of 255. To-day I understand there are only 13 in operation, and of those, 10 are in London, two in Birmingham, and one in Durham County. Against all those 13, proceedings are pending. With regard to greyhound tracks, on the 16th December there were 101 totalisators in operation. There are now four—one in Essex, which I understand will probably not be used again, two in Liverpool, and one in Lancashire—and against those too proceedings are pending.
Here I think it is only right that I should call the attention of the House to the action of some of the responsible authorities in the greyhound racing world, who, immediately the decision of the Government was announced, publicly advised all courses over which they had any control, whatever their own views might have been as to the Tightness or wrong-ness of the decision, to abide by it, not to attempt to defy the law, but to close
1134
their totalisators in accordance with the decision of the Government. I think the House will agree that that was a very proper course to take.
This Motion calls for our earnest consideration of the interests which will be affected by the final decision—the interests of the owners, employés, and frequenters—and I do not think the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) was altogether ill-advised when he called attention to the fact that there is one very important interest which has to be considered also, and that is the interest of the community as a whole, an interest which outweighs in importance the interest of all the others. I can assure hon. Members that when the time comes for the Government, in the light and with the assistance of the final report and with the knowledge that they will have gained of the opinions and views of this House, to come to a decision on this matter, they will most certainly consider all those interests which are mentioned in the Motion, as well as the paramount interest of all, the welfare of the population as a whole.
I want to point out to hon. Members the dangers which lie in arguments which one sometimes hears advanced on this question. They were advanced in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff, who asked us not to strangle in its infancy a vast and important industry which was going to capture the markets of the world, and he asked that quite properly, because he was concerned for the welfare of those who were employed in the industry. Important as those considerations are, they are difficult to reconcile with a great many speeches of hon. Members who, while expressing a desire for the continuance of some form of totalisator under control, have one and all urged its restriction, its limitation and its control. They cannot at the same time limit and restrict the use of the totalisator, and foster and encourage an industry which lives, not on the stabilisation of the present position, but on its continuous increase. I should like to repeat my thanks to the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Captain North) for the opportunity he has given to the House to have this Debate, and to say that my right hon. Friend, who is prevented by illness from being present, will undoubtedly study carefully the points of

1135
view expressed during the Debate and will no doubt find them of material help to him when he has to make a decision on this important point.
Mr. LANSBURY: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman a question in respect to the last part of his statement. Like other sections of the House, some of my friends feel one way and some another on this subject, but none of us wish to challenge a Division on the last words of the Motion, and we do not want the fact that we have not chellenged a Division to be taken that we are in favour of a continuance—or a reversal—of the present position. If we do not challenge a Division, we do not want to be told afterwards that the House was unanimous.
Mr. STANLEY: I can only speak for myself, but it would never occur to me, if the Motion were allowed to pass without a Division, to say that hon. Members opposite thereby tied themselves favourably to a continuance of the present system.
10.24 p.m.
Mr. LOGAN: I am pleased that the Under-Secretary has taken this Motion so well to heart. I want to draw the attention of the House to one or two aspects of the question that ought to be considered in any future arrangement. I am not like my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) without vices. I have many vices. I come from a city which has some race tracks, and where some people gamble, and where, if horse racing is allowed to have certain facilities, they cannot understand why dog race tracks cannot have them too. I know nothing about horse racing or dog race tracks. I went to Wembley to find out how it was done so that I could have some knowledge when I came to the House. It may seem strange that after having been invited to visit a dog track in Liverpool and having declined, I should visit a track in London.
As regards the mass of the people in my division I am fully convinced that nothing under the sun will stop them from gambling. I am not inclined to gambling myself, but I quite realise that there is a large body of people who want a certain form of recreation, whether it
1136
be in the form of having a "bob double" or backing a second or a third. I know from the street corner people whom I see that the game of racing goes on and that each day people back horses. I think it was Carlyle who said there was a fool born every minute, and in my view people ought not to engage in betting unless they can afford to lose the money. When I went to Wembley I was very much struck by the order that prevailed and the way in which things were conducted. Having had some experience in getting things out of a hat and changing two-shilling pieces into pennies—as I have done in the course of my life—it amused me very much to think that people could find enjoyment in watching an electric hare chased by dogs, but it was clear that they were getting great fun from the sport. There is this much to be said for this particular form of sport, that it was straight and above-board; there was nothing with which anyone could find fault. Anyone who wanted to pass a pleasant evening could do so there, and if they put a shilling or two shillings on what they thought would be the winner then it was just a question of their luck.
This is the point that interests me more than anything else. I am glad that consideration is to be given to the report, because I raised a question in this House in connection with a dog racing track in the Liverpool Division. Against the wishes of the people, a dog racing track was about to be opened next to a church and next to a public institution, and I learned that under the law it was not possible to take any action to stop it. The people in the district could not exercise local option. I feel that the fact that dog tracks cannot have a totalisator in operation will mean that they will become bankrupt, and that in the near future there will be some scheme for regulating this sport. Sport can be legitimate or it can be illegitimate. There can be faked sport, as anybody knows who has anything to do with running— either over the hurdles, or the 100 yards or the 240 yards or the half-mile. As regards dog racing, a case came before me in the police court concerning the running of two dogs from the North of England. On four occasions they lost, and on the fifth occasion they ran away with the spoil. When the matter was investigated it was found that on several

1137
occasions the dogs had been fed on tripe and were not able to run, on another occasion they had had their feet fixed with wax, and on the last occasion they had been left perfectly free and had won the race. There was litigation over the ownership of the two dogs between "bookies" from the North of England and a man who was strange to the business in Liverpool but was making it a financial success. They made a clean, sweep and went away with the money.
It is my opinion that unless people are prepared to lose their money—and they ought to know whether they are or not; I do not know what a person's means are—they ought not to engage in such a sport. Otherwise, they are fit only for a mental home. If a man goes to a sport he ought to know that it is open and above board, and that the organisers are playing the game. There ought to be proper regulation. There ought to be a governing body that will be able to license and to take away licences from people who are not carrying on properly. I am convinced that if the sport were properly regulated, with a control board such as I am suggesting, it would be all the better.
I have seen these tracks, and I am of the opinion that for a night's outing and for enjoyment in the open air there is nothing with which to find fault. I have more enjoyment on the football field to which I go every Saturday and I do not think that I would be attracted to dog racing. Nevertheless, there are thousands of people who go, and they have a perfect right to do so. From the point of view of the police, these people instead of being at street-corners become large bodies of well-conducted people. They certainly go to have a flutter and win or lose a shilling or two. I daresay that most of them lose a bob or two, but they get the pleasure, and if they are able to win, all the better for them.
The question of regulation is what must be considered. When the Government come to frame the regulations in regard to these matters, the question of entrance fee must certainly be dealt with. I do not think that the organisers should send round to the poor districts and give away 300 or 400 free tickets to permit people to go to the greyhound courses. Those people will only be attracted by the free entrance. They
1138
ought to pay for entrance and for their sport. If other people are willing to go to the expense, as I have seen, to give entertainment, those organisers are entitled to the revenue that they get. I am also interested in this matter because of the electrical machinery. It is remarkable machinery, really wonderful and foolproof, and absolutely essential for the making of the calculations. This week I have received letters from a firm of automatic-machine manufacturers in Liverpool. They are doing a great deal of work in the making of the machines and they call my attention to the fact that many hundreds of their workpeople will be put out of work.
Proper control is needed. We ought to see that the sport is really legitimate. We ought to give every opportunity and facility to those who are making the machines, so that the craftsmen may remain at work. The stoppage of this work may, on the other hand, do great good to a sport that is now in its infancy. The attitude the Government have announced is a satisfactory one, although I fear that it may mean that we shall see some bankrupt tracks. It will be for the public good if there is a governing body that will provide legitimate sport for the people of this country, and will be of benefit from the scientific point of view.
10.35 p.m.
Mr. LEVY: At the outset I should like to refer to an observation which was quoted by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), as having been made by an American who came over here, with regard to the law. I say definitely that, if we are to take America as an example, any legislation that is against the sanction of the people lacks permanence, and only brings the law into contempt. My object in intervening in this Debate is two-fold. In the first place, I take a very deep interest in this subject, and, secondly, I had the honour, with another Member of the House, of giving evidence before the Royal Commission. The only question that was asked of us with regard to totalisators was as to what was our opinion in regard to tote clubs; and we said unhesitatingly that they ought to be rigorously suppressed.
I have taken soundings in my own constituency, and in a large area north of

1139
the Tweed, to ascertain what is the real public opinion on this question, and the result has been to indicate agreement that the indiscriminate construction and maintenance of greyhound tracks all over the country should not be allowed; secondly, it was felt that there should be proper and adequate control and regulation; and, thirdly, opinion was emphatic and almost unanimous that, if the totalisator were disallowed on greyhound tracks, it would be considered as class discrimination. Therefore, I took great pains in endeavouring to prepare what I considered to be a comprehensive constructive policy for control, and, as a back-bencher, I submit, with great respect and humility, this constructive proposition to the Government. I would ask the indulgence of the House while, for the sake of accuracy, I read its seven points, simply because a misplaced word may be misinterpreted. The seven points are as follow:
1.There shall be established a Grey hound Racing Betting Control Board which shall consist of an independent chairman and eight other members. The chairman shall be appointed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the other members shall be appointed as follows:

By the Home Secretary

1

By the Secretary of State for Scotland

1

By the Chancellor of the Exchequer

1

By the Minister of Agriculture (or such other Departments as the Government may select)

1

By the National Greyhound Racing Society

2

By the National Greyhound Racing Club

2

The composition of the Board is, therefore, weighted in favour of Government control.
2. The board may appoint officers, servants or agents, and prescribe their duties and fix their remuneration.
3. The board may regulate their own procedure, and make Standing Orders governing the conduct of their business, whether by themselves or by committees of their number.
4. The board may issue (subject to such conditions as they may impose) and revoke certificates of approval for the conduct of betting by totalisators on greyhound racecourses and ground adjacent thereto.
5. A certificate of approval shall only be granted by the board (a) after consulting the views of the local authority concerned; (b) after being satisfied that the following conditions will be complied with by the racecourse:
1140

(i) not more than four meetings per week shall be held on a racecourse, nor more than eight races per meeting,

(ii) no racing shall be held on any Sunday, Christmas Day or Good Friday,

(iii) there shall be a minimum charge of 6d.—no free admission.

The object of that is to safeguard the Entertainments Duty.

(iv) racing shall be conducted according to the rules and under the licence of the racing authority recognised by the board.

(6) Notwithstanding any rule of law or enactment to the contrary it shall be lawful, whether in a building or not, for a totalisator to be operated at any Greyhound racecourse which received the certificate of approval of the board, subject to the following conditions, and upon no other racecourse:

(a) all rules drawn up by the board for the operation of the totalisator must be observed,

(b) there may be deducted from the total pools a sum not exceeding 10 per cent of such total pools at each track. Any sums received by such deductions shall be applied to the following purposes:

(I) Totalisator operating expenses, including wages of staff, maintenance costs, cost of current, and other items to be specified.

(II) Amortisation and costs of in stalling the totalisators. All proceeds remaining after such apportionments shall be controlled by the Statutory Board which, after providing for its own expenses, may make grants for improving amenities of the track, for the benefit of veterinary establishments, for charities, or for other purposes."

In other words, I have eliminated private profit from the operation of the totalisator on greyhound racecourses. Therefore, the totalisator on the greyhound racecourse becomes an amenity to the course. The biggest attack, and the only attack, as I see it, against totalisators, is the facility said to have been given for betting, and the volume of betting. I have heard it said that the volume of the betting has increased even greater than it has on horse racing. I have taken the trouble to look up the reports of the Betting Committee of 1923, and I find that the amount which the Chairman of the Betting Committee accepted was £200,000,000. That item of £200,000,000 was also accepted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) as Chancellor of the Exchequer in respect of his Betting Tax. It was also accepted that £30,000,000 was street-corner betting.

1141
I have ignored the £13,000,000 which went to Ireland on sweepstakes. The amount which was accepted by the Royal Commission for totalisators was £8,000,000, and not £18,000,000, as was stated by the hon. Gentleman opposite. Therefore, it is only about 27 per cent, of the £30,000,000 of street-corner betting. I contend that you have not increased your betting by £8,000,000; you have diverted £8,000,000 from the £30,000,000 of street-corner betting, because those people who go to dog races would have had their shilling on a horse in any case where the race would not have been seen, whereas they now go to dog racing. It is estimated that 20,000,000 people see dog racing in the course of a year. A sum of £8,000,000 is spent. The most that it can be said that one person bets out of this is 30s. per year. If this system is adopted, or some other similar system, I say that the sport will be clean, that it will be properly controlled, and that there will be no further fault to find with regard to the facilities for betting.
Let us examine the Motion. I am only concerned with the last sentence, which asks the Government to consider the owners, the employés and the frequenters of the greyhound racing tracks. When the Motion refers to the owners, I assume it means those thousands of people who have invested their money in, these large undertakings. Certainly, they are entitled to consideration. I assume that the employés are the direct employés. They are entitled to consideration. I do not know where they will get jobs if they are put into the ranks of the unemployed. When we talk of the frequenters, it is accepted that 20,000,000 people go to see greyhound racing. Surely, they are entitled to consideration in regard to a harmless recreation. There is a further relevancy that ought to have been included, and that is those indirect employés who are employed—whether the dogs are of national importance or not—in making dog biscuits and things of that kind, and in the manufacture of the totalisators.
I have no time for the spoil-sports who would be anti this, anti that and anti the other. There are people who would say that I commit an offence if I play auction bridge for 2d. a 100. There are people who are anti everything. So long as they can mar the enjoyment and
1142
pleasure of others, they feel they are justified in doing it, because other people are doing something contrary to that which they do themselves. With regard to the Government, may I say that if a charge is brought against them of class discrimination, that is an argument which is very difficult to overcome. If a charge is brought against them that they will increase unemployment instead of decreasing it, that also is a charge that will be difficult to overcome. They may be able with eloquence to excuse such a course, but what they will have to do will be to justify it and not to excuse it. I do hope, and I feel convinced, that the Government will legislate to allow the totalisators on the greyhound racing tracks, because the horse racing course is identical in principle with the greyhound racing course and in equity it will be impossible for the Government logically to make any discrimination.
10.49 p.m.
Sir PHILIP DAWSON: I rise to support the Motion that has been moved in so elequent a manner by my hon. and gallant Friend, and, in doing so I should like to express the thanks of the non-party committee with which I am associated for the courteous and prompt way in which the Government allowed us to put our views before them. I am expressing the views of the great majority of the members of that committee. We consider that dog racing should be properly controlled by a body which has at least equal authority and standing to the Jockey Club. We consider that no dog racing should be allowed unless authorised and controlled by them and that they should control the number of races to be held in the year, the number of races to be held on any one day, and the number of events at any meeting. Obviously, they will have regard to the question of racecourses not being too close together. We believe if such proposals were carried out it would immediately reduce the existing number of greyhound races by two-thirds. We believe the regulations should be such that in no circumstances should there be any free admission. We consider that totalisators should be allowed by this organisation which will be controlling them, and that a dog racing track should not make its living by gambling or receipts from the

1143
totalisator. Obviously in fairness any capital that has been expended on the totalisator should be properly remunerated. The remainder should be spent on charities or such other purposes as the association which controls dog racing may decide.
We consider the totalisator is a very honest way of gambling from the point of view of giving anybody who gambles a proper and fair chance. It is a piece of machinery which can be absolutely relied on, and it has the great advantage that you cannot gamble unless you are on the racecourse. With horse racing we have been told that on the comparatively few horse meetings in the year some £200,000,000 or more is spent in betting every year, and that that is mostly composed of large amounts. I venture to suggest that the contrary is the case, and that out of that amount the majority of the bets are for small amounts. It is not on the racecourse that the betting takes place or the greater part of the money is spent. It is outside the racecourse at the street corners. I have nothing to say against bookmakers. They are a perfectly honest class as far as I have ever had anything to do with them, and that has not been very frequently. As far as I know, the majority do business in a perfectly straightforward manner. At any rate, anybody can bet at any time, day or night, by calling up a bookmaker without having to go to a racecourse, and that is the worst part of betting. If you have the totalisator, you have to be on the course in order to place your bet. I think therefore that so far from increasing the number of bets, the totalisator will rather reduce them. The figures quoted as regards the amount spent on betting on dog racing courses show that these amounts are very inconsiderable having regard to the total amount of betting, and I consider they will not be largely increased, but on the contrary that they may be decreased by allowing the totalisator. I see no reason why there should be any differentiation between horse racing and dog racing as far as allowing the totalisator on the racecourses is concerned.
Reference has been made to the fact that some associations have issued propaganda in regard to dog racing. I should like to express my thanks to the Greyhound Racing Association especially, not
1144
for any propaganda from them, but because they have given important facts and have stated what they are after. I have been told by them that their anxiety is that all dog tracks should be under properly-constituted statutory bodies who have authority to deal with everything regarding dog racing. I am all for limiting betting wherever it is possible and, in any case, where betting takes place to see that a man who bets gets a fair chance and gets his money's worth. I am against, and I understand the Greyhound Racing Association is equally opposed, to free admission and Sunday racing and Good Friday racing, and against having too many races day after day or to giving free transport to people in order to enable them to attend dog racing meetings. All these regulations will control dog racing and remove the greater part of the objections mentioned by those few opponents in the House to-night.
Reference has been made to the fact that this is a new sport as compared with horse racing. Coursing is an old sport, it has been known for generations, and if scientific progress had been as advanced 100 years ago as it is now we should probably have had greyhound racing then. It has only been rendered possible by the aid of science, which has enabled greyhounds to show their paces and give exhibitions which, I am told, can be extremely interesting and exciting. Dogs, moreover, are very intelligent animals and take quite as much interest in the actual race as horses; and they have this advantage, that there is no possibility of a dog being pulled by a jockey, which enables more confidence to be placed in dog races than sometimes is the case in horse races. I have been to horse races and have enjoyed myself, although I have enjoyed myself more when there has been a totalisator on the course. There can be a great deal of deceit and cheating on improperly conducted dog racing courses, and the object of the Motion is to ensure that they shall be properly conducted. I am convinced from what we have heard from the Government that they will exercise a fair judgment on this matter. All we ask them to do is to give proper consideration to all interests concerned, manufacturers, employés, and the public gene-

1145
rally. The fact that the Government say they will not be in a position to put any proposals before this House before they have received a complete report from the Commission shows that we can rely on them not coming to any quick decision.
Captain NORTH 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."
Resolved,
"That this House approves the action of the Government in postponing any legislation which may he necessary for dealing with totalisators on greyhound racing tracks until the final Report of the Royal Commission has been received, but urges the Government to give very careful consideration to the interests of all those who will be affected by their final decision, be they owners, employés, or frequenters of such tracks."

FISHING INDUSTRY.
10.59 p.m.
Mr. HOWARD GRITTEN: I beg to move,
"That this House views with grave concern the deplorable condition of the fishing industry and urges the Government to render speedy assistance to this important and essential industry."
1146
The Motion calls attention to the deplorable condition of the fishing industry in this country. It is obviously impossible to open a case of this magnitude in about half a minute and, therefore, I do not propose to enter into any detail. I have put down a question for Monday, to ask the Prime Minister whether in view of the distress in the trade the Government will assign a special day for a Debate of this important and pressing question—
It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  FALSE OATHS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

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

  MANCHURIA.
  MANCHURIA.
  ARMS TRAFFIC.
  ARMS TRAFFIC.
  KENYA GOLDFIELD (IMMIGRANTS).
  KENYA GOLDFIELD (IMMIGRANTS).
  GAMBIA.
  GAMBIA.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.
  IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.
  ARGENTINA (EXCHANGE RESTRICTIONS).
  ARGENTINA (EXCHANGE RESTRICTIONS).
  WAR MATERIAL (EXPORT).
  WAR MATERIAL (EXPORT).
  APEX (BRITISH) ARTIFICIAL SILK COMPANY.
  APEX (BRITISH) ARTIFICIAL SILK COMPANY.
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (STANDARD CUSTOMS NOMENCLATURE).
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (STANDARD CUSTOMS NOMENCLATURE).
ROYAL NAVY.
  SINGAPORE BASE.
  SINGAPORE BASE.
  PERSONNEL.
  PERSONNEL.
  PRISON SERVICE.
  PRISON SERVICE.
  BEER DUTY.
  BEER DUTY.
  RUSSIA (BRITISH CLAIMS).
  RUSSIA (BRITISH CLAIMS).
  MINISTERIAL ARTICLES (PRESS PUBLICATION).
  MINISTERIAL ARTICLES (PRESS PUBLICATION).
  INDIA (BERAR).
  INDIA (BERAR).
  ROYAL COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES.
  ROYAL COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES.
  COAL INDUSTRY (RINGROSE FIREDAMP ALARM).
  COAL INDUSTRY (RINGROSE FIREDAMP ALARM).
  PUBLIC WORKS SCHEMES.
  PUBLIC WORKS SCHEMES.
  CINEMATOGRAPH FUND.
  CINEMATOGRAPH FUND.
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  SINGAPORE BASE.
  SINGAPORE BASE.
  FILTON AERODROME.
  FILTON AERODROME.
AGRICULTURE.
  EGGS AND POULTRY (IMPORTS).
  EGGS AND POULTRY (IMPORTS).
  STANDARD EGGS (WEIGHT).
  STANDARD EGGS (WEIGHT).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LORD RUNCIMAN.
Sir Walter Runciman, Baronet, having been created Baron Runciman of Shores-ton in the County of Northumberland—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD BROCKET.
Sir Charles Alexander Nail-Cain, Baronet, having been created Baron Brocket of Brocket Hall in the County of Hertford—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD MILNE.
Field-Marshal Sir George Francis Milne, G.C.B., G.C.M.G., D.S.O., having been created Baron Milne of Salonika and of Rubislaw in the County of Aberdeen— Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
AMERSHAM, BEACONSFIELD AND DISTRICT WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
EAST HULL GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
COLNE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.

ROAD TRAFFIC (COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I beg to ask leave to introduce a Bill entitled the Road Traffic (Compensation for Accidents) Bill, and to move that it be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.— (Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT.
LORD BUCKMASTER LORD BUCKMASTER had given Notice that he would move to resolve, That in the opinion of this House the duties of the Ministry of Transport could be better discharged by, the Home Office and the Board of Trade, and that it is in the public interest that the said Ministry should be dissolved, and its functions distributed among other Departments. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the Ministry of Transport, to which my Motion relates, was born in evil days. It was one of a, number of Ministries that from time to time were planted upon an unsuspecting public. Many or some of them have now passed away, and the effect of my Motion is to ask that the Ministry of Transport should join its unlamented companions. The history of its origin is not without interest. In 1919 the Government conceived the idea of some temporary and experimental method of nationalising the whole of the means of transport. of this country. They introduced a Bill for that purpose and in order to control the inevitable resulting confusion they provided by that Bill that the Ministry of Transport should be set up. Few Bills have ever encountered more resolute opposition in this House. It was criticised by people sitting in every quarter of the House, excepting the avowed supporters of the then Government. It went to Committee and emerged a different Bill, but the Ministry of Transport survived the operations of the Committee stage and remained implanted in the measure.
In 1922 a Committee was set up for the purpose of determining what steps should be taken to effect an object which was on everybody's lips but appears to have been in few people's hearts, the saving of public expense. It was one of the
704
strongest Committees ever established. Lord Inchcape, Sir Eric Geddes and many others with eminent names were members of that Committee and among other things they unanimously resolved that the Ministry of Transport should be abolished. Another Committee, entirely unofficial but composed of members from both sides of the House, was recently set up in the House of Commons for the purpose once more of considering what ought to be done in the interests of national economy and, although there seems to have been sonic question about the prudence of the publication of the report, that Committee also unanimously reported that the Ministry of Transport should be abolished. This Ministry, therefore, has been under two direct sentences of death, and I ask your Lordships this afternoon to say that there is no reason whatever why execution should be any longer delayed.
The Ministry itself, so far as I can see from Whitaker's Almanack, has some eighty salaried officials. Its expenses in the last year that I can find were £ 333,000, a figure entered as a gross sum which was reduced by a method of accountancy known only to Government Departments, by the introduction of what are called grants-in-aid from other sources, which produced the net result of a smaller figure. £333,000, although it would appear to be small in the light of the vast national commitments that we have undertaken, is nevertheless a figure which, when we are really in search of economy, ought not to be overlooked, and I would suggest that it would have been far better for the Government to have considered the possibility of saving money from such a Ministry instead of attempting to obtain it by curtailing the salaries of Judges and the emoluments of school teachers.
So far as I can see there really can be no reason why this Department, which performs functions that can easily be undertaken by other Departments, as indeed was found by the Geddes Committee, should any longer continue. I do indeed realise that it may be a great convenience to a Government to have a Department like that at its disposal,for it enables them to take men of wholly blameless life, of wholly unquestioned Party fidelity, and of wholly untested worth in the administration of public affairs, and

705
give them a trial. It gives them another rung in the, great ladder of promotion, up which it is the laudable ambition of every public man to climb. I can see, therefore, and I say it quite seriously, that it might be useful to have a Department of this kind in normal times; but we do not live in normal times, and it is essential, if we are ever going to make our revenue meet our expenses, that we should avoid every unnecessary expense, however small it may appear to be; and it does not necessarily mean that the whole of your expenses and commitments are covered by the expenses of the office. I ventured to point out, when the Bill which subsequently became the Act was before the House, that there ought to be some definite limitation put on the expenses to which we were committed by this Ministry. I do not know that any such limitation ever found its way into the Act, and the expenses that we have been committed to by the operations of the Ministry are something very grave.
If in the result, notwithstanding that, it were found that this Ministry really performed a work of such transcending public utility that it was desirable it should be continued, even though it might, on other grounds, be thought unwise, then I can understand that people might say: Why attack this Ministry which is doing very valuable and useful work? I propose this afternoon to submit to your Lordships that this Ministry of Transport has failed in the main purposes for which it was set up. There are two ways in which that matter may be regarded. It was essential that it should bold the scales fairly as between the competition of the roads and the railways, and it was above all things essential that it should take every step possible in its power to protect the public against the increasing use of mechanical transport on the roads. In both those respects, it is my submission, it has failed.
Let me deal with these matters in the order I have stated. Let me first deal with the question as between the railways and the roads. When this Ministry arose there was existing and operative an Act of Parliament which has been wholly overlooked in nearly all the. discussions which have taken place between road and railway representatives. It was an Act of enormous consequences, and, I say it gladly, it was one of the very valuable
706
Acts which were passed by the Conservative Government which began its life in 1875. It provides this, and I apologise for reading what I think is probably the most uninviting literature I know— namely, the clause of an Act of' Parliament:
"Where by the certificate of their surveyor it appears to the authority which is liable or has undertaken to repair any highway, whether a main road or not, that, having regard to the average expense of repairing highways in the neighbourhood extraordinary expenses have been incurred by such authority in repairing such highway by reason of the damage caused by excessive weight passing along the same, or extraordinary traffic thereon; such authority may recover in a summary manner from any person by whose order such weight or traffic has been conducted the amount such expenses as may be proved to the satisfaction of the court having cognizance of the case to have been incurred by such authority by reason of the damage arising from such weight or traffic as aforesaid."
That is the law to-day, and in the whole of these discussions as between the railways and the roads I have never even heard it referred to.
But the thing that is most important is that that liability most unquestionably lay upon all the heavier forms of motor traffic that began to use the roads. No one could for a moment suggest that that traffic was not an excessive weight and was not of extraordinary nature; and under that Act of Parliament these people, who now come and plead for what they call equality with the railways, would have been responsible for the whole of the damage. And I am by no means certain—I say this with some hesitation—that they would not also have been responsible for the damage they cause to the bridges. My complaint against the Ministry of Transport is that they have permitted the whole of that liability to be taken away from the people on whose shoulders the Act of Parliament placed it and they have compelled their competitors in business to be one of the contributories to the cost.
Now let me for a moment assume that we are not discussing questions as between railways and roads but as between two competitors in business. Let me ask you what you think of this: Two rival traders; one has a mortgage on his shop, the other has not. You relieve the man from his mortgage and you call on his competitor to contribute to the cost. I ask, is that just? I say that at the

707
bottom of the whole of this controversy as between the road and the rail, there is the fundamental injustice that you have relieved the heavy traffic partially at the expense. of the railways, and it no longer is under the liability which the wise legislation of 1878 thought fit to impose upon it. The Ministry of Transport have done nothing with regard to that. I have even some doubt as to whether they know about it. One thing is quite certain; it has formed no part in the discussions, and to my mind it should underlie the whole thing.
You then proceed, and you find that in order to maintain these roads £ 42,000,000 a year is taken out of the ratepayers' pockets. It is no use saying that the transport industry provides the cost by paying for motor taxes; the answer is that there is 42,000,000 taken out. of the ratepayers' pockets for the purpose, and towards this £42,000,000 once more the railways are called upon to contribute. I say that that is most unfair. It is not only unfair, but in my humble judgment it is most unwise. The one thing that is essential for this country is the maintenance of its railways. There is nobody who doubts it. Nobody for a moment can contemplate the condition of our life here without their continued existence to-day. And yet it has been permitted to these heavy transport vehicles to enter into a competition which I suggest is in its very essence based upon something which is unfair.
Whenever any question arises in this House, and it has arisen frequently, as to some method by which this traffic should he better controlled, the invariable answer is: "See what expense you are going to put upon them." Has anybody here or in the other. House ever said: "See what expense you put upon the railway company when you ask them to maintain their fences, when you ask them to maintain their level crossings, and to put up signal boxes"? Did anybody ever hear such 'a question? The only thing that was ever thought of then—and it was the only thing that should be thought of—was the public safety, and the question of expense was a thing that the industry had got to bear in order that the public safety might be secure. The condition as between the road and the rail became so acute that' after some prolonged discussion the newspapers got hold of it. Something happened that
708
called the attention of the Ministry to a condition of affairs that needed instant remedy, and what did they do? They then appointed a Conference of their own which they asked to operate at once, in order that they might be able to act quickly. That Conference, I think, was one of the most useful and the most valuable that has hitherto been set up, and it made its Report.
Now, the first thing that ought to have been done was that this Report should have been examined and acted upon without delay. You often hear reproaches about the delay of the law, but we are told to-day that everything is relative, and the delay of the law is like a flash of light compared with the delay of the Ministry of Transport. This Conference reported in July. All the different industries were invited to send in their criticisms. I have read, I believe, all that have been made public. I cannot think of one that could not have been prepared in a fortnight. If anyone had the material before him it should have been prepared in a couple of days; but they have gone on dribbling, dribbling, and dribbling with these criticisms, and they say they are not yet finished, and the autumn passes by, the time when they ought to have introduced their Bill in order to render their proposals effective for the coming year. And now all we know is that something may be done in the Budget; but what it is nobody can tell.
The Report of this Conference is one of the clearest and most condensed that I have ever read. The critics proceeded to attack the constitution of the Conference, and I see with great regret that the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, who himself Was once the Minister of Transport, has joined in that attack. He says, as reported in The Times to-day—and I trust he will correct me if he is misreported:
".… the Ministry set up a sort of Conference on which those intimately concerned were refused representation and had rip say in its proceedings. That Committee— the Salter Committee— had presented what might technically he called a unanimous Report, but to say it was really a unanimous conclusion in those circumstances was really 'dirty work '."
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I deal with it in my speech.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I say that that Committee did make a unanimous

709
Report, and the charge that is made that these people were not representative is a charge which the facts will not justify. Let me tell you how they were appointed. They were appointed by a standing committee of Mechanical Transport Associations at the instance of the Government. I imagine you could not get a more representative Committee to appoint them. They were carefully and impartially selected and these people who are said not to represent anybody and to have ex-elided from representation people who were anxious to be appointed, are these: The Past President of the Commercial Motor Users' Association. Is that an unrepresentative name or an unrepresentative body? The Vice-President of the National Road Transport Employers' Federation. Is it suggested that that is a sham? The distribution manager of Messrs. J. Lyons & Co., Ltd. We know that they exist, and I should imagine that their commercial activities are as great as those of anybody.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: May I ask the learned and noble Lord one question? Is he aware that three bodies were invited by the Minister of Transport to attend a preliminary Conference— namely, the railway companies, the Joint Committee of Road Users, whom he has just mentioned, and the long-distance road hauliers, who are the most affected by the Salter Report; that the Minister only appointed from the first two bodies, and refused the road hauliers any representation at all until they asked for it? Is that fair?
LORD BUCKMASTER: Whether that is correct or not does not appear to affect the argument I am placing before the House. The argument I am putting before your Lordships is this, that to say that. people who are put on that Committee were not selected people, representative of the interests they were called on to represent, is a profound mistake. I am reading out, one by one, the qualifications of the people who were appointed, and I have pointed out that they were appointed by a most impartial body with the most far-reaching knowledge you could possibly get. The mere fact that somebody else was not on the Committee is due to the fact that you cannot have a committee of ungovernable size if you are to do any work. I
710
have not told your Lordships all of them yet. The last one is. the President of the Scottish Commercial Motor Users' Association. Whatever may be said about these men, whether anybody may suggest in their greater wisdom that they could have found better ones, I maintain that these men are fair representatives of the industry they were called on to represent. And about this there can be no question: the Report was unanimous; and I would be glad to know why it is that in these circumstances people who, like myself, assert that fact are to be accused of doing dirty work.
This Report, as you all know, pointed out that the road users were £2,500,000 short of their proper contribution to the expenses of the roads, even if you assume the whole of the petrol tax paid by them to be attributed to that purpose together with their licences. The Committee point out something more, which is a most astounding indictment of the Ministry of Transport. They point out that the Ministry had established an ascending scale of licences up to five tons unladen weight, and there they would let it stop, so that there was an encouragement to multiply the load on the roads to the utmost possible extent. Now, the Salter Report was brought before your Lordships' consideration by myself in a Motion I made in November last year. My Motion was in two forms: first, that it was desirable that it should be carried into effect without delay, and secondly, that there should be a better attempt to achieve security for people on the roads. In my opinon, the two things hang together, and in dealing with this I did my best to deal with the details of the Salter Report. So far as was in my power I laid every relevant fact before your Lordships.
It is hardly to be believed that when Lord Mount Temple, who appears to have some feeling on this matter, spoke, he said I had devoted nineteen-twentieths of my speech to the latter part of the Motion, and that I practically ignored the Salter Report altogether. Being mathematically minded, I have examined how I treated each branch, and I find that as nearly as possible I gave half to each part of my Motion. The last thing I desire to do is to ask your Lordships to re-read anything I have said, but if any of your

711
Lordships wish, if I may say so, to have a perfectly fair and complete exposition of the Salter Report, I would respectfully ask you, when you have leisure, to turn to what I said on the matter.
That Report, as I say, has been challenged, almost shelved, and we do not know what is going to be done with it. I must say when a Minister has set up such a Committee, composed of men of such outstanding competence, and presided over by a man whose impartiality and skill no one has ever ventured to question— when that unanimous Report has been approved by your Lordships' House it should not be shelved, but put into operation without delay. With regard, therefore, to the action of the Ministry of Transport as between rails and roads, my charge is that they have not held the scales fairly; whether owing to unfamiliarity with the facts or owing to what Lord Mount Temple suggests on the part of the Ministry, I do not know; but I do say that the facts I have stated show that the scales have not been fairly held. Now, no doubt, Lord Mount Temple thinks that the infirmity of the Ministry of Transport has something to do with it, because he said he "deeply deplored that these recommendations were, under the present hesitating and weak Minister, to be relegated to the scrap-heap." If this Ministry is governed by a hesitating and weak Minister, is it not time it should be ended? Is it right that you should have a body possessed of such great powers condemned by a person who formerly held office as being hesitating and weak. I do not like to suggest to Lord Mount Temple what might be his duty in this matter, but I suggest to him that it is a little hard to speak like that of his successor, and that it is not everyone who can bend the bow of Ulysses.
I now turn to what, to my mind, is an even more formidable charge against the Ministry of Transport. I say that from beginning to end they have done nothing to secure the safety of the people who use the roads on foot. It is perfectly true that they passed the Motor Transport Act of 1930. Now what did that do? It abolished the speed limit. Was that in the interest of the foot passenger? Can anyone point out to me from the first to the last word of that Act anything that has been inserted in its pro-
712
visions to protect the foot passenger? The only thing that can be suggested is that there has been created an offence, a charge of reckless driving. I have my doubts as to whether it was a new offence, but that is all that can be said, and it is punishable by a fine, not very large, a term of imprisonment that is not very long, and a power of suspending the licence which is only infrequently used.
Now let us just see how, in fact, it works. I took this from an evening newspaper which I saw yesterday by chance. A woman gives evidence at an inquest as to the death of her five-year-old son. I will not harrow your Lordships by describing what the paper said was the condition of the unhappy woman. She was taken in a state of collapse from the court. That one can well understand. She was walking with a child in each hand. She herself was knocked down. She put up her hands and shouted "Stop !" The account adds: "I went to pick up my baby and found my boy dead." Of course it might be an accident. But let us see what the verdict is, and see how this Transport Act helps the people. The jury said they considered the driver of the van should be censured for his negligent driving, but that he was not criminally responsible. In South Australia, as I have pointed out before, that man would have been in peril of seven years hard labour. About that there is no doubt. I doubt if there is any civilised country in the world where such a verdict as that could be returned against a man and the man be free of everything except the possible chance of a £ 5 fine or, it might be, a temporary suspension of his licence. That is merely an instance of things that happen day by day.
I saw a report that 1,255 children were killed in one year, and I see no reason to disregard it, because from figures I quoted previously, taken from The Times and the Scotsman, I found the record of slaughter was 100 per month. 1,255 children killed ! Why? Simply because there is no attempt being made to control the speed at which these people drive their cars, or the skill of the men who drive them. If you were to go down the Bayswater Road, which, as you know, affords access to the Park, you will find a policeman at one of the refuges, and his business is to help the children across the road, and he does

713
his work admirably. But does it not strike you as a terrible indictment upon the people who use the road that you must have a man paid for at the public expense to compel car drivers to do what every decent man should do without compulsion, avoid running over a child? I say without hesitation that if a person walked down the pavement and treated children on the pavement as the motor cars treat them in the road he would be lynched before he had gone a quarter of a mile. There is no care whatever unless there is the authority of the law to enforce against these people a decency of behaviour that they ought to have for themselves.
It is perfectly true that it might well be that, even driven at the pace at which these cars are driven to-day, there would be no risk if al drivers were skilled. We have in the House this afternoon the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who is one of the most skilful drivers in the kingdom, and who, I believe, rejoices in a pace which he has never yet asked me to share. But no one can say he has injured anybody, and why? Because of his skill. May not it, therefore, be desirable that there should be some training and some test before licences are handed out broadcast to anybody of sixteen enabling him to drive a lethal weapon about the road without control? "No," the Ministry of Transport says, "you must not do that." Every single proposal that has been put before the Ministry, and there have been many, by which this scandal might be lessened, has been rejected. There is the proposal made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, as to tests for drivers, an excellent one. There is the proposal that you should reimpose some speed limit and see that it is enforced, which, I think, also is good. There is the proposal that you should strengthen the hands of the law against these people, and make them responsible for the mischief that they cause. Every single one of these proposals has been turned down by the Ministry of Transport. If they know of these things that is as much as you can say, but you do not know if they have realised the serious state of affairs that exist. They do nothing but pause and falter and hesitate to act.
We have to face this position. Are you contented to see a number of people injured and killed upon our roads year by
714
year without doing something to stop this slaughter? Are 1,255 children to be offered up year by year upon an altar erected to the God of Robots, and nobody attempt to pull it down? To my mind the apathy of people in this matter is a lamentable thing. I believe myself that public opinion is far more ready to be kindled upon this question than the Ministry of Transport believes; at least I am certain that unless something is done we shall remain under a disgrace which I think it ought to be the desire of every decent-minded man to remedy. This complaint that I make is not made only by pedestrians. I have spoken to very many people about this matter. I do not think I know a single decent man who drives a motor car who is not as profoundly ashamed of what takes place upon the road as people who do not drive motor cars at all. It is only a small fraction of these people who do these things and they are the people whom it ought to be possible to reach and to punish.
The extent of the mischief which they can do is very hard indeed to describe. I do not like mentioning personal matters, but I should like to refer to one incident which shows exactly how the law can operate to-day. I was crossing the Bayswater Road the other day. The road was quite bare on my right hand when I started, but a car came along at such a pace that it covered the whole of the vacant space before I was in the middle of the road, and drove straight at me. It passed within a few inches of me, although there was plenty of room elsewhere. As it passed the driver leaned out from his seat and said: "How do you like that?" Four inches and I must have been killed ! That is a comparatively trifling matter. The thing that is important is this: Had I been killed there was nothing under this Act that you could have done to this man of any consequence. You might have said that he was guilty of careless driving; probably that would have been the charge brought against him under this Act. And what would have been the result? I have said before, and I repeat, the offence in law under the Act is identical with his having left his certificate of insurance on his hall table. He might have been fined in the same way as lie would have been fined for leaving a piece of paper behind.

715
He might have been fined £10, if the magistrate was very angry, but he could not have had his licence endorsed under that section for the first offence. If he had not been brought up before that is all that would have been done to him, and that is all the protection that this Ministry of Transport has afforded by its Act for the people who are the lawful users of the highway, and were the users of it long before motor cars were thought of. It is impossible to say that the Ministry of Transport has done nothing, because we hear that it has, through the agency of the Home Office, caused a very careful inquiry to be made as to how these accidents happen. And that is all it has done. Really and truly if the Minister of Transport wants to know how these accidents happen let me tell him how to find out. Let him ask some of his people to walk down Bayswater, and between Lancaster Gate and Notting Hill, two or three times a day when traffic is busy, and try to cross the road. If he will do that he will find out quickly how these accidents happen. Why, the accidents happen there almost. daily. It was only a short time back that a woman was cut down standing at the refuge not far from my house. Though I did not see it I was told that it was not a pleasant sight to see that woman lying in the road with her grey hair all dabbled with blood. But although I did not see it, I can believe it, for I saw the same thing myself lower down the road not long ago when a man was killed merely because the vehicle was going along so fast that it could not be controlled.
Let them go and see for themselves and not wait for the police to make reports. How do they know that the policeman is going to he there when accidents happen? The police cannot be everywhere, and when the policeman is there there is not so much risk of accidents as when he is not there. Bat they are to try and find out and report to the Ministry of Transport, and when they have found out about it they will consider what they will do. The answer to the whole thing is clear. There was a Judge who had as much experience of County Courts, where these matters often come up, as anyone— Sir Edward Parry—and he says:
716
"The main cause of these so-called accidents are selfish, reckless, incompetent drivers and the use of machines unsafe or unfit for road traffic. The true reason of the horrible results of motor accidents is the speed at which these vehicles are allowed to drive."
Surely, the Minister of Transport might have asked somebody who knew, but the very Commission to which the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, is so fond of referring, and which he says ought to be their authority for what they do—it is hardly to be believed—never summoned one of the London Police magistrates before them before this speed limit was abolished. They never heard the practical men in London who are administering the law and who could tell them what happened. They were undoubtedly influenced—I do not say for a moment improperly influenced— by the enormous weight of the evidence brought up by these organised bodies who are in favour of motor transport. My complaint against them is that they have remained under their control.
I believe the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, will reply, and I want to ask him two simple questions. The first is: Does he think it just that the liability of the heavy traffic under the Statute to which I have referred should have been taken away from them at the partial cost of their competitors in business The second question I would like to ask is: Does he really think that the resources of our law and civilisation are exhausted and there is nothing that can be done to stop the slaughter on our roads? My Lords, I propose that the powers of this office should be distributed and should go in part to the Home Office and in part to the Board of Trade. It is true that I sometimes fear that the Home Office appear to be infected by the bacillus that dehumanises every Government Department, and certainly their expressions of sympathy with birds who are suffering abominable cruelty do not encourage one to believe that they are too sensitive to suffering. But none the less, the Home Office has at least a long tradition of the care of the lives and safety of the people of the country, and I believe they would respond to the appeal to which the Ministry of Transport has been deaf. The Board of Trade will know more about the railways and roads and competition between them, and

717
the value of the railways to this country, than the Ministry of Transport has apparently ever thought of learning. My charge is, that the Ministry of Transport has been tried in the balance and found wanting, and that its authority should be broken up and given over to the two offices I have named. For that purpose I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in the opinion of this House the duties of the Ministry of Transport could be better discharged by the Home Office and the Board of Trade, and that it is in the public interest that the said Ministry should be dissolved and its functions distributed among other Departments.—(Lord Buckmaster.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I feel I am expressing what your Lordships all feel in thanking the noble and learned Lord for his most eloquent speech. At the same time I feel sure that we should like to congratulate him on his escape from such a, terrible accident. I have every sympathy with his feelings. On occasions of that sort one's exasperation and one's indignation know no bounds. But I would say to the noble and learned Lori very respectfully that it would be of great assistance to all the authorities concerned and to everybody who desires greater safety on the roads if on occasions of that sort he took the number of the car. If he charged the driver with dangerous driving and quoted what the driver had said to him I think that a very severe sentence would be imposed upon that man.
I was waiting throughout the noble and learned Lord's speech for his indictment of the Ministry of Transport, and I must say I heard very little about it. His quarrel seemed to be very largely with the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, whom we are likely to hear speak later in the debate, and his charges were also very properly made against the Government, but against the Ministry of Transport I cannot say that I heard him bring any charge whatsoever. In a very subordinate capacity I have had experience in several Government offices. For fourteen months I served in the Ministry of Transport. I must say that I found there a very high level of efficiency amongst the officials and in the senior officers I found a breadth of view, a grasp of the perplexing problems that
718
were constantly arising; and also a general enlightenment not usually associated with the expert's mind, and, I should say, unsurpassed in any other Government Department.
The trend of the argument which the noble and learned Lord brought forward was that we are confronted with very grave and serious problems with regard to traffic. The invention of the internal' combustion engine has brought problems with which we are all trying to grapple. Instead of proposing that the Ministry of Transport should be disbanded it would be better in my opinion if, on the contrary, it was very greatly strengthened. I do not think that the noble and learned Lord really has full knowledge of the scope of the duties of the Ministry of Transport. Noble Lords received at the beginning of the week a list of rules and orders to be laid on the Table of the House. Among them there are over 80 which concern the Ministry of Transport. The Ministry's duties range from the very large questions such as road and rail down to the very small but equally difficult questions such as the regulation of the traffic in Bond Street. It has to deal with road construction and the administration of the Road, Fund, it has to deal with docks and harbours, and it has to deal with electricity.
I think the noble and learned Lord did not find the correct list of salaries and officials in the Ministry of Transport because it is a very large Department. At the same time I would call attention to the cost, which can be found in the Civil Service Estimates. Taking the year 1931–2 the gross expenditure of the Department was £511,811 and there were recoveries from the Road Fund of £355,634 and from other sources of £24,100, making altogether £379,734. So that the net cost to the Exchequer of the Department is only £132,077. If, therefore, anybody is out for economy and wants to disband the Department they will produce very little result in that connection. Anything so misguided, if I inlay say so, as a suggestion to get rid of a Department that is grappling with these technical problems and is obliged to devote itself day in and day-out to constantly new aspects of the motor and road question, is absolute madness. What certainly is wanted is an expert body like the Ministry of Transport who can stand up against the extravagant

719
demands of manufacturers and dealers in motor vehicles whose bullying and arrogant tone needs somebody with real expert knowledge to counteract them. They are the enemy to-day, and unless we have a fully-manned Department to deal with these people they will get the upper hand.
I do not for a moment suggest that the noble and learned Lord has not very good ground for complaint. I think he has, but if I may respectfully say so he is throwing his stones at the wrong window; and although his Motion is for the abolition of the Ministry of Transport, I was glad that a good part of his speech was really directed against the Government. There I think he is right.
LORD BUCKMASTER: It was not intended to be.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I do not see how you can isolate the head of the Department from the Government. A Minister is wanted at the Ministry of Transport with drive, initiative, power of invention and eagerness to deal with these difficult problems as they arise. It was universally admitted that the late Minister, Mr. Herbert Morrison, had those qualities and showed great eagerness in grappling with new problems, searching new fields and adopting new ideas. More than that, I say the Minister of Transport ought to be a Cabinet Minister. What happens now? The Minister realises how important and vital all these matters are. The question the noble and learned Lord has so eloquently brought before your Lordships' House before now of the terrible loss of life and the number of road accidents cannot be neglected and is as urgent as any domestic or foreign problem with which the Cabinet has to deal; yet what can the Minister do if he is not in the Cabinet? He sends in a suggestion that such and such a regulation or bit of legislation should be brought forward and the Cabinet Ministers of the big Departments, engrossed also in very important questions, are very likely to, and have before now, set aside any requests from a Minister who is not a member of the Cabinet.
I believe the very first thing to be done, so far from abolishing the Ministry of Transport, is to give it a higher status than hitherto, and to see that the
720
Minister is a Cabinet Minister in order that he can press these urgent matters before the Cabinet personally, because unless he can do that he has no chance at all. The noble and learned Lord talked about the Salter Report—that is what I mean by his having attacked the Government. Why had not something been done upon the Report? But that is not the Ministry; that is His Majesty's Government. The noble and learned Lord talked about correcting this matter of speed, which he maintains is really the origin of the greater part of the accidents. I differ from him there. I do not think the abolition of the speed limit has been primarily responsible for a great number of the accidents. He also said that it was often incompetent drivers who were responsible for accidents, and I do not believe that either. I believe incompetent drivers are very nervous and very careful. I think it is just that sort of driver who passes so closely, who likely enough knew to an inch how near he could get to the noble and learned Lord— it is that man we want to get at, and he is quite competent. That is one of the great arguments against tests for driving. But if there are to be tests, speed limit, and legislation on the Salter Report, such matters must be attended to by the Government of the day, and by the Minister of Transport being able to press the Government to adopt his proposals.
If the noble and learned Lord looked at the archives of the Ministry of Transport, I should not wonder if at this moment he found prepared scheme after scheme for tackling these difficult problems. From contact with the Department I feel that it is not the Department that is to blame, and I think that when an indictment is made against any branch of the Civil Service very great care should be taken to see that there is good ground for it. The idea of this division of duties between the Home Office and the Board of Trade is absolutely grotesque and would place an intolerable burden on the two Departments. They have not the officers competent to deal with it. It is not a matter for a subordinate minor official; it is not an affair that is to be tucked away in an out-of-the-way passage in any Government office. It is a highly important matter, as the noble and learned Lord himself admits.

721
For that reason you should not only have the present Ministry of Transport, but the present Ministry should be strengthened by making its head a Cabinet Minister and the Government should have before it far more closely and urgently than it can have at present the grave problems which must arise on this subject.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, before I deal with the Motion perhaps I may be allowed very briefly to deal with the criticism of certain remarks of mine in a speech I made yesterday. I feel very strongly on this subject because I think in the composition of the Salter Committee—nay, I am sure—all the interests were not fairly treated. A hard-pressed Minister—hard-pressed in the Press and in Parliament—felt he had got to do something, that he had got to send out some kind of a smoke-screen to divert public attention from the non-completion of the Griffith-Boscawen Commission. He called together representatives of the railway companies, whom I may call A, representatives of the mechanical transport users, B, and the Long-distant Hauliers' Association, whom I will call C. These three organisations, A, B, and C, arrived at the Ministry for a preliminary conference. Before the end of that conference the Minister had resolved to set up a Committee of investigation and recommendation. He asked the railway companies and the mechanical road users for their nominees, but he did not ask the long-distance hauliers for any nominees. They pressed for representation and were refased it, and I put it to the House that if it is right and proper to ask the representative of an organisation to come to you for consultation—one out of three, and therefore obviously of great importance—and a Committee is set up, it is not treating that association fairly—in fact it is dirty work—to refuse them representation and to give representation to other people who have no sympathy with their association and will probably impose penal legislation upon its members. I am therefore not ashamed of having used that phrase at a public luncheon yesterday. I thought it due to the House to answer the point raised by the noble and learned Lord before dealing with the Motion before the House.
722
I will now endeavour to confine myself to the terms of the Motion, which says simply:
"That in the opinion of this House the duties of the Ministry of Transport could be better discharged by the Home Office and the Board of Trade, and that it is in the public interest that the said Ministry should be dissolved and its functions distribute among other Departments."
Nine-tenths, or a very large proportion, of the complaints of the noble and learned Lord were made against the Ministry of Transport, but his complaints ought to be against Parliament. The Ministry of Transport does not by decree make offences and inflict punishments. All it has got to do, in a small way, is to see that legislation is carried through, that penalties are inflicted and offenders arrested, and it is not the fault of the Ministry of Transport that legislation is so defective in the opinion of the noble and learned Lord.
Let us come to the practical side of this Motion. It seems to me that the Motion can only be supported either on the ground that there would be more efficiency if the Motion be carried through, or that there would be economy in the spending of public money. Let us take efficiency first. At the present moment you have got a Department which may be good or bad but which is a separate entity, with a Minister and a Parliamentary Secretary. That is a Department which can be, and is, run as a self-contained unit, and you have two gentlemen, belonging to either House of Parliament, who can give their whole time to solving the difficult problems which come up. Under the noble and learned Lord's proposal you could not possibly have—obviously you could not have—a Minister and a Parliamentary Secretary. The Minister would naturally fade away, because the Department would be abolished. You would, I suppose, have to have a Parliamentary Secretary. He would probably be, under the proposals of the noble and learned Lord, an extra Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade. Will anybody get up and say that if the present Ministry was destroyed and the greater part of its functions transferred to the Board of Trade there would be greater efficiency? It is public knowledge that the Board of Trade is already overburdened with work, that it is such a vast Department that the President cannot properly control it,

723
and that he will be able to give very little time to the urgent problems which the noble and learned Lord rightly says are of such importance. The work, therefore, would fall mainly upon some Parliamentary Secretary, who would have probably no power at all.
Look at the matter from a Departmental point of view. You have here a Departmental assembled in one building and very handy for conferences and for carrying on the work. Under the proposals of the noble and learned Lord you would have its duties divided between the Home Office and the Board of Trade. Everybody knows that if you have consultation between two Departments, as you would have to have, it always takes time. Departments love to have little differences with other Departments, and breaking the unit up would undoubtedly cause delay, and delay means inefficiency and the spending of more public money. Then look at the matter from your Lordships' own point of view. At the present moment we have a Minister and a Parliamentary Secretary. The Minister is in another place. The Parliamentary Secretary, whom we all admire for his efficiency and the way in which he presents the case for his Department, represents the Department here in this House. Under the noble and learned Lord's proposals obviously there would be no representative of the duties which compose the Ministry of Transport here. There would be no authority here to speak at all, because naturally the Secretary would be in another place and not here. Therefore, instead of having the advantage of the presence of one who knows his work, and is acquainted with the work, and is all the week in touch with the Department, we should have probably a Lordin-Waiting, doing his very best and speaking to his brief, but unable to answer questions put to him, and relying upon an official in the corner who could not impart to him in two minutes all the information which noble Lords desired. Therefore I say that the proposal of the noble and learned Lord is most retrograde and disastrous.
Then take economy. Twice while I was Minister it was my mournful duty to explore the position to see how much money would be saved if the Department were abolished. Speaking absolutely frankly I could not see that any money would
724
be saved except £2,000 a year which would be saved on the Minister's salary. You could save a great deal of money in the Ministry of Transport, and in many other Government Departments, if you were prepared to repeal existing legislation, but unless you do that you have to have all the officials, whether in the Ministry of Transport or the Board of Trade or the Home Office, to see that these Acts of Parliament are put into effect. I am perfectly convinced that if you abolished the Ministry of Transport you would not save a single penny except the salary of the Minister, because obviously you would have to have the Parliamentary Secretary of some other Department to carry on the work.
May I deal with a point so often raised—namely, that because the Ministry of Transport is one of the latest Ministries, a baby really compared with the Board of Trade and other older Ministries, it should therefore be the first to be abolished? To me it seems just the other way round. I wonder, if some of the older Ministries were called upon to justify their existence as the Minister of Transport has been called upon to justify his, how they would come out of the ordeal? I name no names. We all know the circumlocution offices, and those which could perfectly well be dispensed with. When the Ministry of Transport was born there was an urgent need for it. The fact that it is one of the youngest Ministries is a reason why it ought to be most looked after, and why it should he continued.
Finally, I am really surprised at the noble and learned Lord bringing forward this Motion. Why does he want to destroy the instrument that he would have at hand to carry through all these road measures that he is constantly bringing before your Lordships' House? Here is an instrument which would perfectly efficiently and helpfully carry through the legislation that we want passed; and now he wants to destroy the very instrument that is ready to his hand, and to distribute its functions between various other Departments. If you want some economy in Government Departments investigate the reason why it is necessary to have three Ministers each at the Admiralty and the War Office. I was Under-Secretary at the War Office for six months, and I am quite sure that

725
three Ministers are not necessary. I make that suggestion a present to my noble friend when he answers. If he wants economy let him have two Ministers at the War Office and two at the Admiralty, and let him leave the Ministry of Transport alone.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mount Temple began his speech by saying that the present Minister of Transport had behaved very badly—I rather think he -used the phrase "dirty work"—because he had not admitted certain representatives to this Conference. I thought that the natural sequence of that would be that my noble friend would support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buck-master.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: It does not follow because you do not approve of the Minister's action that you want to do away with the Department. You may want to change the Minister.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Well, what my noble friend wants to do is to get rid of the present Minister and put somebody else in his place. I hope that the Government will accept the Motion of Lord Buckmaster. By doing so they would be carrying out the intentions of the last Conservative Government, because Mr. Winston Churchill when Chancellor of the Exchequer gave an undertaking, somewhere about 1926 or 1927, that in the interests of economy he would abolish three Departments. My recollection is that those three Departments were the Ministry of Mines, the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Overseas Trade. I was very pleased to hear that, because for years I have preached economy—with very little result; practically, one might say, with no result. I think I had the powerful support of the noble and learned Marquess, Lord Reading, who, I am sorry to see, is not in hi; place at the moment and I had hoped that we at last were going to do something which would result in a reduction of expenditure and the abolition of some of the new Ministries which, in my humble opinion—and I have been forty-one years in one or other Rouse of Parliament—have done no good at all to anybody. Therefore, I hope that my noble friends below me will follow the example of Mr. Churchill, except that they w ill not merely say they
726
are going to abolish the Ministry of Transport, but will do it.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster—I only wish I had his powers of speech—related to your Lordships how a short time ago, somewhere in the Bayswater Road, as he was crossing the road a motor car, going at a fast pace, never attempted to stop, or even to divert its course, but very nearly ran over him, and then the driver asked him how he liked it. Last winter I was crossing from the eastern side of Sloane Street at about eight o'clock in the evening, intending, with good luck, to get to the western side. I looked to the left, and I saw that at the Pont Street crossing, which was some 300 or 400 yards below me, the policeman was holding up the traffic. I looked to my right, and I saw, somewhere down by the Park end of Sloane, Street, two brilliant lights. At that moment Sloane Street was absolutely clear of traffic, arid I therefore proceeded across the road. When I had got about three-quarters of the way across I heard a horn, and I saw an enormous saloon car—I do not know whether it belonged to Lord Mount Temple or not—almost on me in the middle of the road. Not the slightest attempt to get to the near side, not the slightest attempt to diminish speed. The chauffeur as he passed me put his tongue out and said "Yah !" That confirms what the noble and learned Lord said, except that if anything had happened to him it would have been serious, whilst if anything had happened to me I do not suppose it would have very much mattered. But that shows what is going on at the present moment. For many years I used to drive with horses, and if anybody got in the way I pulled up and went slow, but nothing will induce the driver of a motor car or motor larry to diminish his speed at all. He seems to think that all he has to do is to blow his horn, and everybody else has to get out of the way.
Lord Buckmaster said something a-bout the railways. Your Lordships know that at the present moment the capital of the railways represents £1,100,000,000 sterling, and it is held by many poor people, and, of course, by some rich people. What is the cost of a motor lorry? I suppose a motor lorry at the outside does not cost more than £500 or £ 600. What is the loss to those people, who are using the roads without paying

727
for them, compared with that of the railway companies who have £1,100,000,000 invested in their undertakings, and have to provide everything on the railways and are being gradually ruined? Unless something is done first of all to prevent the roads, which were never meant to be used by cars going at the speed of an express train, being used for that purpose, the result will be an anormous loss in the capital of the country invested in railways at a time when we cannot afford such a loss. How can we guarantee loans to Austria, and other extravagances of that sort, if we are going to allow the capital invested in the country to be destroyed and in addition have something like 200,000 people injured or killed? In the interests of economy if there is not other reason I hope my noble friend below me will at least make a start. During the last year I have watched with interest to see whether or not we were going to reduce this enormous expenditure that is going on. You cannot take half a man's capital when he dies, you cannot take half his income when he is alive, and expect the country to remain prosperous. The Government have a great majority in the House of Commons. They are able to do many things. My Lords, I hope in the interests of economy and in the interests of life the Government will accept the Motion of my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster.
EARL BUXTON: My Lords, like my noble friend who has just spoken I had expected the Government to he prepared to accept this Motion. Those of the Government who are members of the Conservative Party will remember that they themselves appointed a Committee which was to enquire into all these matters—the Geddes Committee. I think my noble friend Lord Mount Temple has entirely forgotten how this position has arisen at all. After the War there was a sort of craze that if you had a separate department with expensive buildings, a Minister to represent it, a Parliamentary Secretary and a host of clerks and others, the work would be done more efficiently than it was before. That was founded on an entire fallacy. I do not believe that these separate Departments with these immense staffs do, or are likely to do, more efficient work than was done in the older Departments with much
728
smaller staffs. It leads to more minuting, more red tape, secretaries and others falling over one another; and I am quite convinced from the experience I have had in administration that it is not an economic or efficient way of doing the public work. The Ministry of Transport was one of these, like the Overseas Trade Department and the Labour section, which were taken away from the Board of Trade during or directly after the War. As regards the Labour Department I think that was a right and proper thing to do, from my experience at the Board of Trade. The Labour Department, being quite on a different basis, would have been made possibly into a separate department if there had been no war. I think I was almost the last President of the Board of Trade who had transport under his control and I would say without hesitation that the work of the Board of Trade including this Transport Department, Labour, and so on, was done in a much more efficient and economical way than it has been done by these Departments now that they have been separated from it.
As my noble friend Lord Buckmaster has said, everybody desires economy wherever it can possibly be effected, and no doubt a very large amount cannot be obtained from the transfer of the Transport Department, but at all events a certain sum will be at disposal. The Geddes Committee unanimously and most emphatically in 1922 declared that the Ministry of Transport was an excrescence which should be transferred to the Board of Trade, that the work involved there would be better done by the Board of Trade, and that certain economies would be effected. Now a word about the position as regards the cost of the Ministry as it then was and as it is now, and what the saving might be. The figures I give are taken from the official returns of the. cost of these various Departments. My noble friend Lord Buckmaster I think underestimated the cost at the present moment. When the Geddes Committee reported that the Ministry of Transport should be transferred the total expenditure was £ 280,000. I am using gross figures. It has risen to £ 470,000, an increase of nearly £ 200,000. The staff has risen from 509 persons in 1922 to 1,200 persons at the present moment, and the Geddes Com

729
mittee point out that the transport work was done by some forty-two persons under the Road Board and some thirty in the Board of Trade, a total of eighty, with a certain number of staff officers. Even if the total was taken at 200 it would be only one-fifth of the present staff which is costing this very large sum, and though I quite agree with my noble friend Lord Mount Temple, that certain additional duties have been added, it cannot be said that the duties involved in the Ministry of Transport can be five times what they were when the work was taken away from the Board of Trade.
I am quite certain from my experience that these matters could be better done by the Board of Trade, as the more responsible body, than by the Ministry of Transport. My noble friend Lord Mount Temple said that if you do that there will be no means of having the Ministry of Transport represented in this House. He has forgotten that it is not represented in this House at the present moment. My noble friend Lord Plymouth is not in any way an official representative of the Ministry. What I think Lord Buckmaster had in mind, looking back over the last year or so, is that this Department is not strong enough and apparently is not able to deal with these great questions to which he referred, especially as regards the question of danger. We have had from various representatives of the Ministry, expressions as to the terrible position existing at the present moment with regard to traffic dangers. Your Lordships will remember the appalling total of deaths and injuries which are brought about each year by our transport system. Deaths exceed 6,000 a year, eighteen a day, and the numbers are over 330 a day if you include both injuries and fatal accidents. I saw the other day that the Minister of Transport said that fatal accidents had diminished last year by 610, and he attributed that partly to the reduction in licences consequent upon the:financial position of the country. He went on to say that he had to confessthat the total injuries had increased in that year by no fewer than 25,000. It is pure luck whether you are killed or injured, and what one has to do in these matters is not to distinguish between those who are killed and those who are injured but to take the total of both, and if you do that you get an increase every
730
year, in spite of the fall in the number of licences, during the last three years.
We have had in this House, and elsewhere, from representatives of the Ministry of Transport lip-service as to what ought to be done. We hear that they realise the gravity of the question, and that they have the matter constantly in mind. What I think my noble friend objects to most is that, although the Ministry is always alive to these things, it never seems to do anything really effective to meet this appalling position. How has the Ministry of Transport translated its regrets into active work? During the last twelve months the matter has been brought up more than once in this House and elsewhere. It is one in which the pubic takes a very great interest. Have we been able to extract from the Ministry of Transport any practical action for the prevention of the terrible roll of accidents and of deaths? Noble Lords will remember that we had two Bills introduced into this House last year, one by the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, and the other by the noble Lord, Lord Buckmaster. One was to give a greater opportunity to pedestrians to obtain compensation if they were injured. The other was to strengthen the law so that the offender would be dealt with in a much more effective way. How were those Bills met? The attitude of the Department to those Bills was certainly not of a very satisfactory kind. There was little hostility to the Bills; there was no Division upon them; but they were objected to and criticised by the Department as quite impossible to be carried out.
We were told in regard to those two Bills that the existing law was adequate. Your Lordships will remember that last June, as a sop to Cerberus, when it was shown that the justices of the peace had been too lenient in not suspending or cancelling licences, it was decided by the Ministry of Transport that they would send a circular at once to the justices of the peace concerned. That was in June. This circular, which might have taken perhaps an hour to draw up, and another hour to type, was not issued till the end of August. During that time there was an immense number of fatal accidents and injuries. It was almost criminal negligence on the part of the Department in so delaying the sending

731
of that circular if they really believed that what they were sending out would have any real influence in reducing the number of deaths and injuries. They allowed these accidents to continue during that time, and did nothing to stop them. The only other thing that they have done, so far as I can see, is this. They were going to get rid of solid tyres, which were damaging the roads so much, but it turned out that that would not be done until 1940, seven years hence. That is hardly a thing we can consider very effective. As my noble friend has pointed out, they took credit for the Salter Report. I was sorry to hear my noble friend Lord Mount Temple attack the impartiality of that Report.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: No.
EARL BUXTON: Well, the non-representative character of the Conference, and use strong language. The Salter Report, to which my noble friend Lord Buckmaster has referred, was intended to deal with the heavy traffic which was damaging the roads and not carrying its proper amount of taxation. It was said all that must be reconsidered, and it was so important and so urgent that the Ministry insisted on the Report being brought out as early as July. Yet since then nothing has been done, and we are now told that the question of taxation, which is the only part of the Report that is of real importance, must stand over until the Budget.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): What does the noble Earl mean by saying nothing has been done since July?
EARL BUXTON: I mean that nothing effective has been done. There have been discussions. We were told they would only last a month or two, but it is now more than six months since the Report was issued and nothing effective has been done in regard to it; none of its recommendations have been carried out. We do not even know if it has been accepted by the Government. At all events the advantage to be gained from these reforms of taxation has not yet accrued, and we were informed the other day that nothing could be done until the Budget was introduced. The only other thing, as far as I remember, that has been done by the Department, was to introduce a
732
larger number of automatic controls. That, of course, is something which affects traffic and not accidents.
Another reason why I support this Motion is this. We shall have before us shortly a Bill of the utmost importance affecting the nine million inhabitants of Greater London and an area of 800 square miles. I do not feel sufficient confidence in the capacity or the position of the Ministry of Transport to think that it is entitled to be the Department to which such a Bill as that should be sent. The original Bill gave the Minister of Transport immense powers—almost the powers of an autocrat—in dealing with London passenger traffic. That has been to a certain extent modified but even now the powers of the Ministry of Transport will be enormous. It is a matter of the most vital importance to all the inhabitants of London and outer London, and in my opinion the Ministry of Transport, a small third-rate Department with its chief not even in the Cabinet, is not a suitable body or a strong enough Department to deal with such a question.
I repeat that I feel confident that the Board of Trade is perfectly capable of undertaking these additional duties. The Ministry of Transport since the Geddes Commission has no longer control of the railways, but has had added to its duties a great deal in connection with road traffic and the Electricity Commission. On the other hand, the Board of Trade since the time of the Geddes Commission has been relieved of its Labour Department, and I should say that that Department would involve more work, more anxiety and more personal responsibility for the President of the Board of Trade than anything which would be handed over from the Ministry of Transport. I believe that we should economise where we can and that we can economise in this way. Not only can we economise but we should have greater efficiency and celerity.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, in the very early stages of his speech said that the Ministry of Transport had appointed the Salter Commission because it desired to send out a smoke screen in order to avoid criticism of its own doings. I do not know that I should have ventured to use so violent a

733
metaphor, but my noble friend knows the work of the Department better than I do and it may be that that is a true account of what was done.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: May I interrupt my noble friend for a minute? It is not quite correct to criticise the Department for that. It is. the Minister who is responsible and not the permanent officials.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Of course the Minister is always responsible. We can only judge a Department by its actions. I do feel that though the language is perhaps rather violent it does embody the kind of charge that we make against the Department not only on this occasion but as regards the whole of its administration as far as it has come before this House. There does appear to be a tendency to avoid taking any effective action and to conceal the want of substance in the administrative efforts of the Department by a series of what my noble friend calls "smoke screens." That is the charge. When he and my noble friend Lord Ponsonby said that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buck-master, had made no argument in favour of the Motion lie moved, I think they were rather unjust to my noble and learned friend. After all, what did his speech come to? It came to the charge that the Department was costly and inefficient and it was on that ground that he thought it ought to be suppressed. As I listened to his speech I thought that the whole of his argument was directed to prove either one or the other.
As to its being costly, we have had a number of figures presented to the House. Lord Buckmaster put the cost at over £300,000, Lord Ponsonby put it at £120,000, Lord Mount. Temple put it at £2,000 and Earl Buxton at 2400,000. I have heard other figures floating through the arguments of noble Lords. I am afraid I have not examined the figures closely enough to express any opinion, but I should be very much surprised to hear that an office that employed 1,000 officials would cost the country not more than £2,000 a year, especially as we have been told by Earl Buxton that the duties of its 1,000 officials were before the creation of the Ministry of Transport performed by certainly not more than 200. However, be the cost what it may
734
there is no doubt—if I may say so with the leave of Lord Mount Temple—that it costs very much more than £2,000 a year. It may cost £100,000, it may cost £200,000, it may cost £300,000, but the real question for your Lordships, it seems to me, is to decide whether that sum of money, great or small, is being expended economically and is producing really valuable results to the country. That is the whole question.
I cannot help feeling that there is a great deal of force in the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster's contention. I cannot think that the Ministry of Transport has really done anything of great advantage to the country since its creation, balancing one thing against another. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said that if it had any failing it was because it had not a Cabinet Minister at the head of it. I think there is some force in that, but just think what, that means. That means another increase in the Cabinet, and I thought it was really a commonplace of most observers that the Cabinet was already too huge. I do think, however, that there is some force in the proposition that all Departments ought to have a Minister to represent them in the Cabinet. I think that is true, but that does not seem to me an argument in favour of increasing the number of Departments but rather in favour of collecting them under the head of some central Department who could represent their views to the Cabinet. I think it is true that the Ministry of Transport has this to say in its defence, that sometimes when it has wanted to do things, which may have been good or may have been bad, it has not always received—I am not sure that my noble friend Lord Mount Temple would not agree with me here— sufficient consideration from the Cabinet of its suggestions. Unquestionably if its duties were handed over to such a Department as the Board of Trade that would be less likely to occur.
My other criticism of the Ministry of Transport, and the reason why if this Motion goes to a Division I shall vote for it, is that I think the conception of the Ministry of Transport was wrong. It was appointed mainly to facilitate transport. It was manned by transport experts in the first instance and that was its main conception from the outset. I do not

735
think, judging from its actions, that it has ever thought that the question of the safety of the roads should be its main preoccupation. Really it ought to be. That is far more important than any of the other things that come before the Ministry. Yet the Ministry has never really given its mind to that point. I think it is due to the fact that it was appointed for the purpose of facilitating transport that that aspect of the matter has never been considered as it ought to be considered. That is why I should very much like to see some of the Ministry's duties transferred to an office like the Home Office, because I think that the Home Office has a great tradition— which it may carry out well or badly— that one of its main duties is to see to the safety and welfare of the individual subjects of the Crown. It is for these two reasons that I think the case against the Ministry of Transport can be made out as sound.
I do not propose to go into details of its work in regard to transport.. My noble friend Earl Buxton speaks with far greater authority than I can pretend to, and he has explained to your Lordships why he thinks that the Board of Trade would better fulfil that part of the Department's duties. Nor do I propose to delay your Lordships with any attempt to epeat the powerful argument of my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster about safety. But I do think it is true to say that over and over again chances of doing really good work in the direction of safety have been missed by the Ministry of Transport. I think it is true to say that the imposition of a test for drivers would have been—I do not say a complete remedy for what we are suffering, but a good thing. It was opposed by the Ministry of Transport. Roughly speaking, almost every suggestion in this House for strengthening provisions for safety has been opposed by the Ministry of Transport, and when Lord Mount Temple says you ought to blame Parliament and not the Ministry of Transport he really is not right. Whether we like it or not, under our system it is the various Departments which in fact determine what legislation shall be passed. They may not be able to carry everything they want, but it is certain that nothing of importance can be carried against the will of the Department concerned.
736
I would myself like to go back a hundred years when Parliament really was able to legislate independently of Departments. When we say that legislation is inefficient or ought to be better, we are making an attack not only on Parliament, but mainly on a Ministry. I have mentioned one or two cases; let me give another. During the passage of the Road Traffic Act, I and others ventured to press upon the Minister the necessity for making it an obligation on local authorities to provide footpaths. They would not have it and it was impossible to press the matter further. They gave us a very anaemic clause in exchange which in effect said that local authorities can provide footpaths if they like, and there is now no power—I know it to my cost— by which we can compel the local authorities to provide them. During the passage of the Bill, the Ministry of Transport assured the House, though I do not say they gave a definite pledge, that it was their policy to insist upon footpaths, and they gave me to understand—I have looked since at the passage, but I cannot say that it was more than an intimation—that they would make it a condition of any scheme of road improvement and widening that footpaths should be provided. In my own district there is an instance, and I have no doubt many of my noble friends know of other instances, where that has not been done— where in a very crucial instance in which there was a very strong case for a footpath the local autlhority did not provide it. I wrote and complained. They said they could not afford it— though they were spending thousands on improvements on the roads for motorists. I wrote to the Ministry and it declined to interfere or do anything to help me.
That is the kind of thing which really is at the bottom of the indignation of many people with the Ministry of Transport. They do not seem to care, fundamentally. Individually I have no doubt they are humane men, but as an office they do not seem to care about this supreme duty of providing for the safety of the people. That is the reason why I shall support this Motion if it goes to a Division, and I hope that whatever may be the fate of the Motion some steps will be taken to improve administration in this particular matter or I am convinced

737
that sooner or later there will be a great outbreak of public indignation on the subject.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene in this debate and I will not delay you for more than a few minutes. I have listened with great attention to the discussion. When the noble and learned Lord submitted his Motion, he seemed at once to seize upon the road rail controversy as an argument for necessarily doing away with the Ministry Of Transport. I cannot understand that argument. If you did away with the Ministry you would not do away with the road-rail controversy. That controversy is not peculiar to this country. The other day I was in Italy and I was surprised to find there, on high authority, that they have a road-rail controversy if anything of far more serious proportions than that in this country; the State Railways are losing millions of pounds and the end is not in sight there any more than it is here. I am not sure that it is a good thing to do away with the Ministry because you have a road-rail controversy. It may be we do not quite agree with the Minister, and I am disposed to think with Lord Mount Temple that the Road Hauliers' Association have certainly not received quite fair treatment. I think they should have been considered far more, because you will not get the real national settlement that we want unless all interests are fairly considered. To leave one out seems to me to be a fatal defect.
While you may criticise the Minister perhaps on that score I cannot see that that is necessarily a reason for doing away with the Ministry. It always seems to me that the Minister of Transport is really trying to do an almost impossible job. There are conflicting interests on all sides. There are those of road and rail, though I do not agree that the interests are nearly so conflicting as extreme partisans on both sides make out. You have the Ministry of Transport responsible for making grants to local authorities or largely controlling the grants, and at the same time trying to convince the Treasury in the matter. Yon have the local authority on the one hand trying to get money and the Treasury on the other trying to prevent expenditure. Electricity interests come in against gas, and so on and so forth. It seems to
738
me that only a Government Department specially charged with. the duty of looking after all these conflicting interests have any hope of restoring order out of chaos.
Much has been said this afternoon about accidents, but before I conic to that I would like to refer to the possible economy to be realised by doing away with the Ministry. If you could secure a real economy it seems to me that would be the best reason you could possibly advance and the only important one, but I thought that the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, was less than fair to Lord Mount Temple when he said that he had indicated the sum of £2,000 as being the cost of the Ministry. I never understood my noble friend to say anything of the sort. I understood him to say that in his capacity of the responsible Minister he examined the possible economies and all he could see was the mere economy of his own salary. I am sure myself that the size of a Department depends very largely upon Government policy and the duties you lay upon the Department. Those duties being as they are, I think it would be very difficult indeed largely to reduce the size of the Department.
With regard to the question of accidents I have a great deal of sympathy with much that has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, and the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil. I go back to the passing of the present Road Traffic Act through this House and I remember trying, for instance, to induce the Minister to accept tests for drivers. I pointed out that every road user who is honest knows that there are large numbers who would fail to pass any sort of test. That can be proved by personal observation or by reference to figures from other countries where you will find that at least one-third of the people fail to pass any test. I prophesied that if you did away with the speed limit without bringing in some sort of test for drivers, you would do absolutely nothing to reduce the number of casualties on the roads but possibly largely increase them unless you were lucky. We have been lucky in so far as I think the number has slightly decreased. I believe that a very large number, and a very high proportion, of the accidents on the highways are preventible accidents, and should not happen, and I do rather agree with the

739
noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, that there should be a more responsive attitude on the part of the Ministry of Transport to this particular question. I should like to see much further examination as to whether there are not more things we could do, such as tests for drivers and the sequestration of motor ears, and so forth, but it is always the case in these debates that the whole blame is placed upon one class of traffic. I think everyone knows that that is not justified. It is not alone the fault of motor drivers. Everyone knows who drives from one part of London to another that there are cases of appalling carelessness and negligence on the part of other classes of traffic, and notably of pedestrians.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, found fault with the Ministry of Transport for not having more footpaths. I share his views in that respect, but you must remember that although you can provide footpaths you cannot compel pedestrians to walk upon them. Take Constitution Hill for a very good example. There you have one of the broadest footpaths that you can find in a Royal park. It is on one side of the road only, but you will frequently see people walking on the other side in the carriage way and dodging the traffic. Therefore I say it is not fair to put all the blame on one class of traffic; and I would like to see the Ministry of Transport trying to do more to regulate the pedestrians than it does do. In their own interests pedestrians must accept some kind of regulation. Something could be done by building more refuges, but they must he on scientific lines. Take Whitehall. There you have only a single line of refuges and what is the use of them when you have four lines of traffic. These, my Lords, are perhaps arguments of a personal character which one should address to the Minister. I do not believe that you would get economy by doing away with the Ministry. I think you would get inefficiency, and that you would fail to get co-ordination, and I have the greatest possible sympathy with what fell from Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede when he asked: Why cannot the Minister have Cabinet rank? I believe that would he of very great advantage from the point of view of the efficiency of the Ministry. I know the argument against having more
740
Cabinet Ministers, and one does not want to suggest anything to increase public expenditure, but, at the same time, I believe that it would lead to greater efficiency on the part of the Ministry. If the Motion goes to a Division, on general grounds and not because I agree with everything that the Ministry is doing I am going to vote against the Motion, because I feel that we should not gain but rather lose if we were to do away with the Ministry and split its powers.
LORD BAYFORD: My Lords, this is not a new question. It was one which actually received the consideration of the Government of the day a few years ago, and the Government of the day decided to abolish the Ministry of Transport. I hope that my noble friend, when he comes to reply, will, if he can, tell us on what ground that decision was arrived at, and will also tell us, what is even more important, why it was that having arrived at that decision the Government of the day very Shortly afterwards declined to act upon it. I think one result of that decision and its reversal has been that the Ministry of Transport has been filled with the idea that it must do something to justify its existence. The complaint that has been rather general in this debate has been that the Ministry of Transport does not do anything. I want to put a rather different point of view. I am looking at the question from the point of view of the county councils of the country, and the complaint that they have is not that the Ministry of Transport does not do enough but that it is too prone to interfere, and had much better leave things alone.
I want to put a case of that sort which has arisen lately within my own experience. A big road, a main road, one of the big arteries of traffic, was being improved over a great length in the West country. The contracts for improving this road were laid out, so many miles to different contractors. The Ministry insisted on saying to whom those contracts should he allotted. One contractor was applying for two different sections. The county council concerned said that it was not a good thing to have the same contractor for those two sections, because, for the main reason, they did not think be would be financially strong enough to undertake the double job. The Ministry overruled the decision of the county

741
council. The result was that this contractor failed. There was continual trouble during the time that these two jobs were going on, and then there was arbitration which cost the local county council something over £5,000. That was a case where, if the county council had been left to itself, the work would have gone perfectly smoothly and expense would have been saved.
I have consulted a gentleman who has had considerable dealing with the Ministry of Transport, on behalf of county councils, and if the House will allow me I will read a few words of what he says to me. He says:
"I think that the Ministry exercises much more control of detail matters titan is either necessary or economical. In the pursuit of the mastery of detail the stalls, both at headquarters and in the divisions, have grown enormously and the whole Department is now wrapped up in procedure and forms that progress in any direction is painfully slow. In general their engineering stall' has had little, if any, executive work, whereas the (sanity staffs are essentially executive in experience and friction arises from this difference. If there is a need for the Ministry of Transport, it might be very considerably cut down without causing the least injury to roads and road management. It is, hard to see any reason why the old Road Board swelled out. into the present Ministry. If there is not to be. any continuation of large road improvement schemes (as has been the case in the past few years) it would seem that a large part of the Ministry's activities has passed away."
I have been speaking about the relations with the Road Committees of the county councils. I will give a further instance. They lay down pedantic rules. If a new road is to be made or an existing road improved—and, after all, it is in making new roads and improving existing roads that a large part of the executive work of the Ministry comes in—in such eases they lay down standard widths. They must be in decimals: they must, be 10 feet, 20 feet, 30 feet, or 40 feet. Very often something intermediate is much more appropriate to the district. There may be admirable reasons why, instead of having 20 or 30 feet, it is wiser to have 18 feet or 27 feet. Rut the Ministry, when it gives its grant, claims to decide a. question of that sort, which really the local people are much more capable of deciding than any office in London. They say, of course, that they pay the piper and they may claim to call the tune. Well, that is not exactly correct. The local authorities collect the
742
motor-car taxes, they pay them in to an office in London, and they are then redistributed back to the county councils. So that the Ministry is not acting as the collecting agency, it is merely acting as a conduit pipe for money that is not its own. For the reasons I have given I am inclined to support my noble friend's Motion. As to the particular Departments to which the functions should be allotted, I am not sure. I should have thought that, if they were distributed between two Departments, as he suggests, that might perhaps make things more expensive than if one Department were in sole control. But what I want to see is more local control and less interference from any Department in Whitehall.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I am sure that I should be the last person to quarrel with the noble and learned Lord for having raised this debate. I think that your Lordships will agree that we have listened to some very interesting speeches, and that from the opinions that have been expressed the Ministry of Transport, of which to-day I have the honour to be the vicarious spokesman, will benefit by the advice which has been given. I am assuming, and I sincerely hope, that your Lordships will not accept the Motion, and after I have put forward the reasons why I believe the Ministry of Transport should exist I hope that your Lordships will find yourselves able to take the same point of view. I think your Lordships will agree that we have heard very few arguments as to why the Ministry of Transport should be abolished. In fact, we have heard manifold arguments which, to my mind, prove that it is necessary that the Ministry of Transport should exist.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, spoke of the theoretical question whether transport should be concentrated in one Ministry. He did not develop that theory, and I do not feel entitled to argue that point with him. But, apart from that, I think we have heard various complaints of how the Ministry of Transport functions, and the verdict of those speakers who have voiced those complaints is that, to penalise the Minister and the Ministry of Transport, that Ministry should be abolished. I should have thought it would have been far better to take the opposite point of view and to make the Ministry more

743
efficient than it is. Your Lordships will agree with me that there is no Ministry in existence in any part of the world which cannot be made more efficient than it is at present, and I feel certain that this debate will have a very salutary effect and that a great many things have been put forward of which my hon. friend in another place will take full advantage.
The noble and learned Lord ended his speech by saying that he was asking two questions. The first question was in relation to the Act of 1878, in which, he pointed out, there was a provision which I think he suggested that the Ministry of Transport had not noticed. The noble and learned Lord—and I say it with all respect to a late Lord Chancellor—seems to have overlooked the fact that in the Road Traffic Act, 1930, the section to which he refers has been repealed by Section 54, which I will read. It is as follows:
"Where as respects any road it appears to the highway authority by a certificate of their surveyor that having regard to the average expense of repairing a road or other similar roads in the neighbourhood extraordinary expenses have been incurred by the authority in repairing the road by reason of the damage caused by excessive weight passing along the road, or other extraordinary traffic thereon, the highway authority may recover from any person (hereinafter referred to as the undertaker') by or in consequence of whose orders the traffic has been conducted the amount of such expenses as may he proved to the satisfaction of the court having cognisance of the facts to have been incurred by the highway authority by reason of the damage arising from the extraordinary traffic,"
The noble and learned Lord did not acquaint your Lordships with the fact that that subsection had been repealed.
LORD BUCKMASTER: But it is reenacted.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: It is re-enacted in the Act of 1930. Well, surely that carries out the wishes of the noble and learned Lord who, I understood, was formulating indictments against the Ministry which he proposes to abolish. The noble and learned Lord went on to speak of the Geddes Committee on National Expenditure which sat in 1921 and 1922, and was presided over by Sir Eric Geddes. That Committee recommended that:
"The Ministry of Transport should cease as a separate Ministry and its functions should be transferred to the Board of Trade."
744
The recommendations of the Geddes Committee were very carefully and closely examined and I may, perhaps, be permitted by your Lordships to enumerate a few of the considerations which emerged: In the first place the Ministry of Transport was created to unify under one responsible control the various powers and duties connected with transport which were scattered amongst various Government Departments, in order to secure consistent administration and development. Thus the powers of regulation and the duty of reporting on legislation and making Provisional Orders in connection with railways, light railways, harbours, docks, piers, canals, tramways and road transport were vested in one Minister. The most important powers came from the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Health, and the Scottish Office.
In the second place the proposal to vest the powers originally so transferred to the Ministry of Transport in the Board of Trade would involve not merely the restoration to that Ministry of powers previously exercised by it, but the addition to it of new powers and duties which would not naturally have been entrusted to that Department. In particular it would appear to be inappropriate to transform the Board of Trade into a grant-distributing authority making grants to highway authorities for road purposes, since the Board of Trade has no direct contact whatsoever with local authorities.
The noble Earl, Lord Buxton, spoke of the Board of Trade when he was President of it some time ago. I am sure a great many of us would like to return to what some people call the good old days when Budgets were considerably smaller than they are now, but I am afraid the noble Earl must recognise that we have gone unfortunately very far beyond that stage, that the activities of the Government are far more onerous and wider in extent than when the country had the valuable benefit of the noble Earl's services; and it is by reason of this fact that these Ministries have been called into existence. We call it a Ministry, but if you put it under another Ministry you would have exactly the same organisation. The organisation would add another burden to the shoulders of the Minister, but that

745
organisation would exist. There would be a Secretary or an Under-Secretary, and I think it is wrong to suppose that by abolishing the Ministry of Transport you would in any sense bring about further economy than is exercised at present.
In the third place, presuming the Alternative were adopted of transferring the Roads Department to the Ministry of Health while other transport duties—are passed to the Board of Trade, there is the difficulty that the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health is limited to local authorities in England and Wales, the Scottish authorities being responsible to Scottish Departments. This would be a retrograde step and a departure from the policy of unification of transport duties which initiated what we think is a considerable reform, when the Ministry of Transport was established. My Lords, as an example of the difficulties which would have been created and the objections which existed to the course proposed, I may mention that it is clear that the administration of powers relating to tramways should remain with the same authority as administers the railways, since the tramways are inspected for purposes of safety by the railway inspectors, and many are in law light railways and constructed under Light Railway Orders. But under the new system there would have been a separation between the regulation of tramways and of other vehicles which operate on highways.
In the fourth place, if the transfer were made to the Board of Trade of departmental work in connection with transport it would involve a considerable volume of very important and specialised work for the Minister and the higher staff, work quite different in nature from the normal activities of the Board of Trade. Finally, any economies in expenditure which could be secured would be quite negligible, being estimated by the Geddes Committee at not more than £ 2,500 perannum.
But the Geddes Committee reported in 1922, and I submit that the position has considerably altered since that date, and even since 1927 when the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed the abolition of the Ministry as a measure of economy. In the first place many additional and important duties have been placed upon the Ministry by recent legislation. I may
746
mention the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926, and, in particular, the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and I might almost say a hundred and one other duties. The wide range of the functions under the latter Act will be apparent, involving the regulation of motor vehicles, their use on highways, inquiries into accidents and the regulation of public service vehicles, etc.
Secondly, the fact that increasing attention is being devoted to questions of coordination of the various kinds of transport, and in particular to the coordination of road and rail transport, indicates the importance of maintaining the principle of the unification of powers and duties connected with transport on which the formation of the Ministry was based. Thirdly, the duty of making grants to local authorities for road purposes would not be appropriate to the Board of Trade or the Home Office. The present combination under one Department of the duties relating to the regulation of all forms of transport enables, in my judgment, such work to. be economically controlled. Finally, there would be little or no economy in public expenditure in. the change.
Now I come to the Salter Report about which my noble friend Lord Buckmaster told us nothing had been done. I am surprised that the noble and learned Lord should charge the Ministry and the Government with delay in dealing with the Salter Report, and I can only conclude that he has made this accusation under a complete misapprehension as to the facts of the situation. The Salter Conference signed their Report on the last day of July. It was, of course, necessary to print the Report and to send it to the large number of trading and motoring organisations whom the Government was pledged to consult. The. Report raised numerous matter's of vital concern to them, and, though the Minister of Transport asked them to submit their observations not later than the 30th September, many of them found themselves forced to ask for an extension of time, which had very reluctantly to be conceded. Some of the most important organisations did not in fact send in their observations until November, and the mass of detailed comments naturally required careful consideration and examination before the Government was in a position to formulate its own proposals.

747
Immediately Parliament met on the 7th February the Ministry of Transport announced that legislation would be introduced to deal with the licensing and better regulation of goods transport by road, and he stated at the same time that it was intended to bring in a Bill before Easter. I submit that when all the facts I have ventured to enumerate are taken into consideration, there has been no loss of time of which any reasonable complaint can be made. As regards recommendations for increase of taxation of goods vehicles, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated, in accordance with the invariable custom, that he cannot anticipate any proposals which are proper for inclusion in the Budget statement. Upon this aspect of the matter the Minister has long been in consultation with the Treasury.
One further indictment which has been brought is that the Ministry of Transport has neglected the railway interests. On the general charge that the Ministry has allowed the welfare of the railways to be overlooked, I would point out to your Lordships that the position of the railway companies has not in fact been neglected by successive Ministers of Transport. The railways were assisted by the last Conservative Administration to obtain powers to run services by road and by air. Under the Local Government Act of 1929 the railway companies were included in the scheme of derating for industry and agriclture upon condition that equivalent reductions were made in the freight charges on important traffics, and the operation of the scheme was specially anticipated by a vote of Parliament. While the companies are certainly entitled to point out that the whole of the relief has had to be passed on to the traders, and that many of the traffics are not competitive, yet it must be allowed that the reduction in freights should have assisted to stimulate their traffic.
Again, as from the 1st April, 1929, railway passenger duty was repealed. More recently, by the Road Traffic Act, 1930, a comprehensive scheme of regulation of public passenger vehicles was introduced, and some protection given to the railway companies against unreasonable and wasteful competition. For the first time the railway companies have been in a position to argue before the Traffic Com-
748
missioners the case for a reduction or elimination of unreasonable services by road. A scheme of pooling receipts between the proposed London Passenger Transport Board and the main lines has been provided for in the London Passenger Transport Bill at their very urgent request. The present Minister approved last year a most extensive scheme of pooling receipts between the London Midland and Scottish, and the London and North Eastern Railway Companies, and has further applications for a pool with the Great Western Railway Company under consideration. While I record these facts I am not to be taken for a moment as suggesting that the railway companies are not fully entitled to press for early action on the part of the Government, and the Government fully recognises the urgency of their position, as is sufficiently shown by the Minister's recent promise of further legislation. I think, therefore, that the charge that the Minister of Transport has neglected the railways has, if I may say so, to a very large extent fallen to the ground.
The noble and learned Lord who introduced this Motion has spoken to us of public safety. I am one of those who never quarrel with him, however often he brings that forward, because we all sympathise with the theme which he puts before your Lordships, but I would venture to say that the 1930 Act, in its first Part, contains regulations for public safety. I hardly think the noble and learned Lord could have meant what he said when he stated that public safety was entirely neglected in that Act.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Will the noble Marquess tell me what is the provision in that Act which does anything to protect the public?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I have a list which shows what has been done under the provisions in Part I of that Act, such as, the physical fitness of drivers, penalties for careless and dangerous driving, disqualification of drivers, requirements as to attendants, limitation of hours of driving, all detailed regulations based on public safety, the Highway Code, and other provisions. All these regulations were framed with a view to public safety, and I hardly think that the noble and learned Lord, even

749
with the licence which we naturally accord to his eloquence, can make the sweeping assertion that nothing has been done by the Act which has come into force.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I think the whole of those things are utterly worthless.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The noble and learned Lord is entitled to his opinion, as we all are in this House, and I am sorry that he should think those regulations are utterly worthless. I now turn to what I feel, and what I believe your Lordships feel, is the most serious part of the noble and learned Lord's indictment this afternoon. I know that no one in your Lordships' House can have listened to the noble Lord's impassioned speeches time after time on the subject of road accidents without being deeply moved and impressed. The noble Lord has, I believe, done a public service in repeatedly raising this subject. in your Lordships' House, and I have no doubt that my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport is grateful to him in spite of the fact that he has used the truly appalling figures of the traffic casualties to base his attack upon the administration of the Ministry of Transport. The Minister recognises that ore of the most. potent influences towards remedying the deplorable state of affairs which undoubtedly exists is the mobilisation of a healthy public opinion under which all users of the road, motorists, cyclists and pedestrians alike, will exercise their rights with due caution and regard for others, and all who are entrusted with the enforcement of the law will be conscious of the support of the public in the exercise of their important functions.
The number of fatalities on the road has, in fact, beer: decreasing in recent years, but I can assure the noble and learned Lord that I am not ma-king a special point of that to-day. In fact, like him, I shall not be satisfied until these numbers are very largely reduced, I wish we could say entirely eliminated; but I do feel that we can say that the figures for 1932 are now lower than for 1929, though there are more vehicles on the road. That does mean that we are moving, slightly, I admit, towards the position which we want to see, which is a substantial reduction of accidents on the
750
road. The noble and learned Lord gave us a graphic description of how he very nearly lost his life, and my noble friend Lord Banbury, who sits behind me, gave us a like. experience. I may say that exactly the same thing happened to me this morning, with this difference that the driver of the motor car did not attach enough importance to me to make any remark. The reason that I stepped off the refuge was that I was meditating what I was going to say to your Lordships this afternoon. If I had been run over it would have been entirely my fault. I think that is the reason for a great many of the accidents which occur, but when I say that I am not trying to exonerate those drivers, of whom far too many exist, who have no consideration whatever for the public.
No one pretends, and least of all the Minister of Transport himself, that the position is satisfactory, or that there should be the slightest relaxation in the efforts to reduce the casualty lists. There is no evidence that the abolition of the speed limit for light cars in the Act of 1930 has -had the effect of increasing the number of accidents, and there is no reason to suppose that the reimposition of a speed limit on these vehicles would be any more effective in this direction than it was before the Act of 1930 was passed. Under the direction of the Minister of Transport the Ministry have co-operated with the National Safety First Association in a special investigation into fatal road accidents carried out by the Association in the latter part of 1932. This was preliminary to the special official investigation which is being carried out during the current year by the Minister of Transport through the police.
I do not know, my Lords, that I need say anything more to you on the question which the noble and learned Lord has raised. As I have said, I for one am always glad when he raises this question for the reason that it mobilises public opinion on this very important matter. The point to which the noble and learned Lord addressed himself and the subject on which he hinged his speech was the abolition of the Ministry of Transport. I hope I have been able to persuade your Lordships that the Ministry of Transport is not only discharging its duties capably and well, but that if we did decide to do

751
away with the Ministry of Transport we should find that all those duties which are now exercised by that Ministry would have to be allocated to other Departments, that the co-ordination which we have been fortunate enough to achieve at the present moment would be entirely lost, and that the public service, instead of gaining by the elimination of the Ministry, would be most decidedly the loser.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I promise that I will not keep you more than a few minutes. Let me say to begin with that the argument that the Ministry of Transport should be abolished on the ground of economy has been established. As I pointed out before, its abolition had been promised in the interests of economy by no less a person than Mr. Winston Churchill as a representative member of the Government. Is it suggested that he did not know what he was talking about when he said that in the interests of economy it should be abolished? I do not say any more about that because there is no time, but I would like to say two things about the two questions that I put to the noble Marquess, neither of which has been answered by him. My first question was whether it was not the, case that the liability thrown upon the user of heavy traffic upon the road by the Act of 1878 had been allowed entirely to slip at the expense of the railways, not wholly but

CONTENTS.

Marlborough, D.

Esher, V.

Danesfort, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

de Clifford, L.

Exeter, M.

Mersey, V.

Dynevor, L.

Salisbury, M.

Ullswater, V.

Gainford, L.

Heneage, L.

Grey, E.

Auckland, L.

Kilmaine, L.

Midleton, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Leigh, L

Scarbrough, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

Bavford, L.

Monson, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V. [Teller.]

Biddulph, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Buckmaster, L. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Churchill, V.

Clwyd, L.

Rhayader, L.

in part, and that that had been done because the Minister of Transport had not taken care to impose upon the heavy traffic those rates that would have compensated for the roads they destroyed. That was the first question, and to that there has been no reply.
As regards the second question I wars amazed when the noble Marquess read out the protection which the Act of 1930 provided for the foot passenger. The only explanation I can think of was that it had been provided for him by somebody from the Ministry. It is ridiculous to suggest that these regulations afford the faintest protection, as I have said over and over again. The section that provides that a man may run over and leave his victim to die upon the road and be responsible for nothing further than £20—that is a section which the noble Marquess says is one of the protections that the careful and far-seeing Ministry of Transport has provided for the protection of the wayfarer. The only thing I shall take from this debate with pleasure—except, I hope, success in the Division—is the recollection that what I said about the Minister of Transport has earned me his gratitude. His gratitude is easily earned.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 31; Not-Contents, 26.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, I beg to move to resolve, That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills in the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. We are anxious to put before the Committee a Consolidation Bill dealing with the law relating to children.
Moved, That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills in the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to communicate this Resolution, and to desire their concurrence.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn, except for Judicial Business, until Tuesday next.
House adjourned at ten minutes past seven o'clock.

AMERSHAM, BEACONSFIELD AND DISTRICT WATER BILL. [H.L.]
SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL. [H.L.]
SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS BILL. [H.L.]
EAST HULL GAS BILL. [H.L.]
COLNE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

WATFORD AND ST. ALBANS GAS ORDER, 1932.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That they have examined the Special Order as required by the Standing Orders of the House, that they have received and considered a report from the Board of Trade upon the Order, that a Petition against the Order has been presented by the Hertfordshire County Council, and that having considered the points referred to in subsection (6) of Standing Order 212, they are of opinion that there ought to be a further inquiry by a Select Committee: Read, and agreed to: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (BOROUGH OF ACTON ORDER).
Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the Borough of Acton:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and ordered to lie on the Table.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (PENGE URBAN DISTRICT ORDER).
Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the urban district of Penge:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and ordered to lie on the Table.