Sitting of 25 July 1934

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; Amendments made.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
North Lindsey Water Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered:—
Ordered, That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Sheffield Gas Bill [Lords,]
As amended, considered:—
Ordered, That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time,—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Clyde Valley Electrical Power Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read a Second time; and ordered to be considered To-morrow.

FALKIRK ELECTRICITY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Acts, 1899 and 1933, relating to Falkirk Electricity," presented by Sir Godfrey Collins; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act of 1899) to be considered To-morrow.

STIRLINGSIIIRE AND FALKIRK WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scot-
1758
land) Acts, 1899 and 1933, relating to Stirlingshire and Falkirk Water," presented by Sir Godfrey Collins; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act of 1899) to be considered To-morrow.

ALLOA AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Acts, 1899 and 1933, relating to Alloa and District Gas," presented by Sir Godfrey Collins; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act of 1899) to be considered To-morrow.
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES SCHEME (KINGSTON-UPON-HULL CORPORATION, VICTORIA PIER) BILL,
"to confirm a Scheme made by the Minister of Transport under the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, relating to the Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation," presented by Mr. Hore-Belisha; and ordered (under Section 1 (9) of the Act) to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 182.]
UNEMPLOYMENT AND NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
Mr. CLARRY: In response to a request from certain of my constituents, I beg to present a petition signed by 16,390 persons, mainly resident in my constituency at Newport, protesting against the provisions of the Government's new Unemployment Act and the National Health Insurance (Amendment) Act, 1932. The petitioners allege that the provisions of these Acts embody a savage attack on the unemployed and their families, and further that they will inflict severe privations on thousands of men, women and children; and cause the disruption of family life, and the pauperisation of the unemployed through circumstances over which they have no control.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  BOLIVIA AND PARAGUAY (ARMS EMBARGO).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now able to state whether Italy has receded from her attitude of seeking to

  1759
  maintain existing contracts which has so far prevented agreement internationally for the imposition of an embargo on the export of arms to Bolivia and Paraguay?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): As stated in the reply which I gave to (he hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) on Monday last, the Italian Government have now informed the President of the Committee of the Council of the League of Nations that they will enact the necessary measures to prevent the export of war material destined for Bolivia and Paraguay from Italian territory. I understand that these measures will not contain reservations in regard to current contracts.
  Mr. MANDER: Can my right hon. Friend say when the general agreement is likely to be brought into operation?
  Sir J. SIMON: I hope very shortly. Communications with the Secretary-General of the League have already taken place.
  Mr. MANDER: Will not the Government take encouragement from the really splendid success of their initiative in this matter and apply the same thing to air disarmament?

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    ARMAMENTS YEAR BOOK.
    Captain CUNNINGHAM - REIDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that various States, members of the League of Nations, have during the past eight years increased their expenditure upon armaments by amounts up to 100 per cent., he is satisfied that members of the League are in fact interchanging full and frank information as to the scale of their armaments, their military, naval and air programmes, etc., as they undertook to do under Article 8 of the Covenant of the League?
    Sir J. SIMON: As my hon. and gallant Friend is no doubt aware, the carrying out of the intentions of the last paragraph of Article 8 of the Covenant was provided for by a resolution of the Council of the League of Nations on the 7th July, 1923, whereby it was decided to publish annually an Armaments Year Book. The
    1760
    information contained therein is derived both from communications made by Governments to the Secretariat of the League in connexion with the Disarmament Conference, and from the official publications of the various countries. The issue for this year has not yet been received, but I have no reason to suppose that the necessary information has not been forthcoming.

    ARMS TRAFFIC CONVENTION.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government with regard to the ratification of the League of Nations' Convention on traffic in arms?
    Sir J. SIMON: As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, His Majesty's Government have already ratified the 1925 Arms Convention, and have consistently urged other countries to do likewise.

    EASTERN MUTUAL SECURITY PACT.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make with reference to the reception given to the proposals for an Eastern Mutual Security Pact in Berlin, Warsaw and elsewhere?
    Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir, not at present.
    Mr. MANDER: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is hoped to make definite progress before the meeting of the Assembly of the League?
    Sir J. SIMON: I cannot give any further answer.

    MIDDLE EAST (TREATY).
    Captain CUNNINGHAM - REIDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information regarding the signature of a treaty between Persia, Turkey, Iraq and Afghanistan; and whether he can say what the main terms of this treaty are?
    Sir J. SIMON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part does not therefore arise.

    SAAR TERRITORY.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs

    1761
    Whether he has any information as to the proportion of the present Saar inhabitants entitled to vote in the plebiscite?
    Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir. The question of the right to vote at the plebiscite is one of those which has been referred to the Plebiscite Commission, which entered upon its duties on the 1st July.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any steps have been taken to recruit a supplementary international police force for the Saar, in view of the continued partisanship of Saar police officials?
    Sir J. SIMON: This matter is entirely within the discretion of the Governing Commission, which, under a resolution adopted by the Council of the League of Nations on the 4th June, has authority to increase the local police and gendarmerie forces should it deem it desirable. I have no information that such action has as yet been taken.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: In view of the assassination of a police officer in the Saar yesterday, will it not be possible for His Majesty's Government to stimulate the recruitment of an impartial police force?
    Sir J. SIMON: I think the matter must, at any rate in the first place, rest with the judgment of the Governing Commission. They have that responsibility, and I have every reason to believe that they regard their responsibilities very seriously.
    Mr. MANDER: Is it not a fact that a British subject has been appointed to take control of the new police force?

    CHILE (BRITISH INVESTORS).
    Sir CYRIL COBBasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will inquire of the Chilean Government if they will not make proposals to implement their undertaking to make good their contractual obligations on the Chilean Government debt in the hands of British subjects, in view of the recent nitrate agreement?
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will request the
    1762
    British commercial representative in Chile to ascertain whether the agreement about Chilean nitrate exports can, with the assistance of the Chilean Government, be used to terminate the default to British subjects in respect of Chilean Government loans floated in British for the development of Chilean resources?
    Sir J. SIMON: I assume that my hon. Friends have in mind the agreement recently reached in principle between the representatives of the Chilean nitrate industry and of the synthetic nitrate producers in Europe, reference to which was made in the Press on the 16th July. I understand that the details of this agreement still remain to be settled, and it is therefore clearly premature to attempt to estimate the effect which it may have upon Chile's ability to meet the service of her foreign debt. In the meantime I can assure my hon. Friends that His Majesty's Government are carefully watching the position as regards the possibility of a resumption of the service of the Chilean foreign debt, both through His Majesty's Ambassador at Santiago, and by maintaining close contact with the interests concerned, including the Council of Foreign Bondholders, who are themselves in touch with the competent Chilean authorities.

    DEFENCE SERVICES (POLITICAL PROPAGANDA).
    Mr. GARDNERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will state the number of cases of mutiny, if any, ascribed to political propaganda or to political influences which have occurred in the Navy, together with instances and the number of persons, sailors and civilians, concerned?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): Political propaganda and political influences are sometimes to be counted among the causes of naval mutinies. But the causes of a mutiny are usually many and complex, and for that reason it would not be just to ascribe to political propaganda or influences every mutiny in which those influences have had a part.
    Mr. GARDNERasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the number of cases of mutiny, if any, ascribed to political propaganda or to political

    1763
    influences which have occurred in the Army, together with instances and the number of persons, soldiers and civilians, concerned?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): There have been two incidents of mutiny during the past 10 years. The first was at Jamaica in 1929 and the second was at Singapore in 1932. In each case three soldiers were convicted by court-martial of charges of joining in a mutiny. How far these cases can be ascribed to political propaganda or to political influence is a matter of conjecture on which I am not prepared to pronounce.
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: Does not the small number of mutinies show that there is no necessity for any special legislation?
    Mr. RADFORD: Is the fact that our men are proof against these incitements to mutiny any reason why we should allow them to be exposed to them?
    Mr. HACKING: Attempts have been made to incite the troops to disaffection, and I understand that that side of the question is now the subject of legislation.
    Sir P. HARRIS: Cannot we rely on the common sense of our soldiers to make them bullet proof against these incitements?

    STAVSKY CASE.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the proceedings in the Stavsky case, including the judgment in the Supreme Court, have been or will be read by the legal adviser to the Colonial Office?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on the 14th of June.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: In view of the obiter dicta of the Chief Justice that Stavsky would be found guilty in a British court of justice, would it not be advisable to have the opinion of the legal adviser to the Colonial Office at least on that disputed point?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I stated plainly in the answer to which I have referred what is the purpose and function of the Colonial Office in connection with judgments which have been given. I am sure it would be very improper for me to comment upon judgments.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I agree it would be improper for the right hon. Gentleman to make any comments, but is it certain that the case will be read through by his legal advisers so that he may receive from them comments from legal minds trained in British legal work?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is rather a reflection on the Chief Justice of Palestine who presided over the case.

  AVIATION.

    PASSENGER AIRCRAFT (SPEED).
    Mr. CHORLTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what steps are being taken to bring the speed of the civil passenger aircraft flying under subsidy agreements with His Majesty's Government up to that of foreign competing aircraft?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The subsidy agreements with Imperial Airways contain provisions designed to ensure that their fleets keep abreast of developments in aeronautical design and performance. Taking into account all the various factors, such as safety, reliability, comfort and economy in operation, as well as speed, the results achieved by Imperial Airways compare very favourably with those of competing foreign lines: the company is, indeed, still attracting the great bulk of continental passenger traffic. The importance of the speed factor is, however, being borne prominently in mind and the company is now finding it possible to devote increased attention to it without sacrificing other factors on which the success of their services is equally dependent. Plans for the progressive acceleration of our Empire air services are also in hand.
    Mr. CHORLTON: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the speed of our latest air liners is only half that of competitive liners of other concerns on the other side; and, if that be so, are the authorities really following out the policy which my right hon. Friend has just stated?
    Sir P. SASSOON: My information is that the latest aircraft which will operate on the Singapore line will be very little slower than the fastest liner used on the Dutch line in the East.

    PRIVATE FLYING (CONTROL).
    Mr. S1MMONDSasked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to give the House an opportunity before the Recess to discuss the Report of the Committee on Control of Private Flying and the Secretary of State for Air's Memorandum thereon?
    The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I regret that in the present state of Parliamentary business I cannot hold out any hope of time being found for the discussion of this subject.
    Mr. S1MMONDS: In view of the great importance of this matter to all those engaged in civil aviation, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he will be able to give a very early opportunity after the reassembly of the House?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I can give no pledge so far ahead. When I said that no time could be found, that was correct, but of course there would be opportunity, if the hon. Member were able to raise the matter on the Adjournment. That is the only opportunity before the House rises.

    RROYAL AIR FORCE (FIRST LIN AIRCRAFT).
    Mr. SIMMONDSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the approximate number of first-line aircraft that will comprise the 41 new squadrons which the Government have decided to add to the present strength of the Royal Air Force?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The number is approximately 470.

  TRANSPORT.

    MOTOR INSURANCE PREMIUMS.
    Mr. SIMMONDSasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the proposals of motor insurance companies to raise their premiums by amounts approximately equal to the remission he has granted in the tax upon horse power; and if the
    1766
    Government will take steps to prevent this frustration of its intention to encourage the manufacture of higher-powered motor cars?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I am not aware of any proposal by insurers to take advantage of the remission in taxation to obtain a general increase in rates of premium.

    ROAD MATERIALS (CONCRETE).
    Mr. GROVESasked the Minister of Transport whether his Department has any particulars of scientific research in the temperature effects upon the compressive strength of concrete exposed to different temperatures during hardening, with special reference to concreting conditions in winter weather; and, as such information may be of great value to local authorities regarding local labour, is any consultation ensured between his Departmental engineers and those of local authorities?
    Captain AUSTIN HUDSON (Lord of the Treasury): Much information on these points is in the possession of the Ministry of Transport, and special steps are taken to ensure that the results of the research which has been undertaken are available to the engineers and surveyors of local authorities. A special report was published last year on "Concrete in Road Construction," and much material is contained in the reports published by the technical advisory committee. The technical officers of the Department also maintain close touch with the engineers of highway authorities, and the consultation which the hon. Member rightly desires is, in my hon. Friend's opinion, effectively secured.

    BRITISH ARMY (OFFICERS' PROMOTION).
    Brigadier-General NATIONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what is the position of colonels under the new promotion scheme for officers, both as regards establishment arid the period they are permitted to remain on half-pay?
    Mr. HACKING: The position of colonels has not been changed either as regards the establishment or as regards the period for which they may remain on half-pay.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    TURKISH CUSTOMS DELAYS.
    Mr. CROSSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that large quantities of British goods have been lying in Customs warehouses in Turkey for the last six to 12 months, and that facilities for clearing these goods have not been made available; and whether he will consider representing to the Turkish Government that if clearance of such goods is not immediately made possible His Majesty's Government will feel compelled to restrict imports of Turkish goods into this country?
    Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I am aware that considerable quantities of United Kingdom goods are held up in Turkish Customs houses. This question will be kept in mind in the commercial negotiations with the Turkish Government which are now being undertaken.
    Mr. CROSS: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say where these negotiations will take place?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: At Angora, and instructions have been sent to Angora in readiness for the opening of the negotiations.

    TYPEWRITERS.
    Mr. EMMOTTasked the President of the Board of Trade the value of complete typewriters and of parts of typewriters, respectively, imported in the six months ended 30th June, 1934?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): During the six months ended June, 1934, the declared value of the total imports into the United Kingdom of complete typewriters was £190,200 and of parts of typewriters £31,715.
    Mr. PIKE: In view of the figures just quoted by the hon. Member, is he prepared to consider the possibility of reassembling the reply which he gave to the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) on Monday?
    Dr. BURGIN: The figures which I have given show the accuracy of the reply.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Did not the reply indicate that the bulk of the typewriters were imported for the purpose of assembly in this country and not as complete typewriters?
    Dr. BURGIN: I was asked what other process could happen to a typewriter after being imported, and I replied
    "Assembling."

    GRAIN-CARRYING VESSELS (REGULATIONS).
    Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLENasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider amending the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 to 1906, with regard to grain cargoes in bulk on foreign ships by increasing the maximum penalty thereunder for offences dealt with summarily?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD (Lord of the Treasury): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Durham East on the 15th May last.

    INDIA (ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, CALCUTTA).
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that in the case of Rabindra Nath Dhar versus the King Emperor, in the Calcutta high court, the appellant's counsel accused the honourable S. K. Sinha, the Calcutta chief presidency magistrate, of tampering with the records and interpolating certain words in evidence not previously recorded; and will he make representations that inquiries should be instituted into the allegations made against the said magistrate?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): I have no information about this case, and I have nothing to add to the replies given to the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) and the hon. Member for East Dorset (Mr. Hall-Caine) yesterday.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that there have been a great number of complaints against this magistrate, and, in view of that, is my hon. Friend considering whether he should take any action?
    Mr. BUTLER: As I informed the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and my hon. Friend the Member for East Dorset yesterday. we have undertaken to make an inquiry into the facts, and, until we have received that report, I think it would be unwise to come to any decision.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    ASCERTAINMENTS.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary for Mines whether, seeing that the quarterly statistics published by his Department are based in whole or in part on figures supplied by the accountants jointly appointed by the coalowners and coal miners and that the Durham Mining Association have partial responsibility for making these appointments, he will have inquiry made into the allegations of Mr. Collins, of the Durham Miners Association, made at the miners' conference at Edinburgh on 19th July, that the ascertainments were fabrications; and whether the Miners Association have suggested any alternative methods of compiling these statistics?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): I have seen references in the Press to several speeches dealing with this question, which appear to have attacked the basis on which the calculations are made rather than the accuracy of the calculations. I understand that a resolution was passed instructing the Executive to examine the whole question of the ascertainments, and in particular to make an inquiry into the capital employed in the industry and into the effect of the modern development of subsidiary sales companies.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it the case that the gentleman in question described the ascertainment as a fabrication, and is not that going rather further than criticising the basis of the ascertainment?
    Mr. BROWN: My hon. Friend will understand that the atmosphere of public meetings is not always the same as the atmosphere of this Rouse.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is it now the practice for only members of the Federation of British Industries to criticise the machinery of their organisation?
    Mr. BROWN: I believe that British subjects make general of their liberties.
    Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Is the hon., Gentleman satisfied with the basis of the ascertainment?
    Mr. BROWN: That is much too complicated a question to discuss at Question Time.
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Are there not a good many coalowners who admit that the basis is unsatisfactory?
    Mr. BROWN: There are always a number of people who are not satisfied.

    EXPORTS (FRENCH QUOTA).
    DAGGARasked the Secretary for Mines whether he has received official notification of the French Government's decision to reduce the quota of imported British coal; and whether such reduction, if it takes place, is regarded as in accordance with the terms of the trade agreement recently made between the two countries?
    Mr. E. BROWN: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.
    Mr. DAGGARasked the Secretary for Mines whether the arrangements for the exchange of coal from South Wales with pit-wood from France is outside the terms of the trade agreement recently made between Great Britain and France; and whether such an arrangement would be affected in the event of the French Government deciding to reduce the quota of British coal exported to France?
    Mr. E. BROWN: No, Sir. The Pit-wood Agreement constitutes the Protocol to the Anglo-French Trade Agreement of 27th June, 1934, to which, under Article 7, it is subject. The reply to the second part of the question is also "No."

    BEDWAS COLLIERY, MONMOUTHSHIRE (ACCIDENTS).
    Mr. EDWARDSasked the Secretary for Mines the number of fatal and non-fatal accidents, separately, which have occurred at the Bedwas Colliery, Monmouthshire, during the first six months of this year; and the percentage of these fatal and notifiable accidents at, this colliery compared with the whole of South Wales?
    Mr. E. BROWN: The numbers of fatal and reportable non-fatal accidents at Bedwas Colliery in the first six months of this year were five and eight respectively, compared with 81 and 308 for the South Wales coalfield. In relation to the estimated number of manshifts worked, the approximate rates per 100,000 manshifts were 1.78 and 2.84 for Bedwas Colliery compared with 0.42 and 1.62 for South Wales.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Rear - Admiral Sir MURRAY SUETERasked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the cancellation of Commander Colmore's pension; when this pension was granted; what it was granted for; how long this officer was in receipt of his pension; and for what reason his pension was cancelled?
    Captain A. HUDSON: I have been asked to reply. Disability retired pay was awarded in this case as from October, 1919, and remained in issue until March, 1923, in respect of a wound of the left leg sustained in this country. Payment was discontinued on the ground that the wound was then found to have been incurred through the officer's own serious negligence and this view of the circumstances is in accord with the judgment of the Service Departments concerned. I understand that the officer was notified at the time of his right of appeal to the independent Pensions Appeal Tribunal, but he did not exercise that right.

  SCOTLAND.

    MILK MARKETING SCHEME.
    Captain ARCHIBALD RAMSAYasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when this House will be put in possession of the repot of the committee set up to investigate the grievances of the milk producers in the East of Scotland?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): My right hon. Friend has now received the report of the Committee of Investigation for Scotland on the complaints made by the East of Scotland Milk Producers' Federation. It is not intended to publish the report, but I am glad to take this early opportunity of communicating to the House a summary of the committee's conclusions. The committee's conclusions are as follow:
    "(1) We are of opinion that it is neither necessary nor desirable in the public interest that as a permanent and integral condition of the scheme level producers should as such receive an additional price per gallon by way of level delivery premium or otherwise.
    1772
    "(2) We consider that for a specific limited period some provision should be made by means of an additional payment per gallon or otherwise for alleviating the effects of the scheme on level producers generally in order to enable them if they so wish to adjust their system of dairying to meet, the changed conditions under the scheme.
    "(3) We accordingly propose that it should be suggested to the board and to the federation that they should discuss our finding (2) above with producers in other areas whose interests will suffer to some extent if effect is given to it, and that an endeavour should be made to reach agreement on the subject as regards the method to be adopted, the extent of the additional payment, and the time for which it should be made.
    "(4) We see no objection in the public interest to a continuance of the system whereby the board have contracted for a minimum butter fat content in excess of the legal minimum 3 per cent.
    "(5) On the basis of the evidence before us we do not consider that it is practicable to institute a system of regional prices under the scheme."
    HON. MEMBERS: Circulate it.
    Mr. SKELTON: In view of the great importance of the Scottish milk industry perhaps the House will permit me to continue reading this statement.
    "The committee defer their final conclusions on the question of haulage charges and also on the question of possible amendments of the scheme pending the outcome of their proposals for negotiations between the board, the federation and producers in other areas."
    Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: Is there any discrimination against cows on account of their political creeds?

    SHEEP-STOCK VALUATIONS.
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps were taken by the Commissioners of Crown Lands to secure from the incoming tenant of Spittalhill, Stirling-shire, the same sheep-stock values as were paid to the outgoing tenant; whether the incoming tenant refused to recognise the existence of any acclimati-

    1773
    sation values; and, if so, whether that fact was officially communicated to the arbiters who fixed the prices paid by the State to the outgoing tenant and so caused the State to lose a sum of £2,500?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I have been asked to reply. The Commissioners were unable to find a new tenant who would take over the sheep stock at the values at which the outgoing tenants were entitled to claim. They therefore let the farm to a new tenant, who was only prepared to take over the sheep stock at fixed prices. The incoming tenant did not refuse to recognise the existence of the acclimatised values, but he was not prepared to pay those values on taking over. This fact was not officially communicated to the arbiters or the oversman, because the basis of the award was simply the value to the outgoing tenant under the terms of the tenancy, even if the Crown had taken the farm in hand and let to no new tenant.
    Mr. LEONARD: Is it not the case that that part of Scotland is looked upon as a health resort for sheep, and therefore no acclimatisation value should have been paid?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I am afraid that condition was contained in the terms of the tenancy, and it is not a question of whether the air is better there.
    Mr. PIKE: Does not this show the folly of State enterprise in sheep farming?
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the loss of £2,500 of public money arising out of the recent sheep valuations at Spittalhill, Stirlingshire, belonging to the Commissioners of Crown Lands, he will expedite the work of the special committee appointed to consider the problem of sheep-stock valuations in Scotland and will ask the committee to recommend as to the steps necessary to prevent arbiters from awarding extravagant sums or giving acclimatisation value where none exists?
    Mr. SKELTON: My right hon. Friend is assured that the committee on the valuation of sheep stocks in Scotland appreciate the desirability of presenting
    1774
    their report at the earliest possible date, and he understands that they hope to complete their report very shortly. The questions referred to by the hon. Member fall within the scope of reference to the Committee, and I assume that they will be fully dealt with in the report.
    Mr. LEONARD: Can the hon. Gentleman make any observations as to the difference in valuation which exists when State money is involved as against the valuation when no State money is involved?
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will ask the arbiters in the recent sheep-stock valuation at Spittalhill, Stirlingshire, on behalf of the Commissioners of Crown Lands, to state publicly for what reason they allowed any acclimatisation value for the sheep taken over by the Commissioners; on what basis they assessed the acclimatisation value at nearly double the market value of the sheep; and whether there is any local precedent for such values, which involved a loss to the nation of £2,500?
    Mr. ELLIOT: The award was made by an oversman, following disagreement by the arbiters acting on behalf of the Crown and the outgoing tenants. I have no power to call upon the oversman to explain his award, and in the circumstances I do not feel justified in taking action on the lines suggested in the question. I have, however, brought the facts of the case to the notice of the Committee on Sheep-stock Valuations.
    Mr. LEONARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the adverse comment which has appeared in the agricultural journals in regard to this valuation, and, in view of that, is it not necessary that the facts of the next valuation arrived at should be made public?
    Mr. ELLIOT: If I took note of all the adverse criticism appearing in journals, agricultural or otherwise, I should have. no time to do my work in the House.
    Mr. LEONARD: Is not State money involved in this case?
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this entirely fictitious acclimatisation value has caused a lot of trouble in Scotland for many years?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Actually a Committee is sitting at the moment on the matter, and it was appointed for that very reason by the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  AGRICULTURE.

    EGG PRICES.
    Lieut.-Commander AGNEWasked the Minister of Agriculture what immediate emergency action he proposes to take to secure better prices to producers of eggs in this country?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that in addition to the Import Duties already imposed, the Government took action as far back as the middle of March with a view to holding the egg import situation. During the four months to the middle of July total imports of eggs in shell were some 7 per cent. lower than in the corresponding period of last year. As regards prices, I would point out that the average London wholesale price of National Mark Standards on Monday last was 12s. 9d. per 120 eggs, which was the price ruling at the corresponding date in 1933.
    Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, great as the Government's action must have been in this matter, the final result is not entirely satisfactory, and that the majority of egg producers are men of limited resources who cannot wait for a long time and require some emergency and immediate action to be taken?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I am not suggesting that this is the final action of the Government, and as for prices I was pointing out that the price was the same as it was this time last year.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is there no hope of any action, because the matter is urgent, and men are being forced out of the business because of the low prices for eggs and poultry?
    Mr. D. GRENFELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that anything that the Government can do will cope with the effort made by the domestic hen to improve her output of eggs?

    BLENDED BUTTER (MARRING).
    Sir BASIL PETOasked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the fact that
    1776
    last year 37,205 metric tons of butter were imported into this country from the Soviet Republic of Russia, and that this butter is not offered for retail sale in this country as Russian or Soviet butter, but is blended with other butters and sold under various names which in no case inform the public as to what they are buying; and whether he will introduce legislation when Parliament reassembles to amend the present law and make obligatory the full description of the origin of the component parts of all blended butter sold by retail?
    Mr. ELLIOT: The question of the marking of blends of butter consisting of or containing imported butter was fully investigated by the Standing Committee under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, and is discussed in paragraphs 23–30 of their report (Cmd. 3878). The present requirements in this connection of the Merchandise Marks (Imported Goods) No. 1 Order, 1932, are based upon recommendations of the Committee, and I cannot hold out any hope of further legislation with the object indicated by my hon. Friend.
    Sir B. PETO: Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not wish the House to infer that the Government have learned nothing since the findings of that committee of 1926, six years ago, and cannot he review the question with an open mind in view of the alteration in policy which the National Government have adopted?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Although there has been an alteration in Government policy, there is no alteration in the fundamental difficulty of discovering by analysis from what country a particular portion of a pat of butter may have come.
    Sir B. PETO: Why is it more difficult to have an inspector in butter factories than to have a gauger in a distillery?
    Mr. ELLIOT: To institute control of all processes of all butter-making as rigorous as the control of all distilleries would, as the hon. Member's neighbour the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) can tell him, be a very long business.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: If the Board of Trade cannot distinguish between Russian butter and British butter, and between dyed kippers and genuine kippers, what is the good of it?

    CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (CENSORSHIP).
    Sir P. HARRISasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how often the Film Consultative Committee have met during the last 12 months and during the last three months; and whether they are in consultation with the British Board of Film Censors as to the principles on which the censoring of films should be conducted?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I understand that the Film Censorship Consultative Committee have met once during the last 12 months,. namely, on the 18th June, 1934. The committee were appointed to consider broad questions of policy relating to the exercise of film censorship with a view to securing closer co-operation between the British Board of Film Censors and the local licensing authorities, and for this purpose they keep in close touch with the board.
    Sir P. HARRIS: Does that not seem a long time to wait before they had their first meeting, and is it much use appointing a Committee in those circumstances?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Will the Home Secretary bear in mind that there is a rising tide of feeling about the kind of bills that are being shown, and will he ask the Committee to have a censorship of advertisements of films because the bills are in many cases as offensive as the films?
    Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: As the Committee have only met once in the last 12 months, does this imply that it is ceasing to function?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is not the right way to a good film not to allow any American films?

    NATIONAL FINANCE (SILK DUTIES).
    Mr. MALLALIEUasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated cost to the Revenue for the current year and a lull year, respectively, of the changes recently made in the silk duties?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): It is not
    1778
    possible to give a close estimate of the revenue effect of the recent changes in the silk duties, since this must depend, among other things, upon the effect of the duties on the different sections of the trades concerned, but I am advised that the cost in a full year might be about £2,500,000. It is still more difficult to estimate the cost for the current year owing to the temporary continuance of drawbacks at the rates appropriate to the old scheme of duties, but I anticipate that the loss may be something over £2,000,000.

    UNEMPLOYMENT (JUVENILES).
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Labour the number of insured juveniles between the ages of 16 and 18; and how many of them who were unemployed at the end of June had been so for more than three months?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): At the beginning of July, 1933, the latest date for which figures are at present available, the number of juveniles, aged 16 and 17 years, insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts in Great Britain, was 899,700. I am unable to state the total number of insured juveniles who have been unemployed for over three months, but of 22,516 juveniles who, at 25th June, 1934, were applicants for unemployment insurance benefit, 2,094 had been on the registers for three months or longer.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: In view of those figures, am I right in assuming that the current statement that many thousands of children of these ages are walking the streets without jobs is without foundation?
    HON. MEMBERS: No.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does the Minister regard 22,500 as an inconsiderable number?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Was the number not 22,500 but 2,094?

    NAVAL CONFERENCE (CONVERSATIONS).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Prime Minister whether he will state the present position with regard to the Naval con-

    1779
    versations preparatory to the conference of 1935; and to what date these have now been adjourned?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Preliminary conversations have already taken place with the representatives of the United States and French Governments. Similar conversations with representatives of the Italian Government will probably be undertaken in September, and with representatives of the Japanese Government in October.

    KENYA (AGRICULTURAL MORTGAGES).
    Mr. LUNNasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make any statement on the draft legislation of the Kenya Government instituting a moratorium on agricultural mortgages; and whether he 'has considered, as an alternative, the resumption by the Crown of the unused portions of estates alienated to Europeans?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have not yet received copies of the draft Ordinance as published, but the general object is to provide that the holder of a mortgage on agricultural property shall not foreclose or take action for recovery without first giving due notice to the mortgagor, and that the mortgagor upon receipt of such notice may apply to the Courts for relief. This relief may take the form of an order to delay all proceedings for a period not exceeding 12 months subject to such conditions as the Court may consider proper. With regard to the second part of the question, as the aim of the proposed legislation is to assist the owners of mortgaged property, I do not see how the resumption of unused lands would further the object in view.

    GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES (HOURS OF WORK).
    Mr. T. SMITH (for Mr. THORNE)asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he has any statement to give to the House in connection with the Government workers' request for a 40-hour week; and whether the Government's considered reply has been sent to the workers' secretary of the joint coordinating committee of Government workers?
    Mr. COOPER: At the meeting of the Joint Co-ordinating Committee for Government Industrial Establishments held on the 18th July, the Trade Union Side were informed by the Official Side that His Majesty's Government could not agree to the motion of the Trade Union Side for the reduction of the, working week of Government industrial employes to 40 hours without reduction of pay. The Trade Union Side indicated that they desired that the matter should be further considered at the next meeting of the committee.

    PRESSED STEEL WORKS, COWLEY (DISPUTE).
    Mr. T. SMITH (for Mr. THORNE)asked the Minister of Labour whether any officials of his Department have yet been in touch with the management of the Pressed Steel Works, near Cowley, Oxford, in connection with the strike of nearly 1,000 persons if he is aware that the management has refused to see the representatives of the organised workers; and if he can make any statement on the matter?
    Mr. HUDSON: Officers of the Department have not intervened in this dispute, but are aware of the facts. I understand that the management propose to re-open the works to-day.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Ordered,
"That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 14, Supplementary Estimates for New Services may be considered in Committee of Supply, and that Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Eleven of the clock."
Ordered,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Milk Bill,
Road Traffic Bill,
Poor Law (Scotland) Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—
Solicitors Bill [Lords] without Amendment.

MILK BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill
183.]

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill
184.]

POOR LAW (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill
185.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [19TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1934.
  CLASS VI.

    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SCOTLAND.
    Resolved,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £458,136, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, including grants for land improvement, agricultural education, research and marketing, loans to Co-operative Societies, a grant under the Agricultural Credits (Scotland) Act, 1929. and certain grants in aid."

  CLASS IV.

    PUBLIC EDUCATION, SCOTLAND.
    Resolved,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £4,313,185 (including a Supplementary sum of £206,250), be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st.day of March, 1935, for Public Education in Scotland; and for the Royal Scottish Museum. Edinburgh; including sundry Grants in Aid"

  CLASS V.

    MINISTRY OF HEALTH.
    Resolved,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £13.960,924 (including a Supplementary sum of £321,000). be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for the Salaries and Expenses of the. Ministry of Health; including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, certain Grants to Local Authorities, &c., Grants in Aid in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Acts, certain Expenses in connection with the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts, and other Services."

    MINISTRY OF LABOUR.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £38,904,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the
    1788
    sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour and Subordinate Departments, including sums payable by the Exchequer to the Unemployment Fund, Grants to Associations, Local Authorities and others under the Unemployment Insurance, Labour Exchanges and other Acts; Expenses of the Industrial Court; Contribution towards the Expenses of the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations); Expenses of Training and Removal of Workers and their Dependants; Grants for assisting the voluntary provision of occupation for unemployed persons; and sundry services, including services arising out of the War."
    3.28 p.m.
    Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
    I regret that, on the first occasion on which the right hon. Gentleman has to face the House in his new office, I should be called upon to move to reduce his salary, but I think it is rather the right hon. Gentleman's misfortune than his fault that he should have to face to-day what is practically a Vote of Censure upon the Government. Without undervaluing the right hon. Gentleman's talents and abilities, it does seem to us that this is a matter upon which not only he himself should answer, but some representative more highly placed in the Cabinet, in view of the criticism that we have to make.
    On the 19th April, the Government decided that they would send out Commissioners to four of what are known as the distressed areas, to investigate the conditions prevailing in those parts. That is more than three months ago. I do not suppose that the most ardent supporter of the Government thought, when he heard the Minister of Labour make his statement, that the House and the country were to wait three months before we had any decisive action. The view was held, not merely on these benches but, also, I think, by hon. Members opposite, that there was really no need for investigation into the condition of these areas. Reports had been issued in 1932 of a very exhaustive character. The inquiries were conducted by very able investigators, men and women of detached mind, who submitted their reports in considerable detail, with reasoned conclusions. Anyone who looks at them can see how thorough was the work. One member of the Unemployment Board was appointed, I should say, almost purely in

    1789
    respect of the work that he did on that occasion. It was held generally that there was no need to have another inquiry.
    The Government may say, as the Minister said, that the information was not up to date, but the Ministry of Labour is perhaps the best Government Department that there is in respect of these matters, and they could have got up-to-date figures immediately from their splendid statistical department as well as an accurate statement of the general condition in those areas. But, even though we held the view that there should be immediate action, we held our tongues. We refused to criticise. We said, "We have waited for some years. If the Government mean business, we are not going to seek for a moment to use this situation for mere political ends." Indeed, I think the Government would be prepared to say that we not only held our hands but we gave what help we could in order to see that what information was possible should be given to the Commissioners and what proposals were possible should be made. I think it will be agreed that the whole of the local authorities' organisations in each of those areas have heartily co-operated in the task. Our belief that the Government might be going to do something is not only developing into scepticism, but I am inclined to become rather cynical as to their intentions. No one will say that the "Times" is any other than very balanced and cautious in its judgments. On the day after the announcement was made, the "Times" Parliamentary correspondent said it was not expected that the report would be in the hands of Ministers for at least two months. He apparently never dreamt of three months. The "Times," in a leader the following day, said:
    "These inquiries are to begin without delay, and it is to he hoped that they will also be completed without delay. The bare facts of the human desolation in the economically lifeless areas are known. Day after day there has been confirmation in these columns of the silent tragedy in those places without a future which have lately been described with graphic sympathy by our special correspondent in Durham. In other localities, not in Durham, there is a similar state of economic collapse. It is essential that before next winter comes the problem of the derelict areas should be in a fair way to being solved."
    I quote those statements to show that I believe that there was in no quarter of
    1790
    the House anticipation for a moment that the House would rise without any statement of policy whatever—we should not have it until November and that nothing would be done in the meantime. If that be so, it would appear to me that there will be no concrete result from all these investigations before the spring. The Government have been very cautious over this matter. They are not so cautious when they consider the interests of the people who are behind them. They are very quick in taking a shilling off the poor man's unemployment benefit, but when it comes to dealing with the question of work there has to be secret ceaseless investigation, and they 'go very slowly. When it comes to subsidies for interests which usually support the Government, there is very quick action.
    I should like to ask the Government what was their intention when they set up this scheme. What was the cause of it? Was it merely a sop to the Prime Minister to keep him quiet for the time being, or was it merely to get over the strong public feeling prevailing at that time with no real intention to do anything? It certainly seems to me that, if they meant well in April, their good intentions have evaporated since that time. That is the only interpretation that the most charitably minded can place upon their intentions after the three months of investigation.
    I want to ask, too, are we not to be allowed to see the reports. I understand from statements by the late Minister and by the acting Prime Minister that they are not going to be presented to the House. Apparently, the Lord President of the Council would go further than that. In answer to a series of questions by myself he told us that the Government were not prepared to give us the facts as to the surplus workers in those areas, and the consequent surplus population. At least, we had that information in the surveys to which I have referred but, apparently, we are not to have even the plai4test and simplest of statements made to the country. I suggest that it is almost without precedent that Government representatives should be making thorough investigations into a very serious matter and that at the end of those investigations, for which this House pays, there is to be no record submitted to Members of Parliament. What is the Government's reason for that

    1791
    action? Are Members of Parliament not to be trusted, or are the Government afraid of the country knowing the facts? I understand that the reply will possibly be that the reports are not all in. It is well known that one or two reports are in. I saw a statement to-clay from which I understand that the last report is now in. Why should we not have the reports that have been in the possession of the Government for several weeks?
    Constructive proposals have been made. If the Government have not at their disposal the whole of the reports what have they been doing with the reports that have been in their possession for some time? Have the Cabinet not had time to give serious consideration to the reports, or is it that the Cabinet or the Government do not intend to act upon any reports that they may get? On that score, I want to put two questions to the right hon. Gentleman. Is the House to have no statement at all of a detailed nature? If it is not to have the reports, is it to have any statement of a detailed nature giving the bare facts with which the Government have to deal and which the House may be called upon to consider Do the Government intend to make a statement of their policy at any time as to their procedure, the works which they intend to carry out, and their general policy in regard to these areas? The House may think that those questions are equivalent to carrying coals to Newcastle. It is assumed that the Government will make a, statement. We have assumed on our side that the Government will make a statement to the House, at least on the bare facts, that they will make a, statement of policy and that we shall have an opportunity of discussing
    it before anything is done. I am beginning to wonder, as I have watched the Government's activities, whether they intend to do that or not, and I say that because of the methods of the Government during the past two or three years.
    I think it would be true to describe the Government as being absent from duty for three years with respect to these areas. In October or November, 1931, the Minister of Labour came to the House and told us that the Government were going to give the voluntary societies a few thousand
    pounds to do certain work. No one would pay more tribute to many of these
    1792
    voluntary organisations for their work than I, but when the Government took up the attitude that they were going to use these organisations for their own purposes we said: "You are using these voluntary organisations, some of them of a work nature and some of an educational nature, as a substitute for Government policy, and in so far as that is done we are going to be hostile to those activities." I and a good many of my friends have refused to lift a little finger in reference to these voluntary organisations.
    Viscountess ASTOR: You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
    Mr. LAWSON: I have taken the opportunity of stating here now what I have said in public very often. I did it because we knew that the Government were going to use these organisations to do in an inefficient way work which the Government ought to do themselves.
    Mr. T. SMITH: Shelving responsibility.
    Mr. LAWSON: When I said that the Government were giving a few thousand pounds for these organisations to do work which the Government ought to do, the Minister of Labour challenged that statement.
    Viscountess ASTOR: May I ask a question?
    Mr. LAWSON: No, you cannot. Even while the Minister of Labour was making that statement the Prime Minister was making a statement by broadcast telling the world how we were going to settle unemployment by making duck ponds, or something of that nature. From that day to this the Government have never, until they sent out the commissions, shown the slightest interest in these areas. Everything that we said at that time about the voluntary organisations being prostituted to the Government's end has turned out to be absolutely accurate. The Government suppressed the Unemployment Grants Committee. They suppressed all activities in respect of public works. I do not for a moment think that public works are going to deal with this problem in a fundamental way. The Government will have to go much deeper than that. The question of alternate industries has to be seriously considered. But at least public works have the virtue that they help men to keep a grip upon life for the

    1793
    time being. I wish hon. Members could see some of these public works in action and note the difference in the men who are working compared with their condition when they are idle.
    I had a revelation in regard to this only this year. On one occasion, being nearly 2,000 feet above the level of the sea, I saw what appeared to be countless silver strips on the side of the Pennines, they were really small streams which go to make up one of the rivers Just below me I saw a great reservoir in the making, men were tunnelling and drilling, 600 of them being engaged in the making of this reservoir, which was to drain some thousands of acres of land and make use of the water. Those 600 men would have been standing idle in the market place and at street corners, physically wasting away. I know that there are those who think that long idleness does not have any bad effect on the individual.
    Mr. HOWARD: Who ever said that?
    Mr. LAWSON: I hold strongly the view that long term unemployment has not only a bad effect upon the individual but ultimately a bad effect on the nation. That reservoir could not have been made but for a grant from public funds, through the Unemployment Grants Committee, and certainly at a time like the present, when water is extremely precious, no one will deny that public money spent in making reservoirs is anything but well spent. As I looked at this public work I thought of all the gloomy economists who always give us lots of figures to show how public works are wasteful, that only a few men are engaged and a large sum of money spent; I thought also of the long arguments we heard from the Government bench in 1931 and 1932 and how inadequate those arguments were in face of the fact that those 600 men were working in the open air with a grip on themselves and upon life generally.
    The Government have broken public works. The Minister of Health says that anyone who wants to have a loan can have one, under certain conditions. I have never understood the conditions, but as far as I can understand them they are designed to make sure that nobody shall get a loan. For three years the Government have put nothing in the place of public works. Now they have
    1794
    set up Commissioners to investigate the facts, but these facts are to be kept secret from the country. I am not here to ask for charity, in fact, I hate raising the question of allowances in this respect. The one thing that is necessary, first and last, is to restore these people to work, to restore their self-respect. But we are compelled by the facts to face up to the question of allowances. Hon. Members will agree that during the discussions on the Budget the general impression was that the 10 per cent. was to be restored not only to people on benefit but to those people who were receiving the maximum allowance on transitional payment. I do not know whether the Minister of Labour is going to deny that, and I do not care whether he does or not if he will only explain it.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer when he made his Budget statement was greeted with shouts of joy and cheers by hon. Members opposite when he made the statement about £3,500,000 going to transitional payment, and we on this side were jeered at by hon. Members opposite. I sat on this bench and I saw two of the leading Members of the Government pointing to me particularly when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his statement, because I had previously said that as the law stood it was almost impossible for people in receipt of transitional payment to receive the 10 per cent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer led this House and the country to believe that people receiving the maximum amount on transitional payment would get the 10 per cent. That cannot be denied.
    What has happened? The Government's representative, the Commissioner —I am going to charge the right hon. Gentleman with being directly responsible—in Durham, is paying men under 50 years of age, single men, who are receiving the maximum transitional allowance, 9d. per week extra instead of ls. 9d. They are receiving 16s. instead of 17s. per week. The Government have a liaison officer acting between the Ministry of Labour and the Chief Commissioner in Durham, and I cannot think that the Chief Commissioner would have arrived at such a decision without first consulting the Ministry of Labour. I am certain that he would discuss matters with their officer, that is the go-between

    1795
    between the Ministry of Labour and the Commissioner. Therefore we have this situation, that while the Government led these people to believe that they would get ls. 9d. per week the Government's representative in Durham is paying less than ls. 9d. to the people to whom the 10 per cent. restoration was promised. I wonder if the Government gave him his baronetcy for this. He seems to be doing fairly well. I do not want to use my position here for the purpose of making any attack on any civil servant, but if he is not responsible then the Government must take the responsibility for the action.
    In 1834, when commissioners were sent to make investigations in respect of the Poor Law, in many places the people made them fly. We are getting to a stage in Durham when not only will the persons concerned be involved in some activity, but even those of us who stand as representative people of the county will probably be involved in it, too. We are not going to sit silent much longer and see the kind of thing that is going on in Durham at the present time. Let me give the right hon. Gentleman a case. A very fine young man whom I know lost his wife. The pair of them were esteemed in the locality. He returned home to his father and mother. He was working. His father, one of the finest craftsmen in the mines, unfortunately has not been able to get work for some time. Immediately the son returned home with his child in grief-stricken conditions, that man lost the whole of-his allowance. He has the knowledge that not only he and the boy's mother have to do what they can for their son and take care of the child, but they are conscious that they are living upon the son merely as a result of their kindness. I have the details of this case and quite a number of cases, but I am not going into them to-day. I have, however, written to the commissioners about this case. I want to know why a Member should have to write to a Government subordinate continually. I do not take to it kindly, but I have written to him, and I have had the reply that it is in accordance with the conditions. Is the Minister, or whoever is responsible for the giving of the allowances in those areas, going to justify that kind of thing? Then I would ask
    1796
    what they have to say about the 10 per cent. restoration in the cuts of transitional payments.
    I am, however, more concerned, as I said, about the question of work. There is a general belief, I think, that when the President of the Board of Trade started to make these trade pacts, it was going to benefit industrial areas. In fact, it has not done anything at all for those areas. It may be said, of course, that it has hindered bad from becoming worse. I am not going to argue that question to-day. All I know is that, as time has gone on in the industries in those areas, the number of employed has got less. I am not going to trouble the Committee with a number of figures, except to say that in the mining industry in 1928, there were 920,000 employed; in 1931, there were 840,000 employed; and in 1934, the last figures were 771,000. All experience is one of continual reduction. Sometimes the Government say that things are better. When you ask where they are better, you are told that they might be worse. We who are in industrial areas are pretty certain—at least. I am as regards the coal industry—that the change in the fiscal system of this country, whatever it may have done for the country generally, has damaged the coal trade, and it has particularly damaged those export areas where the real trouble has been growing for many years.
    Whether that be so or not, one thing is certain. The logic of the Government's policy is that they have got to take hold of those areas, and re-plan the country. It is not my business to-day, and, in fact, the Chairman would not allow me, to make alternate suggestions, but, as a matter of general principle, I think that the Government have to make up their minds that they have got to get alternate industries in those areas, that they have got to be very grim and determined in order to direct such industries into those areas, and that, generally speaking, they have got definitely to plan this country so that, at any rate, the people who have helped to make the country's prosperity in past years, are not made the victims of a policy which may be beneficial to people in lighter industries.
    I have taken the opportunity of making this demand upon the Government, that we should have a statement of policy,

    1797
    that they should issue this report and that the Minister should answer the one or two questions I have put to him. It is not the first time that the Conservative Government have applied the policy which it is applying here. I remember on one occasion that a well-known public personage went north. The Press went with him. Unfortunately, I cannot mention names, but the whole country was stirred by that royal visit. That personage expressed himself, and the Press gave publicity to his statements, in such a way that it was said that the Conservative Government at that time actually interfered with the proposed visit to South Wales. At any rate, there was no statement made with respect to that visit officially. The people in those areas did not care, because the personage concerned was not only considerately received in those areas, but was highly respected because of the forthright way in which he expressed himself as to certain conditions there.
    The Government, of course, had to set up a board which was known as the Transference Board. They had to state the facts, and the facts were stated. Why should it not be done now? It seems to be most incomprehensible that the Government should take a step of this nature, and the only explanation is that they want to hide the facts. I am not one of those who say that the way out of this problem is easy. It will be many-sided, but, at any rate, the people of the country ought to know the facts with which we are dealing, and I am sure, from knowledge gained from conversations and from letters generally, that this inactivity on the part of the Government does not at all represent the view which is held by great sections of opinion in this country. lE trust that the right hon. Gentleman to-day will give the Committee some satisfactory statement, a definite promise that this report is to be published, and that the Government at a very early date are going to take action of a beneficial nature upon that report.
    4.11 p.m.
    Mr. CURRY: Like the previous speaker, I regret that on this the first occasion on which the present Minister of Labour is to address the House for his Department, my remarks should be more critical than they usually are. I regret that on personal grounds, because we all in this House highly respect the Minister
    1798
    of Labour, and would wish him very great success in the management of the great Department to which he has been called. After all, the Ministry of Labour is a Ministry which affects directly a larger number of people than, perhaps, any other Ministry. It is engaged in a thousand and one tasks which affect directly the lives of a great number of citizens. Such a work cannot possibly be done effectively without great skill, tact and enthusiasm on the part of the staff of the Department, and from my own observation I think that the Minister is to be congratulated upon the great efficiency of the personnel over which he now has the honour to preside. The task of the Ministry of Labour, I think, can be briefly stated as that of facing the human problem in this country—a problem described in the term "Unemployment." At one time in the history of this country that problem was not a great one. Unfortunately, ever since the War, it has been an increasingly difficult problem, and now embraces something over 2,000,000 people.
    In recent months—indeed, I think, in recent years—we have become accustomed to statements being issued by the Ministry of Labour showing a diminution in the unemployment figures, and an increase in the number of people at work. No part of the House fails to receive such announcements with gratification. We are always glad to know when there is a decrease of unemployment and an increase of employment, but I do feel at the present time that we are in danger of deluding ourselves by these small improvements in the situation. While it is admitted that there have been improvements since the year 1031, we are in danger of becoming satisfied with those slight improvements. The danger of comparing our present situation with the situation of 1930 or 1931 is that it may lead us into an almost irretrievable pass. The fact is that the year with which we should make our comparisons is not 1930 or 1931, but 1929. If we take a look at our unemployment and trade figures and compare them with those of 1929 we are bound to admit that we have a tremendous distance to go before we retrieve the position which we enjoyed in 1929.
    It is not inappropriate to recall that in 1929 we did not regard the position as

    1799
    a position of happiness. The year 1929, to which we look back now as a good year, was in fact the last year of a long series of bad trade years which gave us a very large problem and an increasing problem of unemployment. It was the years from 1923 to 1929 which really created the problem of what we now call the distressed areas. During the eight or nine years before 1929 we had an unemployment figure which seemed to remain static at round about 1,000,000 to 1,250,000. The astonishing thing is that in those years our unemployment was confined very largely to five or six main industries: it did not spread itself throughout the country, but remained confined to those areas which we now call the depressed areas. From 1929 we, of course, came into an even more depressed field.
    But I want to bring the Committee back for a minute or two to the mentality which we had in 1929. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) has referred to the travels of a certain personage in 1928. In 1928 public opinion in this country was aroused on the problem of the distressed areas in a way in which it had never been aroused before and has not been aroused since. Large movements of social service were started, and I take this opportunity of dissenting from the remarks of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street with regard to that social movement. I would like to pay a tribute to all those ladies and gentlement in every part of the country who, by voluntary service during those years of depression, have lightened in any way the burden of less fortunate citizens.
    Mr. LAWSON: I do the same thing. As a matter of fact, up to the time when the Government began to use this movement for its own purposes, as it certainly did, I was one of the most active supporters of it, and the Minister of Labour is aware of that fact. From that time I ceased to have anything to do with the movement, for the reasons I have stated.
    Mr. CURRY: I have no desire to do the hon. Member an injustice, and I am sure he will be obliged to me for having enabled him to make that explanation. Whether or not the Government are using these services for their own political purposes, I am certain that the
    1800
    people who are engaged in the movement have no thought of supporting political parties. I am only anxious that nothing should go forth from this Committee which would deter public-minded citizens from engaging in any way in work which they think will help the lot of their fellow men. In 1928, when all this movement was started, the total unemployment in this country was 1,250,000. The distressed areas, of which everyone became cognisant almost for the first time, were less distressed then than they are now. If we compare the position of the distressed areas to-day, and indeed the position of the country to-day, with what it was in 1929, we recognise that things are very much worse than they were.
    Take the case of my own County of Durham. Looking at the figures to-day we are encouraged when we see that there are only 34 per cent. of the insured population out of work, for official figures tell us that this is a decrease of 7 pet cent. on the previous year. Everyone is rather inclined to ride off on that statement and to be satisfied. But the fact is that although it is an improvement on 1931, when the percentage was 37, it is worse than 1930, when the percentage was only 31. In 1929 in the County of Durham, when public opinion was directed to its condition in such a strong manner, the unemployment was only 16 per cent. of the insured population, compared with 34 per cent. to-day. That means that there is more than twice as much unemployment in Durham County now as there was in 1929.
    Then take my own constituency. To-day we have 53 per cent. of the insured population out of work, and again we are encouraged to think that that is a decrease compared with last year. In 1931 we had 54 per cent, unemployed. It is true that in 1930 things were even worse, and that 72 per cent. of the insured population in my constituency were then out of work—a really terrible condition of affairs. We are thankful, I personally am thankful, that to-day it is only 53 per cent. But compare that figure with 1929. In 1929 there were only 29 per cent. out of work in an insured population of 10,900. In 1931 the insured population was 11,030, with 54 per cent. out of work, and to-day the figure is 53 per cent. Those are figures which tend to show that, whatever improvement

    1801
    there may be in certain trades and districts, the hard core of unemployment In the depressed areas in not being diminished. Indeed, it is growing.
    These distressed areas have been a problem which the country has failed to appreciate. For some reason or another public representatives in these areas have not been able to make the impression upon public opinion generally which the condition of the area really warrants. To me the most distressing thing in unemployment is the plight of the juveniles, who cannot find work from the day when they leave school. Boys and girls are growing up in those areas without a chance of developing the capacity to earn a livelihood. That is the worst side of the problem. But a problem which gives me equal concern at the moment is the fact that with a total of 2,000,000 unemployed the number of cases of long-term unemployment is increasing. Long-term unemployment is tending to increase, and the number of people going on to transitional payment forms a greater proportion of the unemployed population than it used to do.
    The next effort which brought the attention of the public to the distressed areas was the action of the "Times" in sending special correspondents into these areas. I think the nation is indebted to the "Times" for the action which it took. The articles it published have been of great value; they served the purpose of focusing public attention in a, way that nothing else had done since 1928. I will read one quotation from a "Times" article. The writer on Durham said:
    "There are parts of Durham where one feels strongly, and sometimes angrily, that London has still no conception of the troubles that affect the industrial North."
    Then later the writer said:
    "In the North-West of the coalfield, round Bishop Auckland, for every 42 working there are 58 out of work."
    Mr. MAGNAY: Does my hon. Friend not think that it was the visit of the Prince of Wales about that time which concentrated national public attention upon the North-East district particularly, when His Royal Highness came with a truly regal gesture to that distressed part of the country?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): It is not in order to refer to a
    1802
    member of the Royal Family in debate to influence the Debate.
    Mr. MAGNAY: I am sorry, but it is a fact all the same.
    Mr. CURRY: I am glad to find the hon. Member in such agreement with me. But that visit was in 1928, and the articles of the "Times" were published in March, 1934, six years afterwards. When the visit took place the total unemployment was only 1,250,000, and today it is over 2,000,000, and the percentage of unemployment in Bishop Auckland is far higher now than it was when public opinion was directed in that way to the situation.
    Mr. BATEY: It shows that neither of those visits was of any use.
    Mr. CURRY: I dissent from that view. Anything which calls attention to the actualities of the problem is of service, and the "Times" certainly did a public service when it published those articles. I think the Minister will agree that the writing of those articles was the chief cause of the appointment of the Commissioners who have been sent into the distressed areas. I take this opportunity of paying a tribute to the Commissioner, the hon. and gallant Member for Hornsey (Captain Wallace), who has visited the County of Durham. He has applied himself to his task with great enthusiasm and great skill, and, whatever may be the outcome of his report, I am sure that we are indebted to him, and that we would not be fulfilling our duty if we did not recognise the effort which he has made. I would ask the Minister on what lines the reports of the Commissioners are to be drawn up, and on what lines the investigations have been made. Are they purely regional investigations or are they investigations along the line of industries? If they are purely regional I would respectfully, suggest to the Minister that they should be accompanied by regional inquiries throughout the country. Otherwise, the Government are not going to get a complete picture of the problem as a result of these reports. If, for instance, a Commissioner finds that juvenile unemployment is a special difficulty in a _particular area and recommends transference of some sort, unless regional inquiries have taken place in the other districts to which the Commissioner thinks those juveniles ought to

    1803
    be sent, the Government will not be able to judge of the absorptive capacity of the districts recommended.
    Especially do I fear that unless we have regional inquiries, areas may be omitted altogether which call for investigation as much as areas to which commissioners have been sent. Have the Government any thought for instance of investigating the affairs of Merseyside? Tyneside has been the subject of a social survey. A commissioner has been there, but I have yet to learn that a commissioner has been sent to the Merseyside and yet I understand there are real problems of special importance to that area. If, however, the investigations are on the lines of the different industries then we are brought up against the problem to which the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street referred when he spoke of the continued diminution of the number employed in our heavy industries. There is going on a steady diminution of the number employed in the mining industry alone, and while we cannot in this Debate indicate the course which we would like legislation to take, I repeat that it is my firm conviction that we shall never find a satisfactory solution of the problem of the mining industry until we take the older people out of the industry and provide them with a sufficient maintenance by means of pensions.
    I would reinforce the appeal made by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street for the publication of the commissioners' reports. I am aware that when the announcement of this inquiry was made the Minister stated that the commissioners reports would not be published. I can understand that, the assurance having been given, there may be difficulties in publishing the full reports, because it meant that the commissioners would write and speak to the Cabinet in a way which they possibly might not do but for that assurance. That however does not preclude the possibility of these four gentlemen coming together and submitting to the Cabinet a report which they know will be published. As I say, the "Times" articles were, I believe, responsible for the appointment of these commissioners, and in to-day's issue that newspaper makes the plea that there should be published, if not reports from the individual commisioners, at all events a joint report or statement
    1804
    from the four commissioners in order that the public may know the conditions.
    It is a great disappointment to me and I am sure also to many of my hon. Friends that the reports have not been given to the Government early enough to enable a statement of policy to be made before the summer Recess. When these commissioners were appointed, the people in these districts were already almost sick with hope deferred, but on that announcement being made they were inspired with new life and new hope that at last their case was going to be considered by the Government and some definite proposals made which would bring them relief. We all know the difficulties of the problem, and I am not going to criticise the Government for not having done things which I realise are very difficult and in regard to which it is not easy to make practical suggestions. But we must remember that the conditions prevailing in these distressed areas could have been known to successive Governments for the past 10 years, and though much has been done in the way of transference and grants, the central core of unemployment in those areas has not been tackled either by this Government or its predecessors. When these reports come to hand I hope that something will be done and that it will no longer be possible to say that the problem has not been tackled. I hope it will be recognised that we have in these areas a problem which is new and peculiar but a problem which once dealt with is not likely to recur in the life of the nation for many generations.
    In the meantime the people suffer. They have given of their best. I would not say, however, that they are really dispirited. They are capable of throwing themselves with enthusiasm into any new plan of action which may be devised for them. But they are tired of false hopes being raised and they will not bear with patience the disappointment of their further hopes. It is because of that fact that I urge upon the Government the importance of publishing a statement in some form or other by the commissioners. The nation has a right to know the results of these inquiries. I trust that we shall have some definite proposals from the Government immediately after the Recess and that, in the meantime, by the publication of the commissioner's reports the public will be enabled to judge of the adequacy of such proposals. It is no part

    1805
    of my duty on this occasion, even if I had the time and the opportunity to make suggestions though I think there are suggestions which could be made with some guarantee that there was something in them. At all events, the conditions in these areas are known and there are only three courses by which a solution of the problem can be found.
    The difficulties in my view are not insurmountable although the task is one of great complexity. The problem, not being insoluble, ought to be tackled. Like the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street I am not here to make political points against the Government. I honestly believe that they are making great efforts to tackle the various problems by which they are beset and I would not, on these matters, try to score party points. But I have the honour and privilege of representing a division of great traditions, an ancient township which has lived through the centuries, and which has behind it a great history. I know the people among whom I live and work, and I have seen for myself the effect of this long period of depression on the personalities of the people there. Knowing what is going on, I appeal to the Government, not in any partisan spirit but out of the sincere conviction that the problem can be solved if it is properly tackled, not to delay action and not to sicken with further disappointments a population which has already suffered many trials.
    4.40 p.m.
    Mr. MACMILLAN: I am sure the Committee welcomes the fact that this Vote has been put down to-day, first because it is only right and proper that before the summer Recess these grave matters affecting so vitally a large part of our population should be debated, and secondly, because it affords us the opportunity of hearing the first important declaration from my right hon. Friend in his new capacity as Minister of Labour and of welcoming him as a Minister to whom we all look for great things. He has not only character but sympathy and intellectual power, a combination which ought to make his tenure of office memorable indeed. I welcomed as I think all hon. Members welcomed the appointment of Commissioners to inquire into the conditions in the distressed areas. We welcomed it particularly because we felt that that dramatic gesture was a recog-
    1806
    nition of the intrinsic and outstanding importance of a problem which had been far too long obscured by official complacency.
    When I first entered Parliament 10 years ago, the Member for one of the Middlesbrough divisions was the late Mr. Trevelyan Thomson. He was one of the first men to raise this question, and by a long-continued agitation, to which he devoted all his energies and finally his life, he called the attention of Parliament and the country and particularly, that part of the country south of the Trent, to the pressing character of the problem presented by these distressed areas. Indeed I am not sure that he did not invent the term "distressed areas," but the official view at that time was that it was a problem which would solve itself, and that when the various reasons for depression had been dealt with, these areas would share in the general postwar recovery. I think the Governments of those years can claim to have made some attempts by derating, by local government reform, by the weighting of the populations, by alterations of grants and in other ways to deal partially with the problem, but I do not think that any of us—let us be quite honest about it—realised how deep-rooted was the problem, how difficult it would be to handle, and how incapable it was of being solved by the mere automatic correction of adverse trade conditions.
    It was, as I say, believed that the normal course of recovery would solve the problem of the distressed areas, but as the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Curry) has reminded the Committee, when one is living in a particular period and in a particular set of circumstances, it is difficult to take an objective view of the situation in which one is placed. We regarded 1929 as a year of depression. Now we know that it was the highest year of trade boom since the War—and I would recall to the Committee that the Government of that day were flung contemptuously from power because there were 1,000,000 unemployed when it went to seek the suffrages of the people, at the height of a trade boom. To-day we are in another trade boom. The figures of the production of goods and services are equal to those of 1929. The number of men employed is equal to the number employed in 1929, but we

    1807
    find that in this new boom we have a figure, not of 1,000,000 unemployed but of 2,000,000 unemployed. In my own constituency in 1929 which we then thought was a year of depression, but which we now find was a year of boom, one-sixth of the male population were out of work. To-day in the present year of boom one-third are without employment. I think we have realised at last that although recovery comes and goes, although one wave may go higher up the beach than another, these partial periods of recovery do not touch the core of the problem as it affects particular areas and particular industries.
    We can no longer console ourselves with the view that in the normal and automatic course of things these problems will solve themselves. It is for that reason especially that the country welcomed the Government's decision to appoint these four commissioners. I think they took it, first, as a gesture from London, the south of England, and the more prosperous areas, showing that they do care for the distressed areas, and, secondly, as an indication of the fact that the Government recognise that the problem can no longer be left unsolved or left to chance to find a solution. I think there is perhaps some natural disappointment at the delay and that it is not possible to have the report before the end of this part of the Session, but we quite realise that these investigations take time if they are to be of any value, and I do not think it would have been feasible to expect them to be completed in any less time than they have. Indeed, I think it is remarkable that they have been completed so soon. If we are naturally somewhat disappointed that no statement of Government policy can be made before the autumn, there is a feeling of some anxiety in regard to the publication of these reports and also in regard to the use to be made of them.
    First of all, to whom are the Commissioners reporting? I understand primarily to the Minister of Labour. After all, perhaps the Commissioners are not going to collect any facts which were not known before they made their investigation. The various Government Departments—the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Board of Trade—must have
    1808
    had in their possession a detailed mass of knowledge on these questions. I take it the real purpose is to co-ordinate and take a wider vision of the information already in their possession, supplemented of course by special local knowledge. I hope these reports will not be left as it were to the official survey of one particular Department. I hope they will be passed to a committee of the Cabinet, directed to the Government, and that high Government policy will result. I recognise that it would be impossible to publish reports which were confidential. No doubt there was a great deal of information given by individuals, and perhaps by individual firms, as to their financial situation and so on which could only have been made confidentially, and which it would not be wise to publish. But I do ask the Minister to consider, though not necessarily to tell the Committee to-day, whether it will not be possible to publish a statement, not about particular pieces of evidence of that character which might damage individuals, but giving in general the main recommendations and findings, to publish, if he likes, a White Paper or statement giving an outline of what in general the Commissioners have recommended, so that we may have before us when we come to discuss these matters in the autumn some more useful information on which to base our views on the policy on which the Government may ultimately embark.
    The questions with which these commissioners have had to deal are vast
    indeed, and I am certain it has been the experience of these gentlemen themselves, and will be the experience of the Government Department that tries to base a policy on their recommendations, that it is impossible to deal with the distressed areas as a single problem. The further you go in your investigations the more you will be drawn into general policy, into high policy. It is not like a man who is ill with a particular
    disease, say cancer. You say you are sorry for him and would cure him if you and people who have not got cancer go on living their normal lives.
    The cure for the ills that oppress these
    particular areas, right or wrong—we may disagree about their character—will necessarily involve high policy, and I believe in the long run it will involve the formulation of the only policy by which

    1809
    State Socialism or State capitalism can be fought and defeated in this country.
    This is certainly not the place, and it would be out of order, to go in detail into the kind of problem that will arise, but let us consider what is the reason of the distress, the cause of the collapse of these areas. It is generally a case of areas that in the past have depended on export trade and more particularly on the export of capital goods. That really seems to be the situation of these areas, and therefore the consideration of any policy, other than a palliative or short-term policy, must involve a deep investigation of the most important questions which arise between parties to-day. It must involve the consideration of foreign trade, foreign lending, the relations between finance and industry, the organisation of industry itself, the recruitment of labour and its relationship with our educational system, the control of industry, geographical control if you like, and the whole problem of local government in these areas and the remaining questions of differential rates.
    These are all huge questions which arise, on which any and every successful long-term policy must be based. Of course, it is easy to recognise, and not difficult to recommend, a short-term policy which would be reasonably effective in mitigating the worst results of these harsh and oppressive features in the life of people in the distressed areas. I am not sure that unless your long-term policy is sound, your short-term palliatives may not in the long run do more harm than good. We have to face, if we decide to go back to the system of individualist capitalism of the nineteenth century, the system of laissez faire, whether it is wise to go in for housing or anything which will tend to keep people in areas from which under the nineteenth century system they would have drifted. Is it not better to face the fact that many of these troubles arise from the fact that the system is becoming rigid and has not the liquidity of 100 years ago? Are we doing a service to young people in these areas in keeping them there by a short-term policy, unless we have decided that they can play a useful part in the life of the country from a long-term point of view and are prepared to recommend the policy which will secure that result?
    1810
    Are we not to-day, in many parts of the Government policy falling between two systems and getting the worst of both, destroying the automatic corrections of the old system of laissez faire without having the courage to go through to the logical Conclusion of our new idea of conscious control of our fortunes. I see in the Government policy no inclination to revert to laissez faire. Everything they have done, particularly in recent months, but in the whole three years they have been in office, has been the opposite, and, as the hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate said, we have taken the great step of setting up a new fiscal system, and it is perfectly true it has had its reactions on the distressed areas that depended so much on export trade. What the corrective is it is not the time to say. It may be that a policy of financial expansion and internal lending must take the place of what was once supported by external or foreign lending. I do not know; but we have taken the tremendous responsibility of setting up a new fiscal system. That is the overriding condition under which this Parliament lives. We cannot go back and say:
    "We will have laissez faire where it suits us and organisation in any quarter where it suits us." Moreover, we have decided that we will not have the old automatic correction. We will have wheat grown, and not let the fields go out of cultivation. The laissez faire school would have said: "If you cannot grow wheat at a profit, let the wheat go. Let the labourers starve and the farmer be driven from the land." We have decided to have a shipping industry for national purposes, and we are ready to spend money. We have decided in the whole course of our agricultural policy that we will not allow the old automatic corrections to bring supply into relation with demand but will set up a new system.
    I welcome the new Minister's appointment more than anyone in this House. I believe he has an immense opportunity in the two years that remain to this Parliament, and that it depends upon the relation which he can establish between this office and other Departments and the part he can play, as I believe he can, in the formulation of a coherent and consistent policy to replace those lines of policy which, sound in themselves, do not seem to me to be sufficiently related to one another. I think it will be found

    1811
    that out of this question of the distressed areas will arise all those great questions of trade policy and out of the decision of the Government on this particular part of the problem we may get the formulation of a new philosophy which in my opinion is the only political philosophy which the people of this country will accept as an alternative to Socialism. I do not believe they will ever go back to the harsh and cruel methods to produce what economists call equilibruim, which served us in the nineteenth century. I do not believe they will go back to the Whig Poor Law of 1834, wages depression, and labour made servile by these methods. I believe they have determined to be masters of their own fate. The only question is how it is to be done, whether by lion. Gentlemen who now sit on this side of the House and may in a year or two sit on the other side of the Table, or whether we, who have the support of a vast non-party population in the country, the support of an enormous amount of good will, whether the Government which is not in the position of governing a reluctant population opposing its policy but is dealing with people who are waiting to be led and asking for policy, will carry this through. On how they handle the situation which arises out of these perhaps minor questions, which will lead to the greater problems, will depend not merely their fate at the next election, though that is a matter of importance to all of us, but the development of these islands perhaps during the next decade.
    4.58 p.m.
    Mr. KENNETH LINDSAY: I agree with much that the last hon. Gentleman has said, but I disagree also with a good deal, and I want to make that the text of the few remarks that I should like to address to the Committee. It is a poverty stricken House, almost a depressed area, and I suppose the reason is that we do not quite know where we are. We have already had three Debates, and the reports are in the Government's hands, but we are in the dark. I want to say that I do not believe what the last hon. Gentleman and others have said is true. I do not believe we know the facts. The hon. Member who has just spoken said that we have had 10 years with the automatic system and he went on to say that there is a considerable amount of rigidity. In fact, during the last 10
    1812
    years, about 1,500,000 people in this country have changed their occupations. I want, as a preliminary to a practical suggestion that I wish to put before my right hon. Friend, to analyse that change. There has been a movement, which is still going on, from the fringes of these Islands to the centre. Scotland and Wales have lost between 40,000 and 50,000 persons during the past 10 years. Cornwall, Hereford, Cumberland, West-morland, Norfolk and Suffolk, have all declining populations. The populations even of Durham, Northumberland and Shropshire have increased by only a very small number; and in Scotland all counties north of the Clyde-Forth line, except Stirlingshire, have had decreases in population.
    Side by side with this you have this entirely new phenomenon, that places like Birmingham and Coventry have great increases of population. Even Liverpool has 50,000 more. Inside the depressed areas, Newcastle, Manchester and Cardiff have accretions of population. Further, although coal has lost 500,000 people, the distributive trades have taken 500,000 more; although engineering has lost 130,000, the catering and food manufacturing trades have taken an equivalent number; although iron and steel have lost 60,000, the electrical trades have increased by something like 130,000 to 140,000. During the last 10 years a very big change has taken place. We have now the new phenomenon of old industries and new industries. We have even old communities and new communities. Iron and steel, docks, cotton and wool have a large percentage of workers over 55 years of age. In the newer industries —distribution, motor manufacturing and commerce—the average age is comparatively young. At Dagenham the average age is about 23. Further along at Ilford, it is 31. At Epsom, Tunbridge Wells and Bournemouth it is going up steadily.
    But that is not the end of the story. I want to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman. I cannot find the answer from the ordinary statistics. I do not believe anybody knows. There are at least four different volumes of statistics telling us about the past 10 years. I believe these commissioners have found out many new facts, and it is only by an acute analysis of the facts that we can get the answer. The more

    1813
    acute the analysis the more scientific will be the answer. While during the last 10 years there has been an increase in the insured population of 1,647,000, there are 400,000 fewer people in the category of "in retirement or not gainfully employed." I will allow the few people coming back from the Dominions, and also that unknown figure, of vital importance to Scotland and the North of England, of the increased number of people coming from Ireland, on which there are no statistics available. I believe the real solution lies in what the right hon. Gentleman who preceded the present Minister said, that as you increase the social services you: increase the numbers of people taking advantage of them. There are a vast number of people on the registers of social services to-day who were never counted before. No one knows how they lived; certainly they were not there ten years ago. That is the only deduction I can draw. At the beginning of this century there were about 1,750,000 people over 65 years of age. In 1931 there were 3,250,000 people over 65. In ten years time that number will go up to 4,000,000; and in 1976, when some of us will still be young, there will be 5,750,000 people in this country over 65, out of a total population of 33,000,000. The women alone in this category are going to double their population in the next 50 years. You have somehow to allow for all these factors if you are going to plan ahead. You have to think out what kind of a pension system we are going to have in the next 20 years. I will not complicate this by taking account of the figures of young persons between 14 and 18, although you can draw very interesting deductions from that.
    Whereupon, the GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.
    Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

    ROYAL ASSENT.
    Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
    The House went; and, having re-turned—
    Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—

    1. Trustee Savings Banks (Special Investments) Act, 1934.

    1814

    2. Architects (Registration) Act, 1934.

    3. British Sugar (Subsidy) Act, 1934.

    4. Administration of Justice (Appeals) Act, 1934.

    5. Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934.

    6. Shops Act, 1934.

    7. National Maritime Museum Act, 1934.

    8. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Leek) Act, 1934.

    9. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Sheppey Water) Act, 1934.

    10. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Stoke-on-Trent) Act, 1934.

    11. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Weymouth and Portland Joint Hospital District) Act, 1934.

    12. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Wey Valley Water) Act, 1934.

    13. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Wycombe and District Joint Hospital District) Act, 1934.

    14. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (South Middlesex and Richmond Joint Hospital District) Act, 1934.

    15. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Herriard and District Water) Act, 1934.

    16. Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1934.

    17. London Midland and Scottish Railway Order Confirmation Act, 1934.

    18. Rotherham Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation Act, 1934.

    19. Torquay Corporation Act, 1934.

    20 Chailey Rural District Council Act, 1934.

    21. Sunderland and South Shields Water Act, 1934.

    22. Lowestoft Corporation Act, 1934.

    23. Tynemouth Corporation Act, 1934.

    24. North Wales Electric Power Act, 1934.

    25. Tyne Improvement Act, 1934.

    26. Wantage Urban District Council Act, 1934.

    SUPPLY.
    Again considered in Committee.
    [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]
    Question again proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £38,903,900, be granted for the said Service."
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. K. LINDSAY: As I was saying, we are becoming a more aged country. I wish to pass from these rather general figures and statistics, which might well be known more widely, to the specific point. There are now in this country more than 743,000 people over 64 years of age occupied. There are nearly 100,000 over 75 years of age and 200,000 between 70 and 75. Among this group unemployment is far heavier, as would be expected, than it is among those in the prime of life. I am obviously not suggesting that these persons should be with drawn from industry. I merely give the figure for what it is worth in order to put the thing in perspective, and to show, for example, that if we withdraw all those over 55 from industry there would probably be 1,000,000 vacancies. Without any knowledge of what is in these Commissioners' reports, I think the time has come to look ahead at the question of old age. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should consider very carefully the possibility of a retirement on pension. A proposition was put forward by Sir Oswald Mosley years ago and we are told the Department turned it down because the figures were all wrong. It has also been suggested by a great many people since. My suggestion is roughly on these lines, that something equal to the standard benefit be applied to those between 55 and 65—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that that would require legislation.
    Mr. LINDSAY: I will not go into any further details, but may I suggest that there are very nearly 300,000 persons who come within these age categories who are unemployed and are drawing transisitional payments. I think, therefore, that the benefit which would accrue would be very considerable. I think that something like one-tenth of the present unemployment could be attacked and that the cost would be infinitesimal, because, if some proposals of this kind were adopted, it would be very largely
    1816
    offset by savings in ordinary standard benefit and transitional payments, and to a small extent in public assistance. Anyone who has had experience of Poor Law work in the old days knows that if a man over 55 came for relief he was not asked questions. You said to him, "Good luck to you." Suppose a man of this age be a carman with four children, what is to be done with him? He cannot get into the habit of driving automobiles, and his life's work is pretty well done, so far as industry in many callings is concerned.
    This is not a grandiose scheme to solve the unemployment problem. It will attack a percentage, and I put it at 10 per cent. The means test does not apply to people in this category, and I believe there are sound lines which could be followed in relation to the ordinary old age pension scheme. I dare not go any further, because I shall trespass on the Ruling of the Chair. It must be remembered that we are dealing with men in declining industries and that the chances of reemployment are very small in the distressed areas. It will be an enormous help in re-organising the basic industries of coal, cotton, shipping, and iron and steel if we can deal not only with the problem of redundant spindles and machinery, but also with the redundant personnel in the old age categories. As an hon. Member opposite said, we are beginning to organise exports, imports and basic industries, and I do not think we can leave employment to take care of itself. I am not unmindful of the fact that the Ministry of Labour placed a large number of persons last year in agricultural and industrial employment, but I think the time has come for a much closer co-operation between the Ministry of Labour and organised industry. In large numbers of industries at present there are retirement schemes dealing with pensions and so forth.
    The time has come to talk about the concentration of employment in age groups. I know that this is unpopular, and I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary thinks there is very little in it. I would implore him to re-examine it. We cannot go on in this higgledy-piggledy way any longer with the extraordinary anachronism of old age in employment on the one hand, and people in the prime of life, when the expenses of a growing family are most serious, being, as it

    1817
    seems, permanently denied the opportunity of employment, on the other. I do not believe in making a national institution out of able-bodied unemployment and health insurance to work very much better, and would make the new Assistance Board's task very much simpler, because there is a limit beyond which the board could not go in tackling able-bodied unemployment. There are a large number of persons whom many of us would like to see brought into the unemployment insurance scheme, because they are indistinguishable in many ways from the able-bodied unemployed. We make an arbitrary arrangement, but we admit, and the Minister admits, that there is no real difference between these persons beyond the fact of their locality. No insurance scheme, and I go further and say that no assistance board, can deal with the depressed areas in a practical way because the thing has become unmanageable.
    It is for that sort of reason that I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should reconsider the question of age groups, I know it is not a thing to be clone wholesale, but taking industry by industry—though I think the pension scheme must be carried through on a national basis—and the unwanted leisure which has been thrust on the heads of families while schools are putting out quite a number of raw recruits from 14 to 18. I know the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) often reminds us that juvenile unemployment is small, and to a certain extent that is true, but that is not the problem. The problem comes beween 18 and 22, and
    afterwards. Some of us want to see some withdrawal from the labour market of those between 14 and 18, because we think that will help that position.
    I say again, with other hon. Members, that we realise the difficulty of publishing these reports, and also the difficulty of publishing parts of the reports without publishing the whole of them, but it would be a good thing for the Government and the country if we were taken further into confidence about the facts, because we should not then have so many wild things being said from both sides of the House and in the country. Grotesque things are being said about unemployment and the unemployment figures, and I cannot believe that those
    1818
    gentlemen who have been giving their time to this subject during the last three months have not found out many new facts. An hon. Member opposite said that there was greater rigidity of labour, owing to lack of mobility, but in the so-called industrial depressed areas the facts are different, because with the development of motor transport a man unemployed in a mine can go to work 10 or 15 miles away in a new mine, and that facility is revolutionising the whole position. In Scotland that is not the problem, but the general depression of the heavy industry economy, and its results on trade, and that makes all the more important my suggestion about dealing with old age. Therefore, I come back to the one single concrete suggestion, because it is no good talking about the problem unless we can say something definite. We are getting the beginnings of a post-war Cabinet, and I am sure hon. Members on all sides of the House will back up the energetic prosecution of the new and very difficult task to which post-war Britain has called my right hon. Friend during the last few weeks.
    5.33 p.m.
    Mr. DAGGAR: The right hon. Gentleman, assisted by his Parliamentary Secretary, will probably not be at a loss to reply to some of the charges which have been made. The charge of official complacency, by the way, was not made from these benches, but by an active supporter of the Conservative Government, who has thereby prevented that charge being made by those who are looked upon as being capable of such things. I do not propose to follow that hon. Member in his reference to high policy and complacent officials or official complacency. As representing a distressed area, I say that the Government can have all their high policy and their surplus and their reports if only they will give us, in the distressed areas, immediate relief. Reference has been made to the need for the publication of the Commissioner's reports and to the promise of the Government to deal with their recommendations. It is understood that some of those reports are ready. The "Times" had a letter this morning from Sir Rhys Williams expressing the hope that the reports should be published, and although I admit that I have expressed the opinion that I have

    1819
    yet to be convinced that the Government can expect any information from those Commissioners which they had not already in their possession, let me pay a tribute to Sir Wyndham Portal, the Commissioner who visited the area in which I live and which I have the honour to represent. No one could have been more patient in listening to the statements made by representatives of the different organisations in the Abertillery area.
    It is a very unpleasant thing for an active business man to have to listen to the observations of a professional politician, but he did it with considerable credit to himself and great credit to those who sent him. It could not have been a very pleasant task for these gentlemen to be brought into personal contact with distress such as they had only the faintest idea existed, especially in some of the mining valleys of South Wales. My reason for saying the Government have the information in their possession already and cannot expect much more is based on what was learned in the surveys, the results of which were published only in 1932. In the "Times" of last Friday there is an article by Professor H. A. Marquand, who was the bead of the staff which prepared the survey for the South Wales area. It shows that conditions are getting considerably worse in South Wales, and that article ought to be some incentive to the Government to announce their policy, in view of the fact that we shall soon be breaking up for the Recess and that our people will in all probability experience another winter even worse than last winter. The Professor says:
    "Coal mining is the chief industry and employs about 40 per cent.—in 1923 it was 52 per cent.—of all the insured workers in employment in that region. In 1930, the last complete year before the survey was made, the output of coal was approximately 46.000.000 tons. In each following year the output has fallen, and last year was only three-quarters of what it was in 1929, while exports were only two-thirds of what they then were."
    I hold the opinion, for what it is worth, that there is no hope for South Wales with a bankrupt mining industry. In that article reference is made to the need for the introduction of new industries as the only possible alternative to permitting the decay to continue. The establishment of new factories in South Wales
    1820
    may assist us to ease the position, but will not remove all the unemployment in that area. The Government are doing very little on the lines of the suggestion made by Professor Marquand. According to the figures supplied by the President of the Board of Trade on 1st May of this year, 463 new factories, employing 25 or more workers each, were opened last year, and in addition there were 95 extensions. The extensions and the new factories gave employment, it was said, to no fewer than 29,500 persons. Those statistics were unsatisfactory in my opinion, because 409 factories had been closed down in the same period and we were not told the number of -persons who became unemployed but I will not pursue that point.
    Out of the 463 new factories, 220, or nearly a half, were erected in Greater London and only two in South Wales. It would be of interest to those who come from South Wales and Monmouth to be told where those two factories were erected. There were two out of a total of 463. The number of persons employed in the 220 factories in the Greater London area was 13,450. The number employed in the two new factories in South Wales was not in excess of 450. There is optimism over more persons being in employment and the improvement in trade, and I do not grudge the Government any credit to which they are entitled in that respect, but the conditions in South Wales are worse than ever. In the course of his article in the "Times" Professor Marquand says:
    "Our 1931 estimate of a surplus of 40,000 was made at a time when unemployment was less than it is to-day; and it was made on the assumption of a return to the 1929 level of output in coal mining and the other basic industries. To-day the surplus is greater than it was in 1931 and the social effects of prolonged unemployment are more apparent and even more deplorable."
    He goes on to say:
    "Nothing short of vigorous State action can check the waste of splendid human material and the wearing down of the spirit which have gone on for so long."
    I have already said that South Wales will in my opinion be non-existent without a resuscitation of the coal mining industry in some form or other. If we want to ascertain the degree of distress in some of these areas there is no more reliable guide than the number of meals provided free for the children in our ele-

    1821
    mentary schools. In my area, in 1931, 931,602 meals were supplied to school children, and in 1933 the number had increased to 1,166,039. Since 1921 no fewer than 6,091,000 meals have been supplied to the children in a part of the division I have the honour to represent. Reference was made by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Curry) to the insured population in his area who were unemployed being in the region of 52 per cent. I am in an urban area where 62 per cent of an insured population of 7,000 is unemployed.
    I desire to stress a new point in connection with the depressed areas, which is not only true of a part of my division but is generally true of all such areas in Great Britain. Migration may be a good and desirable thing for those fortunate enough to secure employment elsewhere, but the burden is increased for those who remain in the area. Let me give an illustration in connection with the General Exchequer Grant payable in the Abertillery Urban District. Under the Local Government Act of 1932 it consists of a capitation grant based upon the estimated population—and other conditions. In my area on 1st April, 1930, it was calculated at the rate of 151 pence per head of the population. Since then that figure has been reduced to 145 pence. Instead of that grant realising £20,662, as it did in 1931, it only amounted in 1934, to £19,067, a reduction of £1,595. The demands of a depressed area are as great as and even greater than others, but they have a decreased income to meet the increased demand.
    I am not at liberty to cover some of the points which have been submitted to Government Departments, but I am entitled to express the opinion that, from the point of view of the distressed areas, insufficient consideration has been given to the points upon which agreement has been reached by the Urban District Councils' Association. Four of those points are well known to Members of the Government, and propose, in order to relieve distress in those areas for the period, that there should be a reduction in rates of interest charged by the Public Works Loans Board, a reduction in house rents of subsidised schemes, an increase in Exchequer grants and a spreading of the burden of poor relief over the whole country. I would direct the attention of the Minister to a case which
    1822
    has come to my notice in my division. The late Minister of Labour, in his annual report last year, made reference to the number of vacancies filled by applicants from districts other than those in which the work was available. Those cases are on the increase; we take no exception to them, and some of us are very grateful for them, but it is very necessary that an accurate statement of the conditions of employment should be made to applicants before they leave their homes, especially when the applicants are boys under 16 years of age.
    The case to which I refer is that of three boys who were sent by the Abertillery Employment Exchange to work at a brick works about 12 miles from Bedford. Notwithstanding that they were 16 years of age, the boys were paid the handsome sum of 6d. per hour, and they were expected to work 52 hours per week. During a discussion upon this Vote on the 21st of this month, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour made a reference to the 40-hour week Convention, and said that there was no reason to believe that 40 represented what was required any more than 36 or 42. I would like to know if he is disposed to include 52 hours for boys of 16 years of age? I am informed that the boys commenced work at half-past six in the morning and remained at work until 5 o'clock in the afternoon. That period included meal times, breakfast being provided two hours after the start of the day's work. For boys living in a depressed area to commence work without food is nothing short of a scandal. The boys were lodged in a large brick-built bungalow with persons with whom boys of that age should not be allowed to associate. They had to pay Li for lodgings and keep, which left them with three or four shillings per week for what was inaptly described as "pocket-money."
    Because of these conditions, the boys walked 12 miles to the Bedford Exchange in order to lay a legitimate complaint not only in regard to the conditions under which they worked but those in which they were expected to sleep. They were told by the manager of the Bedford Exchange to go back to work. Their parents were informed of the conditions, and the fathers went to Bedford and brought the boys home. Particulars of the conditions which I have related have been sub-

    1823
    mitted to the Abertillery Employment Exchange. I am laying no complaint against the manager of the Abertillery Exchange, but I am complaining about the information which was sent by those who were responsible for inviting applicants from Abertillery to fill vacancies in the brickyard under those scandalous conditions. Something should be done in such cases, especially when they concern boys who do not object to leaving their homes at so young an age.
    An article which I was interested to read in the "Times" of the 20th of this month bears on the case. I make no apology for reading from this leading article, in view of the particulars of the case which I have just submitted to the Committee. It said:
    "It is pretty safe to say that any English discussion of English national characteristics would give pride of place to a sense of fair play. To foreign critics we may on occasion be a nation of shopkeepers ' or 'perfidious Albion.' But a warm and hearty determination to give and receive fair play is far more conspicuous among our national traits than far-sightedness, acquisitiveness, skill in bargaining, or political adroitness. Other nations are prone to put down our success in winning and holding an Empire to these more intellectual and cold-blooded qualities. In our own judgment it is far more largely due to that instinct for seeing, hearing and understanding the other side which is at the root of that vague notion of ' fair-play.' One of the other names of that instinct is the sporting spirit '—the tendency to take the part of the under-dog, the desire to give every man his say and his chance, however much the odds and the general opinion may be against him."
    There is certainly no English conception of fair play or of justice in expecting boys of 16 years of age to leave a depressed area in order to accept employment under those scandalous conditions.
    I have another instance of a young man in my division who was sent to work after having had a miserable six weeks' or six months' training as a bricklayer.; When he got to the place of work he was asked whether were his tools. He had not been supplied with the tools necessary for the position. He came home, and the Employment Exchange submitted his case to a court of referees in order to compel him to return money that had been given to him by the Exchange to undertake employment in another district.
    The Minister draws attention in his report to some interesting facts. Refer-
    1824
    ences have already been made to one or two of them. He points out that June, 1933, in comparison with June, 1923, shows a contraction in employment in the productive or basic industries of nearly 1,000,000 people, while in the lighter or service industries during the same 10 years there has been an increase of 1,300,000 in the number of persons employed. He points out also that during the period there was a decrease in the mining industry of more than 537,000 persons, and that in the distributive industries there was an increase of over 593,000. In the miscellaneous services there was an increase of over 219,000. In commenting upon these statistics, and in relation to others, he said:
    "This is perhaps one of the most striking features of the employment history of recent years."
    There was nothing striking about those statistics in the observations made by the Parliamentary Secretary when this matter was under discussion. He said:
    "I do not regard it as in the least unsatisfactory that more time and labour should be devoted to the distributive, decorative and electrical trades, and so forth. I regard it as evidence of a wider distribution of interest over the lives of many people, so that the ordinary man gets a wider enjoyment out of life."
    You cannot sustain people who are unemployed upon mere decoration, nor by a distribution of articles which they may desire and deserve but cannot purchase. The Parliamentary Secretary also stated:
    "That is not necessarily a thing which has to be deplored, for surely economic progress consists in the satisfaction of more and more human wants, and it is only possible to achieve that increased satisfaction of human wants by reducing the amount of time and labour devoted to producing the primary necessities of life. When you release more time and labour for the secondary necessities of life, you are able to widen the general life of the people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st June, 1934; cols. 681-82, Vol. 291.]
    Is the Parliamentary Secretary quite certain that the old theory of alternative employment is inapplicable to the present situation Is he sure that those rendered idle by improvements in the methods of production will be compensated by permanent employment in the auxiliary services? If he is, it might be possible for him to estimate how long it will take to absorb all the unemployed under the improved methods of production. The Minister does not appear to

    1825
    be quite so confident of that as the Parliamentary Secretary, because he states in his report:
    "These changes would be sufficiently important if they indicated merely that employment has moved away from some industries to other industries of which the nature, for the most part, is vastly different; but there seems, in addition, to be some possibility that the centre of gravity of employment is shifting from production to services."
    My own opinion, if these figures show anything, is that they show the extent to which the productive capacity of the industries of this country has developed. It constitutes part of our indictment of the existing economic system that it is cheaper to produce an article than it is to Bell it or distribute it. If the Parliamentary Secretary is correct, then he is not aware of the statement which is to be found in the "Times Trade Supplement" of 23rd July, 1932, that between 1913 and 1928 the increase in output per head of workers employed in 30 principal industries in Great Britain was 33 per cent., and the increase in employment was 2.2 per cent., or less than the increase in population. The expectation that by mere transfer of the surplus labour from productive industries it will be absorbed in the auxiliary services cannot be borne out by the facts.
    What do the Government propose to do on behalf of the people who cannot save themselves, but who are simply vegetating in the depressed areas of Great Britain? What is their policy? Are our people to experience another winter similar to, if not worse, than that of last year? You can have all your auxiliary services; what we demand is immediate belief for the people whom we represent in the depressed areas of South Wales.
    5.59 p.m.
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Oliver Stanley): This is not the first time during this Session that the Estimates of the Ministry of Labour have been under review, but on the previous occasion on which they were discussed they were presented by my predecessor, Sir Henry. Betterton, who was able to present them with a knowledge which he had acquired over many years in the Department, and which it would be idle to pretend to rival. The standard of courtesy and humanity which he showed during his term of office will be handed down as a
    1826
    tradition in the Ministry of Labour, and by his successors, whoever they may be. I am sure that all of us here, irrespective of party, will join in wishing him success in the arduous and important task that he has undertaken.
    I share the sorrow of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) at the fact that my first task in representing the Ministry at this Box should be to defend my salary, because the reduction of £100 which he has moved would pretty well take up all that I have so far received. I think my hon. Friend will agree with me that, although the Ministry of Labour Vote has become almost the automatic vehicle for the discussion of this great problem of the derelict areas, it is not by any means the most convenient one. My hon. Friend has had the opportunity of seeing the work and of knowing the powers of the Ministry of Labour from both sides of this Table, and it is extraordinary what a difference that short distance makes in the view that one takes. He knows also how many of the large questions which have been touched upon during the Debate this afternoon are outside the administrative limits of this particular Department, and it is for that reason that I am forced to decline, for instance, the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton (Mr. Macmillan) to discuss all the very many factors which, I quite agree, have to be considered in the formulation of any long-term policy. Some years ago my hon. Friend and I, as members of a group which was irreverently called by other Members of the House, of Commons the "Young Men's Christian Association," took part in writing a book, and I can assure him that, with the added experience which years have brought to us, I shall be only too glad of his advice and help in this task. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay) invited me to look further at old age; but as I gather from you, Captain Bourne, that that requires legislation, I am not permitted to do so. It is obvious, therefore, that any reply to the Debate That we have had so far must be in general terms; but I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I attempt some short analysis of the problem that we are discussing, because I think it has its bearing both upon the appointment and upon the task of the commissioners who have been in these derelict areas.

    1827
    I am not sure, as a matter of fact, that the term "derelict areas," although we have become accustomed to use it, is a very good one. I am not sure that it really conveys a very true picture of the problem with which we have to deal. In the first place, the word "derelict" rather gives one the impression of, say, the devastated regions of France after the War—whole areas laid waste, where reconstruction was a necessity, and where no signs of life could be found. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have much closer experience of these areas than I have, will agree that on the whole that would be an untrue picture—that not only does the derelict area, so called, shade off into more prosperous areas around it, but even inside the worst areas spots will be found where some particular industry or some particular pit maintains its vitality and gives life to the neighbourhood. In addition, there is the very important point, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock referred, of the increased mobility which modern transport has given to the inhabitants of a particular locality, and which, therefore, keeps the locality alive even if the particular spot in which they live may be industrially dead.
    Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: While that may be the case as far as the mines are concerned, the areas around some of the steelworks, like Ebbw Vale and Dowlais, are absolutely derelict.
    Mr. STANLEY: I am not denying that you may find inside South Wales or in Durham areas which are derelict, and to which none of the exceptions I have mentioned may apply but I am saying that you cannot put down either South Wales or Durham, or the other areas which we are considering, as areas which are completely dead in the same sense in which we think of the devastated areas of France. Further, I am not sure that we are wise in insisting too much upon the term "area," because we must, after all, remember that the responsibility of a Government is not to places, but to people—it is not to particular areas, but to the populations in those areas. The whole history of economic development in this and other countries has been that of fluctuations in the prosperity of particular areas. As the advantages—physical, geographical and so on—of an
    1828
    area wax or wane, so its prosperity increases or falls; and it will, I think, be agreed that it would be impossible for any Government, so long as industry has any connection, either in its production or in its distribution, with geographical or geological features, to standardise the prosperity of an area. It is the same when you come to deal with particular industries. There again the whole economic history of the world has been that of the rise and fall of particular industries, and the whole history of any civilised nation has been that of the inevitable decline of the heavier industries as its civilisation has become more and more complex. The figures, to which some reference has been made in the course of the Debate, which deal with this subject, are extremely illuminating. If we take, as our two test months, the month of June, 1923, and the month of June, 1933—a period of 10 years—actually during that period there was an increase of nearly 500,000 in the number of insured people in employment; and that was a period in which, as is shown in the Ministry of Labour Report, the number of people employed in coal mining had decreased by 537,000, in general engineering by 109,000, in shipbuilding by 87,000, and in iron and steel by 75,000.
    It is quite clear that the normal economic process which we have learned to expect has been working, and that, as labour is relieved by the easier production of, and the reduced demand for, the commoner necessities of life, so that labour has been absorbed by the more intricate requirements of a more advanced civilisation. A decrease of 500,000 in the coal-mining industry has been replaced by an increase of 600,000 in the distributive trades, a decrease in iron and steel by a comparable increase in the electrical trades, and so on. Although, of course, that change-over may create, and does create, in certain areas and in certain industries, very grave problems and very heavy stresses, yet I do not think one is entitled to regard it as an unhealthy symptom of a developing civilisation; and I am sure that it would be not only unwise, but impossible, for any Government to attempt to fight against 'an economic tide of that kind and try to standardise at any time the prosperity of this or that industry. The responsibility, not only of

    1829
    this Government but of any Government, is to its people. The responsibility of the Government is not to maintain the level of employment in an area or in an industry, but to find employment for its people wherever and however it can be found.
    After having made that preliminary analysis, I want now to pass to the main question—the question how far the Government are entitled to say that any general trade revival will provide a cure for the particular problem which we have been discussing this afternoon. Are we entitled to regard this problem of the derelict areas, not as a separate problem requiring separate treatment, but simply as part of that main problem which must face 'any Government—the problem of the trade activity of the country? One thing, I think, is quite clear, and that is that, whether or not a general trade revival is a cure for the problem of the derelict areas, it is certainly a condition precedent. What suggestions have been thrown out during the course of this Debate for some solution of that problem? How can you deal with the problem, not of the area or of the industry, but of the population within it?
    First of all, you can find work for those people where they are. There are only two ways of doing that. Either you can revive, if possible, the industries which already exist—and that, clearly, is part of a general trade revival; or you can absorb some portion of the unemployed by setting up new industries in those particular areas. Of course, a great deal of discussion can go on between economists as to whether on the whole that is a national advantage or not. One person can point to the fact that in the industrial areas of, say, South Wales, dwellings have already been provided for the workers, and also the social services and municipal activities which would have to be provided in the different areas to which those new industries might be attracted; and it may also be said that, if you deliberately encourage industries to go to places where they are farther away from their consuming centres, and where the cost of transport is higher because the distance is greater, that is a permanent charge upon the national economy, and in the long run has to be paid for by the depressed areas themselves. But, whatever force there is in those arguments, whatever may be said
    1830
    in favour of an industry going to Slough or in favour of its going to Durham, it is no good even beginning to argue until you have conditions in which a new industry is going anywhere at all. It is no good talking about setting up new industries in depressed areas until you have conditions of confidence, of belief in development, of general prospects of successful enterprise under which new industries will set up anywhere in Great Britain at all.
    Then there is a further consideration. There may be—indeed, I think it is better to face the facts and say that there will be—people in those areas with whom you will find it impossible to deal by either of these methods. There may be people in places where it is not possible either to set up new industries or to revive old ones, people whose age, health or general experience makes it impossible, and, indeed, unfair, to demand that they should be transferred elsewhere. The alternative, of course, to the provision of work for people in the areas in which they live is the provision of work for them elsewhere—the policy of transference which has been carried on now for a considerable time by the Ministry of Labour, and which has resulted in a large number of the people from these depressed areas finding new hope and new lives elsewhere; and I rather regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) raised those two cases with regard to transference—publicity for which can only have the effect of making young men nervous of such a policy—without having given me some notice of them, and giving me an opportunity of verifying the facts and being able to put before him the other side of the case. Naturally, now that the facts have been raised, I shall investigate them and let him know the results.
    I am sure that on all sides of the House we are anxious to promote a policy of this kind. We are anxious to find new life and new hopes for the people in these areas. A visit which I recently paid to a Government training centre was the most hopeful thing that has happened to me for a considerable time. Most of the trainees, I think, came from South Wales. It was quite clear that they were interested in their training, and were desperately anxious to get the jobs which they were certain were waiting for them at the end. There is nothing that so

    1831
    irritates as that kind of ill-informed criticism—which, I am glad to say, is very rarely heard now in this country, but which is sometimes made abroad—that the unemployed in this country do not want work. You have only to pay a visit to a centre like that to see the energy with which people submitted themselves to the essential discipline and to the training of an industrial centre simply because the prospect was held out to them that submission to the discipline meant the chance of a new start and of permanent work. I am glad to say that in that particular centre, of 400 people who completed their training during this year, so far only five have failed to secure a job.
    But I am afraid there is still a class for whom we shall not be able to find work in the place where they live, and whose age and condition make it unfair to expect them to start a new life somewhere else. It is clear that we have first of all to ensure to them a tolerable, physical life for the future, but I am not certain that, when we have done that, we have really done all that is expected of us, or that the mere possibility of physical existence for the rest of their lives is all that they are entitled to ask. We have to go beyond that and bring into their lives some sense of dignity and utility, some sense of feeling that they are of use to themselves and to the community. However we are going to do that, it is no good closing our eyes to the fact that it will cost money, that it will be a burden on someone, that it will, in fact, be a burden upon the people in the other areas. If the people in the other areas are to be in a condition to bear that burden, you must have a certain measure of trade activity.
    I have elaborated that point at some length because I deny that the years the Government have been in office have been years wasted in dealing with this problem. On the contrary, I say it is the revival that has been brought about by the Government during those years which alone has made such a, discussion as we have had to-day even possible. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that we have wasted these two years and have done nothing for the distressed areas. I am sorry that he brought in the National Council of Social Services on
    1832
    the ground that we have used that as a cover for our inertia.
    Mr. LAWSON: I did so when the Government first took this action because I thought they were wrong and I think so still more now.
    Mr. STANLEY: If the hon. Gentleman has done it twice, I am doubly sorry. There was a reason for the Government assistance to this body. It was with no idea of shirking or hiding their essential responsibility. It was because the Government felt, as I think most individuals feel, that if there is anything that can be done to make the lot of these people more tolerable, it is the duty of everyone to assist in doing it. But, when the hon. Gentleman accuses the Government of having done nothing for two or three years, what did his Government do? If he had been standing at this Box and had been challenged by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) as to what he had done for the derelict ares, what answer would he have been able to make? The hon. Gentleman went on to say that the instances that he gave of the expenditure of public money did not affect the position at all in a fundamental way. The question I should have asked, is, "What did he do in a fundamental way in the two years when he was in office?" The answer, of course, is that he did nothing to deal with the problem. I am not blaming him, because the economic conditions under which the Government were in office made a solution of dm problem impossible. It was a time of declining trade and increasing unemployment all over the country, and staggering finances. You could not set up new industries, because there were no new industries to set up. You could not transfer people, because there was nowhere to transfer them. You could not assist the lives of the people in the localities, because the burdens that you were putting on other areas were rapidly turning them into derelict areas. I deny that these three years of Government activity, as far as the depressed areas are concerned, have been wasted. They have indeed created the conditions under which alone any attempt to deal with this problem becomes possible.
    Now, having shown conclusively that a revival of trade activity is an essential condition precedent to any solution of this

    1833
    problem, we have to proceed to the much more difficult question whether it can possibly provide a cure. Certainly the figure which has most struck my imagination, in looking through all the figures which I have been consulting, is the figure of the increase in employment between September, 1932, and June of this year. In September, 1932, the effect of the Government's policy was just beginning to be felt. Till then all that had been achieved was a slowing down of the decline which had been going on continuously for two years. In September, 1932, the decline was arrested and the upward movement began. In that period of less than two years 1,019,000 more people found employment. That is a figure of impressive magnitude, and shows that in those months a trade revival of really considerable proportions has taken place. I think it is idle, and I am sure hon. Members opposite would not wish, to deny the fact.
    But in connection with figures of that kind, staggering as they may be, and comforting as they may seem at first sight, there are certain disquieting signs, because examination of the figures of unemployment shows how very unequal has been the incidence of the undoubted improvement that has taken place in those 18 months. You have a great group of areas covering a field of heavy industrial employment, where the decline in unemployment has been very great, and where the resultant residue of unemployed has not entirely disappeared, but no longer presents a problem of really striking gravity. For instance, in greater London the unemployment figure now is only just over 8 per cent., in Middlesex it is only just over 5 per cent., and in Surrey, 5.5 per cent. If you take some of the smaller towns round the London area, in St. Albans there is only 2 per cent, of unemployment, in Watford 5.2 per cent., in Luton 1.8 per cent. and in the whole of Bedfordshire only 3.2 per cent. If you go further afield, to the great industrial towns in the Midlands, you find in Birmingham an unemployment percentage of only 7.5, and in Coventry 8.2.
    It is clear that, so far as areas such as those are concerned, the general trade revival has been enough to reduce the unemployment problem to comparatively modest proportions. It is true to say that even in the areas that we are par-
    1834
    titularly discussing to-day, in Durham, in Cumberland, in South Wales and in certain districts of Scotland, this revival has had some effect, though of course a very much smaller one, upon the general employment situation. Unemployment in Durham, for instance, has fallen in the last two years from 41 per cent. to 33.8, Cumberland from 35.7 to 26.2, Glamorgan from 42.5 to 38.4, Monmouth from 42.4 to 38, and Lanarkshire from 32.1 to 27.4 per cent. It is when you take particular districts or towns inside these so-called derelict areas that the inequality of this improvement really manifests itself. Where great districts have seen their unemployment problem almost solved, where even in the worst districts there has been an improvement, you get these smaller areas where the situation has not only not improved but actually, during that period of really considerable revival, has deteriorated. I do not think I need trouble the Committee with instances of that kind. There is the case of Bishop Auckland in Durham or. Maryport in Cumberland, towns such as Aberdare, Merthyr Tydfil, Mountain Ash in Glamorgan, or Abertillery in Monmouth, Hon. Members are only too well acquainted with the facts. It is just the areas which we are now considering that have gained least from the undoubted revival of trade in the past two years and, whatever feelings one might have on first seeing the figures of 500,000 more people in employment since ten years ago, a close consideration of these figures and a realisation of the position of some of these areas would forbid us any complacency in the way we view the present situation or any confidence that in the immediate future any general trade revival, however continuing, however steady, would provide an immediate or a satisfactory solution for the problem that we are discussing.
    It seems to me, in view of these facts, that the Government sent out these commissioners to the distressed areas at exactly the psychological moment. It would have been idle to send them out before the trade revival was so established that one could say that the conditions were such that a real attempt could be made to deal with the problem. It would have been dangerous, in view of the figures which I have just quoted, to delay any longer the sending of those commissioners. I may here make this

    1835
    point in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, that the commissioners were appointed not by the Minister of Labour but by the Government. They report to the Government and their reports will be considered by the Government and, of course, any action taken will be action by the Government.
    The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street has questioned the necessity for sending the Commissioners. He said that there were plenty of available data already, and in support of that assertion he instanced one particular publication which was brought out in 1932. I should have thought that the mere fact that the latest collection of statistics which he could quote upon a particular area was already two years out of date was in itself some justification for the collection of new materials and facts. But it is not only a question of the Commissioners going out and getting facts. Even if those facts could be collected by somebody else, the important thing is the possibility of seeing the facts through those new eyes; and the obtaining of their personal reactions on what is really a problem of persons. We are not only dealing with areas and industries but with people, and I believe that we get the best light on the real needs and the real difficulties of these people not only by facts and figures but by personal contact as well.
    I am going to use the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street as a witness. He once did me the honour of giving me a book which he had written about life in a mining district. So far as I know, that book did not contain a single figure, it had no appendices and there were no statistical data; but I learned more from that book about the needs and difficulties of the miners than ever I could have learned from a Royal Commission's report. I only emphasise the fact that the problem before the Government is a problem of people and not of area, to reinforce the argument that the best way to get information upon that subject is by personal contact. I believe, indeed, I know, that the Commissioners have performed the task allotted to them with sincerity and assiduity. The hon. Member complained that they have been so long doing it. I do not believe that they could have done it in less time. Tributes
    1836
    have been paid to their co-operation with the local authorities, and their readiness to hear and to talk with every representative of public opinion and every possible giver of information in the district. The whole effect of their visits would have been spoiled if, half way through their seeing the local authorities, they had to say: "We are sorry; we cannot see any more, otherwise the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street will say that we are taking too long about our inquiry." I believe that they have performed their task in a really efficient way, and all the reports have now been received or are expected within a few days.
    Now I come to the question of publication. It was definitely stated at the time when the Commissioners were appointed that their reports would be treated as confidential. They have written their reports on that understanding, and it would be clearly impossible at this stage to go back on the definite promise that was given to them and to treat now as public what they had been assured would be treated as confidential. I am perfectly certain that the only way to get the full value out of their personal observations was to make their report of a confidential nature. It is no good pretending that we should talk so readily or write so freely for publication as we do to.a person whom we can trust and who we know will keep our communication secret. If your remarks are published, if our statements are published, there is a possibility that they will be misunderstood, or that they will be taken out of their context and in some way or other be twisted into something we never intended them to mean. If we want, as we do want, from these Commissioners the fullest and frankest advice upon the local conditions, there was no other way of getting it than by treating their reports when received as completely confidential.
    Mr. GEORGE HALL: In the event of the Commissioners themselves agreeing that their reports should be published, will the Government reconsider the matter?
    Mr. STANLEY: That is a hypothetical question. The matter has been treated as settled, and I, therefore, have no authority from the Commissioners to answer for them. I certainly believe

    1837
    that any suggestion that their reports should be treated as public matter would be resented, above all, by the Commissioners themselves. I am asked about the publication of certain facts or figures which might be taken out of the reports. I subkait to the Committee that the most unsatisfactory way of all is for the Government to publish bits of a report. The effect is that people say that the Government have taken out bits which suit them best and have put them forward for publication. It is, of course, clear that when the time comes to debate this matter it will come on the opportunity which, I believe, the House prefers, and that will be the decision of the Government to take action upon the reports. Then, in supporting their action and in defending their policy, they will necessarily make use of a great deal of the information contained in these reports.
    I think that it is unnecessary further to elaborate a defence for the confidential nature of the reports. Behind the demand for publication, there does not really lie a desire to see what is in the reports, because the hon. Member who presses for the publication, the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, says he knows already everything that the commissioners can report. It is a fear, a suspicion, that the sending out of the commissioners was nothing more than a smoke-screen, that it was just an attempt to keep this House of Commons quiet for three months until we get hon. Members away on their holidays. I can give the Committee the assurance that it was not the intention of the Government to use the sending out of these commissioners and the awaiting of their reports merely as an excuse for delay. The Government sincerely hope that from these reports will emerge something of real value, and that with the assistance of the reports they will be able to undertake what no other Government, whether a Government of hon. Members opposite or of hon. Members on this side, have so far been able to do, and that is some real work upon the solution of a problem which is as complex as it is difficult.
    Mr. LAWSON: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for answering the first question I put about the statement of fact. I gather by inference from
    1838
    his statement that when the Government do consider the reports, and they have made up their mind what they will do upon them, there will be a statement of policy in the House. Quite bluntly, what I am asking is: Are the Government going to do this business themselves or leave it to the Unemployment Assistance Board?
    Mr. STANLEY: If that is the question which the hon. Member puts, I cannot answer it now. I do not know what the reports are going to recommend. I do not know, therefore, whether any steps that we are able to take will be steps which are appropriate to the Government or which are appropriate to the board. But I do say that the appropriate opportunity which the House would most look for in order to discuss this matter is not some general statement, even if such statement were supported with figures taken from the reports, but the time when the Government announce the action which they are going to take upon the reports.
    I regret that I have already occupied the Committee so long. I have confined myself entirely to this extremely important subject, although other points have been raised. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is going to reply and he will deal with the other points in due course. I close with this last observation, that I can assure the Committee that the sending out of the commissioners was not to delay action. The Government are fully aware of the seriousness of the problem. We hope to get from the reports real assistance, and that it will be possible for us to add to the other achievements of this National Government the achievement of being able to tackle this desperate problem.
    6.42 p.m.
    Mr. BATEY: The right hon. Gentleman made the remark that he hoped to deal with this problem with the sympathy and the humaneness which characterised his predecessor. We believe that the sympathy and humaneness of his predecessor will be continued by the right hon. Gentleman, but we want something far more than sympathy. We have had sympathy for a long time, and we believe that the time is overdue when we ought to have some action. Summing up the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's speech to-

    1839
    night, if his speech means action, then I do not understand the word. It seems to me that we are to be just as far advanced when the House adjourns for the Recess as we were at the beginning of the year. The right hon. Gentleman began by saying that the term "derelict areas" was not the appropriate term to use. Perhaps areas may not be derelict, but certainly "derelict villages" is a correct term to use, because we have in our distresssd areas mining villages which are really and absolutely derelict, where collieries have been closed for many years, where there is no other chance of employment and no prospect of work. If the appropriate word is not "derelict," then one has a difficulty in understanding the word.
    It is not sufficient for the Minister to ask what the Labour Government did when they were in office. He knows that when Labour sat on the Government side they did not sit there with the majority possessed by the present Government. The Government to-day have a sufficient majority to carry into effect any policy that they wish. Labour had not that opportunity. Therefore, it is not sufficient for the Minister to shelter himself behind the argument as to what Labour did or what Labour would do to-day if they were in office. I should like to repeat an argument that was used by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson). Why were these inquiries necessary? Why were they undertaken? When the Minister of Minister of Labour announced that Commissioners were to be appointed to go to the four areas, I asked in a supplementary question:
    "Will the Minister tell us what use there is in making an investigation like this when the Government already have all the information? Is it not simply wasting time? "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th April, 1934; col. 1102, Vol, 288.]
    Fourteen weeks have elapsed since the Government made that announcement, and we are in the same position to-day as we were then. We are justified in saying that it has been nothing but wasting time. To appoint Commissioners to go to distressed areas and collect information, when the Government had all the information they wanted was a mere excuse for pretending that they were interested in these distressed areas and they were simply using the appointment
    1840
    of these Commissioners, and using their time, until it was not possible for the House of Commons to have the reports or discuss them, or decide upon any policy emanating from the reports. When my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street was referring to the two gentlemen who have gone to Durham, I interrupted and said that we were no better than either of them. I did not mean that to be a, reflection on either of the gentlemen who went to Durham; all I meant was that the Government were prepared to use as an excuse anyone who went to a distressed area as a justification for doing nothing. These Commissioners were appointed on 19th April, and the Durham Commissioner started on 1st May. The Minister of Labour has said that they have wasted no time. I have no hesitation in saying that as far as the Commissioner for Durham is concerned, it has been a part-time job. If the Government had been really anxious to have the inquiry completed for the House to discuss the reports before the Adjournment, they could have done it, but there has been delay again and again.
    The Minister has attempted to justify the non-publication of the reports. I submit that it is not fair to those who have given all the help they could to the Commissioners. They have met local authorities, deputations and everyone has been anxious to give all the help possible, and as quickly as possible, and they have a right to know what is going to be done with their proposals and suggestions. It is not fair to say that it would not be right to publish these reports; it is not fair to those who have made suggestions. They should be able to know whether they have received that consideration which they believed they would receive.
    It was quite unnecessary to send Commissioners to distressed areas. On 4th June the Commissioner for Durham told the Press that his problem was to find employment for 147,000 unemployed-137,000 males and 10,000 females. He also said that there were in Durham 60,000 who had been unemployed for less than one year, 24,000 who had been unemployed for more than one year and less than two years, 22,000 who had been unemployed for more than two years and less than three years, 22,000 who had been unemployed for more than three

    1841
    years and less than four years, 9,000 who had been unemployed for four years and less than five years, and about 9,000 who had been unemployed for more than five years. He knew his problem; he knew the number of unemployed and how long they had been unemployed. The last time the Prime Minister addressed his constituents, in May, he said:
    "There are Commissioners going round now. Were the districts really derelict or could new forms of industry be brought into them?"
    The Prime Minister, it seems to me, had in his mind the bringing of new forms of industry into derelict areas. Here is the commissioner who knows his problem and here is the Prime Minister talking of the remedy. If they are both satisfied, one of the problem and the other of the remedy, why the delay? I submit that there is no justification for delay. The delay is only to get this House to rise, and once the Recess has begun nothing more will be done until the winter. When the Government come forward with their proposals in the winter we shall discover that no employment will be found, no attempt will be made to set up new industries, and the people in the derelict areas will be in the same position this winter as they were last winter. The Minister of Labour rather boasted that there was more employment to-day than previously, and he quoted some districts in Durham to show that unemployment was not quite as bad as it was in 1932. If the Prime Minister had been present, I was going to direct his attention to three exchanges in his own division where things are worse, where there is more unemployment. In one district, the Hordern district, the percentage of unemployment in December, 1931, was 4.7; to-day it is 10 per cent. At Windgate, in December, 1931, the percentage of unemployment was 28.5; in June, 1934, it was 42 per cent. In Seaham Harbour, the percentage of unemployment in 1931, was 13.3; in June this year, it was 22.1. The Minister of Labour may say that there is not quite so much unemployment, that while the coal mining industry may have suffered other industries have benefited, but here in the Prime Minister's own division are figures which justify taking action very quickly.
    Mr. STANLEY: That is exactly what I said. The figures for Dunham as a
    1842
    whole show a slight improvement, but there are spots in that area, and in South Wales, where the position during that period is actually worse.
    Mr. BATEY: For once we are agreed. There are spots where the position is worse, and the Prime Minister's own division is one of the places where the position is worse. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street in what he said regarding social services. We are entitled to raise this matter because the National Council of Social Services have received three grants from the Treasury, £10,000 in 1932, £25,000 in 1933, and £40,000 in 1934, a total of £75,000. What better are the unemployed in the distressed areas from this money spent on social services? The Minister of Labour promised to publish the report of the council, but so far one has not received it. I say that the Government are simply using the National Council of Social Services and the Personal Service League in order to justify doing nothing themselves. When the Government are prepared to do so much for other industries, where those who are receiving the money can always be relied upon to support the Government, we are entitled to ask that they should publish the reports of the commissioners and also should be prepared to act upon them and do something to help the distressed areas. There is no question of shipowners voting against the Government, and they have been well repaid by the Government. Farmers have never voted Labour, and they have been well repaid. Miners, as a rule, do not vote Tory, and, therefore, they are being left in the cold as far as this Government is concerned.
    Mr. CURRY: May I remind the hon. Member that a prominent shipowner on Tyneside was a Member of this House representing a Labour constituency in Newcastle, and that one of the principal members of the Social League is the largest landowner in Northumberland?
    Mr. BATEY: One swallow does not make a summer. Take it through and through, my statement stands. I argue that because miners as a rule do not vote Tory, do not support the National Government, it is no reason why they should be starved as they are being starved now. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street

    1843
    also raised the question as to how the unemployed in Durham are being treated at the moment. We understood that everybody was going to have the 10 per cent. restored. In the County of Durham a, single man in lodgings, it does not matter how old he is, if he is over 21, is receiving only 16s. per week. A woman is receiving only 14s. per week. Both of them are being robbed of is. a week by the Government, because it is no good the Government attempting to shelter behind the Commissioners in Durham. A hint from the Government that the Commissioners should pay full benefit and the benefit would be paid. A single adult, 18 or over, living with parents or relatives, receives only 10s. a week. We are entitled to complain of the Government treating our people like this. These unemployed men and women are entitled to the full benefit if anybody is entitled to it, and our complaint is that the Government are robbing them of is. a week, which means so much to them.
    I believe that poverty—and we see an abundance of it in our distressed areas—is the result of misgovernment. I believe that the Government have the power to remove that poverty. As a matter of fact, I believe that if we had a Government with the will to do it, we need not have one miner in this country idle at the present time. Our distressed areas could be altogether different from what they are, only the Government have no interest in them. They have no interest in the mining classes, and our distressed areas are in their position largely because of the policy of the present Government. They would not be in the position they are if the Government had not pursued a tariff policy. Because of the tariff policy of the Government, our people are called on to starve and to suffer. If the Government had the will—they may have the sympathy—to help the distressed areas, they could do it. There is only one consolation that we have. After all, the working classes have the power to alter this kind of thing. One trusts that when the time comes they will use that power to put in a Government which will legislate on their behalf.
    7.5 p.m.
    Mr. NUNN: I should not have intervened if it had not been for the speech made by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey). After the Minister
    1844
    had spoken I thought that the criticisms of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) had been fully answered, but it appears that they have not been. The hon. Member for Spennymoor has blamed the present Government for not having cured all the unemployment in the country. I think that I am right in saying that he said that if the Government had had the will they could have cured all the unemployment
    Mr. BATEY: No. In the mining districts.
    Mr. NUNN: In the mining districts. The only thought that springs to my mind is, What was the position of the late Government? Were they incapable or did they not have the will? They cannot have it both ways.
    As Member for one of the distressed areas, I have naturally been taking a pretty close interest in the activities of my particular commissioner, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The hon. Members for Chester-le-Street and Spennymoor wanted to know what necessity there was to send commissioners to inquire into the condition of those areas. Both have emphasised the fact that reports have been published comparatively recently on the conditions in those areas. That is quite true. In fact, in my area a. report was published—I think in March, 1933—and it was a very capable report prepared by two very skilled economists belonging to Manchester University. But surely it must be obvious that if the Government desire to do what they can for an area, they cannot base their operations upon reports produced by people who are not responsible to the Government or for any portion of the Government's work. Surely the Government must satisfy themselves fully before they make any attempt to do anything in the way of spending public funds or encouraging public activities; and it seems to me that it was essential that these commissioners should have been sent.
    I know that the first thing which springs to one's lips in the usual way which one's idle thoughts do come out is that everybody knows the conditions. I thought that I did know the conditions in my area very well, hut I have been impressed by what I have learned since

    1845
    my particular Commissioner started work, not because he has disclosed to me in any way what he has been doing, but because I have been vitalised a little more. If I may without egoism, I would like to rub this point in. Two years ago, after pretty close consultation with persons deeply concerned in one industry in my area, an industry which is found almost entirely in my area except for a small amount in South Wales, the iron-ore industry, I made a definite proposal to the Government. One would have thought that I knew all about it. So far from the Government doing nothing, the Member of the Government who is responsible has been working pretty hard, and constant inquiry has been going on in the last two years. During those inquiries I have learned a very great deal, and with each successive deputation which I have had the privilege of bringing to London to discuss this matter 'with the responsible Minister, I have learned some more. I am sure that the Commissioner for my area, having made his inquiries on the spot and having, with an unbiased mind, seen all these people, knows more about that particular industry than I do. I am sure that his mind has been directed in an unbiased manner and he is acquainted with all the facts and circumstances connected with that industry.
    Hon. Gentlemen opposite said that everything was known. That statement was not correct. Everything is not known, and I am very grateful indeed to the Government that they have seen fit to appoint the Commissioners. I am looking forward to something very definite being done. So far from joining in any criticism of the Government—and it is not often that I get an opportunity of being wholly on the side of the Government—I heartily congratulate them on having had the courage and insight to send these Commissioners to the distressed areas, and I only hope that when the reports are presented, the Government will find it possible to act on the suggestions made. It would not be proper to make any surmise as to what the contents of the reports will be, but I do not agree with my hon. Friends opposite when they say that the reports should be published. The Commissioner, very naturally, in getting his information, must have received a very large amount of purely confidential information. I
    1846
    have had that myself in my own little investigations. What I am far more concerned to see than the publication of the reports is the action which is to follow the reports.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the House will not meet until October or November, and very quickly we shall be right in the midst of winter. Does he not think that whatever action can be taken ought to be taken at a much earlier period?
    Mr. NUNN: I myself regret that we have not been able to get the reports presented any earlier. I am judging only from what I know of the activities of may own Commissioner, but I know that he has been very fully occupied indeed. I have watched his comings in and goings out with a great deal of interest, because he has been disguised
    not a very successful disguise. But I have watched his activities with interest, and I can assure my hon. Friends that certainly my Commissioner has been very actively engaged all the time, and I do not see how it would have been possible for him to present his report any earlier. It is a pity. But may I suggest that if on receiving these reports during the Recess the Government decided that some particular work was necessary, there would be no particular obstacle to their getting on with that piece of work. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite would welcome the news that certain activities had been started. The mere publication of the report has no connection with it at all. What may hon. Friend is really worrying about it that the report has not been presented as early as he and I would have liked.
    The question of a long-term policy is a very important matter, but I should very much regret if in this matter of the distressed areas the Government allowed themselves to be delayed further by too great a consideration of their long-term policy. We want at the present moment the short-term policy to deal with the very vital matter of the people in the distressed areas and their present conditions. I am quite prepared to have the Government considering their long-term policy afterwards, but we do not want any expert economists and very deep thinking to put influence on the Government which will have the effect of switching them from the immediate

    1847
    affairs of the distressed areas on to the prolonged consideration of what shall or shall not be their long-term policy.
    I was a little disturbed by one thing that my right hon. Friend the Minister said. I do not think he really meant it to be taken as I took it, but he did seem to imply that there was little hope for industry until we had a general revival of trade activity. Of course in one way that was perfectly true, but surely it is claimed that Governmental action, Governmental policy, has had an effect in reviving industry, and we are hoping that there will be an application of policy and of our methods to this question of the distressed areas, which will have the effect of re-establishing, in great measure at any rate, the industries of those areas. I know that the question of the transference of labour is one which has necessarily engaged a great deal of attention, but I would remind the Minister that it is not all to the good—I am speaking more particularly of my own district—to take people from districts like mine, where nature is very kind and very beautiful, when they can possibly be re-established in their own industries there in comfortable little townships with no slums, and to force them to go into the crowded areas to engage in other forms of industry. I do hope that the Government will do all that it can, by the application of National Government policy, towards keeping these men as far as possible in their own industries. It is not altogether a question of a general trade revival.
    I do not want to go into specific cases. I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary is to reply, and he knows far more about this subject than I do. But there is an industry there which is suffering from the general industrial conditions, certainly, but very largely from foreign competition, and the application of the tariff principle of the National Government to that particular industry might very well re-establish that industry in a measure of real prosperity, and save us from the necessity of having to move the people belonging to that industry from their charming little townships, and conveying them to places in the Black Country perhaps, or here to swell the mass round about this great Metropolis of ours. I would very much regret it if every possible effort were not made to keep our industries in their own par-
    1848
    titular areas. Of course if that is not possible, if as a result of the inquiries made the commissioners show that it is not possible in a large number of cases, we have definitely to face the prospect of keeping the people idle in their own places or making some effort to remove them to areas where they can work. I disagree entirely with hon. Gentlemen opposite who think that time has been wasted, that it was unnecessary to make further inquiry. In contra-distinction to them I believe that the Government is making a very real effort, and that there will be a result coming from the reports of the commissioners.
    7.20 p.m.
    Mr. BANFIELD: I want to draw the attention of the Committee to a point which has not been raised in the Debate. We have had many speeches on the question of the distressed areas, but the subject I want to deal with is the relationship of the Ministry of Labour to the International Labour Office in Geneva. This is rather an important point. For the most part Members of the House of Commons have very little experience of the working of the International Labour Office, and certainly in many respects are unaware of its importance in labour matters. The International Labour Office is part and parcel of the Versailles Treaty. At the end of the War it was thought that the workers, the common people who did the world's work and had fought for their countries, should receive a higher standard of life and a better social service. As far back as the Washington Convention of 1919 we did attempt to put into operation a 48-hour week for the whole of the countries which came within the treaty.
    I have had some experience of the working of the International Labour Office. In 1924, and again in 1925, I was in Geneva 'as an adviser. The first thing that always struck me in connection with the work of the International Labour Office was the supreme importance of the position of this country and of the views put forward by those who represented the British Government. It must be remembered that this country had already taken the first place so far as social legislation was concerned. Because the industrial revolution came earlier here this country had done certain things so far as factory legislation was concerned. Many countries

    1849
    have still to come up to our standard. But I suggest that if there is one country more than another which stands to gain by bringing the other nations of Europe up to our level, it is this country. In all my experience as a trade union official for many years, I have been faced with the argument over And over again that a good deal of the social legislation of this country was unfair, because other countries did not observe these particular conditions.
    My complaint, and the complaint of the Trade Unions Congress and of those interested in the International Labour Office, is that within the last couple of years or so there has been a distinct move on the part of those who represent the British Government at Geneva, not to help to improve the conditions of labour in Europe generally, but rather to retard improvement, to oppose conventions and to put back the clock in many respects. For instance, this year at the International Labour Office the question of the, 40-hour week was considered. The charge made by trade unionists is that the British Government representative most openly took up the side of the employers and backed up their arguments, and further that, not content with voting against the Convention, there was an attempt to prevent the matter being discussed in 1935. Although it is to the credit of the other Governments 'and their representatives that that idea was defeated, the fact remains that the British Government, instead of making any attempt to set a lead on the hours question this year at Geneva, rather tended to put back the clock.
    Then in 1931 we had the example of the Coal Mines Hours Convention. I am certain that had the Labour Government remained in office that Convention would have been ratified, but when the National Government came into power difficulties were put in the way of ratification, and by reason of these difficulties, which could have been dealt with within the text of the Convention, the Conference held in June to discuss that Convention failed. The ratifying of a Convention which would impose the same conditions of labour in all the countries where the labour was employed, is a most desirable thing and one for which almost any British Government should work, especially so far as the hours of labour is concerned. It is on the question of
    1850
    the hours of labour that there is some possibility of getting uniformity in all kinds of trades and industries. It is true that you cannot deal with the question of wages internationally in quite the same way, but you can deal internationally with the question of hours of labour. My complaint and the complaint of the Trade Unions Congress is that the National Government have apparently embarked on a policy which supports the view of the reactionary employers of all countries rather than realises that the best interests of this country and even of the employers of this country would be served if we got some uniformity of working conditions.
    Take the question of overtime. At the 1933 Geneva Conference a Resolution was passed, for which the British Government representative voted, which asked all governments to take measures for limiting to the utmost exceptions to the 40-hours week. The French Government did something in that direction, but the British Government seems to have contented itself with merely consulting the employers and the workmen. There is a great gulf between the Government's professions and its attempts to realise them. Here is a point which must receive very serious consideration. We have heard to-day that in spite of the fact that the volume of trade is probably now as great as it was in 1929, we have double the number of people unemployed, and the reason for that can be stated in the words of Lord Trent, who in a speech at Nottingham on 7th June said:
    "The unemployment problem was thought by many to be due to the present monetary system, but the most obvious point in his mind was that the proportion of machines to men had steadily increased. Machines did not buy food, clothes and chemical products but men and women workers did and when human beings were replaced by machines, purchasing power was reduced until those people were again employed."
    The point has been made before but it is worth reiterating, that the time has come when we must realise that there is no excuse for having large numbers of people working long hours, while others are doing no work at all. The international limitation of hours of labour is a task and a problem calling for statesmanship of the highest quality. It is a work which would repay itself in the good which it would bring to this nation and to the world. It seems to me that

    1851
    we have a just cause of complaint against the Government on the ground that they have made no effort at Geneva to impose a limitation of hours, although the best interests of this country would be served by an international convention of that kind. It is said that if we reduce the hours of labour and if the workers demand the same wages for the shorter hours, something dreadful will ensue and that more people would be put out of work than would be brought into work by such a course. But that kind of argument has been used in reference to every reform of working hours or conditions. What we must recognise is that we cannot hope for any reduction in the number of unemployed by an increase in trade, because, day by day and year by year, the machine is displacing more and more men and women workers. The Minister may disagree with me but if he does I think the facts are against him.
    I take another fact. The Government were sympathetic to a proposed convention for the abolition of fee-charging agencies but now they refuse to ratify the convention although such agencies have been abolished in other countries. As one who has considerable experience in these matters, I am convinced that these agencies represent one of the grossest and meanest forms of exploitation of poor and distressed people. The Committee would, I am sure, be surprised to know that even here in London an agency of this kind will secure a man a job for which he receives 10s. wages and will then charge him 2s. 6d. as a fee. Some of these poor people will pay as much as a week's wages or even more to one of these agencies for a job and all sorts of abuses are involved. There is even the possibility of one of these agencies getting a man discharged from a job after he has been in it for a week, on some pretext or another, in order that they may have a chance of putting another man into the job and securing another fee.
    If the Government believe that the International Labour Office serves a useful purpose they ought to do something to ratify some of the Conventions which are passed there from time to time. In 1925 the Convention abolishing night baking was opposed by the British Government but received the necessary two-thirds majority at Geneva.No steps at all
    1852
    have been taken to implement that Convention. I hope it may turn out that I am not correct in my view, but I have the impression that there is a certain amount of friction and that there is a feeling on the part of the Government which might be expressed thus. "It is all very well passing these things at Geneva but when we come back here we are not going to act on what has been done there." My own opinion is that the International Labour Office could be made a great and useful agency for removing some of the well-founded complaints of industrialists of this country against the conditions of labour among their competitors on the Continent. It could be used as an instrument for raising the status of the workers all over the world and for ensuring that all the competing industries should start at some reasonable level. It is not fair for instance that the British employer should have to give his people a 48-hour week when his competitors in Czechoslovakia are working their people 70 or 80 hours a week.
    In the International Labour Office the British Government has tremendous power, prestige and influence. It ought to use that power, prestige and influence in favour of Conventions which would bring about uniformity in working conditions between all the different countries which subscribe to the Treaty of Versailles. It appears to me that the feeling has got abroad in connection with these matters that, however sympathetic the various Governments may have been in the days immediately following the War with the idea that the common peoples of the world were deserving of a better outlook in life and were entitled to a square deal, those Governments are now gradually but surely ranging themselves on the side of the great industrialists whose belief is that the interests of industry come first and wages and conditions of labour a long way behind. I suggest that the historic role of the British Government in these matters is that of giving a lead. We ought to say to the other countries concerned, "We have set up a certain standard in Great Britain; we ask you to come up to our level and we are prepared to help the work of the International Labour Office in bringing other nations up to that level." I believe that the present Government have a case to answer on the ground of their failure

    1853
    in this respect. They went to Geneva prejudiced against the possibility of a 40-hour week unless it involved also a 1:eduction in wages and they presented arguments based on that ground.
    Eventually, the question of uniformity of hours of labour and a drastic reduction of hours of labour, will have to be faced by all Governments. The machine is displacing human labour and the work will have to be distributed among those who are willing to do it. We cannot continue to keep 2,000,000 unemployed in this country while millions are working 50, 60, 70 and even more hours a week and little girls of 14 are employed from 8 in the morning until 8 in the evening in our great factories. When we talk about reduction of hours of labour we are frequently told,' "While our Continental, competitors are working their people all the hours that God sends, what can we do? We have already set an example to the rest of the world." My answer is that by means of the International Labour Office there is a chance of bringing a good many of our European competitors into line and my complaint against the Government is that they appear more anxious to fight the battles of the employers than to recognise what is in the best interests of the country as a whole.
    If the International Labour Office is not to become a mere farce, if we are to continue contributing £60,000 a year towards its expenses let us attempt to get some value out of it by making it work in the interests of the working people of this country and of the whole world. The question of the redistribution of labour is not going to be settled from a national outlook. It can only be dealt with internationally. Labour problems are more international in character to-day than they have ever been in history. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some assurance that the International Labour Office is going to be used for the purpose for which it was created. Bitter feelings have been aroused in trade union circles this year by the attitude of the British Government's representatives. We are not complaining of those representatives personally. They are men whom we like and respect, and they were only carrying out their instructions. The responsibility lies upon the Government and I hope the Government will realise that, while
    1854
    the employers have arguments the workmen have arguments too on these matters, and that it is the business of a Government, not to take sides but to try to hold the balance fairly and do justice to both, remembering always that the interest of the nation as a whole is bigger than the interests of the employers or any other section concerned.
    7.40 p.m.
    Mr. DENVILLE: I followed with great interest the remarks of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield). He is respected for his opinions but I was surprised that a man of his calibre in presenting his case should have put the cart before the horse. He suggested that we should come to an agreement with the employers of labour in foreign countries to reduce the hours of labour internationally. Before we can do that, it seems to me, we must ask foreign employers to bring their standards up to our level. If we followed the hon. Member's line we might find ourselves in the same position as the Durham miners. Some time ago the average hewer in the North of England worked six hours at the coal face, but in order to bring about uniformity they were changed from six hours to something nearer eight hours which they are working at present. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) will bear me out when I say that the hours of the hewers in Northumberland and Durham are not as good to-day as they were 20 or 30 years ago.
    Mr. LAWSON: That was due to a Tory Government.
    Mr. D ENVILLE: I do not care whether it was a Tory Government or a Liberal Government or what kind of a Government it was. I am pointing out that there is a grave danger, if we begin interfering with hours and conditions in foreign countries, of bringing our own people down to their level. I am keenly in favour of hours of labour being reduced all round. I believe that in time it would get a. lot of our own unemployed into work, but we cannot bring our hours down to 40, when in foreign countries they are working 50, 60 or 70 hours a week. If the foreigners desire to work with this country in an international agreement let them bring their hours and their wages to our level. We have put our house in order or are trying to do so. Let them do likewise, and we shall

    1855
    be prepared to welcome them, but, until they have something to offer, it is the case that good old Britain as usual is being asked to give everything and get nothing in return. I think a great deal more time might be spent in watching how the various municipalities in this country are dispensing transitional payment.
    I have in mind a case in my own constituncy, Newcastle, where it has been declared by the officials that it would be illegal to give workers on transitional payment more than 24s. a week. It may be so, but it seems to me very much like the case of a judge who has the power, if he likes, to give a man a very severe sentence for a very small offence, or, on the other hand, to give a very minor sentence for a very serious offence: That is the position in Newcastle-on-Tyne. There are means known to us all by which the transitional payment could be brought up to the full amount of 26s. They are very simple. It could be done in two different ways, by raising Poor Law relief or standard benefit. It has been said by the authorities that they have no ground for raising it. I can only suggest that they do not wish to raise their parish relief. With all due respect to the Newcastle Corporation and to the members of it who are all keen sighted, hard-headed north countrymen, very blunt and honest, 1 must say that in this they are making a very grave mistake indeed. If they were to raise the Poor Law relief to bring it up to such a figure that transitional payment could be paid up to 26s., they would only be doing what is absolutely necessary in places like Newcastle-on-Tyne.
    The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street some time ago made use of words which were howled at in. this House, that the condition of out-of-works to-day is worse than it was two or three years ago. I think I know what he had in mind. It is not that those who are out of work to-day are receiving any less, or that the price of food is any more, but a man who has been out of work for a year or two years can possibly stand the strain because he has certain resources. When he has been out of work three, four or five years there are no blankets in the house, no sheets, no crockery, the furniture has gone down the
    1856
    street to uncle's and stays there, and the entire household falls to pieces. When a man has been out for five years he is in a desperate position. Indeed, when a man has been out for two years he is in a desperate position. I do not belong to the party of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, but I respect the remarks made by him. Anyone who lives among workmen as I have done can appreciate the difficulties, and I know that some of the most extreme cases in the North of England are among workmen whom I am proud to call my friends. They are in conditions in the City of Newcastle in particular in which I would not keep my pigs. A question was put by the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) some time ago to the late Minister of Labour, Sir H. Betterton, who made the following reply:
    "I have been asked a specific question by the hon. Member for Wallsend, and I think the Chancellor made the point perfectly clear in his Budget speech the other day. He pointed out that the maximum rate of transitional benefit terms was regulated by the rate of standard benefit, and he reminded the House that, as the standard rates of benefit are going to be increased, it carried with it a corresponding increase in the maximum rate of transitional benefit. The hon. Member for Wallsend asked how it would he computed. The answer he gave is perfectly clear. Whenever the circumstances permit of the new maximum, the new maximum will be paid."
    I have it also in my mind that, on a certain occasion, the Prime Minister made a statement from the bench opposite. Referring to the propaganda being used by the Socialist party of that day relating to the 2s. paid for the child, I think I am correct in saying that the Prime Minister pointed out that this 2s. did not mean that they were debarred in certain circumstances from giving more. I think that is still within the memory of the House. The position is this We have in Newcastle a distressed area, one of the hardest hit areas in the whole country, and with all due respect to the Member for Chester-le-Street, or the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) or any other division in Northumberland, Durham or elsewhere, I will say this, and they will agree with me, that the conditions under which they live in Newcastle-on-Tyne are more onerous than in any other portion of the North-East coast. Rents are higher in Newcastle than anywhere else. I do not know if the Committee will credit it,

    1857
    but there are people in Newcastle paying as much as 8s. for a coal cellar whitewashed.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Does the local council permit that?
    Mr. DENVILLE: I do not know if they do, but, if they permit a sate of transitional payment less than the majority of people think should be paid, we must not be surprised if they permit that sort of thing. As I have pointed out, there are two ways by which Newcastle Corporation, if they so desired, might raise the payment of transitional payment to 26s. a week, but it seems they are following the line of least resistance and hiding themselves behind the fact that they are perfectly legal and entitled to abide by the decision. Nobody disputes that, but, as I have said before, the Exchequer are offering them a present of money, and they will not take it, which leads us to believe either that the exchequer of Newcastle Corporation is low or their outlook is too narrow, or they are too mean to increase the Poor Law relief to the figure to which the people of Newcastle, I believe, are entitled. I have taken up the matter with one or two of the ratepayers in the town. Naturally, the ratepayers are the people most likely to be affected by the raising of Poor Law relief, and the shopkeepers to whom I have spoken have looked at it in this way, that whatever is given to the men out of work is money placed in circulation in the town and not outside, and it is money well spent.
    I know the position of the Minister of Labour in connection with cases of transitional payment, and I am not going to ask him to reply to this at all. I do not think it fair that any corporation should shelter itself behind the Minister of Labour. They must face the mistake, and I think they should do a generous act. It is not a question of climbing down. It is only a great man who can climb down, a poor-spirited man refuses to climb down even when the odds are against him. In this case the feeling of the whole North-Eastern area is against this payment of 24s. a week when our people are in a worse position than those in any other portion of the North-East Coast, and, if the Newcastle Corporation will try to be magnanimous and put their house in order, what they lose on the swings they will gain on the roundabouts.
    7.56 p.m.
    Sir LUKE THOMPSON: I have listened with interest to the last speaker. I regret that I cannot follow him, because, while one is in great sympathy with him, it seems to be a purely domestic matter. He has already stated that he does not require the Minister to refer to it. I sincerely regret personally that the rate of payment in Newcastle does not correspond with that of other constituencies on the North-East Coast. I rise to-night to offer a few remarks regarding the general question that has arisen in this distressed areas discussion. I see the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) just leaving, and I want to say that I was very much interested in the speech which he made. While he did not contribute anything to the distressed areas, he did show the involved nature of a settlement of the unemployment problem in the districts not only in the North-East Coast, or the distressed areas, but throughout the country and throughout the world. It is that involved nature of the problem which calls for a good deal of thought and care.
    I welcome very much the appointment of the commissioners for one or two reasons. For many years in this House I have been endeavouring to draw attention to the nature of the problem of the distressed areas. Those who have been located in the South have not hitherto appreciated our problem. I think it is fair to say that with the setting up of these commissioners the problem of the distressed areas has taken on a new significance. I should like to say, from my own personal point of view, that when I knew these commissioners were appointed I felt very much like the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), who said, "Why set up these commissioners when we have all the information necessary?" I was inclined to say the same thing myself. But I believe the majority of Members of this House have been brought round to the opinion that their information was not so complete as it might have been. If when I tried to get an analysis of unemployment in Sunderland, I had been asked by those associated with my constituency why we have such a large volume of unemployment, I should have said that it was entirely due to shipbuilding. I think that would have been a reasonable reply, but the truth is that, when you begin

    1859
    to analyse the figures, even for a constituency like Sunderland, you find that shipbuilding alone does not account for 50 per cent. of the unemployment that we have there. There are other problems in an area like Sunderland. The problems of Sunderland and Newcastle are dissimilar. They are dissimilar between the Tyne and the Wear, and between the Wear and the Tees, and, in view of the involved nature of these problems, I am satisfied that these Commissioners have been sent to investigate the full extent of these problems. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) says that it is a waste of time.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: The Minister is carrying on the old policy.
    Sir L. THOMPSON: I hope that there will be a substantial policy formulated by the Ministry itself. There will have to be. I would like to go a step further than that which has been suggested by many hon. Members to-day. For many years I have been interested in the policy of this Government and of previous Governments. I am not going to refer to any individual Government. I believe that the fiscal policy of this country for many years has been wrong. I believe that we have arrived at the culmination point. At present we are suffering acutely, particularly in the heavy industries of the country. If they are to be reorganised on lines which have proved through the years to be mistaken, the policy will be a complete failure. However, I would say to the Minister that it is very encouraging to find distinct indications of better times in the heavy industries. No one can deny that conditions are better in the iron and steel industry and that unemployment has decreased very materially. [An HON. MEMBER: "In Sunderland?"] Not in Sunderland, because we have no iron and steel industry, but on Tees-side and elsewhere. No one can doubt, even in the coal industry, that, notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) has said, in recent months there has been a distinct improvement. If we had not had trade agreements the coal industry would have been infinitely worse. It may be some little time before we reach the turning point in shipping and shipbuilding, but I welcome the statement
    1860
    of policy of the Government regarding shipping and shipbuilding because both industries are intertwined. Even there, however, the problem is an involved one. It must be remembered that in the shipping industry, on which shipbuilding really depends, there has been no line of agreement until recent months. The problem is difficult so far as Sunderland is concerned, because we can only build a certain type of vessel. I am very hopeful that the pronouncement the Government have recently made will be productive of good, and that there will be a quick and distinct reflection in an improvement in the shipping industry.
    The hon. Member for Wednesbury spoke about the displacement of labour by machinery. That is true to a large extent in almost every industry, and particularly of the shipbuilding industry. To-day that industry has been entirely revolutionised by new means, methods and machines. All these problems are so involved and far-reaching that even when the reports of the Commissioners are presented, I would not wish the Government to come to a too hasty conclusion on the matter. We who represent the heavy industries on the North-East Coast are very anxious that the reports should be presented as quickly as possible, but I hope that when they are presented the Government will take a reasonable time in which to come to a decision and will bear in mind the involved nature of the problems which I have tried to indicate. I hope that when they have had time to confer and to come to a conclusion upon the reports their action will be decisive, ample and quick. I would forgive the Government for delaying the matter even until we re-assemble if I could feel sure that when we came back some effective measures would be taken to deal with the distressed areas. The hon. Member for Gorbals may shake his head, but I have sufficient confidence in the Government to believe that they are feeling the impact of the great question of the distressed areas, and, judging by their actions in the past, I am confident that something will be done, and it is in the hope that something of a substantial nature will be done that I have ventured to take part in this Debate.
    8.7 p.m.
    Mr. CAPE: In rising to take part in this discussion, I wish to congratulate

    1861
    the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Stanley) on being promoted to the office of Minister of Labour. It would appear from the developments in the different Departments in which he has served during his career as a Parliamentarian that he is what one may term in modern phraseology "a live wire," but when I saw the announcement in the Press that he was to be appointed to his present position I felt rather sympathetic towards him, because I wondered whether there would be any job left for him to take over. The passage of the Unemployment Act has really done the right hon. Gentleman out of a job, because his Department are left with practically very little to do. There is a Statutory Committee to deal with increases or decreases in benefits, and to decide what particular class of persons are to be eligible for coming within the
    ambit of the Act. There is also the Unemployment Committee, of which the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor has been appointed chairman, who are to take charge of the men who pass out of standard benefit and come on transitional payment. Therefore, the only thing which is now left for the right hon. Gentleman to do is to see that contributions are paid every week by the employer and the employed. He will simply be the Minister to gather in the money, and somebody else will see to its disposal. Nevertheless, I think that he will be quite capable of doing that job in a satisfactory way, and I wish him God speed in his work.
    I want to deal with points raised by the hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Denville), and the hon. Member for Sunderland (Sir L. Thompson). The hon. Member for Central Newcastle deplored the fact that the Newcastle Public Assistance Committee were not putting the amount of transitional payment at a higher figure than 24s. But the hon. Member was one of those who voted in favour of giving that committee that power. He voted for the Bill which eventually became an Act giving such authorities the power to do the very thing of which he now complains. Probably it may have slipped his memory, or he may have regretted what he did on that occasion. At some time in our lives we make mistakes and try to rectify them, and there is something to be said for
    1862
    actions of that kind. His complaint, however, is really too late to be of any benefit, because that matter has passed out of the ambit of the Committee into the hands of the Unemployment Committee set up under the new Act of Parliament. Special committees will be appointed in different areas to deal with persons on transitional payment.
    The hon. Member referred to the hours of work on the Continent and in this country, and he gave, as an illustration, an account of what happened in the Durham mines. I do not know as much about Durham mining as my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor and my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), but I had the opportunity of working in Durham mines for some time. When the Eight Hours Act was passed in 1910 Durham miners generally were prepared to make sacrifices so that the young boys employed in the mines at that time could have the advantage of more reasonable hours. But when the Seven Hours Bill passed through this House the Durham miners fell into line with the rest of the miners in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. LAWS0N: The six-and-a-half hours for coal hewers were not interfered with until after 1926, when the Eight Hours Bill became an Act.
    Mr. CAPE: I was coming to that point. As the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street reminded the Committee, the Durham miners were compelled by law to come under the eight hours arrangement. I wish to emphasise that the sacrifices which coal hewers made in Durham were largely and primarily for the benefit of the boys employed in the mines, and to keep in step with the other members of the Miners' Federation. The hon. Member for Sunderland raised two points with which I wish to deal. He said that the trade agreements have been beneficial to the mining community, but a good deal depends upon what year he bases his figures. If he takes 1932 as his basis, there has been a slight improvement, but, if he takes it from October and November of 1931 he will find that these agreements lowered the amount of coal which we were able to send abroad.
    Sir L. THOMPSON: I said that had it not been for those agreements the coal trade would have been worse than it is at present.
    Mr. CAPE: I agree, but even with the completion of these agreements the coal trade is not in the position in which it was in 1931. Anything that we have gained under the agreements, therefore, is less than what this Government had previously lost. On the question of the Commissioners, the hon. Member for Sunderland and the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) had what was in a sense a wordy contest, but it was hardly that because one was shaking his head and the other was vehemently protesting. One welcomed the appointment of the Commissioners, and the other was against it. I agree with the hon. Member for Gorbals that in one sense the appointment of the Commissioners followed the practice which we experienced from the Prime Minister when he was leader of the party to which I belong. We used to be twitted by hon. Members opposite about the number of Committees and Commissions which he set up, and the present Postmaster-General was an adept at keeping count of the number which had been appointed.
    Sir L. THOMPSON: The hon. Member must not judge the present Government by the defectiveness of the Labour Government.
    Mr. CAPE: Bad as the Prime Minister was at that time, he has got worse instead of better by association with the National Government. That is why the hon. Member for Gorbals was suspicious about the selection of these Commissioners to the distressed areas. I agree, on the other hand, with the hon. Member for Sunderland that, if they do not do any good, they cannot do any harm. The right hon. Gentleman who has been appointed for the Cumberland district has made a searching inquiry, and he has explored every avenue, to use the phrase of the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. He has approached his work sincerely, and he has interviewed everybody from whom it was possible to get any information. Therefore, when he makes his report he will be able to bring before the Government the very serious and deplorable situation that exists in the distressed areas of Cumberland. The hon. Member for Central Newcastle-on-Tyne naturally said that his was the most distressed area of the country. The hon. Member for Sunderland replied that everything goes to Newcastle. I think
    1864
    that the figures would show that we are worse than Newcastle, because there are plenty of villages in my county where 75 to 80 per cent. of the people are unemployed.
    Mr. DENVILLE: The point I was trying to make was that in the towns of Cumberland such as Frizington, Cleaton, Egremont and Wath Brow the rates are so much less than in Newcastle, and that therefore Newcastle was more distressed in that respect.
    Mr. CAPE: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is a few years since he was in Cumberland. He used to be a source of amusement to us at one time, and he gave us good value for our money. It is a long time since he was there, and methods have considerably changed since then. Taking everything into consideration, the fact remains that this percentage of men are unemployed. I find it difficult to make up my mind where they are going to be employed again. The district mentioned by the hon. Member for Central Newcastle-on-Tyne is an iron ore district which produces the best haematite ore in the country. It does not pay the steel employers to mine it, and consequently our men are out of work. I understand that the Minister of Labour has announced that the Government have not made up their mind whether the reports of the commissioners will be submitted to Parliament. I think it will be a mistake if they are not. Although the Government may find that they cannot carry out all the suggestions that may be made by the commissioners, their reports may contain certain suggestions which may encourage employers of labour in other parts of the country to start new industries. That would be a great help to districts like mine, because I believe the solution of the problem of the distressed areas will largely he found in the starting of new industries.
    I need not tell the Minister of Labour the qualifications of my particular district; he knows them, for he comes from an adjoining division. He knows that we have plenty of water for everybody who wants to come; transport is reasonable good; there is a long seaboard; and the railway facilities are not bad. I think, therefore, that there may be something in the commissioner's report which may be an inducement to employers of labour to start industries in that area.

    1865
    If employers never get to know what the commissioners think there can be little hope of progress coming through their action.
    The hon. Member for Sunderland urged the Government not to be too hasty in their consideration of the reports but to give them full consideration. I do not think he need worry about that. He can rest certain that it will be some weeks or months before we hear of any Government decision on the subject. I appeal to *the Minister of Labour, with all the responsibility which he has, to use all his influence with the Cabinet to get these reports dealt with as speedily as possible, after fair consideration, of course. Speaking for my own area, the people there are looking forward with hope to what may emerge from the reports of these commissioners. I have tried not to damp their hopes, but still I have told them that probably their expectations will not be realised. For myself, I hope that something will come out of these inquiries, but I do not expect too much, because it is a very difficult problem, and will need a lot of thought to solve it, and I am rather afraid that with our present competitive system it will be nearly impossible to solve it. Anyhow, I still appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to expedite action on the reports.
    The question of hours of labour and the attitude taken up by the British representatives at the International Labour Office has been raised. We set ourselves up to be the most advanced and progressive country in the world, and there may be some justification for thinking so. We deal with our difficulties and grievances by different methods from those of other countries. We fight them out in our own way, generally across the Floor of the House of Commons. There are never any bombs flying about while we are discussing our problems. It is a paradox, however, that immediately our representatives—who are representatives of the Government—go to these labour conferences on the other side of the channel they take up the same attitude as the representatives of Continental countries, in that the only thing they can agree upon is either an increase in the hours of labour, or allowing the hours of labour to remain as they are.
    Mr. ALEXANDER RAMSAY: Before the hon. Member begins chastising the
    1866
    Government on the question of the 40-hour week policy, will he see what he can do to bring foreign countries down to the 47-hour week which we are now operating?
    Mr. CAPE: The hon. Member asks me to try to make foreign Governments do something. I cannot make our own Government do what I want. I have no voice in the councils of foreign Governments, and I am powerless. I can only talk to the Government of my own country; I cannot talk to the Governments of other countries. But there is no doubt that everybody in the trade union movement and the workers generally were amazed at the attitude taken by the representatives of this country at the conference in Geneva. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, before the next conference is opened, to give serious attention to the question of lowering the hours of labour, either by the day or by the week, as one method of providing a solution of the unemployment problem.
    8.31 p.m.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: The few remarks I have to make on this Vote will be somewhat varied, and I want to say at the outset that I regret that I heard no more than the last few sentences of the speech of the Minister of Labour. He will excuse me if I do not join in the general congratulations which have been extended to him on his appointment. I want to be quite frank. I prefer to wait until I see results before I offer my congratulations. Despite the good-humoured remarks of the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cape) about losing prestige, the Minister in my opinion has become head of a Department where he will exercise immense power over the lives of a great mass of the common people of this country. A Conservative colleague of his who is still a Member of this House said that when he was offered the post of Minister of Labour he rejected it because he thought it was not in keeping with his standard of Cabinet rank. I know of no post more onerous, or one which carries with it so many difficulties and, at the same time, such a great responsibility. The new Minister is a young man, comparatively speaking, for Cabinet rank, and in his new post he will be judged only on one standard, and that is the amount of human decency and human

    1867
    happiness he can conevy to the mortals with whose care he is charged. Therefore, at the moment I will neither congratulate him nor condemn him, but say that I wait to judge him on results.
    Among one or two points I have to raise there is one of small importance to which I trust the Under-Secretary may reply. In England the trade boards have offices and inspectors throughout the country. In Scotland the head office is in Edinburgh, whereas the industrial population of Scotland is mainly in Glasgow and the Clyde Valley. With the office in Edinburgh nobody in the whole of that industrial belt has access to the office. Edinburgh has its own characteristics but it cannot claim to be in the industrial belt. For every person covered by a trade board in Edinburgh there are nearly five in the industrial area in the west. Nevertheless, the Minister of Labour of Labour has refused to set up an office to which people could go in order to make legitimate complaints under the trade board section. I earnestly ask him to review the position not merely in Glasgow but throughout the country.
    What is the position now? A person who wishes to make a complaint ought to have facility for doing so easily, should not be asked to undergo risk that can be avoided, and should not be liable, or even run the risk of being liable, to persecution because of making legitimate use of the law of the land. That person at the present time has to go or to write to an Employment Exchange. I have nothing but respect for the managers of Employment Exchanges, and I do not share the view which was put by a Conservative Member that they show a lack of courtesy. I have had as great an experience as most hon. Members of Employment Exchange managers from one end of the country to the other. Exchange officials ought not to do this work. In a large number of cases, the person does not want to make a complaint but merely wants advice and guidance, but there is nobody to give it. It is indefensible for there not to be an office of the trade hoard in a great city like Glasgow, to which must be added Paisley, Motherwell and Coatbridge. The cost would not be much, and surely the Employment Exchange building in Glasgow could spare a small room. In a
    1868
    teeming population like that it ought to be easy to find a place. It is not fair to the managers of the exchanges that they should have to handle this class of case, not that they have not the capacity, but that it is beyond their scope. The great mass of cases relate to female labour, and, if offices of the kind for which I am asking were established, it would be easy for a working girl to go there. She does not want to risk her job, but she wants decent treatment. I trust that the Minister will provide access for these people, and particularly in Glasgow, because it is a shocking scandal that no office of a trade board exists there. I hope that an office will be established at an early date.
    I turn from that subject to the subject of the Commissioners. I have no faith in them. The head of the Government which appointed them used to be a member of the Labour party. When I was in the party, whenever we asked him to do something realistic he appointed a committee. Now it is not a committee, but a commissioner. You cannot always use the same word, and this word makes a little variety, but it means the same thing. There is nothing in these Commissioners. I remember Viscount Snowden, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, talking about an economy committee and saying that he could write their report in 10 minutes before they had sat. Such committees do not report upon the facts which are known by nearly every student of British politics. The Government have access to a mass of information, and it is an insult to the intelligence of the people to send out commissioners who are not necessarily more capable than the average Member of this House. One of them was sent to the North-East Coast, and it is assumed that after a few months tour he is coming back with great ideas about how things are to be put right. There are men of capacity and intelligence on the North-East Coast who could write everything about it without waiting. A Commissioner was sent to Scotland, but there are men already there, of the same Political philosophy as the Government, who know the conditions very well.
    The charge against the Government is not that they are not publishing the reports. Ten minutes after they are published the reports will be forgotten. People pay little attention to reports.

    1869
    Consider how many reports have been published during all the years that we have been Members of this House, reports that were demanded, and waited for with bated breath. When they were published, the House spent 10 minutes on them, and afterwards nobody looked at them. All this waste is an excuse to keep things going for another few months. The Commissioners will make their reports, and the Cabinet and the Prime Minister must consider them. The Prime Minister will say that they must be considered well, and that we must not proceed to build upon them two bricks at a time, but only one brick; that you cannot build on shifting sands and that you must have a solid foundation. You can never get beyond that, and it takes a long time. The difficulty of getting something done takes longer still, and of course, nothing is done. If I were to ask half-a-dozen hon. Members in this House what they thought ought to be done, they would tell me, and their view would be based upon conviction. There is nothing marvellous about the Commissioners, who are just ordinary men who have been visiting these places.
    The charge against the Government is that their action was contemptible. The one thing that differentiated the Prime Minister and Viscount Snowden who, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, may have been reactionary, was that Viscount Snowden did things without delay, and would come and brutally face up to a situation. This is the old policy of the Prime Minister, which he adopted when he was a member of the Labour party, of shift, delay and wasting time—anything, provided that you do not ask him to do something at the moment; and yet at the same time he conveys to the British people that he is doing something. He wants the best of both worlds.
    I am not asking that the reports should be published; I do not think they will be of any value at all. As I have said, the Government have already access to a mine of information. They have the divisional controllers of Exchanges. It may be that they are Exchange workers, but they are men Who, on the North-East Coast or in Scotland, are travelling about day after day and interviewing business men. They know and understand the problems, and, if the Government had wanted reports, they could have got just as intelligent reports from
    1870
    these men, without all this marching about by commissioners—I saw one of them down in Wales—as though they were supermen who could visit that part of the country for a day or two and come back with a remedy. For 12 years, to my own knowledge, we have had Governments, every one of them admittedly just as honest and as capable as this Government, who have been examining this matter without being able to find a solution, and to say that someone is going to visit Wales for two or three days and come back with a solution is an insult to the Government.
    The problem has baffled the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour. In my view it is not unduly flattering him to say that he is at least as capable as, if not more capable than, these Commissioners, and if he could find a solution for the problem he would do so, but it has baffled him. He has travelled Cumberland, using his intelligence and his knowledge, and he is now in the Government; and to say that a Parliamentary Private Secretary who has not had the experience that he has had can tour two or three towns and come back with a solution is an insult to the intelligence of the House of Commons and a reflection on the Government of which the Prime Minister is the head.
    The hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Denville) has raised the question of transitional payments in Newcastle. The matter was brought to my attention, because I am chairman of the union, and we have a fair number of men affected by it. What these ordinary men cannot understand is this: Three or four men, who had been employed for most of their lives by, I think, the Wallsend Slipway Company, have been out of work for four or five years. Their wages were roughly about the same, and their work was very similar. One or two of them live on one side of the river, and the others, by accident, live on the other side; and, while those who live on the one side receive transitional payments of 26s. for a married couple, those who live on the other side get—from the same fund, from the same Government money—only 24s. Is there anybody who can defend that?
    I know that the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary will say that they have no control, that the local authorities have the power to pay the same amount of relief as they were paying to,

    1871
    an able-bodied person. But that is only true comparatively speaking. If a local authority paid such low benefits as to bring terrible hardship, physically and mentally, to the population, the hon. Gentleman and the Government would be in duty bound to interfere, even although there might be technical difficulties in doing so. The hon. Gentleman may use against me the analogy of Rotherham, but ordinary men cannot understand why, when a local authority tries to give to human beings something more, the Government have all the power that they need, yet, if it is a case of taking a shilling or two from the poor in Newcastle, they have no power. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary will argue against me with great skill and capacity, but that is no reply to the common people. The test applied by the population is not the quick passing of arguments across the Floor of the House of Commons, but how the common people understand it, and they cannot follow this.
    I do not want to carry the matter further, but, if Newcastle wanted to pay it, they could pay it. This legality which has been found is a trick. There are cases where the disparity is even worse, and normal men ask, why can a thing be done here with impunity and refused there with impunity? The Minister is not without his persuasive power in a hundred and one directions, and all that he needs to do is to see the town clerk and these other legal luminaries. One of the great things about the law of this country is the marvellous way in which it can accommodate itself to a situation. All that the Minister needs to do is to tell them that this is doing nobody any good, that it is causing rank ill feeling, that it is unjust, and that it has got to be settled. If the Minister of Labour, the Parliamentary Secretary and the officials would bend their minds to it, they could see that Newcastle does what every decent man, whether Liberal, Tory or Labour, wants them to do.
    I want now to raise a subject which has been raised before, namely, the "not normally in insurable employment" provision, because I think that something ought to be said about it. Here again, although we may play with words, although we may be good debaters and well able to find answers to one another, common men find difficulty in following
    1872
    us. For good or ill, Parliament has decided, in the new Act, to abolish the "not normally in insurable employment" provision. When the new Act becomes law, that provision will cease to exist. I do not think that the Minister will dispute that. The ordinary man cannot understand why it is decided that "not normally insurable employment" is to be abolished. If it had not been for the delay in bringing into operation Part II, which is not connected with "not normally" in that sense, it would have been the law. But Parliament has said that it must go. Why, then, is it being practised now? In my native city, so far as I know it, its operation is growing less, but in other parts of the country it is growing a great deal more. I have had cases brought to my notice in one or two places in Scotland where it is ghastly. The senior Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) gave me yesterday two or three cases of men treated under this provision where there was no defence for them being flung out because of "not normally." The Minister is new to the job, but the Parliamentary Secretary knows that it is now being used as a new means of testing "not genuinely seeking work." The executive committee of my union has been faced with the problem of supplying men. There has been an increase in the building of aircraft. Our unemployed now are beginning to be confined to two sections, either the young man who has just entered the trade or the man who has been unemployed for two or three years. The employers find it almost an impossibility to get them. The men in the shop do not help him. The curious thing is that a man in a job, if he knows that he is going to be dismissed, will get a job, more easily while he is at work than when he is out of work.
    Who can blame a man if at the end of four years his steps become slow and his actions become dull? Even there he is subject to "not normally." He is cross-questioned as to where he has been searching for work. He is asked if he has been looking here and there, if he has been to this place and that. I have a case from Campbeltown, where distilleries have been closed and some coopers have been refused. They have been asked what they have done to look for a job outside. When a man has been unemployed from three years to five years, the onus is not on the Exchange to disprove it, but on

    1873
    the man to rebut the presumption. He is in worse position than a, criminal. This poor devil five years out of work has to rebut the evidence of a, State Department. "Not normally insurable employment" is being twisted in a way it was never meant to be. When "not genuinely seeking work" was abolished, "not normally" was used for two categories, namely, people who had followed an occupation of £250 a year, or people who had,started business on their own account. When "not genuinely seeking work" was abolished, the figures for "not normally" rose by leaps and bounds, because in the case of those who had been for a long time unemployed, it took the place of "not genuinely seeking work." The ordinary man cannot understand why, in this period when we are waiting on the new Act, the Government cannot see that the wishes of Parliament are given effect to. Is it asking too much that this objectionable Clause shall be wiped out. The Minister of Labour or the Parliamentary Secretary may say that they have no power, that the Act is the Act and that the statutory authority, the Board of Referees, etc., must be allowed to judge. I submit that the Minister has power. Let him say that the words "not normally" shall be interpreted as was intended. He could to-morrow issue to his insurance officers an instruction that Parliament by design, by wish intended that the
    "not normally" provision should finish. That could be done to-morrow. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will take note of my remarks and will do what he can. In his Department there will not be great spectacular things done as in the Ministry of Transport, where the Minister gets great and glaring headlines in the popular Press, because of certain things. In his new Department there will be little popularity, but what he does will have its reflection in the homes of the people and on what he does in this respect will depend his greatness or his lack of it.
    9.7 p.m.
    Sir BASIL PETO: The appeal of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) was directed to the Minister asking why an Act which the House has passed has not been put into operation before the date fixed. In the early part of his speech the hon. Member blamed the Government for having appointed Commissioners to
    1874
    visit the distressed areas. He was a little inconsequent in that part of his remarks. He pointed out that there were many people in the North-Eastern area, in South Wales and other distressed areas who knew all the conditions intimately and were capable of advising the Government. Therefore, he asked why four or five gentlemen had been selected as Commissioners to visit the districts. The answer seems to be obvious. It is because it was a very reasonable method of collecting the opinions of precisely those people who know all the local circumstances. The Commissioners have gone there to study the conditions on the spot. They are not deaf and dumb and they are not blind. They are perfectly capable of gathering the opinions best worthy to be heard and conveying those opinions and their own impressions to the Government. That is why the Commissioners were appointed. Complaints have been made that the reports are not, to be immediately published. I very much doubt whether the Government would have got these gentlemen to give their time and to go there to collect information if it had been understood that the moment they had made a report, before the Government had had time to consider it, it was to be made public to all the world and no doubt would provide political platform ammunition for Members of the Opposition.
    The hon. Member for Gorbals said that he did not congratulate the Minister on his elevation to his present post. Neither does any other man in the House. He has undertaken a position in the Government which is not only one of the most onerous but one of the most honourable and requires the greatest devotion, the greatest courage and the greatest ability. Of all the appointments that have been made to the Government, the one that gives the most general satisfaction not only in the House but everywhere where the right hon. Gentleman is known, is the appointment that has been made of the new Minister of Labour. He is following in the footsteps of one who served admirably for years in the Department, and he deserves and has the good wishes of every Member of the House. I say to him: "On, Stanley, on." I believe that he will go from height to height and will reach very high office in the future.

    1875
    May I mention two speeches which were made earlier in the Debate? The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) and the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Cape) both spoke about the International Labour Office, and accused the Government not only of being unsympathetic to a general international 40-hour week but of representing only the employers' view. The hon. Member for Wednesbury said, quite candidly and very truly, that in his opinion it was possible to regulate hours of labour internationally but he did nit believe that you could regulate wages internationally. Those two questions are absolutely inseparable. Unless we want to give away a still further advantage to our competitors who are already far below our standards of living and our rates of wages, we cannot agree to any regulation of hours without regulation of wages. Until we get a levelling up of wages we cannot have a universal level of hours. The two things absolutely go together.
    I will give an illustration to show how impossible it is to deal with the question of hours by itself, while with regard to wages we continue to pay relatively to Europe the highest rate, and other nations continue with their lower rates. If we are to maintain our standard of living and to have our people here capable of buying the products of industry, we must not reduce remuneration. If we were to agree to a smaller number of hours and leave our foreign competitors free in the matter of wages and only bind them in the matter of hours we should give them a further advantage in competition with this country and throw more people out of work here rather than help to find employment. The illustration to which I have referred shows the hopelessness of dealing with the question of hours alone in face of competition from the Far East. The fact only became known to me yesterday.
    We have the competition of Japan in industrial matters and the competition of China in agricultural products. For liquid eggs, of which we hear so much, I am told that the Chinese peasant is paid only one penny per dozen. He works all day on his poultry farm to produce eggs at one penny per dozen to go down to the factory at Shanghai, where they are sterilised and put in tins and sent
    1876
    here. In the face of that sort of thing how in the world are we going to deal internationally with the question of hours when there is this huge disparity in wages which, on the admission of the hon. Member for Wednesbury, we cannot tackle in the international field through the International Labour Office? I promised only to speak for a very short time because there are other hon. Members who desire to take part in the Debate, which has been interesting although not largely attended.
    9.15 p.m.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: The Committee, I am sure, will agree that the Debate has been of considerable interest and that some points have been put forward which will require careful consideration by the Minister before he can give what will be considered an adequate, or satisfactory reply. In the first place I want to deal with the right hon. Gentleman's statement with regard to the commissioners. He has put the Committee in rather an awkward situation. He said that if the Government were to publish the reports of the commissioners it would be a breach of faith. I agree that it would be a breach of faith if the Government led the commissioners to understand on their appointment that any reports or statements made by them would be confidential. Even if such an arrangement was not made on their appointment, if nothing of that kind was considered. I would agree that even then it would be a breach of faith if the Government were to publish the reports without first consulting the four commissioners. But the Government must bear in mind that these four commissioners have submitted very important information to the Government, at least I assume that to
    be the case. The Minister of Labour says that these reports are to enable the Government to frame a policy. Cannot the Government ask the four commissioners if they are prepared to agree to their reports being published, or if there is anything in them of a confidential nature, any information given to them by the people whom they consulted which they might wish to withdraw, could be deleted before the reports were published. The money that has been spent on these investigations has to be voted by this House, the expenditure will have to be met out of some

    1877
    Vote, and I think that Parliament should have what they are paying for.
    As the Minister of Labour is now in his place, may I congratulate him not upon the onerous and hard position in which he has been placed but upon his elevation to Cabinet rank'? That is the matter upon which we must congratulate him. We sympathise with him because of the many occasions upon which he will be put through it by hon. Members in regard to the administration of his Department. Some time ago a committee was set up to inquire into finance and industry. It made a report, but the evidence was not published. I put several questions to the Prime Minister asking whether it was intended to publish the evidence and the reply I received on several occasions was, "No, there were many matters of a very confidential character in the evidence submitted by outstanding financiers of the country, who appeared before the committee." I pressed the matter, and one day the Prime Minister rose and said that it had been decided to print the evidence in two volumes, and now anyone can buy them through the Stationery Office or can go through the questions and answers 'An one of our libraries. Cannot the same thing be done here? Have the Commissioners been asked whether they object to their report being published? If not, why all this secrecy, why all this appearance of something very confidential, something which, if it were revealed, might bring the National Government tumbling down in wreck, ruin and chaos?
    I sometimes wonder what the Government really consider to be derelict areas. I have a case of a young lad in a training centre in my own division who wanted to be transferred to a district in which certain work was being done, on a grant of money by the Government, one of the conditions of the grant being that a proportion of those employed on the work should be taken from a depressed area. He got the reply that my division was not a distressed area. I got the same reply in answer to my question, but yet a Commissioner is sent down to my district to make inquiries. Are these Commissioners inquiring into the conditions in derelict areas or depressed areas? In any case, the result is to be locked fast in the archives of the Government and the House of
    1878
    Commons is to be denied any information, unless it is put forward as the future policy of the National Government. The Minister takes up the attitude not that the House of Commons is not entitled to the information but that it would be a breach of faith. I have given an instance where, after reflection, the evidence given before a much more important committee was published, and I suggest that the same thing should happen in this case.
    In spite of the fact that there has been some slight improvement in trade, conditions are not as good as they ought to be. As the Minister himself admitted, the trades which are showing an increase in the number of people employed are trades which cannot be considered as vital, by which I mean industries upon which in the past the well-being and the material wealth of this country were considered to depend. Trades such as coal mining, iron and steel, shipbuilding, shipping and the docks do not show any great material increase in the number of those who are employed. One significant fact stands out, almost blinding you with the force with which it strikes you, particularly in these days when a Disarmament Conference is going on and one reads in every newspaper of its breakdown and of nations starting a race of re-armament in order to be ready if another war breaks out. The curious feature is that in the Twenty-first Abstract of Labour Statistics one of the trades which shows a most beneficial advance is the industry which is concerned with explosives. The unemployment figure has fallen from 15.8 per cent. to 3.6 per cent. Twelve out of every hundred who were unemployed have gone back. It shows how the panic of a future war affects this particular industry. The Minister smiles, but may I suggest to him that those who may suffer from these explosives will have less cause to smile than he appears to have?
    Mr. STANLEY: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will ask one of the hon. Members who represent mining constituencies whether explosives are not used for other purposes than warfare.
    Mr. MACLEAN: That may be true, but the Minister should bear in mind that there is not an increase in those going back to work in coal mining to warrant the increase in the numbers of those returning to work in the explosives industry. If he knew anything about

    1879
    mining—I dare say that his knowledge and mine are about equal—he would know that there are fewer explosives used in mining to-day than were formerly, so that that particular interjection of the Minister does not cut much ice. In shipbuilding there has been no material reduction in the number of unemployed. The same thing is true with regard to marine engineering. It is true that electrical engineering shows some slight reduction, and constructional engineering, which deals with up-to-date methods of constructing buildings, shows a very material reduction. But there, again, you are not dealing with the primary manufacturing industries of the -country. Taking Lanarkshire and the West of Scotland in the industries in which our people are mainly concerned, there has been practically no diminution in the numbers of unemployed. As a matter of fact, the figures which I received from the Minister a short time ago ought to show that perfectly clearly. The number of unemployed persons in Scotland was 325,972 on 14th May, 1934, as against 364,618 on 22nd May, 1933, a reduction of only 38,646 for the whole of Scotland. The percentage reduction for England was much larger. The number of unemployed in England was 1,997,438 on 22nd May, 1933, and 1,561,770 on 14th May, 1934, a reduction of 435,668.
    There may be a diminution in the numbers of unemployed, but one can find that diminution only in places like Birmingham, Coventry, London and the counties surrounding London, which are not affected in the same way as South Wales, North-East England, and the industrial belt in the Clyde Valley and across to Stirlingshire. These are places which show that a very marked depression still prevails. When the Minister tried to take some credit to the Government for the policy which they had put into effect as being responsible for the reduction of unemployment, I think that he was taking too much for granted. After all, the reason why there are so many ships laid up, why so few ships are being built and why dockers are idle, is the fiscal policy of the Government. It has been responsible for the depression in shipbuilding, coal, and in all those things which affect shipping, the loading of ships and the
    building of machines.
    1880
    I submit that the Amendment which we have put down has been justified by the attitude adopted by the Government and by the continued condition of the country. It is rather unfortunate that the Minister's first appearance at that Box should be to answer what is practically a Vote of Censure, but he will re alise that it is not he, the individual, against whom it is directed, but against the administration of his Department. Having taken upon his shoulders the work of the Ministry of Labour the right hon. Gentleman assumes responsibility for that Department and must answer for those things which have been going on in the Department during the past year. Therefore, we feel that we are justified in taking this matter to a vote and in testing the feeling of the Committee upon it, because of our dissatisfaction with the replies received from the Ministry, the Minister's attitude regarding the Commissioners, his refusal to publish their reports, and the general conduct of the Department.
    9.36 p.m.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR
    (Mr. R. S. Hudson): We have listened to a very interesting Debate. The speech of my right hon. Friend this afternoon regarding the important question of the reports of the investigators in the distressed areas leaves me very little indeed to say on that particular subject. I will, therefore, spend as much time as is available in endeavouring to deal with one or two other points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) endeavoured to illustrate the damage that was being done by picking out the explosives industry. If I understood him correctly, he desired to suggest that although, as far as the men in that industry are concerned, it was a very good thing that the percentage of unemployment had been decreased, nevertheless the fact that the percentage of unemployment had been reduced seemed to the hon. Member to indicate that they had found employment in providing munitions of a future war, and that that implied condemnation of the Government. There are in this country at the present time 12,500,000 insured persons, and I am sure the Committee will be interested to know that the total number of insured persons employed in

    1881
    the explosives industry is the very large number of about 14,000. An interesting thing, in connection with the hon. Member's argument, is that when his party was in office the number employed in that industry was about 17,000.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that in the statistics that are published by the Ministry of Labour the percentage is given as exactly what I have stated?
    Mr. HUDSON: But that merely shows bow dangerous it is to take percentages and not to take the total figures. I am quoting from the "Ministry of Labour Gazette." The hon. Member proceeded to use the argument that he used a short time ago in the Debate on the Estimates, when he said that although it was quite true that some of the distributive trades had increased employment, nevertheless what he called the vital trades had really not benefited at all under this Government. I shall not weary the Committee by going through them all, but in the course of the last 12 months the following are the figures of decreases in unemployment in what the hon. Member calls toe vital trades. The improvement in coal mining is 26,000; in engineering, 70,000; metal trades, 33,000; iron and steel trades, 26,000; shipbuilding, 22,000; building, 36,000. That is a total improvement of over 200,000 during the last 12 months in the trades that the hon. Member quite rightly calls vital trades.
    The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) in his opening speech said that our fiscal policy had done no good to the coal trade, that on the contrary it had done considerable harm. I think we are perfectly entitled to ask what the policy of Free Trade under the Labour Government did for the coal trade. This is the answer: Whereas when the Labour Government took Office and the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street stood at this Box the number of unemployed in the coal trade was 204,000, when he left Office, or just before, it had risen to 379,000. To-day the number is 358,000, and as I explained the other day in the Debate on the Estimates, while the number to-day is not showing a very appreciable improvement, nevertheless the men at work are working more shifts per week and are, therefore, earning better wages than they earned last year.
    Mr. LAWSON: But the hon. Gentleman cannot question the figures from his own
    1882
    official "Gazette," which show that in June of 1931 there were 840,000 miners engaged in the mining industry and that to-day there are 771,000.
    Mr. HUDSON: I am not denying that there has been a slight fall in the numbers, but it is nothing compared with the fall that took place under the Free Trade Administration of the hon. Member. The hon. Member for Chesterle-Street and the hon. Member for Newcastle Central (Mr. Denville) talked about the restoration of the cut. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street specifically asked what the Commissioners in Durham were doing, and the hon. Member for Newcastle Central complained about the action of the Newcastle authority, and questioned whether their statement was correct and whether they were acting legally. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street was under some misapprehension. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it quite clear, as far as transitional payments were concerned, that as they were based on need there would be no automatic increase of 10 per cent.
    As far as the legal question is concerned there is no change. The Order in Council has remained in
    operation. It lays down that a man applying for transitional payment shall be treated in all respects as though he was applying for public assistance, and the position at present is that with the raising of the rate of standard benefit those local authorities whose public assistance scales are as high as or higher than the new rates of benefit are entitled, where the need of the man requires it, to make determinations at the full rate. Any local authority is, of course, perfectly entitled to raise the scale either wholly or in part if it
    is found inadequate. I understand that in fact the Newcastle authority has raised its Poor Law scale, although not to the same height as the rates of benefit. The Newcastle authorities are undoubtedly acting strictly legally and are applying the same standards to applicants for transitional payments as to applicants for public assistance. Hon. Members opposite in the course of the Budget Debate said that in that case the concession to the transitional payment class was purely illusory, that the £3,600,000 which was

    1883
    allocated for that purpose by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget would not reach the applicants. That was the accusation made.
    I would start off by reminding the Committee again that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said there would be no automatic 10 per cent. increase. But what we are concerned to see is that the additional £3,600,000 does reach the pockets of the persons receiving transitional payment. That, I am sure, is the desire of the Committee. We have had special inquiry made as to the results of the payments made in the week ended 14th July, that is the second week after the new rates of benefit came into operation, and I am sure the Committee and hon. Members opposite in particular will be glad to learn that the average rates paid over the whole country have increased by 8 per cent. or nearly the 10 per cent. represented by the £3,600,000. As these figures relate only to the period ended 14th July, and there were determinations current which had been made by the local authorities before July, the Committee may rest assured that, taking the country by and large, the intentions of the Chancellor are in process of being carried out and that the £3,600,000 will find its way into the pockets of those for whom it was destined by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. D. GRENFELL: Is it not the case that there is an ever-increasing number of claimants for transitional payments, and that you might easily spend the £3,600,000 upon the additional payments caused by that increased number,
    Mr. HUDSON: No, Sir, I was careful to cover that point by saying that this was the average rate of payment.
    Mr. LAWSON: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the position in Durham?
    Mr. HUDSON: As regards Durham, I understand the position to be that the Commissioner has raised his scales in a number of cases and that, in particular, the single man to whom reference has been made, has been raised from 15s. 3d. to 16s. I am informed that it is by no means a rigid rule and that where a single man has special requirements which justify the payment of the full rate of 17s. instead of the 16s., that, in fact, is being paid.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the 16s. not a rigid rule?
    Mr. HUDSON: No, I am informed by the Commission that it is simply a guide and that, wherever the circumstances justify it, the full rate of 17s. can be paid and is being or will be paid.
    Mr. LAWSON: Are the Government accepting responsibility for that?
    Mr. HUDSON: That is a matter entirely for the administration.
    Mr. DICKIE: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question?
    Mr. HUDSON: I must ask hon. Members to allow me to proceed as the time is limited. The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) raised one or two points about the 40-hour week convention. He said that the prestige of Great Britain stood very high at Geneva and that he thought it of supreme importance that an attempt should be made to raise the standards of other countries up to the standard of this country. I agree, but I am certain that what is equally important is that the standard of this country should not be lowered in the process and that is what might have been the result of the proposals put forward by the representative of the Trades Union Congress at. Geneva this year.
    There can be no shadow of doubt about the fact that the great majority of the other countries represented at Geneva desired a work-sharing convention pure and simple with no regard to wages at all. The concern of the other Governments there was to try to cover up the fact that they had no adequate unemployment insurance or poor law system, by getting their people to share out the work irrespective of wages and the majority of the workers on the Continent were prepared to do that. Any convention embodying that provision would have resulted in a definite lowering of the standard which has been won in this country as the result of the years of work, not least by the trade unions. When the hon. Member for Wednesbury accuses us of taking the side of the employer against the workman, I do not think he realises what happened. What happened was that we defended the interest of the British working man against the misguided advice of many of their leaders. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] What I have said is quite clear

    1885
    from the report of the proceedings. Hon. Members have only to look at what happened.
    I wonder how many hon. Members have thoroughly studied the wording of the Convention itself. The original draft Convention provided that these hours of work should not apply to any establishment with less than seven workers. That would have made the Convention in- applicable to a large number of establishments in this country and to a much greater number of establishments abroad. After some discussion the representatives of the British workers saw that fact and opposed the provision and the British Government representative backed them up and secured its deletion. No sooner had we secured it, than many other Governments concerned said the Convention in that case was of no use to them and, when it came to voting on the first Article, as amended, these other Governments abstained, there was no quorum and the Convention fell through. Yet this is the Convention that we are accused of having opposed in the interests of the employers.
    Let me return to the question of these investigators' reports. Hon. Members will know that the very detailed surveys referred to by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, go back to as long ago as 1931. One of the interesting things which came out of these surveys and a feature common to them all is the fact that in the years before 1929 a great deal of the surplus population of areas had gradually drifted away and found work in other and more prosperous parts of the country. So much so was this the case that, to take South Wales as an example, that area in 10 years lost 242,000 persons by migration. Scotland lost 200,000, Lancashire lost 130,000, and Durham and Tyneside had lost the amazing figure of 123,000 in the four years preceding 1929. [HON. MEMBERS: "Population?"] Yes, population, showing that there was a gradual drift away from those areas and a gradual absorption of the population by the more prosperous areas of the country. That was a process that was commented on by the Industrial Transference Board and was helped to a great extent by the Government up to 1929. But it is clear that in order to enable that to happen the rest of the country have to be more or less prosperous.
    1886
    Hon. Members opposite cannot escape their share of responsibility for the present position of the distressed areas. Let me remind them of these facts. In 1929 when we spoke of distressed areas, South Wales was regarded as one of the black spots. It had then a percentage of unemployment of 21.5 whereas the whole of the country had less than 10 per cent. It was in those conditions that we got that drift of population of 240,000 away from South Wales. What happened between 1929 and 1931? As a result of the trade depression which accompanied the administration of hon. Members opposite, we found when we took office in 1931 that the average percentage of unemployment over the whole country had risen to 21.2. In other words, the unemployment position in the country in 1931 was as bad as it had been in South Wales in 1929 when South Wales was regarded as a black spot. It can be imagined, in face of that fact, whether there was any chance of getting the population out of these derelict areas. My right hon. Friend mentioned as one of the favourable elements in the situation the fact that since September, 1932, 1,000,000 insured persons had found permanent wage-earning occupation. But there is an even more striking figure, and that is the number of men who have been out of work for over a year—the so-called "hard core of unemployment." The hard core of unemployment in the last 13 months, the number who have been out of work for a year or more, has decreased by nearly 80,000, and it is that evidence of an improved situation in trade that led us to believe that at last the time had come when there was some reasonable hope of making an impression on the distressed areas.
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: How many have gone on to the Poor Law?
    Mr. HUDSON: None; they have found work. The hon. Member said: "Why make these new inquiries when we have the information" Since the surveys were written in the course of the summer of 1931, the whole fiscal system and agricultural policy of this country have been changed. The hon. Member talked about the revival of industry, but the whole trend in industrial development has changed. There are questions of land settlement, afforestation, the problem of

    1887
    local government services, of local finance, the development of social services in these years. All these things have radically changed in the last three years, and we therefore require, as my right hon. Friend has said, the personal knowledge of these investigators whom we have sent. There is also, of course, the point made by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), that of the information volunteered by so many public bodies, commercial, social and municipal, in the depressed areas. Surely he would be the last person to suggest that all this advice should be rendered nugatory because there was no time to consider it. On the contrary, I think the investigators are to be complimented on the fact that they have carried through so quickly the onerous task laid upon them, and I will end by repeating why my right hon. Friend said to-day that we hope, and certainly intend, that as soon as the reports are in no avoidable delay will take place in considering them both individually, and in their relation to each other, and to the problems of the rest of the country. I confidently hope that before the autumn we shall be in a position to announce some results of our consideration.
    Mr. MACLEAN: May I ask whether the Minister of Labour, or the Govern-
    ment, will ask the commissioners if they have any objection to the reports they have made being published? This is a very important matter to the country, and I ask if this question can be answered.
    Mr. HUDSON: I think my right hon. Friend explained this afternoon very fully that it was announced at the very commencement by the late Minister, when the names of the investigators were given, that the reports were to be reports to the Government and would be of a confidential nature. I think the Government must stand by that statement.
    Mr. MACMILLAN: The Parliamentary Secretary said that he hoped the Government would be in a position to make a statement of policy before the autumn. Does that mean before the House reassembles, before the King's Speech, during the Recess?
    Mr. HUDSON: I am sorry if said "before the autumn"; I meant in the autumn.
    Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £38,903,000, be granted for the said Service."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 57; Noes, 330.

    Division No. 348.]

    AYES

    [10.0 p.m.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Milner, Major James

    Banfield, John William

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Batey, Joseph

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

    Paling, Wilfred

    Buchanan, George

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Cape, Thomas

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Cove, William G.

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Curry, A. C.

    Janner, Barnett

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Dagger, George

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Kirkwood, David

    White, Henry Graham

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Dabble, William

    Leonard, William

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Edwards, Charles

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Lunn, William

    Wilmot, John

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    McGovern, John

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Balllle, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

    Albery, Irving James

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

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

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

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

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

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

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Belt, Sir Alfred L.

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Bainlel, Lord

    Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    Bernays, Robert

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Blaker, Sir Reginald

    Glucksteln, Louis Halle

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Bllndell, James

    Goff, Sir Park

    Maclay, Hon Joseph Paton

    Bossom, A. C.

    Goldie, Noel B.

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Boulton, W. W.

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

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

    Magnay, Thomas

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Maitland, Adam

    Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

    Graves, Marjorie

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Bracken, Brendan

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

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

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

    Greene, William P. C.

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

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Grimston, R. V.

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

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

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

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

    Meller, Sir Richard James

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

    Burnett, John George

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Burton, Colonel Henry Waiter

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Hales, Harold K.

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

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

    Caine, G. R. Hall-

    Hammersley, Samuel S.

    Munro, Patrick

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Nall, Sir Joseph

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Carver, Major William H.

    Harbord, Arthur

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hartland, George A.

    North, Edward. T.

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Nunn, William

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

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

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Clarke, Frank

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Pearson, William G.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

    Penny, Sir George

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hepworth, Joseph

    Petherick, M.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

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

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

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

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Holdsworth. Herbert

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

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Cooke, Douglas

    Hornby, Frank

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Copeland, Ida

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Pybus, Sir John

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Radford, E. A.

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

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

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Cross. R. H.

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

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

    Crossley, A. C.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Culverwell, Cyril Tom

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

    Rankin, Robert

    Dalkeith, Earl of

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

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Jamleson, Douglas

    Ray, Sir William

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

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Reed, Arthur C, (Exeter)

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Reld, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

    Remer, John R.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

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

    Renwick, Major Gustav A.

    Denville, Alfred

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Dickle, John P.

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Robinson, John Roland

    Drewe, Cedric

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Roes Taylor. Waiter (Woodbridge)

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

    Leckie, J. A.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Edge, Sir William

    Lees-Jones, John

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Edmondson, Major Sir James

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Lennox-Floyd, A. T.

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Lewis, Oswald

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Elmley, Viscount

    Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Fermoy, Lord

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Fleming, Edward Lascelles

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

    Scone, Lord

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Selley, Harry R.

    Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Mabane, William

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

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

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Shute, Colonel J. J.

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

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Gledhill, Gilbert

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    1890

    1891

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Wardlaw-Mllne, Sir John S.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dlne,C.)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Smithers, Sir Waldron

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Somerset, Thomas

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Templeton, William P.

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Soper, Richard

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

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

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

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

    Spent, William Patrick

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Tree, Ronald

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    Stevenson, James

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

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

    Captain Sir George Bowyer and Captain Austin Hudson.

    Original Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 342; Noes, 58.
    It being after Ten of the clock The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14, to put severally
    1894
    the Questions, That the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the several Classes of the Civil Estimates

    1895
    including Supplementary Estimates, and the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the Estimates for the Revenue Departments, the Navy, Army and Air, be granted for the Services defined in those Classes and Estimates.

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1934.

    CLASS I.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £1,309,821, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Civil Estimates, namely:

    £

    1. House of Lords Offices

    22,990

    2. House of Commons (including a Supplementary sum of £9,500)

    228,518

    3. Expenses under the Representation of the People Acts

    165,000

    4. Treasury and Subordinate Departments

    187,227

    5. Privy Council Office

    8,336

    6. Privy Seal Office

    1,698

    7. Charity Commission

    26,925

    8. Civil Service Commission

    16,044

    9. Exchequer and Audit Department

    93,360

    10. Friendly Societies' Deficiency

    5,624

    11. Government Actuary

    20,725

    12. Government Chemist

    48,506

    13. Government Hospitality

    4,000

    14. Import Duties Advisory Committee

    37,265

    15. The Mint

    125,000

    16. National Debt Office

    897

    17. National Savings Committee

    70,359

    18. Public Record Office

    24,837

    19. Public Works Loan Commission

    90

    20. Repayments to the Local Loans Fund

    39,000

    21. Royal Commissions, etc.

    19,840

    22. Miscellaneous Expenses

    533

    23. Secret Service

    100,000

    24. Scottish Office

    55,501

    25. Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund

    7,546

    £1,309,821"

    Question put, and agreed to. CLASS II.

    CLASS II.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £5,033,526, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for Expenditure in respect of
    1896
    the Services included in Class II of the Civil Estimates, namely:

    £

    1. Foreign Office

    109,248

    2. Diplomatic and Consular Services

    696,492

    3. League of Nations

    78,400

    4. Dominions Office

    36,618

    5. Dominion Services (including a Supplementary sum of £33,000)

    395,455

    6. Irish Free State Services

    1,145,224

    7. Oversea Settlement (including a Supplementary sum of £20,000)

    27,725

    8. Colonial Office

    99,519

    9. Colonial and Middle Eastern Services

    397,800

    10. Colonial Development Fund

    400,000

    11. India Services

    1,200,874

    12. Imperial War Graves Commission

    446,171

    £5,033,526"

    CLASS III.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £8,638,605, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of the Civil Estimates, namely:

    £

    1. Home Office

    314,573

    2. Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

    44,432

    3. Police, England and Wales (including a Supplementary sum of £227,000)

    5,428,865

    4. Prisons, England and Wales

    477,000

    5. Approved Schools, etc., England and Wales

    110,300

    6. Supreme Court of Judicature, etc.

    90

    7. County Courts

    90

    8. Land Registry

    90

    9. Public Trustee

    90

    10. Law Charges

    68,154

    11. Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

    8,508

    Scotland.

    12. Police (including a Supplementary sum of £30,500)

    874,477

    13. Prisons Department for Scotland

    71,839

    14. Approved Schools, etc.

    33,240

    15. Scottish Land Court

    5,095

    16. Law Charges and Courts of Law

    29,257

    17. Register House, Edinburgh

    90

    Ireland.

    18. Northern Ireland Services

    2,942

    19. Supreme Court of Judicature, etc., Northern Ireland

    2,365

    20. Land Purchase Commission, Northern Ireland

    1,167,108

    £8,638,605"

    CLASS IV.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £29,404,860, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Civil Estimates, namely:

    £

    1. Board of Education (including a Supplementary sum of £1,506,000)

    28,110,018

    2. British Museum (including a Supplementary sum of £42,911)

    137,048

    3. British Museum (Natural History)

    61,133

    4. Imperial War Museum

    7,295

    5. London Museum

    3,725

    6. National Gallery

    16,034

    7. National Portrait Gallery

    5,285

    8. Wallace Collection

    6,751

    9. Scientific Investigation, etc

    107,573

    10. Universities and Colleges, Great Britain

    940,000

    12. National Galleries, Scotland

    5,916

    13. National Library, Scotland

    1,109

    14. National Maritime Museum

    2,973

    £29,404,860"

    CLASS V.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £39,598,819, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Civil Estimates, namely:

    £

    2. Board of Control

    81,747

    3. Registrar General's Office

    65,322

    4. National Insurance Audit Department

    109,045

    5. Friendly Societies Registry

    30,856

    6. Old Age Pensions

    26,822,000

    7. Window's Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions

    7,750,000

    9. Grants in respect of Employment Schemes

    2,800,000

    Scotland.

    10. Department of Health (including a Supplementary sum of £36,700)

    1,919,120

    11. General Board of Control

    10,577

    12. Registrar General's Office

    10,152

    £39,598,819"

    CLASS VI.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £9,125,812, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Civil Estimates, namely:

    £

    1. Board of Trade

    145,706

    2. Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

    90

    3. Mercantile Marine Services

    239,723

    4. Department of Overseas Trade

    250,580

    5. Export Credits

    90

    6. Mines Department of the Board of Trade

    137,200

    7. Office of Commissioners of Crown Lands

    21,300

    8. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (including a Supplementary sum of £11,930)

    1,186,064

    9. Beet Sugar Subsidy, Great Britain

    3,220,000

    10. Surveys of Great Britain

    88,835

    11. Forestry Commission

    300,000

    12. Ministry of Transport

    41,957

    13. Development Fund

    320,000

    14. Development Grants

    750,000

    15. Department of Scientific and Industrial Research

    406,290

    16. State Management Districts

    90

    18. Fishery Board for Scotland (including a Supplementary sum of £43,000)

    144,387

    19. Milk (England and Wales and Northern Ireland)

    1,556,500

    20. Milk (Scotland)

    317,000

    £9,125,812"

    CLASS VII.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £3,394,424, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1935, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Civil Estimates, namely:

    £

    1. Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain (Supplementary sum)

    10

    2. Houses of Parliament Buildings

    93,720

    5. Osborne

    8,740

    6. Office of Works and Public Buildings

    396,570

    7A. Haig Memorial

    10,700

    8. Public Buildings, Overseas

    64,290

    9. Royal Palaces

    54,015

    10. Revenue Buildings

    891,275

    11. Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

    131,485

    12. Rates on Government Property

    975,246

    13. Stationery and Printing

    733,018

    14. Peterhead Harbour

    15,000

    15. Works and Buildings in Ireland

    20,355

    £3,394,424"

    CLASS VIII.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £28,646,855, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII of the Civil Estimates, namely:

    £

    1. Merchant Seamen's War Pensions

    201,721

    2. Ministry of Pensions

    26,600,000

    3. Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, etc.

    873,055

    4. Superannuation and Retired Allowances

    972,079

    £28,646,855"

    CLASS IX.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £27,954,155, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IX of the Civil Estimates, namely:

    £

    1. Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, England and Wales

    24,225,000

    £

    2. Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, Scotland

    2,729,155

    £27,954,155

    REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1934.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £47,773,065, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments, namely:

    £

    1. Customs and Excise

    3,535,100

    2. Inland Revenue

    4,774,965

    3. Post Office

    39,463,000

    £47,773,065"

    NAVY ESTIMATES, 1934.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £38,474,300, Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, namely:

    £

    3. Medical Establishments and Services

    366,200

    4. Fleet Air Arm

    1,338,000

    5. Educational Services

    195,800

    6. Scientific Services

    461,500

    7. Royal Naval Reserves

    348,000

    8. Section 1. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., Personnel

    6,426,000

    Section 2. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., Materiel

    4,844,000

    Section 3. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., Contract Work

    9,407,500

    9. Naval Armaments

    4,053,200

    11. Miscellaneous Effective Services

    603,300

    12. Admiralty Office

    1,089,000

    13. Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine) Officers

    3,190,000

    14. Non-Effective Servicess (Naval and Marine) Men

    5,044,000

    15. Civil Superannuation, Compensation Allowances and Gratuities

    1,107,800

    £38,474,300"

    Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 364; Noes, 42.

    Division No. 349.]

    AYES

    [10.12 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Goff, Sir Park

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Clarke, Frank

    Goldle, Noel B.

    Albery, Irving James

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

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

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Gower, Sir Robert

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

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Graves, Marjorie

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

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

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Greene, William P. C.

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Cooke, Douglas

    Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

    Balllie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Copeland, Ida

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Grimston, R. V.

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

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

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

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

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Balniel, Lord

    Cross, R. H.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Crossley, A. C.

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

    Culverwell, Cyril Tom

    Hales, Harold K.

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Hammersley, Samuel S.

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

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

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Belt, Sir Alfred L.

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Bernays, Robert

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Harbord, Arthur

    Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

    Denville, Alfred

    Hartland, George A.

    Blaker, Sir Reginald

    Dickle, John P.

    Harvey, George (Lembeth, Kenningt'n)

    Bllndell, James

    Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Bossom, A. C.

    Drewe, Cedric

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Boulton, W. W.

    Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A

    Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Boyce, H. Leslie

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

    Hepworth, Joseph

    Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

    Eastwood. John Francis

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Bracken, Brendan

    Edge, Sir William

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

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

    Edmondson, Major Sir James

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Hornby, Frank

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Elmley, Viscount

    Horsbrugh, Florence

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

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

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

    Burnett, John George

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

    Fermoy, Lord

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Fleming, Edward Lascelles

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Caine. G. R. Hell-

    Fox. Sir Gifford

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Campbell. Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

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

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

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

    Carver, Major William H.

    Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Cayzor, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

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

    Joel, Dudley J. Barneto

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Gledhill, Gilbert

    Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Glossop, C. W. H.

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

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

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Patrick, Colln M.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Pearson, William G.

    Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine,C.)

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Penny, Sir George

    Smithers, Sir Waldron

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Somerset, Thomas

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Petherick, M.

    Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Leckie, J. A.

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

    Soper, Richard

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Lees-Jones, John

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

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Spans, William Patrick

    Lewis, Oswald

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Pybus, Sir John

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Radford, E. A.

    Stevenson, James

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

    Liewellin, Major John J.

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

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

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

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

    Ramabotham, Herwald

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Rankin, Robert

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Mabane, William

    Ray. Sir William

    Summersby, Charles H.

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

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Templeton, William P.

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

    Ramer, John R.

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Renwick, Major Gustav A.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

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

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Robinson, John Roland

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

    Tree, Ronald

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Magnay, Thomas

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Maitland, Adam

    Ruggies-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Makins, Brigadler-General Ernest

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

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

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

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

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

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Russell, Hamer Field (Shef'ld, B'tside)

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

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

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Meller, Sir Richard James

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

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

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    moreing. Adrian C.

    Savory, Samuel Servington

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

    Scone, Lord

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Munro, Patrick

    Salley, Harry R.

    Willson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Nall, Sir Joseph

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge

    Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    North, Edward T.

    Shute, Colonel J. J.

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Nunn, William

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Commander Southby and Dr. Morris-Jones.

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot

    Banfield, John William

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Batey, Joseph

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

    Maxton, James

    Buchanan, George

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Milner, Major James

    Cape, Thomas

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Cove, William G.

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

    Paling, Wilfred

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Curry, A. C.

    Janner, Barnett

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Daggar, George

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Device, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Kirkwood, David

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Bobble, William

    Lawson, John James

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Edwards, Charles

    Leonard, William

    White, Henry Graham

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Lunn, William

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Wilmot, John

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    McGovern, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Division No. 350.]

    AYES

    [10.30 p.m.

    Acland Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Denville, Alfred

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Albery, Irving James

    Dickie, John P.

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

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

    Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

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

    Drewe, Cedric

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Drummond Woltf, H. M. C.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J,

    Duckworth. George A. V,

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

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

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

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

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

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Bantle, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Eastwood, John Francis

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

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Edge, Sir William

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Edmondson, Major Sir James

    Janner, Barnett

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Beiniel, Lord

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Elmley, Viscount

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

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

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

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Belt, Sir Alfred L.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    Fleming, Edward Lascelles

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Berneys, Robert

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Leckie, J. A.

    Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Blaker, Sir Reginald

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Lees-Jones, John

    Blindell, James

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Lewis. Oswald

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Liddell, Walter S.

    Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

    Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Liewellin, Major John J.

    Bracken, Brendan

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

    Liewellyn-Jones, Frederick

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

    Gledhill, Gilbert

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Glossop, C. W. H.

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

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Goff, Sir Park

    Loder, Captain.J. de Vere

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Goldie, Noel B.

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

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

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Mebane, William

    Buchan Hepburn, P. G. T.

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

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

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Burnett, John George

    Graves, Marjorie

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

    Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

    Greaves.Lord, Sir Waiter

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Greene. William P. C.

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Cado an. Hon. Edward

    Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

    Mc Ewen, Captain J. H. F.

    Caine, G. R. Hall-

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswelf (Brmly)

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

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Campbell-Johnston. Malcolm

    Grlmston, R. V.

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Carver, Major William H.

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

    Magnay, Thomas

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Maitland, Adam

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Makin., Brigadler General Ernest

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Malialieu, Edward Lancelot

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

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

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

    Hales, Harold K.

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

    Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Marsden. Commander Arthur

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Hammersiey. Samuel S.

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Hanbury, Cecil

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

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Mailer, Sir Richard James

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Harbord, Arthur

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Harris, Sir Percy

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

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Hartland, George A.

    Mitcheson, G. G.

    Cooke, Douglas

    Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n)

    M onsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Copeland, Ida

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastie)

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Munro, Patrick

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Heligers, Captain F. F. A.

    Nall, Sir Joseph

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

    Henderson. Sir Vivian L (Chelmsford)

    Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald

    Cross, R. H.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Crossley. A. C.

    Hepworth, Joseph

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    North, Edward T.

    Cuiverwell, Cyril Tom

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Nunn, William

    Curry, A. C.

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Dalkelth. Earl of

    Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O..J. (Aston)

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

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

    Hornby, Frank

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Howard, Tom Fo te

    1902

    1903

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Pearson. William G.

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Templeton, William P.

    Penny, Sir George

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    Petherick, M.

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

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

    Savery, Samuel Servington

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

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Scone, Lord

    Todd, A. L. S. (KIngswinford)

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

    Selley, Harry R.

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Tree, Ronald

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Pybus, Sir John

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Radford, E. A.

    Shute, Colonel J. J.

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

    Slmmonds, Oliver Edwin

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

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Walisend)

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

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Wardiaw-Miline, Sir John S.

    Ramsbotham, Herwaid

    Smith, Sir. J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Ramadan, Sir Eugene

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    A. G. Wayland, Sir William A.

    Rankin, Robert

    Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine,C.)

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Ray, Sir William

    Smithers, Sir Waldron

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Rea, Waiter Russell

    Somerset, Thomas

    White, Henry Graham

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Remer, John R.

    Soper, Richard

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Renwick, Major Gustav A.

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Wills. Wllfrid D.

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecciesall)

    Spens, William Patrick

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

    Robinson, John Roland

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

    Stevenson, James

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Strickland, Captain W. F,

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Commander Southby and Dr. Morris-Jones.

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tside)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Summersby, Charles H.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Grlffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Maxton, James

    Banfleld, John William

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Milner, Major James

    Batey, Joseph

    Hail, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Paling, Wilfred

    Buchanan, George

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Cape, Thomas

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Cove, William G.

    Kirkwood, David

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Lawson, John James

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Daggar, George

    Leonard, William

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Logan. David Gilbert

    Williams, Edward John (Omore)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lunn, William

    Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)

    Dobble, William

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ines)

    Wilmot, John

    Edwards, Charles

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Gardner, Benjamin Waiter

    McGovern, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Mr. D. Graham and Mr. Groves.

    ARMY ESTIMATES, 1934.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £17,689,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services (including Ordnance Factories), namely:—

    £

    2. Territorial Army and Reserve Forces

    4,724,000

    3. Medical Services

    910,000

    4. Educational Establishments

    844,000

    5. Quartering and Movements

    1,298,000

    £

    6. Supplies, Road Transport, and Temounts

    3,895,000

    7. Clothing

    1,025,000

    8. General Stores

    1,181,000

    9. Warlike Stores

    3,004,000

    12. War Office

    808,000

    Ordnance Factories

    100

    £17,689,100"

    Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 354; Noes, 41.

    Division No. 351.]

    AYES

    [10.42 p.m

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.)

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

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

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

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Albery, Irving James

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Aske, Sir Robert William

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

    Edge, Sir William

    Janner, Barnett

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Edmondson, Major Sir James

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Bantle, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

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

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Elmley, Viscount

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Belniel, Lord

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Lamb. Sir Joseph Quinton

    Barrle, Sir Charles Coupar

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Fermoy, Lord

    Leckie, J. A.

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

    Fleming, Edward Lascelles

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Belt, Sir Alfred L.

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Lees-Jones, John

    Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Berneys, Robert

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Lewis, Oswald

    Blaker, Sir Reginald

    Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

    Liddell, Walter S.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Boulton, W. W.

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunilffe-

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Liewellin, Major John J.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Liewellyn-Jones, Frederick

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

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

    Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

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

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Bracken, Brendan

    Gledhill, Gilbert

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

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

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Goff, Sir Park

    Mebane, William

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Goldie, Noel B.

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

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

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

    Gower, Sir Robert

    McCorguodale, M, S.

    Browne, Captain A. C.

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

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Buchan Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Granville, Edgar

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Burnett, John George

    Graves, Marjorie

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

    Greaves.Lord, Sir Walter

    McLean, Dr W. H. (Tradeston)

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Greene, William P. C.

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Cadoan. Hon. Edward

    Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

    Magnay, Thomas

    Caine, G. R. Hall-

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Maitland, Adam

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

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

    Makins, Brigadler-General Ernest

    Campbell-Johnston. Malcolm

    Grimston, R. V.

    Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

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

    Carver, Major William H.

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

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

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

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

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Meller, Sir Richard James

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Hales, Harold K.

    Mils, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

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

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Hammersley. Samuel S.

    Mitcheson, G. G.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Harbord, Arthur

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Munro, Patrick

    Cooke, Douglas

    Hartland, George A.

    Nall, Sir Joseph

    Copeland, Ida

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    North, Edward T.

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Nunn, William

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

    Henderson. Sir Vivian L (Chelmsford)

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Cross, R. H.

    Hepworth, Joseph

    O'Neil, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Crossley. A. C.

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Culverwell, Cyril Tom

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Curry, A. C.

    Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O..J. (Aston)

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Dalkeith. Earl of

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Pearson, William G.

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Hornby, Frank

    Perkins, Waiter R. D.

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

    Horsbrugh, Florence

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

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Howard, Tom Forrest

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

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Howitt. Dr. Alfred B.

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

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

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

    Denville, Alfred

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Dickie, John P.

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Pownall, Slr Asshetoo

    Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Drewe, Cedric

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Pybus, Sir John

    Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Radford, E. A.

    Duckworth, George A. V.

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

    Raikes. Henry V. A. M.

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Iveagh, Countess of

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

    Duggan. Hubert John

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

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

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

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Ray, Sir William

    Rea, Walter Russell

    1906

    1907

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

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

    Reld, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Remer, John R.

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Tree, Ronald

    Renwick, Major Gustav A.

    Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dlne,C.)

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Smithers, Sir Waldron

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Robinson, John Roland

    Somerset, Thomas

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

    Ropner, Colonel L

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

    Soper, Richard

    Wardlaw-Mline, Sir John S.

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Spens, William Patrick

    White, Henry Graham

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tside)

    Stevenson, James

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

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

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Scone, Lord

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    Selley, Harry R.

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Templeton, William P.

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Shute, Colonel J. J.

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Sir George Penny and Mr. Blindell.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Maxton, James

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Milner, Major James

    Banfield, John William

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

    Paling, Wilfred

    Batey, Joseph

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Buchanan. George

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Cape, Thomas

    Kirkwood, David

    Smith. Tom (Normanton)

    Cove, William G.

    Lawson, John James

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Leonard, William

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Dagger, George

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Lunn, William

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Wilmot. John

    Debbie, William

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Edwards, Charles

    McGovern, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Mr. D. Graham and Mr. Groves.

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    AIR ESTIMATES, 1934.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £3,943,000, he granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Services, namely:—

    £

    2. Quartering, Stores (except Technical), Supplies, and Transportation

    1,490,000

    5. Medical Services

    295,000

    6. Technical Training and Educational Services

    373,000

    £

    7. Auxiliary and Reserve Forces

    394,000

    9. Meteorological and Miscellaneous Effective Services

    341,000

    10. Air Ministry

    657,000

    11. Half-Pay, Pensions, and other Non-Effective Services

    393,000

    £3,943,000"

    Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 363; Noes, 42.

    Division No. 352.]

    AYES

    [10.55 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

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

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

    Albery, Irving James

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Belt, Sir Alfred L.

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

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

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

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Balniel, Lord

    Bernays, Robert

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

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

    Anstruther-Gray, W.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Braker, Sir Reginald

    Asks, Sir Robert William

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

    Blindell, James

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

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Boutton, W. W.

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

    Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

    Bracken, Brendan

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

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

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

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

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Gledhill, Gilbert

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

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

    Goldie, Noel B.

    Mabane, William

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

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

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

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

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

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Granville, Edgar

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Burnett, John George

    Graves, Marjorie

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

    Greases-Lord, Sir Walter

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Butler, Richard Austen

    Greene, William P. C.

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Caine, G. R. Hall-

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

    Magnay, Thomas

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Grimston, R. V.

    Maitland, Adam

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

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

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Carver, Major William H.

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

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

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Martin, Thomas B.

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

    Hales, Harold K.

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

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Mayhew, Lieut.- Colonel John

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Hammersley, Samuel S.

    Meller, Sir Richard James

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hanley, Dennis A.

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

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Mitcheson, G. G.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Harbord, Arthur

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Cooke, Douglas

    Hartland, George A.

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

    Copeland, Ida

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Munro, Patrick

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Nall, Sir Joseph

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald

    Crookshank, Col. C.de Windt (Bootle)

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

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

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    North, Edward T.

    Cross, R. H.

    Hepworth, Joseph

    Nunn, William

    Crossley, A. C.

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Culverwell, Cyril Tom

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Curry, A, C.

    Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Dalkelth, Earl of

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Hornby, Frank

    Patrick, Colin M.

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

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Pearson, William G.

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Penny, Sir George

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

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

    Petherick. M.

    Denville, Alfred

    Hudson. Robert Spear (Southport)

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Dickie, John P.

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

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

    Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Drewe, Cedric

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

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

    Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

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

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Pybus, Sir John

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

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Radford, E. A.

    Eastwood, John Francis

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

    Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

    Edge, Sir William

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Edmondson, Major Sir James

    Janner, Barnett

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

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Joel, Dudley J. Barneto

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Eillston, Captain George Sampson

    Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

    Ray, Sir William

    Elmley, Viscount

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

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Renwick, Major Gustav A.

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Fermoy, Lord

    Leckie,J. A.

    Robinson, John Roland

    Fleming, Edward Lascelles

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Lees-Jones, John

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Lewis, Oswald

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    1910

    1911

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Soper, Richard

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

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

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Spens, William Patrick

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Stevenson, James

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Scone, Lord

    Strauss, Edward A.

    White, Henry Graham

    Selley, Harry R.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Shute, Colonel J. J.

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Sutcliffe, Harold

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

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

    Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dlne,C.)

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

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Smithers, Sir Waldron

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Somerset, Thomas

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Tree, Ronald

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Tufnell, Lieut.-commander R. L.

    Captain Sir George Bowyer and Commander Southby.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Maxton, James

    Sanfield, John William

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Milner, Major James

    Raley, Joseph

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Paling, Wilfred

    Buchanan, George

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Cape, Thomas

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Cove, William G.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Kirkwood, David

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Daggar, George

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Leonard, William

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)

    Dobble, William

    Lunn, William

    Wilmot, John

    Edwards, Charles

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    McGovern, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. D. Graham.

    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
    Resolved,
    "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 193:5, the Sum of £320,149,442 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Captain Margesson.]
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.

    CHURCH OF ENGLAND ASSEMBLY (POWERS) ACT, 1919.
    Resolved,
    "That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Banns of Marriage Measure, 1934, he presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent."
    Resolved,
    "That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Cathedrals (Amendment) Measure, 1934, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent."—[Mr. Denman.]
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

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

  NEWSPAPER COMPETITIONS.
  NEWSPAPER COMPETITIONS.
  TRAFFIC-LIGHT REGULATIONS.
  TRAFFIC-LIGHT REGULATIONS.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  IRISH FREE STATE LABOURERS.
  IRISH FREE STATE LABOURERS.
  TRAINEES (INJURIES, Ex GRATIA PAYMENTS).
  TRAINEES (INJURIES, Ex GRATIA PAYMENTS).
  TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS (CLAIM DISALLOWED, DUNDEE).
  TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS (CLAIM DISALLOWED, DUNDEE).
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  HYDE PARK (REFRESHMENT FACILITIES).
  HYDE PARK (REFRESHMENT FACILITIES).
  ROYAL NAVY (INTERPRETERS).
  ROYAL NAVY (INTERPRETERS).
  CIVIL SERVICE SALARIES (PARTIAL RESTORATION).
  CIVIL SERVICE SALARIES (PARTIAL RESTORATION).
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (INTEREST).
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (INTEREST).
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock. The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
VISCOUNT WAKEFIELD.
Charles Cheers, Baron Wakefield, C.B.E., having been created Viscount Wakefield of Hythe in the County of Kent—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD ALNESS.
The Right Honourable Robert Munro (commonly called Lord Alness) late Lord Justice Clerk and President of the Second Division of the Court of Session, having been created Baron Alness of Alness in the County of Ross and Cromarty—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
CATTLE INDUSTRY (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a; and to be printed.
WHALING INDUSTRY (REGULATION) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
SHOPS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, with the Lords Amendments to the Commons Amendments and the Lords consequential Amendments to the Bill, agreed to.
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES SCHEME (PENICUIK WATER) CONFIRMATION BILL.
Considered on Report (according to Order).

MATRIMONIAL CASES.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL rose to ask His Majesty's Government what steps they have taken to implement the Lord Chancellor's statement in this House
1056
that "The Home Secretary is prepared to have examined the question whether particular days and hours can be assigned for the hearing of husband and wife cases, and the question whether it is possible to extend and develop the present methods adopted at many courts of subjecting applications for separation orders to a preliminary informal investigation "; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, there is a great deal of business down on the Order Paper, and I am extremely glad to be able to say that I shall detain the House for only a moment. To explain the exact nature of the Question, I would ask your permission to recapitulate a little past history. There is complete agreement amongst all those acquainted with the business of police courts that the treatment they accord to matrimonial cases is at the present moment extremely unsatisfactory. As a result of that general consensus of opinion, two months ago I introduced a measure which I hoped would do something to improve the situation. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, answering on that occasion on behalf of the Government, was good enough to say that the Home Office would seriously consider at least two of the suggestions which were raised in the course of the debate on my measure. My Question to-day is simply to ask His Majesty's Government what steps have been taken, in accordance with the noble and learned Viscount's remarks on that occasion, in the first place to enquire into the possibility of arranging that matrimonial cases should be heard separately from the ordinary criminal cases that come before the magistrates, and in the second place to enquire whether it was, or was not, possible to subject all matrimonial cases to "a preliminary informal investigation," to use the words of the noble and learned Viscount, before they come before the court.
In the course of his speech the noble and learned Viscount met the suggestions of those who are thoroughly dissatisfied with present conditions generally and in a manner that went far to accord with their wishes, but at the same time there are two points which he did not mention and which I should like to stress for a moment. These are two question of procedure in the police court, which in our opinion would do much to remedy the present situation. The first is that some

1057
serious consideration should be given to the question of whether or not some restriction might be imposed, at the discretion of the magistrates, on those reporters who are present, in the manner at present adopted in the Divorce Court. The second question is whether the Home Office could not consider, concurrently with other matters which will come before it for consideration, whether the general public could not be excluded from the hearing of these cases, in which matters of a very personal and private nature must necessarily come up. This, of course, is a procedure adopted at present in the children's courts.
I have an appeal to make to the noble and learned Viscount who is answering on behalf of the Government, and I should like to associate myself in this appeal with three of the speakers who took part in the debate last May. They were the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, an ex-Lord Chief Justice of this country, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, whose authority on questions of divorce is, of course, unchallenged, all of whom begged the Government to accord to any Committee that it might be proposed to set up the widest terms of reference. I do appeal very definitely to the Government that any Committee that is established should be allowed to consider the two questions to which I have just referred, as well as those for which we already have an absolutely substantial guarantee. In case His Majesty's Government are not able to meet this proposal, I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount whether he has thought of other methods of inquiry, or whether he intends to introduce any legislation in this. House or elsewhere to deal with the matter. All those who are in any way concerned with the treatment of matrimonial cases in our police courts are convinced that these are matters which deserve very serious consideration, and that, if some reform on lines which are no departure from our existing legal system could be adopted, they would alleviate a great deal of the completely unnecessary hardship and suffering which are incurred owing to our present method of procedure. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, the Government are indebted to the noble Earl for putting
1058
this Question on the Paper. He has taken a very great interest in the subject, and it is not too much to say that, thanks to his efforts, public attention has been drawn to reforms, some of which at any rate, in the opinion of those qualified to judge, are long overdue. The Government fully recognise the importance of enabling courts of summary jurisdiction to make proper arrangements for a preliminary and informal investigation of applications for separation orders by husband and wife with a view to bringing about reconciliation in all cases where this is practicable and desirable. Careful examination has been given to the question of the best method of inquiry into the subject with a view to getting practical steps taken as early as possible to improve the existing position, which cannot be said to be entirely satisfactory.
As I stated on May 15, in replying to the noble Lord's Bill on the Motion for Second Reading, the conciliation work in courts may be undertaken, and is undertaken in many courts, by probation officers, and it is generally recognised that, where there is a probation officer with the time and ability to deal with conciliation problems, he is usually the most suitable person to undertake this duty. But your Lordships will readily recognise that the system of establishing probation officers is not one which is wholly free from difficulty. It may well be in a busy Metropolitan court that the services of one probation officer are hardly sufficient to deal with all the cases which it may be desired to set before him. On the other hand, in a remote country court there may be only one or two or three cases in the course of a month, and therefore there is not enough work in the country courts, unless you have a difficult system of grouping the services of a probation officer for several areas. An inquiry therefore into the arrangements that ought to be made in conciliation work must take account of the position of probation officers. Many probation officers are fully occupied with their probation duties, and no progress in those cases would be made by simply loading new duties on to officers who already have as much work as they can carry out effectively.
Moreover, conciliation work and probation work do not comprise the whole of

1059
the cases which fall upon such officers. In addition to probation work proper and to conciliation work, there are other services of a social character which are becoming increasingly important if courts of summary jurisdiction are to function to the best advantage. Frequently inquiries are desirable into the circumstances of an offender before a court decides whether he should be dealt with by probation or by some other method. Often, again, it is desirable that when a young offender has been fined and given time to pay he should be placed under supervision until the fine is paid, in accordance with the provision of Section 1 of the Criminal Administration Act, 1914. Very little use has hitherto been made of this provision, but where the method of supervision is employed the probation officer is usually the person to whom the duty is given. A suggestion has also been made in the Report which has just been published—I think it was published on Monday or yesterday—of the Departmental Committee on imprisonment in default of payment of fines and of other sums of money, that it would frequently be advantageous to the court to have the services of a social investigator to enquire into the circumstances of persons who fail to pay sums of money, in cases where the information before the court is insufficient to enable them to determine how far the default is due to poverty rather than to wilful refusal or culpable neglect. The Committee point out that in many of the cases where men are summoned for arrears under maintenance or affiliation orders, information as to the defaulter's earnings is frequently vague, scanty, and conflicting, and the court has no power to supplement by its own inquiries such information as may be given to the parties.
There is the further question whether, in view of the very extensive use which is now made of the Probation Act, adequate arrangements are made at all courts for the supervision of offenders who are placed on probation. The last inquiry into the probation system was made as far back as 1902 by a Departmental Committee on the training, appointment and payment of probation officers. As a result of the recommendations of this Committee, various steps were taken which led to improvements in the probation service, but the steps hitherto taken have only been partially
1060
effective. The success of probation as a system of dealing with offenders depends largely on the qualifications of the persons appointed as probation officers and on the time and attention they can give to individual cases. Questions concerning the appropriate remuneration of probation officers, regarding the training of suitable persons, and the appointment of a sufficient number of officers to enable the work to be carried out at all courts in a thorough and efficient manner deserve careful attention and review.
With regard to the two questions which the noble Lord has been good enough to address to me specifically, the first was as to reports of proceedings. I agree with him that it is most important that that question should receive the most careful consideration. I must say that generally the Press may be trusted to exercise a very proper discretion as to what to report. But no doubt there are cases from time to time that find their way into the newspapers which are unfortunate, and which perhaps, had there been a little more time for consideration, the Press would not have published. Then the noble Earl raised the question of the exclusion of the public. That is also a matter that wants very careful consideration. Our English system, which has worked extremely well for many generations, believes in publicity. Publicity, it has often been said, is the soul of justice. Therefore, although there may be some cases where the court has power, and ought to have power, to clear the court, these cases must be very carefully determined before any general enactment is made regarding the clearing of the court for all cases.
In view of these considerations my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has come to the conclusion that if progress is to be made the problem of conciliation in matrimonial cases must be considered in relation to the other social services connected with the administration of justice by courts of summary jurisdiction, and that an inquiry ought to be directed to the general question of providing the courts with adequate means of carrying out the whole of these social services. He accordingly proposes to appoint a Departmental Committee with the following terms of reference:
"To enquire into the social services connected with the administration of justice

1061
in courts of summary jurisdiction, including the supervision of persons released on probation and in suitable cases of persons ordered to pay fines; the application of conciliation methods to matrimonial disputes; and the making of social investigations on behalf of the court for this and other work falling or likely to fall upon probation officers; and to report on the above questions and as to what changes are required in the existing organisation of probation services and otherwise."
My right honourable friend also proposes that this Committee should be asked as part of their inquiry to consider what arrangements should be made for hearing matrimonial cases separately from ordinary charges in the police courts. As I said at the beginning, so I shall conclude by saying, I am indebted to my noble friend for asking the Question. I hope I have partially satisfied his ambition, though I am afraid I shall never be able wholly to satisfy his ambition. I would only add that there are no Papers to be laid, and I hope the noble Earl will be satisfied with the terms of reference.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has raised a very important question and, if I may respectfully say so, has raised it with great appreciation and much moderation. He raised it in May. Here we are on the verge of August, and we are where we were, except that there is going to be an inquiry of a fairly limited scope. It would be more satisfactory, I think, if the inquiry could be entered upon and brought to a practical close, say, before Parliament reassembles. These questions really are questions of policy. Large numbers of people know all about them. The Home Office and other Departments have officers who are well informed with regard to the matter, and I believe that a very few sittings of a little body of competent persons would put the questions which the noble Earl has brought to the attention of the House in the way of being settled in the public interest.
The present state of things is very unsatisfactory. It is not an advantageous thing that, if a man and his wife fall out or a woman and her husband fall out, there is then the possibility of the lower class of journalists, if the people are well enough known, exploiting their differences and increasing them. There ought to be some means of dealing with that matter. I am not myself perhaps so sanguine as the noble Earl may be, be-
1062
cause a long time ago I introduced a very little Bill in this House and your Lordships passed it, dealing with the publication of evidence in cases of petitions for nullity of marriage—a perfectly simple matter about which there was no division of opinion. If that Bill passes into law in the course of the next three or four months those who favour it will be glad that it should be so, but it is not necessary even in these crowded times that there should be that amount of delay. With regard to the question of publicity, there are of course safeguards against publicity now. There used to be power in a Judge, if a witness was embarrassed, to clear the court. There is power at the present time to exclude persons in certain classes of cases under the Criminal Law. What is needed is attention to the matter, and I sincerely hope that the noble Earl will press on with his proposals so that some legislation in a concrete form, if legislation is necessary, may come before Parliament and be brought into effect.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I wish in the first place to thank the noble and learned Viscount for his very accommodating answer to the Question which I have asked this afternoon, and to say that we are very grateful to the Government for conceding so much. We are grateful that they are willing to appoint a Departmental Committee and that the Committee will be able to enquire into at least the two important matters which the noble and learned Viscount mentioned in his speech. I should like to associate myself with the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken in requesting the Government to appoint this Committee as soon as may be, in order that its recommendations may have their attention at the earliest possible opportunity.
At the same time I must confess—I think in common with the noble Lord who has just spoken and with those people whom I mentioned as taking part in the debate in May—disappointment that the Government have not been able to do anything at all in the matter either of considering the restriction of publicity or of excluding the public during the hearing of these cases. All I wish to say on that point at the moment is that we still hope very anxiously that the Government may reconsider this question

1063
and possibly will be willing to appoint a committee of inquiry or even to legislate themselves in a matter of such importance. It is obviously much more difficult for private members of either House of Parliament to produce legislative proposals which are likely to succeed, and for that reason, if for no other, we are most anxious that the Government may reconsider their present rather frigid attitude towards the somewhat more advanced, but I think extremely reasonable, proposals I have made. In view of the answer given by the noble and learned Viscount, I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

IRISH FREE STATE.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT had the following Notice on the Paper—To ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to the statements made by Mr. de Valera in the Dail on the 8th, 13th and 20th of June to the effect that his people were determined not to observe the Treaty or any of their obligations to the British Government; that his Government, by their general economic policy, were getting the country into a position of strength for the time when the final severance of the connection with the British Government will take place, as he was sure it would take place; and that his Government proposed with all possible speed to get rid of the post of Governor-General and all those functions carried on by what they regard as an unnecessary official; and whether, in view of the manifest intention of Mr. de Valera and his Government to secede from Great Britain and establish a Republic in Southern Ireland at the earliest possible date, and of the widespread anxiety amongst South Irish born loyalists in regard to their future, His Majesty's Government will give an assurance that they will take adequate steps to safeguard the constitutional status and the legitimate rights of all South Irish born loyal subjects of the King; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of my Motion is to obtain from His Majesty's Government an assurance which will allay the deep anxiety that is felt by Southern Irish Unionists as to
1064
their future. The recent speeches which have been made by Mr. de Valera in the Irish Dail show that he and his Government are determined to repudiate the Treaty of 1921 and all other solemn engagements entered into by the Free State with Great Britain and to secede from the Empire on the earliest possible occasion. May I in a very few words recall the main conditions on which the Free State was established, which were accepted by the Free State and which were embodied in legislation both in the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the Parliament of the Free State? Those conditions were well stated by Sir Austen (then Mr.) Chamberlain in another place on the Second Reading of the Irish Free State Bill on February 22, 1922. Then, after referring to the position of almost absolute liberty which was offered to Southern Ireland, he used these words:
"We place upon this offer only these limitations, that Ireland shall remain within this Empire, and accept citizenship; that she shall acknowledge allegiance to the King, and that she shall give us those securities which are vital to our national existence and to the maintenance of the communications of the Empire."
That speech will be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 150.
I would ask your Lordships to consider for a very few moments how those conditions have been carried out. Let me quote, at no length I hope, some of the numerous recent utterances of Mr. de Valera in the Dail. On May 24 of this year he said:
"If we want a Republic we are entitled to have it. The majority of our people want a Republic."
On June 8 last, referring to the Treaty of 1921 and other Agreements with the British Government, he said:
"These Treaties and contractual obligations are standing in the way of a proper settlement."
We know what in his view a proper settlement means. He went on:
"We say quite definitely that our people will not keep them—"
that is, the Treaties and contractual obligations. Again, on June 20, he declared that the intention of his Government was to abolish His Majesty's representative in Southern Ireland, whom he called "that unnecessary official the Governor-General," with all possible speed. And on July 13—I think

1065
this is the last quotation I need trouble your Lordships with—he referred to their "general economic policy of getting the country into a position of strength" for the time when the final severance from Great Britain would take place, as he was sure it would take place.
But Mr. de Valera has not confined himself to mere words. He has made elaborate preparations with a view to severing the link with Great Britain and establishing a Southern Ireland Republic. Let me remind your Lordships of some of the things he has done. In the first place, he has abolished the Oath of Allegiance in direct violation of one of the conditions laid down by Sir Austen Chamberlain. In the second place he has swept away the appeal to Privy Council which was embodied in the Treaty; and then, further, the Governor-General, the King's representative, is destined for extinction. Already—and this is yet another step towards his ultimate object—legislation has been passed in the Dail for abolishing the Free State Senate, and, although that Bill was rejected by the Senate, it will come into operation automatically next March. Fifthly, and lastly for the moment, the annuities which were payable by Free State tenants—they were a just debt, as we all know, to Great Britain for the moneys which were advanced by Great Britain to enable the tenants to purchase their holdings—have been withheld from Great Britain and have been appropriated by the Free State, I suppose as part of his announced policy to get the country into a position of strength with a view to a final severance.
I want to refer for a moment to a somewhat remarkable letter which appears in to-day's Times from Mr. Frank MacDermot, who is a well known Member of the Dublin Dail and a man of some independence. Be says this:
"The present Irish Government can hardly avoid asking at the next General Election for a mandate to declare a Republic unless something happens in the meantime."
Mr. MacDermot appears to suggest that the best way of avoiding a Republic is to give the Free State complete power to declare a Republic. It seems a somewhat strange way of avoiding secession to say "Secede if you like." However, one cannot quite follow all the workings of
1066
the inner mind of some of the gentlemen in Ireland.
In that state of things is it any wonder, I ask your Lordships with all sincerity, that the Irish loyalists feel deep anxiety for their future? They have suffered, as your Lordships know, severely in the past through no fault of their own and they have good reason to fear for the future. Some may ask: What are the anticipated dangers? They are dangers to which no free-born British citizen ought to be asked to submit. Let mo briefly suggest some of those dangers. As regards residents in Southern Ireland, if a Republic is declared these men, unless the British Government by appropriate legislation or otherwise intervene, will forfeit all their rights as British citizens find become aliens with all the consequent disabilities. Perhaps it is hardly necessary to remind your Lordships, but I will state some of those disabilities. They will be unable to enter this country for business or for any other purpose without a permit. They will be unable to get employment here. They will be ineligible for obtaining diplomatic or other protection from the British Government. So much for the residents in the Irish Free State.
As regards those Southern Irish born subjects who are not resident there, their constitutional position, in the view of many of the best constitutional authorities, may be imperilled. Their fears are not wholly without reason, because your Lordships will remember that by the Statute of Westminster passed as recently as 1931, under Sections 2 and 3, the Free State is empowered to repeal or to amend any existing or future Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom so far as the same is part of the law of the Free State, and, further than that, the Free State has full power to make laws having an extra-territorial operation. It may be said with perfect truth that the other Dominions have similar powers by the Statute of Westminster, but I think it is only fair to say that the condition of affairs and the prospects of the future in the other Dominions are very different from the condition of things and the prospects of the future in the Irish Free State.
So seriously do the Irish loyalists regard the situation that they have formed a new organisation the object of which, to use their own words, is "to assert the

1067
constitutional rights of all loyal Southern Irish born subjects of His Majesty." That organisation is known as the Irish Loyalist Imperial Federation. Its president is Lord Carson, a name which I think will always be respected in this country and in Ireland and throughout the Empire. The organisation's offices are at Broadway Court, Westminster. Large numbers of men have already joined that Federation. They include not only residents in the Irish Free State, in Northern Ireland and in this country, but residents in Canada, in Australia, in South Africa, in India, and also in Kenya and other outposts of the Empire. May I be permitted strongly to urge on all those whom my words may possibly reach the importance of joining this association? If they desire to maintain by legitimate means the rights and interests of these Southern Irish loyalists for whom I speak I ask them to join the Federation without delay.
Before I sit down I desire to make it clear to your Lordships' House and to the noble Viscount who, I think, is going to answer for the Government, what is my request. I do not ask them to make a pronouncement to-day as to the general attitude they would adopt towards the Free State Government in case the Free State Government proclaim a Republic. The representatives of His Majesty's Government here would probably say—I think they have already said it in another place—that such an announcement would be premature and that they declined to make any statement on the subject. What I do ask His Majesty's Government is this: I beg of them to give an assurance that they are determined, in the words of my Motion, to "safeguard the constitutional status and legitimate rights of all Southern Irish-born loyal subjects" of His Majesty. Such an assurance as that could not be said to be in any sense premature. We are accustomed in this country in various matters, in matters of defence, in matters affecting the interests of large sections of the population, to look a bit ahead and to make preparations for contingencies which may happen. Your Lordships had an instance of that in the debate which took place yesterday. If they did not do so I think His Majesty's Government and the Parliament of this country would be accused of dereliction of duty. I venture to think that such an assurance as that
1068
for which I ask would not only be reasonable and right, but would give relief and deep satisfaction to those loyal subjects of the King who have so severely suffered by their loyalty to the Crown.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, as an old militant Unionist I have every sympathy with the object of my noble friend's Motion, but all the same I deprecate the Question that he has put, and I deprecate it on two grounds. In the first place, I think it is highly inexpedient to ask a responsible Government what they would do in a hypothetical situation. In the second, I deprecate it because, although I do not think my noble friend intended it, there is a hint of what I can only call defeatism in the words of his Question. It might be construed as meaning that were a Republic to be proclaimed in Ireland all we should have to think about would be to salve the interests of our particular friends as in the case of the United Empire Loyalists in the year, I think, 1784. I repudiate that suggestion. If a Republic were proclaimed in Ireland the Ministers proclaiming it might call themselves what they pleased, but none the less they would remain British subjects and we could not regard them as anything else. Of course, undoubtedly a de facto situation would arise, and that situation would have to be dealt with, but I believe that without any question whatever of force it could be effectively dealt with. But it would be entirely premature to discuss it now.
I cannot myself believe that the forces of lunacy are always going to prevail in Ireland. We may remember that for some years after the Irish Treaty was signed Ireland was governed by men who kept faith and respected minorities and under whom the country prospered. Indeed it was a matter of taunt to some of us old Unionists that the condition of the country then belied our fears. Now it is proved that our fears had only been too well justified. But I submit that even now we must exercise further patience. There are men still with influence in Ireland, men who, I trust, may attain to power and may be willing again to keep the word they have pledged. I entirely repudiate any speech or any Motion that may suggest that sanity and good faith may not again prevail in Ireland.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sure that I may be allowed to say that noble Lords on this side of the House feel sympathy with the noble Lord who introduced this Motion in his anxiety as an old campaigner in Ireland and for Ireland. He naturally feels that his fellow Irish former Unionists may be in some danger in the future. I desired to make that perfectly plain at the outset of the very few remarks that I propose to address to your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, who has just addressed your Lordships, while deprecating the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, let fall certain expressions that, if I may be a lowed to say so, will be splendid ammunition for the very Republican elements who so alarm the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort. To speak of Irishmen, who are in their own good judgment claiming certain national rights, as lunatics and to question their good faith and so on really does no service, if I may respectfully urge that upon the noble Lord, to either country.
The first observation I desire to make in the remarks I intend to address to your Lordships is that I myself am a frequent visitor to both the east and west of what is now the Irish Free State. I have been at pains to find out what really is the position of those whom I may call the ex-Unionists, those who were opposed, in the past, to Home Rule, who are, generally speaking, Protestants and who, I suppose, would be described by the noble Lord as loyalists. I believe it is unquestioned that in the vast majority of cases they are suffering no kind of persecution at all. I am speaking of the former Unionists in Ireland who are living there now. They are not in a favoured position, that is perfectly true, but they are not treated any worse or any better than other Irishmen, and I believe that both Parties that have held the reins of government in Ireland have been most careful to see that there are no religious or former political disabilities on these families. Since the noble Lord put his Motion on the Paper I have seen two important Irish gentlemen who have large business interests in Ireland, who are always backwards and forwards—they are actually domiciled here—and who would fall within the exact category described by the noble Lord. They have assured me that there
1070
is no sort of differentiation or disfavour shown to them.
I would also very respectfully venture to observe to the noble Lord and to the other distinguished Peers and leaders who are organising this League of Irish Loyalists of Empire, or whatever they are called, with offices in Westminster, and with the very distinguished Peer, Lord Carson, at the head of them, that that sort of action is calculated to arouse suspicion in Ireland. Therefore I would ask the noble Lord, when he addresses your Lordships' House again at the conclusion of this debate, to tell your Lordships a little more clearly—and I most seriously ask him to do this—what is the object of this new body. If it is to bring pressure to bear upon the British Government, and if it consists of electors resident here or in the Dominions, well and good, there is no complaint; but if it is a league formed in London to bring pressure to bear upon the present Irish Government, then I do most seriously warn the noble Lord that that is a very dangerous step indeed to take.
With regard to the broad terms of the noble Lord's Motion, I do not want to say anything which will make more difficult the task of peacemaking, which I hope the Government are now once more going to undertake; but there are certain remarks which, should be made. We hear a great deal now about loyalty and loyalists. I would remind your Lordships, if I may, that a forced loyalty is no loyalty at all; it really is not worth having. I would further remind your Lordships that the old argument, which I have heard for the last thirty years and longer, that it would be strategically dangerous for this part of His Majesty's Dominions to have an independent Ireland on its flank—that strategical argument, if I may so describe it—is quite out of date now, for the reason that in Southern Ireland there is practically complete self-government now, and if we were involved in any international complication there would be equal danger (if such a danger exist) from the present Free State Government in Dublin as there would be if it were called a Republic.
The next point which I wish to make to your Lordships is that we are to-day actually stimulating the more extreme section in Ireland by the course which is at present being pursued. I do not wish

1071
to use the name of any Party, because, as in this country, Irish political Parties have their different wings and their different sections, but the members of the more extreme section in Ireland are actually being stimulated to-day by the non-committal attitude taken up as to our action in the possible event of a Republic being declared. I also read the letter from Mr. MacDermot in The Times to-day which was referred to by the noble Lord. He is a man who carries weight in his own country, and his remarks should carry weight here. He is a member of a very ancient Irish family who performed great services to their country in the past. Mr. MacDermot puts in another way what has been put by another very distinguished Southern Irishman, a fellow-countryman of the noble Lord opposite, Mr. George Bernard Shaw—a most distinguished Irishman of whom every Irishman should be most proud. He said that the best way to deal with this matter was to threaten Irishmen with a Republic. That is putting Mr. MacDermot's argument in another way. So long as it is possible to say to the people of Southern Ireland, especially to the young men, who are of a militant nature (as we found to our great profit when we needed them as soldiers), "You are being prevented by the overwhelming power of Britain from doing certain things," naturally they will be stimulated into doing those very things, or at any rate talking of doing them.
I desire to end by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, if he will allow me to do so, for bringing this Motion before your Lordships' House, because I think the time has come when we should have some declaration from the noble Viscount who leads us as to whether the Government are really going now to make an effort to settle the present difficulties over the land annuities and to get rid of the great friction and loss which is occurring to both countries. Here you have that small country, a neighbour of this mighty and wealthy country; that small country used to be our best customer, with the possible exception of the Indian Empire, and we were practically her only customer. We can really in this case afford to be generous. How long is this wretched, sordid dispute going on?
And the situation has changed. If every nation which is owed money and is not paid is going to carry out a policy
1072
of trade reprisals, then what international trade still remains will end completely. Ireland is declared to be a defaulter. Technically we are defaulters to the United States of America—unavoidably, if you like; I do not want to enter into that now, but technically we are defaulters in that sense. Many valuable customers of ours and valuable trading friends are also defaulters, perhaps through no fault of their own. We really should, I think, re-examine this whole question. The stronger we think our case—I must, I am afraid, speak a little frankly here—the more ready we should be to submit it, if necessary, to a tribunal of arbitration with an independent chairman. Otherwise, if we maintain what I may call the Thomas attitude, we are standing on a punctilio, to the loss of many farmers in Ireland, working people here and traders generally, and of course adding to the embitterment of relations between the two countries.
The Irish think that they have a case over the land annuities. It is not simply a mere question of default. They do not simply say: "We are not going to pay, because you oppressed us in the time of Cromwell or of Queen Elizabeth." That is not the Irish case. They think that they have a strong legal case. His Majesty's Government believe that they have a strong, or a stronger, case. Very well; if we think that we have a strong case, we can afford in those circumstances to give way and to say: "Very good, we will have a tribunal if you like, and the chairman of it shall be a citizen who does not belong to the Empire." We are strong enough, we are powerful enough, and generally speaking, we are just enough in our dealings, and clean enough in our reputation, to be able to do this thing. We do not lose prestige by doing such a thing as that; we gain prestige enormously, and by doing it I believe we should strengthen our position throughout the world amongst those many Irish Empire builders referred to by Lord Danesfort who sought their fortunes overseas, and played a great part in our Dominions and in other countries such as the United States of America. They have long memories; and they have a double allegiance—an allegiance to their Irish ancestry and an allegiance to the Empire with which hitherto they have been proud to have associations.

1073
In dealing with Ireland we have to remember, speaking most respectfully of that great people, one of the mother peoples of the world, that they regard things of the spirit as very much more important than material things. It is the way the approach is made, the way the demands are met, that matters in the case of Ireland. I do not believe that we are going to force the Irish to come to our way of thinking by cutting off their trade. The more I see of Ireland and the more I talk with Irishmen, even those who are opponents of the present Government in their own country, the more convinced I am of that. I do once more thank the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, for bringing forward this Motion, as I think your Lordships should have discussed it, and I think the time has come when we should have some hopeful and constructive suggestion from His Majesty's Government.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, everybody of course realises the real interest which my noble friend Lord Danesfort has always, taken in this Irish question, and the enthusiasm and sincerity with which he has sought to champion the cause of the Irish loyalists which he has always taken so much to heart. But unlike the noble Lord who has just spoken, I confess that I am really sorry that he has chosen to bring this matter to debate in your Lordships' House this afternoon, because I cannot Feel that any useful purpose is served by discussions in Parliament upon this topic, or that anything I am likely to be able to say is calculated to bring about that peaceful and friendly settlement of any disputes which all of us in this country, at any rate, most earnestly desire.
So far I agree with the noble Lord opposite, that I am glad to understand that the Irish loyalists are not suffering from any injustice or persecution by reason of their political faith. I think it is quite true that those who served in our Forces during the War are in a worse position in Southern Ireland than they are in this country, but that is due very largely to the fact that Ireland itself is a poorer country, and that in Ireland, without in any way inflicting persecution or ostracism, or anything of that kind, undoubtedly the fact that they have served in the
1074
War does not make the same appeal to their compatriots in Ireland as it makes in this country, by reason of the fact of a man being, as we call him, an ex-Serviceman. But, so far as I understand, there is no justification for saying that those whom we describe as Irish loyalists are being penalised for their loyalty in Southern Ireland. I know there have been articles in the newspapers, recently, which suggest that they are suffering hardships, but I know also that there have been indignant protests in the Irish Times and the Irish Church Gazette which disclaim any persecution or ill-treatment, and I think your Lordships will be reassured to know that this, so far as we can ascertain it, is the real position.
It is true that Mr. de Valera has made the statements some of which have been cited by my noble friend Lord Danesfort, and it is true that those statements are calculated to cause considerable anxiety as to the attitude which he and his Party adopt. I think it is fair also to say that Mr. de Valera has made other statements which are more promising, and certainly more conciliatory. For instance, just at the same date as the speeches to which my noble friend has called attention he made a statement in the Press in these terms:
"The Irish people have always been anxious for friendly relations with the people of Great Britain. They would welcome a just settlement of the political and financial questions at issue between the two countries. The Government would also welcome it, and it is not our fault if it has not hitherto been achieved."
I do not think I should be assisting matters by bandying words as to whose fault it is that a just settlement has not been achieved.
Personally, I profoundly disagree with the noble Lord opposite when he suggests, or seems to put forward, that we in this country have not been willing to submit the question of the annuities to arbitration. So far from that being the case we have offered over and over again to submit that question to arbitration, and have actually offered to submit it to the very tribunal which all the self-governing Dominions, including the Irish Free State, thought to be suitable as recently as 1930. Unfortunately that offer has not met with acceptance on the other side of the Irish Channel, and all

1075
I can say in regard to that is that it has been repeatedly stated, here and in another place, that we should be very ready to resume negotiations with a view to a settlement of that and other questions when a suitable basis of settlement can be found. Unfortunately it has not been found possible to find a common basis or common means of adjudicating upon the questions which are in dispute. We believe, with regard to the land annuities, that we have an unanswerable case, and we are quite willing to have that question arbitrated by any impartial Imperial tribunal. Unfortunately that proposal has not yet found acceptance on the other side of the Irish Channel, and so far as I know there is no immediate prospect of its being accepted.
I wish here and now to disclaim the suggestion involved in the speech of the noble Lord who has just spoken that we are endeavouring to force the Irish people to give in by destroying their trade. It has always been made clear that the purpose that we have in view in imposing such duties as it has been found necessary to impose has merely been to collect those sums due by way of annuity, and no question of attempting to penalise trade arises, because in the first instance it would defeat the very object we have in view, and secondly, if we desired to penalise the Irish people by stopping their trade we should not levy duties on the goods we allow to come in, but would prevent the goods coming in. We have scrupulously refrained from doing anything of the kind, as I think is well within the recollection of your Lordships. If that statement can possibly be made and perhaps allowed to go unchallenged, it is an illustration of the sort of risk which is run by too much discussion on matters of so much delicacy as the questions between the United Kingdom and the Irish Free State.
I have, like noble Lords who have spoken, read the letter which Mr. MacDermot wrote to The Times. He is the leader of one of the Parties in the Irish Free State, and a gentleman of position. I think all that it is probably useful for me to state with regard to his letter is this. The position of the members of the British Commonwealth in relation to one another was described in the Declaration of the Imperial Conference of 1926, in which the representatives of the Trish Free State participated
1076
and to which they assented. That Declaration was in these terms:
"They are autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations."
Your Lordships will remember that in the Report of the Inter-Imperial Relations Committee of that Conference a further comment upon it appears:
"The tendency towards equality of status was both right and inevitable. Geographical and other conditions made this impossible of attainment by the way of federation. The only alternative was by the way of autonomy; and along this road it has been steadily sought. Every self-governing member of the Empire is now the master of its destiny. In fact, if not always in form, it is subject to no compulsion whatever."
That was a statement which was made as long ago as 1926, and was made unanimously by all the representatives of the self-governing Dominions and of the United Kingdom.
And that statement defines the general position in the case of the Irish Free State as of the other members of the British Commonwealth, but of course in the case of the Irish Free State it is conditioned by the terms of the Treaty under which the Irish Free State was granted the status which it enjoys, and the main difference which seems to me to arise between Mr. de Valera and the British Government is his assumption that a Treaty which is entered into by two parties can be repudiated or modified at the will of one of them. I do not want to do him any injustice, but he seems to have a theory that, inasmuch as no one enters into a treaty completely freely, that is to say, that since every nation when it enters into a treaty does so under the pressure of surrounding circumstances, but for which it would probably not assent to the terms contained in the treaty, therefore it is involved that any nation can at its will repudiate the obligations which it has undertaken under a treaty, whilst at the same time retaining the advantages. I believe that doctrine is wholly untenable either in International or Municipal Law.
In every contract between individuals the reason why the particular individual makes a particular bargain may be due

1077
to the pressure of surrounding circumstances. I may be compelled to sell my property when the market is very much against me by reason of the fact that I am in urgent need of ready money; or, to take a more extreme instance, in the Criminal Law we know every day that young offenders are bound in their own recognisances to come up for judgment if called upon to do so. They enter into those recognisances under the pressure of the knowledge that, if they did not, they would probably be sent to prison. But I have never heard it suggested in the Courts of this country or of any other country that those facts enable the person who sells an article which he would much prefer to keep, at a price which he thinks inadequate, or the person who eaters into recognisances to which he would much rather not submit if he were not compelled by circumstances to do so, is at liberty later on to repudiate his bargain and to claim to be entirely free of his obligation.
And the same is true in International Law. If it were possible for any self-governing community to contend that it was at liberty at its will to repudiate all its contractual obligations with other countries, merely on the ground that at the time it made the bargain circumstances existed which compelled it to accept them, and that those circumstances have now disappeared, there would be an end of any possibility of agreement between any sovereign States, because one would know that at any moment the persons who have accepted an obligation did so on the implied condition that they might thereafter claim to be free, on the ground that they were compelled by pressure of circumstances to accept the obligation, and therefore it was not binding on their conscience. There is, in fact, of course no such condition.
Nobody suggests that a treaty—the Irish Treaty or any other international agreement—remains sacrosanct for ever and is incapable of alteration. But what we do contend is that, in order to make an alteration, there must be an agreement between the two parties to the treaty. In the very instance of this Irish Treaty there were several occasions on which modifications of its terms were negotiated between the Irish Free State and the Government of this country, on the ground that a particular obligation pressed hardly on the Irish Free State,
1078
or was one which it could not be fairly asked literally to perform. But that is a wholly different proposition from saying that either the Irish Free State or the United Kingdom is at liberty to repudiate its obligations under the Treaty, while retaining the advantages, merely on the ground that the circumstances of the time were such as virtually to compel it to accept the bargain.
I think it is important that we should define where the British Government stands upon this matter. If there are any terms which it is desired to discuss we are willing to discuss them. But if it is suggested that we are to accept a unilateral repudiation, that is a position in which His Majesty's Government is not able to acquiesce. Then my noble friend asked whether I would make a declaration in the terms of his Motion, a declaration which, he said, did not involve, or was not intended to involve, an intimation that force would be used to prevent the establishment of a Republic, but which was intended to assure the Irish loyalists, on whose behalf he was purporting to speak, that they might rest quite satisfied that we should take, as he describes it, "adequate steps to safeguard the constitutional status and the legitimate rights" of those people. I think that that would be a highly dangerous statement or assurance to make.
I am not in the least oblivious of the fact that there are duties which legitimately rest upon His Majesty's Government with regard to the interests of British subjects of the classes named by my noble friend. But to assume, first of all, that there is going to be a change in the relationship between the Irish Free State and this country, and then to announce in advance what steps we should take, or that we should take any particular steps, in the event of such a change taking place would, in my judgment, tend to do the very opposite to that which my noble friend desires. It would tend to create a feeling of resentment and hostility and indignation in the Irish Free State, and it might even go so far as to make the position of those whose interests he has at heart more difficult than it is at present. In those circumstances I very much hope that my noble friend will not press his Motion, because I cannot help feeling with my noble friend Lord Rankeillour that it

1079
would be far better not to ask for the sort of declaration that I have referred to.
I have endeavoured to repeat as definitely as I can the attitude of His Majesty's Government. I can assure your Lordships, as we have repeatedly assured you in the past, that we have nothing but the friendliest feelings and the desire for the most cordial relations with the Irish Free State, as with the other self-governing Dominions. Mr. de Valera is of opinion that it is not the fault of the Irish Free State that those relations are not so friendly to-day. For our part we equally feel assured that it is not our fault that they are not so friendly as we should like them to be. I can only say that any—I will not say any advance, but any sign of a willingness to enter into a friendly discussion would be welcomed by His Majesty's Government as cordially as by any member of your Lordships' House, and that it is a matter of profound regret to us that under existing circumstances there should be these unsolved differences existing between the two countries, differences which cannot redound to the good of either of them, considering the geographical and economic relations in which they necessarily stand to one another. I am sorry that there are no Papers which I can offer to the noble Lord. I have done my best to state as frankly and as fully as I can the position of His Majesty's Government and to explain the reason why I am not able to give my noble friend such assurances as he asks for, and I hope that, after that explanation, my noble friend will see his way to withdraw his Motion for Papers.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, the only satisfactory portion, to my mind, of the speech of the noble Viscount was his reassertion of the undoubtedly correct principle that a treaty entered into by two parties cannot be abrogated by one party alone. He insisted on that with great strength, as he has done before, but unfortunately he did not seem to apply that principle to the state of affairs in Ireland. He had not one word to say in condemnation or comment as to the breaches of the Treaty that have already taken place in Ireland. Of these breaches of the Treaty, breaches of solemn obligation entered into, not a word did he say, not an assurance did he give to those in
1080
Southern Ireland who are deeply concerned as to their future. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, asked what was the object of my Motion.
LORD STRABOLGI: No; what is the object of this new League of Loyalists.
LORD DANESFORT: I am much obliged. The object of my Motion, I wish to make quite clear to the House, is to show to those Southern Irish who have observed with anxiety all these breaches of the Treaty and all the preparations that have been made for a Republic, that we in this country are not prepared to forget them, to abandon them, to do nothing to help them, when their hour of trial comes. I am quite certain that there are large numbers of people in this country who, if they knew the facts as to the situation of the Irish loyalists, would be only too delighted to show their sympathy and determination to help them in any way they could.
Lord Strabolgi is, if I may say so without hurting his feelings, a typical example of a man who speaks on a subject of which he is entirely ignorant. I do not know what personal knowledge he has of Ireland, but he gives the impression that Southern Irish loyalists have every reason to be satisfied with their position, that they are not being badly treated, and, I suppose he would add, that they have no real ground for anxiety. I do not know whether he would go as far as that, but that is his general view, and in support of that he said he had been told something to that effect by two unnamed gentlemen who came from Ireland. I should very much like to know who they were, if he could tell me without breach of confidence; but, whoever they were, let me tell your Lordships that I have received representations not from two, but from very large numbers of Southern Irish loyalists who are not given to unnecessary fears or extravagant anticipations, and who say that their future is to them a matter of the gravest anxiety.
As regards ill-treatment, I think my noble friend would do well to go over to Ireland and hear from some of these people what their position is. They are looked upon as strangers, as outside the Irish desires for a Republic and greater independence, and they have this terrible fear before them that in an event which appears to be very possible, and

1081
indeed probable, they may become aliens and be deprived of their rights as British subjects. The noble Lord is proud of being a British subject. How would any of your Lordships like to have this staring you in the face, that at any moment, by the decision of the Irish Dail, you may be deprived of the rights of British subjects to which you have been born? Is that not a matter for anxiety? Is that not a matter in which they deserve reassurance? One or two other points in the noble Lord's speech really did surprise me. He asked what is the object of this new Federation? I have a statement here of the reasons why this Federation was established. I would be delighted to furnish my noble friend with a copy, and perhaps after reading it he may decide to join. The Federation is formed to assert the constitutional rights and privileges of all loyalist Southern Irish born subjects of the King, wherever resident, and to take such steps as may be necessary and as the occasion arises, and they see what dangers are in front of them.
They do not desire war. They desire by peaceful organisation to influence the British people in this country and elsewhere in order that they may be able to preserve their rights. The noble Lord referred to Mr. Bernard Shaw as being a distinguished Irishman. Some people admire his works more than others. I agree that he is most distinguished, but my noble friend did not tell your Lordships that Mr. Bernard Shaw has taken very good care in the last fifty or sixty years to live out of Ireland. He does not show his devotion to the Irish Republic or to Mr. de Valera or any of these leaders of revolutionary Irish opinion by going and living in Ireland and sharing the fate of the Irish loyalists. I shall not comment on him any more, but I recommend my noble friend, if he wishes to cite a case, to get a better one than that of Mr. Bernard Shaw as showing; the happiness and prosperity of Southern Irish loyalists.
As regards the speech of the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, with the exception of that very clear declaration he made about the sacred rights of treaties there was nothing in it that did not cause me the most profound disappointment. He said not one word of
1082
all I have put before him—probably he knew it before—as to the declarations of Mr. de Valera and the Dail, clear and decisive as they were. He said not one word of all these breaches of the Treaty which have already been made. He said not one word of the preparations that have been made for declaring a Republic. He did refer in what I may call a somewhat half-hearted manner to what he described as the more encouraging statements of Mr. de Valera. The only statement of that kind that I have been able to find is when Mr. de Valera said on one occasion he would like a just settlement. Of course he would. He wants to get off all tariffs and so on, and be able to trade with this country as if he had paid his debts. That is what he means by a just settlement, and that is the best and most encouraging statement of Mr. de Valera which my noble friend can produce.
I cannot think it is a very good answer to the anxiety which these Irishmen feel for whom I desire your Lordships' sympathy. I hope my noble friend feels rather more than he is able to express. I hope he does feel real sympathy with these people and a real desire—I am sure he does, although he did not express it—to help them in the future if the occasion should arise. Meanwhile, I am glad to think that there are people in this country who are deeply sympathetic regarding what has happened to them in the past and what may happen to them in the future, and who are determined when the occasion arises to protect their interests and to get any Government that may be in power to take the necessary steps for this purpose. My noble friend says there are no Papers. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

FUEL OIL PRODUCTION.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE THE DUKE OF MONTROSE asked His Majesty's Government what is the present position in regard to the production of fuel oil in the United Kingdom, and whether it is the Government's intention immediately to aid an increase in home production in view of the increase of the world's armaments. The noble Duke said: My Lords, I wish to ask the Question standing in my name in order to give the noble Lord who is going to

1083
reply an opportunity to tell us something about the oil supplies in this country. We have heard a good deal in the last few weeks about the increase of armaments, particularly the increase in the Air Force and the increase in the Navy, but we have heard nothing about an increase in oil supplies in order to balance the increase in armaments. When one comes to think of it, it is no use having an increase in aircraft and an increase in the Navy unless you have some form of increase in your oil supply. We can all recollect how in the Great War we suffered great difficulty in connection with our oil supplies. We can recollect all the restrictions that were put into force in order to safeguard our supplies of oil, and we can recollect how, in a week when the submarine menace was at its worst, our difficulty was to get any oil at all into this country.
At the beginning of the War we were importing 484,000,000 gallons of oil; to-day we are importing 2,224,000,000—that is, to-day we are using four and a-half times the amount of oil that we were using at the beginning of the War. And just as our oil requirements have gone up and up, so also have the means of attack on oil-carrying ships increased and become more efficient, and if we suffered difficulty in getting oil brought into this country at the time of the Great War we are going to suffer far more difficulties in the next war because our requirements have so vastly increased. I am not sure that I have been correctly informed, but I have been informed that at any given time to-day there is not more than three weeks supply of oil in this country. We require four and a-half times as much to-day as we did at the beginning of the War yet there is not three weeks supply in this country. We are face to face with grave dangers. What are we to do? There are only two alternatives. One is to increase our imports of oil. But what good is that? You simply increase the difficulty and danger of bringing foreign oil into this country. The only other alternative is to increase the home supply of oil. I want to know what is being done by the Government to increase our supply of oil.
Of course, we have had a tariff put on imports—a tariff of eightpence on petrol and a penny on crude oil. That tariff brings in a revenue of £40,000,000. On whose shoulders does the burden of
1084
that £40,000,000 fall? It falls mostly on the shoulders of our own people, because the imported oil does not compete with any home-produced oil. There is no home-produced oil worth speaking about in any quantity. The burden of that large sum falls then, by reason of the tariff, on our own people, and our manufacturers and power users say that the tariff affects their cost of fuel by raising it 30 per. cent. I would not mind putting a burden of 30 per cent, increase on the fuel costs in this country if we really got something for it. If the Government could say, in return for the burden upon the fuel users of the country, that we were getting an assured supply of oil, or if they would say: "You are supporting a new industry which is giving employment to our people," I would say then that the increased burden was worth it. But the Government cannot say that the oil required for our defence is assured, and they cannot say that we are yet starting a new industry in this country to give employment to our people.
The position of the oil trade is exceedingly disappointing because, notwithstanding the tariff, there are only about two factories working, or two factories which are worth speaking about as working. First of all, there is the factory at Billingham which is being built by the Imperial Chemical Company to produce petrol by hydrogenation from coal. That factory will not be completed for five or six months. That is to say, we shall come to the beginning of 1935 before we get any petrol from that plant. That plant cost £2,500,000 to erect. The company will not erect another plant until they have ascertained the results from this one. That means, possibly, a year's working, and it will bring us to 1936 before they put up a new plant, and it will be 1937 before that plant is finished. Are we going to wait then till 1937 before we get petrol from home supplies under the hydrogenation process at Billingham? The only other alternative is low temperature carbonisation. There is only one factory which is really working the low temperature carbonisation process on a commercial basis. That is the Low Temperature Carbonisation Company's factory, but the amount of fuel oil that they are producing for the Navy is simply a bagatelle in comparison with the quantity that the Navy requires.

1085
Therefore, as things stand to-day, notwithstanding a heavy tariff bringing in £40,000,000, we have really no home supply of oil worth speaking about. What are we going to do? I say that the matter is urgent. There is only three weeks supply of oil in the country, and the difficulties of importing oil are growing greater. I do not know why we are not getting more factories erected. I suggest that a Committee should be appointed to enquire why it is that more factories are not being erected to produce oil from British coal. The answer, one suspects, would be that, whereas there is a large capital ready for investment, capitalists are not ready to put their money into new processes and new industries; they are only ready to put the money into old processes and well tried industries. It requires more than a tariff, it requires Government encouragement to draw capital into this new process. After all, we have had the Government spending money on helping wheat, on helping sugar beet, on helping shipbuilding. Why should they not do something to help coal distillation and the supply of home oil? I would suggest that the Government should give a guarantee for ten years, perhaps up to £2,000,000 with interest on that capital at 5 per cent. The burden would be only £100,000 a year. It is surely worth the Government risking £100,000 a year in order to draw capital into a new industry which will provide an increased supply of oil for home defence. It is terrible to think that at present we have only three weeks supply of oil in this country and that we are using four and a-half times as much as we did at the beginning of the War.
THE UNDER-SECEETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, as the Royal Commission is now due I suggest this might be a convenient moment for the House to adjourn during pleasure.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The Royal Assent was given to the following Bills:

Trustee Savings Banks (Special Investments),

1086

Architects (Registration),

British Sugar (Subsidy),

Administration of Justice (Appeals),

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions),

Shops,

National Maritime Museum,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Leek),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Sheppey Water),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Stoke-on-Trent),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Weymouth and Portland Joint Hospital District),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Wey Valley Water),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Wycombe and District Joint Hospital District),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (South Middlesex and Richmond Joint Hospital District),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Herriard and District Water),

Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation,

London Midland and Scottish Railway Order Confirmation,

Rotherham Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation,

Torquay Corporation,

Chailey Rural District Council,

Sunderland and South Shields Water,

Lowestoft Corporation,

Tynemouth Corporation,

North Wales Electric Power,

Tyne Improvement,

Wantage Urban District Council.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

FUEL OIL PRODUCTION.
Debate resumed.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, in December, 1932, the noble Duke raised

1087
a somewhat similar question to that which appears on the Order Paper to-day and on that occasion he was given a very full reply by my noble friend Lord Templemore, which referred to the steps that the Government had taken to encourage the production of oil products from coal. Since then three other additional measures have been placed upon the Statute Book and have been debated at some length either in this House or in another place. I need, I think, only refer to them very briefly. The first was that an import tax of £1 per ton was imposed on all heavy oil as from April 25, 1933. Besides assisting the coal industry in meeting the competition of imported oil, this tax also constituted a substantial preference of a penny per gallon on all heavy oil produced from coal and its derivatives, as these oils of course do not pay any duty.
I might mention here that since that tax was imposed, just over a year ago, information is available to show that larger quantities of creosote are being used as fuel oil, and there is every hope that this may lead to the production of a larger quantity of creosote from the coal tar available. The estimated production of creosote during the past three years has been: in 1931, 63,000,000 gallons; in 1932, 55,000,000 gallons, and in 1933, 65,000,000 gallons. In a discussion on the Navy Estimates in another place, on March 12 last, the Civil Lord of the Admiralty stated that creosote was a welcome substitute for petroleum fuel in an emergency, and that the Admiralty had used about half a million tons of it during the War and after the War.
I would also refer shortly to another Act which your Lordships will recollect, the British Hydrocarbon Oils Production Act, giving a guaranteed preference for a period of years on all motor spirit produced from indigenous coal, shale, or peat, or from substances obtained from those materials. As a result of this guarantee, as the noble Duke has mentioned, Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, decided to erect a commercial scale hydrogenation plant at Billingham, and that plant is expected to begin production early next year. I may mention that this process can be used for the production of fuel oil, and although under present conditions it will, for economic reasons, be used mainly for the
1088
production of motor spirit, during an emergency it is considered that this process may afford a very valuable additional source of home-produced fuel oil. Samples of this fuel oil have also been tested by the Admiralty, who are satisfied that it is of suitable quality.
A new Act, designed to encourage the search for natural petroleum in this country, was also submitted to Parliament this Session and is now on the Statute Book, and I need not worry your Lordships with an explanation of it. I think the noble Duke will recognise, from the action which the Government have already taken, that they are fully alive to the importance of this matter, and of giving every help to the principal industries of this country. The other suggestions which the noble Duke made will be carefully examined to see what additional action by Parliament may be necessary at any time to give, an increased output of fuel oil. I have very little further information that I can give to the noble Duke, but I hope he will be satisfied with the short explanation which I have given him.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: I thank the noble Earl.

THE TWENTY-FOUR-HOUR SYSTEM.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether they will lay on the Table of the House before its adjournment a report on the working of the twenty-four-hour system from the B.B.C.; and move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am not going to weary you with a long speech, but only want to put the simple question. I am inclined to wonder whether the Government's announcement, to which at the time I took exception, that it was waiting for a Report on this system from the B.B.C., was not likely to prejudice the system in the minds of the public. I am not a listener to the B.B.C, at any rate in London, and I was not aware how far this prejudice had been entertained by the public, but I have here a letter from Sir James Marchant, who says:
"I have many friends here and in town whom I meet daily, and not a single one approves this most unfortunate experiment. It is simply ridiculous to tell us afternoon tea is at 16.40 to-day, and so on. We resent it being thrust upon us. It arouses

1089
opposition which might otherwise not arise … It is doing harm and not good to the cause we advocate."
He is a supporter of the system. I therefore reiterate that it is unfair to have this system of experiment. Why do not they enquire of the three great Departments of State which are mainly concerned? Not having any idea of what the answer of the Government will be, I will defer any further remarks that I have to make until later.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies for the Government, making, I presume, the usual thoroughly unsatisfactory reply, I should like to say a few words about the miserable bungling evasion which has characterised successive Governments in dealing with this trivial and unimportant question. It is more than sixteen years ago that a Committee thoroughly enquired into this subject, and recommended it unanimously, and so far as I know every single Postmaster-General—the Post Office is the only Department concerned—has been in favour of the change. Whenever I have approached them they have said: "I am in favour of it, and no doubt the advocates of it are perfectly right, but I have to consult my colleagues, and cannot do it without their consent." As a matter of fact, he need not consult anybody. It is merely an administrative matter.
One can understand what would happen if he consulted his colleagues. He would go to his colleagues in the Cabinet and suggest that it was a good scheme, that it was going to cost nobody anything, and would be for the general convenience, but the reply he would get from his colleagues would be: "It is all very well from the point of view of your Department, but what we want to know is whether it is any good for getting us votes." The Postmaster-General would have to admit that he did not see any prospect of their getting votes by passing this particular measure. Then his colleagues would say: "Not only do you tell us that we cannot get any votes by making this change, but we know that there are a great number of people who are very much opposed to it. There is, for instance, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury"—whom I am happy to see in his place—"and there is the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, and there are all the people who are under
1090
the impression that the introduction of summer time is responsible for the drought and for other misfortunes, which occur in agriculture."
No doubt you could add to those the people who believe that the earth is flat and all those who entertain peculiar views. "Well," they would say, "this is a very formidable body of opinion; we really cannot run the risk of falling out with these people, therefore we had much better leave it alone." Then I suppose the Postmaster-General, whoever he may be, revolved the matter in his mind and thought he would arrive at a compromise. And, as a compromise, he or somebody or other has selected the B.B.C. as the body upon which to perform what is known in theatrical parlance as "trying it on the dog." A more unsatisfactory solution could not possibly have been suggested.
I have done my feeble best to explain that this is not a colloquial question at all. You need never make use of these figures which perplex the people who cannot count. It is purely a matter of time tables and HO forth. Imagine the effect produced upon the people who cannot count, if it were announced that Professor Boreham or somebody of the kind is going to hold forth at quarter past eighteen. That is the kind of thing that would irritate anybody, I am not sure that it would not irritate me; but it is perfectly unnecessary. It is no question of making use of these numbers in conversation; it is merely a question of time tables. As nobody has been able to make any valid objection to the proposed change, it really is exasperating to find that nothing can be done because of the ignorance and the prejudice which prevail.
I remember that in one of the poet Schiller's masterpieces he uses an historical phrase in which he says, "The gods themselves fight against ignorance in vain." I do not class my noble friend Lord Lamington as a god, or even a demigod, neither do I claim myself to belong to so distinguished a circle, but it is a fact that this proposal is rejected simply on the grounds of ignorance and prejudice. Nobody has adduced any valid argument against it, and the only satisfaction which I feel at the prospect of a Labour Government ever coming into

1091
office is that I have had an undertaking from those Benches that when they come in they will put it into force.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the opposition to this is largely based upon prejudice, or upon inadequate information, and I think a good example of this is contained in a resolution recently passed by a Northern branch of the National Union of Manufacturers to this effect:
" This meeting regards the arbitrary attempt by the B.B.C. to foist upon the public, without sanction of Parliament or other known authority, a system of time reckoning contrary to the custom of the country as an act of high-handed impertinence and gross abuse of a privileged position, and desires that this opinion shall be known in appropriate quarters."
Your Lordships will no doubt thank me for making this opinion known in appropriate quarters. But it is an illustration of what my noble friend Lord Newton referred to, and a curious combination of touchiness and pomposity. It is the mentality of the people who squealed and who rioted in the eighteenth century when the calendar was reformed; it is the mentality of people who insist upon printing their price-lists in terms of pounds, shillings, pence and occasional halfpence and disdain to quote in yen, pesos, or in lire, because it is contrary to the custom of the country. I hope that those who are interested in this great reform will not be discouraged by this innovation of the B.B.C. from continuing their efforts to bring it about, least of all by branches of the National Union of Manufacturers passing a ridiculous resolution of this character.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, my noble friend behind me originally put this Motion down for a week ago to-day, on the 18th July, and I was very sorry he did so, because I knew that if the debate had taken place on that day we should not have had the presence of my noble friend Lord Newton, and, really, a debate on this subject without the presence of Lord Newton would have been more than I could stand. I am very glad it was put off for a week because we have him back looking fresh and well from his foreign travels and, I am glad to say, in his old form. In answer to my noble friend's Question, I have to say that no formal report has
1092
been received by His Majesty's Government from the B.B.C. as regards the experiment which has been going on now for some one or two months, but my right honourable friend the Postmaster-General understands that the Corporation will before very long make a statement on the subject.
As regards the general question, as my noble friend is aware, His Majesty's Government have had under consideration the question of extending the use of the twenty-four-hour method of expressing time in the light of the information given them by the British Broadcasting Corporation, following the experiment which has been carried out by the Corporation. The Corporation considers that, taking into account the difficulties attending the experiment, the results warranted further investigation by the Departments concerned. His Majesty's Government appreciate the action of the Corporation in the matter, but I am authorised to say that after carefully reviewing the whole question of adopting the twenty-four-hour notation for official purposes, they have come to the conclusion that there is still no sufficient evidence of general public demand for the change to justify them in taking any action in the matter. I fear I have no Papers which I could lay in this connection.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, it is, I think, a surprisingly negative answer that we have had from the Government. I asked my noble friend whether he would not ask the Government to address the Army and Navy and Air Force about the result of their thorough testing of the twenty-four-hour system over a number of years—they have had plenty of experience—as to how far it affects their private lives. Of course it does not affect their private lives at all, nor does the experiment of the B.B.C. affect the private lives of people. As showing how very widespread the movement has become, I dare say your Lordships saw a notice in The Times with regard to the Continental timing system at a congress held in London. It stated that:
"The twenty-four hour system of time keeping is to be used at the Fifth Annual Congress of the International Federation of Surveyors, which is to take place in London from July 18 to 21. For the convenience of delegates from France, Belgium, Denmark, Holland, Switzerland, Italy, and Poland.

1093
the programme of the Congress has been arranged on the twenty-four-hour system."
Does not that give any light to the Government to show how beneficial is this system and how (much easier it makes life?
I am not aware of a single organisation connected with travelling, commerce, and the coastal trade round these shores that does not ask for this system, and there is also the very strong attitude of the Astronomer Royal. Obviously there is somebody in the Home Office who does not know what is going on in the outside world, and the Government obey his dictates. Many representatives of the Government have stated that personally they approve of the system. I know one high official in the Post Office—I shall not mention his name—who approves of it, and yet somebody objects to it. Who is it? The only thing to be done is to put down a resolution asking for the name of the objector! It is a wanton waste of effort for the Government to say they will not do it because there is not sufficient public demand for it. There is a public demand, and I sincerely trust that there will be some sign on the part of the Government that they realise that this is a system that adds to the public convenience. I suppose members of the Government do go abroad to the Continent where the system is in vogue. Do they find it inconvenient? Many thousands of the public also go abroad to the Continent. Do they find it inconvenient? Why cannot the Government pluck up courage and introduce this system? It is certain to come, as Lord Newton has said. It will come if the Labour Party get into office, but I hope the Government will have the sense to anticipate the Labour Party. I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BANNS OF MARRIAGE MEASURE, 1934.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Banns of Marriage Measure, 1934, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. The most reverend Primate said: My Lords, the
1094
purpose of this modest Measure is to regularise the reading of banns at the proper time and place by a layman under certain conditions laid down. In so far as it has passed the Church Assembly without any opposition, and is recommended for passage by the Ecclesiastical Committee, I think it may be regarded as non-controversial. The Marriage Act, 1823, prescribes that banns have to be proclaimed and the banns register signed by the officiating minister, and in the Prayer Book at the beginning of the Marriage Service it seems to be implied that the officiating minister must be a man in Holy Orders. Until quite recently no question could arise, but latterly, owing to the shortage of clergy, it has become usual and indeed necessary in many places for the public service on Sundays to be read, under the Bishop's permission and under conditions laid down by him, by a layman. A public service conducted under this permission by a layman is precisely an occasion for which the publicity required for the reading of banns is necessary. It would be most inconvenient if parties whose whole arrangements for their marriage might be thrown out of gear if they lost a Sunday found that, although it was a public service conducted under the Bishop's authority by a layman, their banns could not be proclaimed.
Accordingly, of late in many cases, banns have so been read and the register of banns has been signed by laymen, and this Measure only proposes to regularise that practice, which otherwise it might at least be said was doubtful. A large number of the Chancellors throughout the country held that its legality could not be contested, but in older to put any matter affecting marriage beyond any possibility of doubt it has been thought desirable to frame this Measure and lay it before Parliament in the usual way. As it affects some rubrics in the Book of Common Prayer, it had to go through the extraordinarily cumbrous procedure designed to meet such cases. It had to be debated and voted on by all three Houses—the Bishops, the Clergy, and the Laity separately—and then it had to receive the assent of the two Convocations and finally be submitted to the Assembly of the Church—and all this on the point whether a layman could officiate. That at least shows that there has been ample discussion of this Measure, and I hope your

1095
Lordships will be pleased to allow it to be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent, and thus do something to remove a not infrequent cause of inconvenience to those of His Majesty's subjects who desire to run the risks of matrimony.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Banns of Marriage Measure, 1934, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CATHEDRALS (AMENDMENT) MEASURE, 1934.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Cathedrals (Amendment) Measure, 1934, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. The most reverend Private said: My Lords, this is a highly technical and therefore, I hope again, an entirely non-controversial Measure, but it is one, within its area, of some importance. By the Cathedrals Measure, to which your Lordships gave your assent in 1931, a body was created called the Cathedrals Commissioners of England, charged with the duty of enabling the old cathedrals and the cathedrals of the new dioceses, which may be called the parish church cathedrals, to fulfil more fully their very great functions in the life of the Church and people. They have conducted their work admirably and with the utmost assiduity for the last four years, first under the chairmanship of Lord Chelmsford and, since his much lamented death, under the chairmanship of the Bishop of Derby, with the help of their able secretary Sir Henry Sharp.
They have been visiting all the cathedrals throughout the country, both the old cathedrals and the new parish church cathedrals, preparing schemes, revising statutes, and the like, and in the course of their labours they have naturally encountered many technical difficulties arising from the legislation of the principal Measure or of other Acts of Parliament, but especially Local Acts, such as those affecting cathedrals in Newcastle, St. Albans, and elsewhere, and accordingly they have prepared this Measure
1096
to remove these technical difficulties. As the matter is so technical your Lordships will not for a moment suppose that I propose to weary you by reciting its provisions. If any of your Lordships desire, you will find them cited in the Report of the Legislative Committee of the Church Assembly, which is annexed to the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament. If any noble Lord is in trouble or perplexity on the matter I should do my best to relieve his mind if he so desires. Let me only call attention to one or two clauses which may be regarded as of more general interest.
The Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament calls attention to the fact that a clause of the Measure affects the transfer of property from minor corporations in connection with cathedrals—minor canons and the like, sometimes vicars choral; and these small corporations, which are a relic of the Middle Ages, are often very inconvenient. It is proposed to transfer the property belonging to these minor corporations to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in some cases and to the Cathedral Chapters in others. It was thought, I hope needlessly, that there would be a temptation to these minor corporations, in view of the compulsory transfer, to proceed to make arrangements for sale or lease which would be more advantageous to themselves than to the body to whom the property would ultimately be transferred, and so it is proposed to prevent any such abuse. The Ecclesiastical Committee calls attention to this as affecting the rights of property, but considers that in the circumstances the clause is reasonable and proper.
There is another clause which I ought perhaps to mention—namely, that which proposes to confer on the Chapters or the Cathedral Councils of the new parish church cathedrals the same powers over ornaments, fabrics and churchyards as are enjoyed by the old cathedrals and so to exempt them from the jurisdiction of the Consistory Court. I think it is desirable that these two kinds of cathedrals, for many reasons, should be assimilated and that is the object of this clause. I am sure the Commissioners will issue directions to these newer cathedrals which will prevent them from making undue use of this privilege and

1097
restrain their possible inexperience. There is one other clause which is interesting because it shows the effect of appeal to sentiment. The provision of the principal Measure is that all the estates and Chapters are to be transferred to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners unless provision is otherwise made. In the case of Durham, the Chapter pleaded that the warmth of affection between them and their tenants should not be broken and the Church Assembly sanctioned the retention in their own hands by the Dean and Chapter of Durham of their own estates.
This Measure, as I say, is important, but it is highly technical. It deals with proved difficulties in administration. I do not think there are any questions of principle, and, as I said, it was after full discussion passed unanimously in the Church Assembly, and it was commended by the Ecclesiastical Committee to Parliament. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Cathedrals (Amendment) Measure, 1934, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RUSSIA.
LORD CHARNWOOD LORD CHARNWOOD had given Notice to call attention to information circulated in this country upon apparently good authority according to which the systematic policy of the Russian Government has recently caused widespread starvation among the population of grain producing areas in Russia, and is likely to do so this year through the measures taken for the rapid introduction of collectivist cultivation and the enforcement of a law transferring property in the produce of agriculture to the State, and through the removal by the Government of grain for purposes of exportation, and for the supply of the Army, without regard to the needs of subsistence of the cultivators of the grain; to ask His Majesty's Government whether they have information which tends to confute this allegation against the Russian Government; and to move for Papers.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE:
My Lords, on a point of order, before the
1098
noble Lord moves his Motion. I desire to call your Lordships' attention to the terms of the Motion which he is about to move. The undesirability of discussing in Parliament the internal policy and concerns of foreign nations has been generally admitted and such a Motion as this would certainly not be allowed on the Order Paper in another place either as a Question or as a Motion. While the Government may, and indeed should, have information with regard to all public proceedings in other nations, there are domestic matters over which it can have neither control nor responsibility and the discussion of which may cause embarrassment and even mischief.
So far as I am aware, there is no method in your Lordships' House of controlling the Motions which may be put down on the Order Paper for discussion, and this matter, as indeed all matters of order, rests in your Lordships' hands. While discussions have, of course, taken place on matters such as the German debt situation or the obligations of Germany under the Treaty of Versailles, in that case we had a responsibility. Discussions years ago took place on the question of Rumania which may have been interpreted as an internal concern of the Ottoman Empire, but we, as protectors of Christians in the Ottoman Empire, had a, direct responsibility. I dare say occasions have arisen in your Lordships' House where what I am trying to put before your Lordships has been contravened. I think my noble friend Lord Marley did put down such a Motion and I called his attention to it, and I hope he will not offend again.
I think it is clearly undesirable that we, especially in the present state of Europe, should have discussions on internal matters in foreign countries for which we have no responsibility whatsoever. I feel sure, if the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House were to intimate his concurrence with the view I have expressed, he would receive the general support of your Lordships, and he would prevent the establishment of a precedent which, if extended further, might lead to grave abuse and be seriously embarrassing to the Government of the day. In the event of the noble and learned Viscount taking the view which I am trying to present to your Lordships now I feel sure that the

1099
noble Lord, Lord Charnwood, would not proceed with his Motion.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, as the noble Lord opposite has said, these matters are, in your Lordships' House, not the subject of a ruling from the Woolsack and are not the subject, so far as I know, of any express Standing Order. On the other hand, it is quite plain from precedent that your Lordships have always exercised, and no doubt are still in a position to exercise, a control over the Questions and Motions which appear on the Order Paper. There are precedents. The noble Lord was good enough to tell me that he was proposing to raise this matter. Therefore I looked into some of them, and I find, for instance, that in the year 1883 there was an occasion when a series of Questions was put down containing the very gravest imputations against a distinguished member of the Indian Civil Service. The course adopted in that case was for the Leader of the House to move "that these Questions be not put and that they do not remain on the Minutes of your Lordships' House," and that was carried. Therefore there is power to control Questions if any noble Lord brings before your Lordships a matter which is thought undesirable.
There are other methods which are sometimes less dramatic but more effective. For example, in the year 1906, there was a Question of which Notice was given with regard to the action of a particular club in London towards an eminent public person in connection with an election. That Question was thought undesirable, and the Clerk of the Parliaments in those days communicated with the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition and, ultimately, the noble Lord who had given notice of the Question agreed that it should not appear on the Order Paper and it disappeared. There is no doubt that there is full power in your Lordships' House to control these matters. The question then arises as to the circumstances under which that power should be exercised, and I think your Lordships will probably all be agreed that, while it is eminently desirable that we should retain, and should assert our retention of, a complete discretion, at the same time it is plainly a discretion which must be exercised with very considerable restraint and care because we do not desire that any noble
1100
Lord should be unduly fettered in bringing before the House any matter with regard to which he thinks that discussion would be useful or valuable, unless the Question was in itself offensive or in itself dangerous to the interests of this country.
The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition referred to what I think is the most recent, as well as perhaps the closest precedent. That was the Question which was put down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marley, but which was in fact asked on his behalf by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. It was a Question calling attention
"to the disquieting information now being received from Germany with regard to the treatment of political prisoners, particularly the treatment of the leaders of the suppressed political Parties, and to ask whether His Majesty's Government has any information as to the allegation that the Reichstag Deputy Torgler is being kept in chains in prison."
The noble Lord has said that is undesirable. It may be he is right but at any rate no objection was raised at the time and, without wishing to make Party capital out of it, I cannot help noting that noble Lords opposite are more tender when it comes to Russia than they seem to be when Germany is the country which is involved.
So far as the present Question is concerned I think it is quite true to say that it is not probable that His Majesty's Government will be able to give to the noble Lord who raises it very much information. On the other hand I cannot myself see that we can properly say that it is not a Question that might be asked because, among other reasons, your Lordships will remember that under the Covenant of the League of Nations to which this country is a party, we are bound, under Article 23, to
"endeavour to secure and maintain fair and humane conditions of labour for men, women and children, both in their own countries"—
that is, in our own country—
"and in all countries to which their commercial and industrial relations extend, and for that purpose will establish"
various organisations, and so on. I do not think it is quite right to say that it is a matter with regard to which we have no concern at all, although it is perfectly true, as the noble Lord said, that it is a matter on which we are not likely to have much information, with

1101
regard to which we cannot, as a Government, accept any responsibility, and with regard to which we, as a Government, should not think it right in any way to attempt intervention. As the Question is only directed to obtaining information, I think it hardly fails within the category of Questions which your Lordships would not allow to be asked, although, for reasons I have indicated, I do not think it is a Question which will admit of any lengthy discussion or in reply to which the noble Lord can hope to receive very full information.
LORD CHARNWOOD: My Lords, the reason why, with your Lordships' permission, I am raising this certainly very disagreeable Question is a simple one. All the people that I know who are in a position to judge at all assure me of their belief that some amount of definite good is done to unfortunate persons in Russia from time to time by the manifestation of interest shown in other countries, more particularly in this country, in regard to certain matters which prima facie are the domestic concern of Russia. At the present moment, and in the particular case to which my Question refers, there is some special reason for thinking that good results are not at all unlikely to follow. That being the best advice that I can get, I was not willing—except in compliance, of course, with your Lordships' opinion on the point just raised—to keep silent.
May I add one further word of preface? I, at any rate, do not approach these matters with any rooted or bitter prejudice against the Communist idea as such. On the contrary, hopes, however visionary, of somehow producing a much more equal distribution of wealth and a more equal state of society do, I confess, arouse in me a very decided sympathy. I am quite aware that many Russian Communists in particular, have been pursuing these objects, however visionary, with sincerity and with self devotion. But, my Lords, if in that pursuit they are led, an my Question plainly suggests, into a good deal of action which from our point of view seems actually atrocious, I should in imputing that merely be imputing to them the consistent practice of principles which from first to last every one of their leaders has proclaimed or preached—principles which I do not want to de-
1102
scribe in harsh language, but which are directly contrary to those principles and sentiments of compassion with suffering humanity as such which we are glad to know in this country permeate our own Socialists through and through.
But if I am to ask a Question at all I must give as fairly as I can a somewhat dry statement of what the information is to which I refer. I want to ask the Government whether the knowledge which they have runs contrary to what is so widely circulated. I would like to say that I have carefully avoided even looking at information which I thought might possibly be coloured by any political aims in regard, for example, to the independence of the Ukraine. Your Lordships know quite well the difficulty of naming publicly those authorities on whom reasonable persons in this country most rely for information, inasmuch as they are men of business in Russia or travellers there to whom it would be highly inconvenient that their names should be published in this connection. I refer only to one or two authorities. I think I have done pretty well all I can to put the Foreign Office in full possession of my sources of information and I should be willing to give them privately to any of your Lordships who are interested.
The first of the sources of information I would like to mention to-day is the statement widely circulated in this country by an interconfessional committee of which the President is the Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna. This consists of leading ministers of various denominations, not only of the cardinal's own Church but Lutherans also and, I believe, Jews whose congregations in countries bordering on Russia have constant relations with men of like race and religion in that country. It would be ridiculous, I think, to suggest that statements coming from a source like that, statements from an organisation of which so important a personage as the Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna allows himself to be the principal spokesman, constitute evidence of a negligible kind. They are also supported—to mention only two other printed sources of information—by articles which have lately appeared in the Christian Science Monitor of America, an able paper, from the pen of a Mr. Chamberlin and articles from the pen of Mr. Mug-

1103
geridge, a Socialist gentleman I believe, whose articles appeared in the Morning Post. I have made inquiries about both these gentlemen and there is no question that they are publicists of very high standing, singularly well informed. Last, but not least, of my sources of information there are the Decrees and other pronouncements of the Soviet Government.
There is at this moment, and there has been for some months past, very grave fear entertained as to a possible failure to a considerable extent of the actual harvest in Russia. There are many indications of that, and with the weather of the world as it is, it seems in itself not improbable, though recent information at any rate has not come my way as to how the actual growing crops are at this moment in Southern Russia, Southern Russia being the whole grain-producing area of Russia. Even a very slight failure of the crop would be likely to produce the most terrible consequences unless something were done very different from what was done last year. Even in the absence of any actual shortage of crop, the experience of last year makes the prospects of the rural inhabitants gloomy enough. During the year 1933 all authorities concurred that there was famine on a quite terrible scale, presumably not absolutely everywhere but throughout vast tracts in almost all parts of Southern Russia.
I ignore the largest figures of deaths from famine that I have heard mentioned by quite reasonable men, and content myself with an estimate derived from what I personally think is the most reliable source at which I could get, which puts the deaths from famine alone in Southern Russia during 1933 as being 3,000,000 at least, and possibly several millions more. That is enough. On the surface of all that we know this famine appears to have been purely artificial. In the early part of 1933 of course it was the grain which remained unused from the previous year that mattered. I believe it was not up to the average. I have not seen it suggested at all that the crop was a very bad crop. The crop of last year, though at first the amount of it was over-estimated, is known to have been a very good one, allowing for some considerable wastage that may have occurred in the getting of it in. Yet the famine went on through the whole of last
1104
year, as far as I can gather. During the early months of this year, as I know from people to whom I have talked who have been travelling in Southern Russia and have come home during the last two months at the outside, the agricultural population generally was quite manifestly suffering from insufficient nutrition.
Now how did that happen? I think it is necessary for me to trouble your Lordships with something of a survey of the events of the last five years. For some years previously to 1929, as your Lordships may know, the Soviet Government encouraged peasant proprietors, many of whom throve enormously, I believe, under that policy. Suddenly in 1929, without any one in this country knowing anything about it, their whole policy was reversed, and the Government began the process of driving the rural population into large collective farms. These now cover the greater part of the grain area. There is a minority of individual farmers remaining on sufferance, and about them I would only say that they are under heavy taxation, to be delivered to the Government in grain. At the same time modern American tractors and other machinery have been rapidly introduced, and with their introduction old and accustomed methods of cultivation have been prohibited. There are stringent regulations establishing control by the Government of the whole produce, and I need not mention that the whole trade in corn and the whole transport of the country is completely in the Government's hands. There are stringent regulations to enforce delivery to the Government of all grain that it claims for use elsewhere, leaving what is supposed to be a stated proportion of the whole on the farms for distribution as wages. Of course, the welfare of the cultivators always depends on whether in the end that actual proportion supposed to be reserved for them is left there at all, a point to which I shall later refer.
This revolutionary change, as your Lordships will imagine, met with stubborn resistance, and that resistance was met with unhesitating ruthlessness. The greater part of the resistance was vapidly damped down to very slight proportions. There were great numbers of people shot, and innumerable whole families were deported to labour camps, the conditions of which appear to be very various

1105
indeed. In all cases the inmates are what we should call slaves. Not only that, but in the grain-growing district there has been the removal from certain villages of the whole population bodily to regions in the north, where they can hardly, if at all, raise a subsistence for themselves. All that has gone on, and by that means undoubtedly all the most vigorous element of the rural population has been simply eliminated, and the remnant live in what is evidently a state of mutual suspicion and of penetrating espionage and terrorism everywhere. For the running of this whole system of the organisation of labour, the utilisation of the new machinery and, above all, ensuring the delivery to the Government of all the grain that they want, the Government expressly rely not only on strictly Government officials, as we understand them, but equally—and here I am quoting—on "Party organisations," "secretaries of provincial Party committees" and on "Party cells" on the farms, "chiefs of political departments" and so on. Those are a few of the phrases by which the Government themselves have described the agency upon which they principally rely for running the whole system.
The Party to which I have referred is itself repeatedly purged to get rid of "alien elements who have worked their way in" and "to secure iron proletarian discipline in the Party and to expel from the Party all unreliable, unstable and selfish elements" of any kind; also "to achieve a higher ideological standard among Party members," and, finally, to ensure "accurate fulfilment of grain deliveries." The workers are roused by the Government to a due state of Party fervour by national conferences and by exhortations of Comrade Stalin, quoted in Government publications. I notice in a circular, which happens this time to concern railway workers in particular, that they are to be "inoculated with a sense of revolutionary watchfulness" and that they are cautioned against "blindness and naïve tolerance to wreckers and other class enemies." That is the standard mainly required of persons who are responsible for the running, in this case, of the transport system.
Last year these local agencies were reinforced—I am going to the same set of authorities—by sending "thousands of trained Bolshevist organisers to the
1106
villages as members of the political departments attached to the machine and tractor stations." What in practice has resulted very naturally is the shooting of a great number of people without trial, for such offences as wrecking machinery, a thing which no doubt has happened, or may happen, but which is indiscriminately suggested as the natural and common practice of the whole wretched population concerned. Particularly there have been shootings for what is called grain stealing, where men have been trying to keep back for their families some small portion of the grain which they themselves have grown, and which they have been led by long custom to regard as their own property. These shootings are not, so far as I know, recorded in any official publication of the Russian Government.
There is, however, a result of that policy which is recorded in the same Decree of last January. After the famine of 1933 there is a result recorded by the Russian Government with satisfaction—namely, that in 1933 "the grain deliveries were fulfilled before the time, and in full." I refer to this because it is I believe the fact that early last year there were exaggerated estimates of what the grain produce was going to amount to, and then what quantity was to be given to the Government and what quantity was to be reserved on the farms was fixed in accordance with that exaggerated estimate. That the estimate was exaggerated was very soon known, but what then happened? The Government got the deliveries which they had demanded in full, and the whole shortage fell upon that portion which was supposed to be reserved for the sustenance of the people who grew it. The Government on that result congratulated themselves upon the success of their agrarian policy, making no mention of facts which in other countries are becoming notorious. Therefore I need not ask very closely how the grain was disposed of. The cultivators at any rate did not get their proportion of it.
I have in my Notice mentioned exportation because the committee I have referred to attaches importance to it. For all I know to the contrary the exports may have ceased since that mistake in the estimates of the harvest was made.

1107
I therefore am not anxious for the Government, unless they happen to have information, to deal with that question of exports. Then, of course, the food of the industrial population in the towns is a very large object for which the Russian Government require their portion of the grain. Observers note not, indeed, great prosperity but comparative comfort on the part of the industrial population of the towns, and, broadly speaking, I have found no suggestion anywhere of famine touching the towns such as ravaged the agricultural districts. There is one other class of people who do not go short, and that is, of course, the Army. I mention this because the most marked point in stories by recent travellers in Russia was the contrast between the famished state of the agricultural workers and the markedly well-cared-for condition of all soldiers. I find that it is the opinion of the most weighty authorities that the one primary object of the Soviet Government throughout is to see that they keep in good fettle what I understand to be the second largest army in the world. The bulk of it, I believe, to be stationed in a very remote part of the Russian Empire, for purposes which, good or bad, are distinctly Imperialistic, and are only remotely connected with the welfare of the producers of the grain in Russia. Anyway the Government got their full share and the rural population which produced the grain did not, but to a large extent, on the contrary, died from famine.
I want to make this quite clear, that there seem to have been some recent regulations on the part of the Government of Russia connected with these matters which do appear to be aimed, so far as they go, at making better provision for the peasantry than last year. As to the effect which they are going to produce—and what I am going to say now is largely the reason for my Question—it is going to depend upon the spirit in which, and the energy with which, these regulations are carried out. It will necessarily be long before we get news of what happened in that matter, but many people in the civilised world will watch with anxiety to see whether, in the season now beginning, the human claims of this great mass of the subjects of the Soviet Government have at last begun to count with the Soviet Government as a matter of first-rate importance.
1108
I have purposely avoided any horrifying details which may be exceptional; I have tried to be even dry in my treatment of this matter; I know I have been moderate in my summing up of the results; and I apologise for delaying your Lordships so long. I beg to move.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I think those of your Lordships who have been able to follow the noble Lord will feel that he had some justification for calling your attention to this most painful matter. As one who may be regarded in some sense as a representative of Christian public opinion in this country I cannot be wholly silent on this occasion. It is an extremely distasteful thing to criticise in this House or anywhere the domestic affairs of another country, but I think that the Parliament of this country would be a very different place from what it has been in the past if it were afraid to raise a voice of protest against what seem to be violations of the ordinary instincts of humanity, whether they occur in a small country like Liberia or a great country like Russia.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, in the remarks with which he prefaced this discussion, was animated entirely by his vigilant care for the traditions of this House and the purity of Parliamentary procedure, but I cannot refrain from saying that I am sometimes surprised to notice on the part of some of those commonly associated with him that, while they are most eager to defend workers and peasants in this country who are alleged to be exploited by capitalism, they seem so extraordinarily averse from considering peasants and workers in Russia who are exploited by a powerful capitalist bureaucracy. And I must say I am sometimes surprised—because the noble Lord knows that I share to the full his care for any in this country who are living under conditions of misery and poverty or in distress—that they seem always to resent any attempt to lift the veil which is so carefully placed over foreign observers by the Soviet Government and to realise the appalling misery which over vast areas of Russia lies behind.
I am not going into any details—the noble Lord has done that quite sufficiently—I can only give you the impression left upon my mind after a long and

1109
full study of an immense mass of documents and evidence coming from all quarters, partly from impartial foreign observers who have penetrated the far recesses of Russia, particularly in this matter of Southern Russia from eye-witnesses of scenes, and in many cases from sufferers themselves, some of whom have escaped from Russia and whom I have examined, and as to whose trustworthiness and freedom from party bias I can have no manner of doubt. The impression left on my mind is that the condition of things last year in Russia, particularly in the Southern parts of Russia, was appalling; that there was going on a famine of a degree of severity which has hardly ever been known. I think the noble Lord was most moderate, as he was in all his statements, in saying that the number who perished in the famine was about 3,000,000. I think it would be much nearer the mark to put it at 6,000,000. I know that in one town of 240,000—because it was not merely confined to the country districts—no less than 40,000 died of hunger. For the reasons given by the noble Lord, your Lordships will understand that not even here can I quote the names of my informants or even the places where these things occurred, because, in the event of the most distant allusion, all-vigilant eyes will find the means of tracking out the informants and visiting them with death, or with expulsion to a labour colony, or will let them loose in the wastes of Siberia.
I think there is no question as to the reality, and indeed the extent, of this appalling famine, and, even as to the living, they have been for a large part of last year subsisting on dogs and cats, and horse flesh was a luxury. In some places the advent of mice in the spring was regarded as almost providential as a means of securing food. I do not want to exaggerate, but I fear there is no doubt that at the beginning of last year there were even cases of cannibalism in what is regarded as a civilised country. I have seen photographs myself, the authenticity of which it is impossible to doubt, of corpses lying in the streets, and other bodies lying simply waiting for death on the pavement, and the people of the town passing by as if there was almost nothing particular in it to notice because it had all become so customary,
1110
and bodies have been carried off the streets in lorries and buried anyhow.
I do not think it can be said that the harvest last year was from a natural point of view conspicuously bad. It was that the conditions imposed by the policy of the Government were such as to make it almost impossible for the grain which was there to be brought in. It was a case of demanding bricks without straw. The workers even in the collective farms had not really enough on which to live, much less to work. No wonder that the results disappointed expectations when you had a whole agricultural population ill-nourished and broken in spirit and in heart. As the noble Lord pointed out, there were many cases where the peasants concealed grain in the hope that they might be able to get some of it for themselves and their families, and when it was discovered they were either shot or sent at once to one of the labour colonies in the North. Therefore it was exceedingly difficult for these people, when there was any harvest at all, even to reap enough on which to live.
It may be said that all that refers to the past. I earnestly hope that some of these appalling events do belong to the past, but there cannot but be apprehension about the future. How is this vast population of Russia, who went through that experience last year, to be fed and kept alive in this present year? In one part of Russia which used to be the richest granary in Europe there are now forests of weeds, and I am assured it will take a campaign of four or five years to clear this rich ground of the weeds which have been allowed to accumulate. It is impossible for these peasants, under the conditions in which they live, even to work as ordinary peasants might on the land. Who are to clear the weeds? I am informed that in large parts of Russia, further away than foreigners are allowed to travel, the men have largely perished or been banished and the work is left to be done by the women and children, ill-nourished as they are, and horses and oxen, also ill-nourished and scarcely able to carry a load. As for the hope of multiplying the use of tractors on which the regulators of this policy in Moscow depend, you cannot even work them without good will and intelligence and keenness on

1111
the part of the people. As in many cases the people are broken-spirited, ill-nourished, and apathetic, it has become necessary to send droves of young workers from the various towns, but their ignorance of machinery and agricultural conditions is so great that no wonder the machines break down; and then it is not these workers but the unfortunate peasants who are punished for the sabotage of tractors and the like.
There is some apprehension that even this year there will be export of grain from Russia. I hope that is not true. I hope there will be no further export of grain from Russia until it is clear they can feed their own people. I hope it is not true that ample grain is only secured for the bread and food of the Army and for the privileged town workers. If the Government are able to give us some assurance that that is not so, or that these accounts have been exaggerated, no one will be more thankful than myself. How can any one but be thankful if these statements are exaggerated when we realise what they mean in terms of human life, and therefore if the noble Lord can give us any assurance that these things are exaggerated it will be welcome. Perhaps he may be able to give us also an assurance that the Soviet Government are taking strenuous steps to see that the conditions of last year are not repeated. If so, that also will be some alleviation of anxiety.
My hope is that if the Government make some inquiry as to statements of this kind at Moscow it will be an indication to the Soviet Government that public opinion in this country is gravely concerned about the things that happened last year. I have said more than I meant, but the matter is really very terrible, having in view this mass of destitution, often veiled from inspection by the most careful system of superintendence. I rejoice that Russia is showing a new desire to enter into friendly relations with other countries. I desire to see Russia inside the League of Nations. I have no objection myself to the trade arrangements that are being made, but, if Russia is to be welcomed in the comity of nations, I venture to say it must necessarily depend on how far its Government shows that it has for its own people, the masses of
1112
its peasant people, that care which civilisation and the common instincts of humanity demand.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, I do not want to keep your Lordships more than a few minutes, but I should like to say with what pleasure I saw that the noble Lord, Lord Charnwood, was drawing attention to this matter. I have been in a position to hear a great deal lately concerning the appalling conditions in the Ukraine where, as it so happens, the largest portion of the Catholic population of Russia is to be found. I have heard authentic accounts of the treatment of Bishops and clergy and others in the Ukraine, and of course they are only one portion of the population. Incidentally, I have seen also all the photographs and information to which the most reverend Primate has alluded, describing the appalling state of affairs in the streets and in the country generally. I do not want to hurt the feelings of noble Lords opposite, but we have to remember that all this is being brought about by the deliberate policy of that bloodthirsty and callous system which has been practised over there for the purpose of forcing the population into doctrines of Communism. There is no getting away from that fact.
With regard to the reluctance of noble Lords opposite that this House should pay any attention to these matters, I do not know whether your Lordships are aware that in the House of Representatives in the United States in May there was a Resolution submitted which was ordered to be printed and referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and this Resolution called attention to the fact that:
"Whereas several millions of the population of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, the constituent part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, died of starvation during the years of 1932 and 1933; and
Whereas the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, although being fully aware of the famine in Ukraine and although having full and complete control of the entire food supplies within its borders, nevertheless failed to take relief measures designed to check the famine or to alleviate the terrible conditions arising from it, but on the contrary used the famine as a means of reducing the Ukrainian population and destroying the Ukrainian political, cultural, and national rights; and
Whereas intercessions have been made at various times by the United States

1113
during the course of its history on behalf of citizens of States other than the United States, oppressed or persecuted by their own Governments, indicating that it has been the traditional policy of the United States to take cognisance of such invasions of human rights aid liberties: Therefore be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives express its sympathy for all those who have suffered …"
I shall not read the whole of it, but it is rather a striking Resolution to have been brought up in Congress in the United States, and it shows at all events that on that side there are not such delicate feelings as some people have on this side.
In the Party of noble Lords opposite there are many who show the most extraordinary sympathy with the perpetrators of these iniquities. Let me mention Lord Marley, who, I regret, is not here to-day. I should like to have called the attention of Lord Marley to a report by the correspondent of the New York Times, quoting the words of the noble Lord in the course of a broadcast discussion on disarmament between him and Rear-Admiral Yates Stirling, of the United States Navy, in New York on March 1 this year, when he said:
"Russia is the only country on earth where there is any justice"—
a nice thing to come from a Peer and a member of your Lordships' House. I should recommend Lord Marley to pay some attention to what appeared in the Daily Telegraph a few days ago. A telegram from Moscow appearing in that newspaper called attention to a speech made by M. Krilenko, Commissary for Justice, in which he chastised the judicial officials who had been making a mockery of justice through the sentences they had been passing in so many cases in Russia. At all events it is hopeful of a better feeling in Russia that the Commissary for Justice should have been moved to call attention to that matter. Among the sentences of ten years in a concentration camp quoted by the Daily Telegraph are these:
"Peasant, for stealing 2 lbs. of grain;
"Peasant, for openly taking a handful of peas, when hungry after a long day's threshing;
"Aged watchman on a collecting farm, for eating three potatoes after being left at his post forty-eight hours without any food."
1114
I think if Lord Marley would pay more attention to such things he would have a different opinion as to whether there is any justice to be found in Russia or not.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I had no intention of intervening in this debate had it not been for the speech of the most reverend Primate. I would only say, with reference to the noble Lord who has just spoken, that it is usual and courteous in this House to give warning to a noble Lord if you intend to refer to him, to attack him or to quote him. The most reverend Primate has illustrated precisely what I meant when I said it was undesirable to discuss the internal affairs of foreign nations. The door has been opened. The noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House described the situation with regard to these Motions perfectly accurately, and I was quite satisfied with the reply he gave to me, but I would ask him now whether there was not some justification for my protest.
We are discussing Russia to-day. We may be discussing Italy next week or when we resume; we may be discussing Austria and what goes on in Vienna, and discussing what goes on in Berlin, and what goes on in the United States or any other country; and then the most reverend Primate is going to get up and make one of those most eloquent, pleasant speeches telling these foreign countries how they ought to behave and pointing to the wretched condition of their citizens and their cruelty to them. It makes me perfectly hot to think that our Parliament should assume a self-righteous rôle of that sort. This is precisely what I thought would happen and it has happened, and it is the most undesirable thing. It makes me wish more than ever that I Was back in another place where the rules would prevent anything so undesirable, so mischievous as this from happening. May I remind the most reverend Primate, when he accuses my Party of only having compassion that has a Party bias in it, that people in glass houses had better not throw stones and that the position of the Anglican Church—
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: May I interrupt to say that what I did was to express surprise that sometimes that impression had been created?
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: That is the way the most reverend Primate emphasises some things, by putting them in the mildest possible terms. The fact remains that the Anglican Church is pre-eminently in a glass house because it is pre-eminently on the side of authority. What authority does has to be praised, and what other people do has to be distorted. I do not remember the most reverend Primate getting into a state of indignation about the appalling atrocities that were committed under the Tsarist régime, and which were brought out with documentary evidence rather than with the amount of hearsay we have in the charges made against the Soviet Government to-day. But the Anglican Church is those days was perfectly silent. Not a word was said, because it was authority.
THE LORD ARCHIBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord but I remember myself taking part in a most strongly worded attack upon the authorities in those days for their persecution of the Jews.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I withdraw if the most reverend Primate made a protest against the persecution of the Jews, but there were many terrible persecutions in those days, and I do not seem to remember the Anglican Church being particularly articulate on the subject. But I rose to register my protest, and the protest of those who act with me in this House, at these opportunities being taken to lecture foreign countries, to tell them how they ought to behave, on very insufficient evidence to give catalogues of crime and instances of hardship when, as we all know, if we had research into other parts of the world we might receive information which would rouse us to great indignation. I am sorry to say that if we had investigations into some of the cruelties that are taking place in our own country because of the poverty and malnutrition and destitution that exist we should find that perhaps our eyes had better be turned at home before we find fault with our neighbours. Famines have the most terrible consequences. There have been famines in India. In the United States to-day the Middle West is in a very parlous condition. It is not the business of Parliament in this country to point the finger
1116
of scorn at other countries, to deride and attack them for maladministration of their affairs. We on these Benches very much regret that this opportunity should have been taken to turn this debate in the direction which I did my best to prevent when I intervened at the beginning.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House intimated to your Lordships that my reply would necessarily be brief, and I think the noble Lord who initiated this debate realised that that would be the case. I am not, of course, going to follow the noble Lords who have just spoken into the many points they have raised. I would merely remark in passing that I do not think it is necessary for this House to take its example from the Legislature of any foreign country, or indeed from another place. I think we are capable of looking after ourselves. His Majesty's Government are familiar with a great deal of the information which has been given to your Lordships both by the noble Lord who put down this Motion and by the most reverend Primate. I think I recognise some of the sources of the information which has been given.
But it is not the business of the Government to enter into discussions on the subject of the internal affairs of foreign countries. It does not collect information for that purpose, and there are, therefore, no Papers which I can lay. Nor have the Government any material for contradicting the information given by noble Lords except that which has been published through the official propaganda of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. That, of course, is available to your Lordships, and your Lordships are aware that it does not correspond with information which comes from other sources. Your Lordships are fully capable of deciding which of those sources of information you think is the more reliable. I have no other information which I can lay before your Lordships, and as I have no Papers to lay I am afraid that that is the only contribution I can make to the debate on the subject. I hope that the noble Lord will not accuse me of any lack of courtesy in that my reply is so brief.
LORD CHARNWOOD: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl for his

1117
reply. I am quite aware that if there were any Papers which might be laid he would be very ready to lay them. Perhaps I might be allowed to recall the extreme patience and courtesy with which, when he was Foreign Secretary, Mr. Henderson met those interested in similar questions a few years back, and the pains he took to satisfy them as to what Papers could possibly be laid. I well remember the courtesy and straightforwardness of Mr. Henderson on that occasion and I am perfectly certain that the noble Earl would not fall behind him in that respect. I would like also to remark, on the speech of the most reverend Primate, that whatever defects my speech may have had he has more than amply made good. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, rebuked the most reverend Primate in a very authoritative manner. I think I may leave him and the most reverend Primate alone, because I recollect that when two or three years ago the most reverend Primate made a powerful speech, amply well informed, replete with sufficient evidence, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, got up and rebuked him in tones of very serious admonition for the rashness and inexperience which he had displayed. The noble Lord had then been a member of this House, I think, for a period of about three months.
I do not think I need take upon myself the charge of defending the Archbishop, but I must be allowed to make one remark and I make it without the slightest wish to be personally discourteous to the noble Lord. He spoke like a man who, seeing a cruel thing being done and seeing another man trying to intervene, rebukes him for his self-righteousness. I am convinced at the back of my mind, absolutely convinced, that the noble Lord himself is a man of humane instincts, but since he came to this House it has been appalling and distressing to me to see how readily and how consistently he has stepped into debates connected at all with this subject—on which he invariably remarks ho has no information—in the pose of a man steeped in abnormal callousness towards human suffering, towards oppression, and towards human woe. I beg leave to withdraw.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SOLICITORS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in moving that the Commons Amendments be considered I need not occupy your Lordships' time for more than a very few minutes. What happened was this. A flaw was found in the Solicitors Act under which a limited company could act as solicitors. That made it necessary to amend the Solicitors Act. Your Lordships passed a Bill and it was made to apply to Scotland. It was found in another place that some technical Amendments were necessary to make the application to Scotland effective. I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
[The references are to Bill No. 41.]
Clause 1, page 1, line 20, after ("sections") insert ("thirty-six").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I would ask your Lordships to allow me to explain this Amendment in conjunction with a later Amendment excluding the application of subsection (1) to Scotland. Section 36 of the Scottish Act of 1933 corresponds to Section 46 of the English Act of 1932. The High Court in England decided that "person" in Section 46 did not include a corporation. Subsection (1) of Clause 1 reverses the law as laid down in that decision to the effect of bringing a corporation within Section 46 of the English Act. As there has been, however, no similar decision in Scotland, it is better to exclude subsection (1) of Clause 1, and to bring a corporation within Section 36 of the Scottish Act by including that section in subsection (2). The penalty provided in subsection (1) is not the same as the general penalty provided by Section 40 of the Scottish Act. Nor would the provisions of that section as to the place at which, and the time within which, proceedings may be brought apply to a contravention by a corporation of subsection (1) of Clause 1, but they will apply to a contravention of Section 36 if that section is brought within subsection (2) of Clause 1. I beg to move that this, House doth agree with the Commons in this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 1, line 22, leave out ("impose penalties on") and insert ("prohibit").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the sections of the Scottish Act of 1933 mentioned in subsection (2) of Clause 1 do not specify the penalties attached to the acts prohibited by these sections, but merely say that a person who does any such act is guilty of an offence under the Act, the penalty therefor being provided by Section 40. Accordingly the descriptive words "which provisions, impose penalties on the doing of certain acts" are not strictly accurate. If "prohibit" is substituted for "impose penalties on" the descriptive words more aptly fit the Scottish enactment mentioned in the subsection and apply equally well to the English ones. I need hardly say that the Scottish Office have put forward these Amendments. I am very glad to move them.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 1, line 25, at end insert ("(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to Scotland").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is the Amendment which I referred to in connection with the first of the Amendments. I beg to move that the House doth agree with it.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MILK BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.— (Earl De La Warr.)
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I want to take this opportunity of asking the noble Earl one or two questions. I want to ask him about the milk subsidy which has been, I understand, paid to Scotland on the ground that if they do not have a subsidy paid to them they will send milk into England. It is said that at the present moment a subsidy of 4d. per gallon is paid to the Scottish producer of milk in order to get him not to send it into England. I ask the noble Earl whether he will enquire what is the actual price and also whether he will say upon what number of gallons the subsidy is paid, whether it is 4d. or whether it is a smaller amount. I notice that the Farmer and Stockbreeder, in its issue of last Monday, stated that this milk which came from Scotland was outside the jurisdiction of the English Scheme, seeing that as far as the Milk Board are concerned, and I suppose as far as the Minister of Agriculture is concerned, they have no power to stop this raiding by Scotland upon England.
In the past there has been a good deal of that sort of thing, but then there was open competition generally. Now the producer in England has the price fixed for him; he is not a free agent in this matter. It is not a question merely of supply and demand. I notice also that it is said by the Farmer and Stockbreeder, which I have already quoted, that great advantage accrues to Scotland in that they are able to send all their surplus milk over to England and get the liquid milk price for it, whereas if they had to retain it in Scotland they would get simply the manufactured price, which shows that they have made a very good bargain indeed and have got a very great advantage over the English producer. They have practically no liquid milk left on their hands; all of it can be used as liquid milk instead of being used for manufacturing purposes. This milk upon which the subsidy is paid now will have to go for manufacturing purposes, but if they get 4d. per gallon, or even 3d. per gallon, they are doing very much better than the English producer, whose surplus milk has to be sold at a price of 3½d. or 4d.
I notice with much amusement that the Farmer and Stockbreeder says that it was a very good bargain indeed for England. It is a very good bar-

1121
gain indeed for Scotland. I am very well aware that the Scottish people are very good at bargaining, and very clever at all that sort of thing. They have certainly got the advantage of the Englishman in this case as very often in other cases they have got the advantage of him. I venture to point out to the noble Earl that this is very hard upon the English producer, because it is of course the English producer who has to find this money. The Milk Board have got no money with which, to pay for it, and they have got to raise extra money from the English producer in order to pay this sum of money to Scotland. Of course the noble Earl may tell me that the Minister of Agriculture has no power to require the Milk Boards to give him any information about this matter. If this is so I would venture to suggest to the noble Earl that it would not be at all out of the way—Departments often do it—for him to make inquiries of those organisations and ask them as a matter of courtesy to tell him what is the exact state of things.
I am sure that farmers would be very disappointed indeed if the noble Earl were to give me that answer, because certainly farmers look upon the Minister of Agriculture as the man who is to look after their interests and protect them, not only in Parliament but also outside Parliament. If this state of things goes on I think it will be found that English farmers will say: "It is not fair to us to be fined in this way and to be taxed for the benefit of Scotland," and therefore they will ask for some legislation in this matter. I hope that he will give us full information in some way or another. On the other hand, if he cannot give full information to-day I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will do something to bring pressure to bear upon Scotland to ensure that they do not behave to England in this way, to the detriment of the English producer.
EABL DE LA WARE: My Lords, I am afraid I really cannot help the noble Lord upon the point on which he has put this question. To begin with his whole speech was based on certain statements in the Farmer and Stockbreeder and on something which he has heard about 4d. per gallon being paid to the Scottish Milk Board from the English Milk Board. There is no authority whatsoever for the
1122
statements which, have been made and which the noble Lord has brought to your Lordships' notice. It is understood that the English and Scottish Milk Marketing Boards have arrived at an agreement whereby the unnecessary movement of milk between the areas of the two Schemes will be reduced as far as possible, but the Minister is not in possession of the detailed information necessary to enable him to give the noble Lord an answer to this question, nor indeed, so far as I am aware, has the actual agreement yet been signed.
I would make the point very clear—the noble Lord suggested that I would do so and certainly I wish to make it clear—that there is no statutory obligation at all upon the Boards to furnish the Minister with particulars of purely private trading transactions of this nature. Speaking for myself, I think it would be most undesirable, if it were possible, for the Minister of Agriculture to be able to step in and interfere in the day-to-day trading arrangements of the Boards. Fanners require no protection from the Boards. The Boards are composed of the appointed representatives of farmers, and I suggest that the relations between the Boards and farmers are far best left to the farmers and the Boards themselves to look after.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOE THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That this Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE:
My Lords, before we part with this Bill I desire on behalf of my noble friends around me, and I think I may say on behalf of the whole House, to express our thanks to the noble Earl who has conducted this Bill through the Committee stage and the Report stage with such unfailing courtesy and patience. I only want to mention three small points which I should like to bring to his notice.

1123
The Bill is concerned with them, of course, but they do not refer to any particular Amendment. They are points which I should like him to bring to the notice of the Minister of Transport.
The first point arises on an Amendment which was passed, as the noble Earl will remember, with regard to the necessity of preventing noise. It was passed by general consent of the House, and the noble Earl told us that there was going to be a scientific inquiry into the matter in order that they might have some knowledge of the quantitative measurement of noise. I think he used that expression twice. I want to point out to the noble Earl very respectfully that that would seem to me to be the wrong way for the scientists to go to work. It really is not quantitative noise that we want to get at. Nobody minds a clap of thunder, or even an explosion, but what we all mind is this constant raucous throbbing, which disturbs people night and day, from the exhausts of motor cars and motor cycles. I think therefore if they concentrate on quantitative noise they will really not arrive at any satisfactory conclusions. Scientific people are rather apt in their eagerness to make very intense investigations into matters which do not very much signify.
Another point which I mentioned, I think, during the Second Reading debate, and to which I should like the noble Earl to give rather more attention, is the question of fines on the spot. I sincerely believe that that method, after careful investigation, might be adopted for minor offences where there can be no question of the offences having been perpetrated, like the absence, of a reflector on the back of a bicycle, or a car being drawn up in a spot whore parking is quite clearly forbidden such as within the white lines at the corner of a road. In cases of that sort I feel that the method which is being adopted abroad for these smaller offences is rapid, is not likely to inflict any injustice and, at the same time, enables the police to deal with these minor offences instead of, as now, going through the wrong procedure of allowing these culprits to escape.
The third point is the Highway Code. I listened very carefully to the remarks of the noble Earl on that point, and I did not hear anything really in the way of an assurance that some plan has been
1124
thought out as to how this new edition of the Highway Code could be distributed. It is not sufficient just to distribute it to motorists. We want as many people as possible throughout the country to get it; and without entering into various ideas which have occurred to me, I hope the noble Earl will press the Minister of Transport to think out some method of broadcasting this little pamphlet in such a way that it may be available in all public places without the least possible difficulty. Except for that I only want once more to thank the noble Earl for his courtesy.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I would like, if I may be allowed to do so, to associate myself most sincerely with what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has said with regard to the noble Earl who is in charge of this Bill. As one who has been, I am afraid, a rather hostile critic, I may say that I have been treated by him with the most extraordinary courtesy and kindness on every occasion. Before we finally part with this Bill I want to say a few things with regard to it. Yesterday the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, referring to some remarks of mine, said:
"This Bill has been brought in to try to decrease the lamentable number of deaths, but I am afraid that the noble Earl, who has been one of the leaders of those who put down Amendments on behalf of the motorist, is one who has overcome that feeling about accidents and deaths. The whole object of those noble Lords who support him is to increase the pace of motor cars."
He then cited another Amendment of mine and said "It was simply designed to enable cars to go a little faster."
The noble Earl said I misrepresented him. If I did so I am indeed sorry, but in those few remarks he entirely misrepresented my attitude and the attitude of those with whom I have acted in respect of this Bill. For years past I have been drawing attention to the appalling casualty roll on the roads. I did it in 1930, when the Road Traffic Act was being passed, and I did it before then, and I could get little support from anybody. It did not seem possible to attract the serious attention of any one in this House. Ever since then I have been referring to the matter. My object has not been to increase the speed of motor cars. That is entirely wrong. What I and we say is that this present Road Traffic Bill will do nothing to increase public safety. It pro-

1125
poses to have a speed limit of thirty miles an hour. What does that speed limit represent? It certainly does not represent a safe speed. What may be a safe speed for one car is entirely unsafe for another. What is safe for one driver is unsafe for another. We say that it encourages a wrong mentality in drivers, policemen and magistrates, and that it will do a great deal to side-track attention from what really matters. What we want on the roads is an improvement in manners and road sense. If we can get those two things we shall do something actively effective to reduce the casualty roll.
This Bill also sets up the most appalling multiplicity of signs. Under this Bill, with reference to the thirty miles an hour speed limit alone, we are going to set up no fewer than five distinct new signs which the motorist has got to keep an eye on. If he disregards any of those signs he may be landed in gaol, and if he is a paid worker it may be a very serious matter to him. Then, again, nothing is going to be done under this Bill, so far as I can make out, with regard to the coloured background behind traffic light signals—a most important matter. The speed limit is going to depend upon lamp posts, a most thoroughly unsatisfactory matter from the point of view of the motorist. Lamp posts are not put up so as to be easily visible, nor are they painted a colour which is easily seen, and no provision is made for colour blindness, although I believe there are a large number of colour-blind people.
Then the charges are to be brought before tribunals which will often be very inexpert and even prejudiced. As in former years, in the case of the twenty miles an hour speed limit, and even since, conspicuous offenders will often be let off with practically no penalty at all, whereas others in far less serious cases will receive savage sentences. We know from the experience we have had in connection with motor legislation in the past, that the Surrey courts of summary jurisdiction will be able to revive the species of public competition that they seemed to run in connection with fines for technical offences. I say this advisedly, because they actually did publish figures, and there seemed to be a sort of competition between the various courts of justice.
1126
Another grave defect in the Bill from the point of view of the motorist is the fact that a man may be convicted on the evidence of a single policeman. No one has greater admiration for the magnificent uprightness of our Police force, but it is always possible for people to make mistakes, and it is not satisfactory that a man should be convicted, as he can be under this Bill, on the evidence of a single policeman, of a very serious charge indeed. I can only hope for your Lordships' sake that it does not happen to be any member of this House who so suffers. The effect of the Bill has already been to send up motor cycle insurance by 50 per cent., and motor cyclists are not the most affluent section of the community. The Bill also perpetrates what the motor community looks upon as a grave injustice—namely, the motorist having to pay the doctor's fees although he may be not in the least responsible for the accident. It must be obvious that the principle embodied in that provision is one which is quite foreign to our laws as a whole, and one which will be bitterly resented.
There are good things in the Bill. The first good thing I can see in it is that there are to be tests for drivers. I can assure your Lordships it will be very carefully watched by the motoring community to see that the tests are real tests. If it should happen that the tests imposed become too easy to pass, instead of some real knowledge of the Highway Code being required, then the tests will mean but little and they will become more or less perfunctory. So long as they are real tests I am convinced that they will do good and will do something to reduce the number of accidents. But they will only operate slowly, because only those who took out licences after April of this year will be subject to the tests. Therefore it will take a long time before we get an improved standard of driving under these tests.
Another good thing about the Bill is that it at last gives the Minister power to regulate pedestrian traffic. I regard this as being possibly the greatest thing that could be done to reduce the number of casualties. I sincerely hope that the Minister will do everything he can to extend the use of pedestrian crossings, and further that steps will be taken to prevent pedestrians from launching off

1127
into the middle of roundabout systems of traffic. That is the sort of thing that causes accidents. Those are, to my mind, the great points about the Bill.
There are four questions I should like to ask the Minister. Your Lordships will appreciate that the Report stage only finished yesterday and there has not been much time to consider the questions arising from it. The first question is: Will the Minister say that the thirty miles an hour speed limit will not come into operation until the speed-limit signs—the five separate signs which he has to set up under the Bill—are in position? I do not mean every single sign throughout the country, but I hope that broadly speaking the signs will be in position before the thirty-mile speed limit is brought into operation. I think it is only fair that one should ask that, in view of the very serious effects that may follow charges brought under the Act. With regard to the Highway Code I am indeed glad to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said on that subject, and I entirely share his anxiety. I hope everything will be done to bring the Highway Code before all the schools of the country—public, private and elementary. I hope that every use will be made of the cinema and of broadcasting, and I hope that in the four holiday periods special sections of the Highway Code will be textually reproduced in the public Press, and that no fee will be charged for reproducing them.
With regard to the causation of accidents, an important letter appeared in to-day's Times, signed by Sir Auckland Geddes, in which he pleads for a scientific inquiry into the causation and prevention of accidents. We have had a police inquiry and a compilation of statistics very carefully gathered and collated by the Ministry of Transport, but that does not go far enough. I entirely agree with the point made by Sir Auckland Geddes, and I hope very much that the Minister will be able to give it his consideration. Would it not be a good thing to set up a really scientific inquiry into the real causation of accidents, and to put all sorts of people on that inquiry, provided they are real experts? Then with regard to road construction, what is the Minister really going to do to try to get better road surfaces throughout the country? We have all seen the
1128
circular letter which the Minister sent round in February, but every one of us who has experience knows that the road surfaces still leave much to be desired. There is too much variation, and the roads are far too slippery. They are often unsuitable from the point of view of horse drivers and cyclists, and equally unsuitable for the motorist. They are very dark in colour where they should be light. That is going to be an important point in relation to the picking up of these signs under the Bill. The dark background at night, with headlights on, will make it extraordinarily difficult to pick up the signs.
I hope the Minister will be able to do a little more to improve road construction. By that I mean road construction at corners, super-elevation at corners. That is not done in order to enable the motorist to go faster. It is done simply and solely to enable traffic to keep on its own side of the road at corners. You often see slow traffic keeping too much on the inside of corners, solely because of the camber on the road, and the drivers are afraid they will slip if they go too far over. I sincerely hope that the Bill will do good. I trust that my forecast that it will not do good will be wrong, but I am perfectly certain that the mere imposition of a speed limit, with the technical offences following in its train, will do nothing at all to reduce casualties on the road.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, in view of what the noble Earl has said I should like to point out that I did not in my speech last night accuse him of wishing to increase accidents. I said that the cause he was pleading was that of increased speed, and I quoted the words of the Commission that speed is the cause of all these dreadful accidents. The noble Earl assures me that his object is to reduce the number of accidents and I accept what he says, but I must say that, as regards speed, appearances are rather against him. In the first place, he did all he could to support the absence of the speed limit between twelve o'clock at night and five o'clock in the morning, and I am glad to say that there the sense of the House was against him.
EARL HOWE: The noble Earl has completely misrepresented me. I was one of those who supported the Amendment that there should be a speed limit all round the clock.
EARL BATHURST: I beg the noble Earl's pardon. I did not realise that.
EARL HOWE: Furthermore, if the noble Earl will cast his mind back to 1930 he will remember that I resisted the removal of the twenty miles an hour speed limit.
EARL BATHURST: I must apologise for making that mistake. But there was also the case of the by-pass roads—the removal of the speed limit in the case of by-passes. I think the noble Earl supported that Amendment, and that is decidedly one which increases speed in built-up areas, because all those by-passes will be built up some time. I think the noble Earl can hardly say that that was not with the object of increasing speed.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I only rise to refer to something that fell from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I may have misunderstood him, but I certainly understood him to encourage the Ministry to deal, so far as noise is concerned, almost entirely with silencers. I hope that is not his intention nor that of the Minister, because if he will go and sit in my office he will realise that noise in London is not mainly the noise of exhausts. It is gear box noises, back-axle noises, and chassis rattle noises, and almost; the last thing you notice is the exhaust.
LORD PONSONBY OP SHULBREDE: Perhaps I may be allowed to correct the impression I gave. I did not mean that every sort of noise ought not to be dealt with. I only felt it would be unwise to concentrate merely on what is called quantitative noise, that is the intensity of noise like a clap of thunder. I said there were many other things besides that which might not be registered very highly on one of these machines for registering noises.
LORD SANDHURST: I am very glad to have the noble Lord's assurance, because I certainly gathered that he was going on the point of the noise of the exhaust only. I hope they will concentrate particularly on tyre noise. I do not know whether the Government are aware that one of the best non-skid tyres on the market is almost dead silent; and they have only got to listen to the omnibuses going along the street to realise
1130
where a tremendous lot of the noise of London comes from.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, first of all I desire to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Earl who sits behind me for the terms in which they referred to my conduct of the Bill through your Lordships' House, which I need hardly say I greatly appreciate. I have been asked a, certain number of specific questions. I am afraid I am not in a position to answer them all, but I should like briefly to reply to the noble Lord opposite. He mentioned the question of noise, and put forward the view that he did not think a scientific investigation of this matter was the proper way of dealing with the subject. I am not at all sure that I agree with him. After all, so long as there is no scientific investigation of the matter you will always get the difficulty of saying what is excessive noise and what is not excessive noise, and I imagine this investigation of the question was precisely with a view to seeing if a way could be found of estimating the amount of noise being made. I do not think anybody would deny that if a way of achieving that were found it would be of very great value in this matter.
Then he also mentioned once again the possibility of allowing policemen to fine offenders on the spot for minor offences. I expressed the views of the Government on this matter during the Committee stage, or perhaps it may have been on the Second Reading of the Bill. This question has been considered, and I am afraid I cannot add anything to what I said then—namely, that at the present time the Government do not view the proposal with favour. Both the noble Lord and the noble Earl once again referred to the Highway Code, and expressed a very strong feeling that steps should be taken to make this Code available to the public far more easily than it is at the present moment. I know that attention will be paid by the Minister to what has been said in this House and to the strongly-expressed feelings on this matter. I know it will be the object of the Minister to make the Code available to the public as easy as possible, and to give facilities to all respectable publishers to reproduce it. I feel certain close attention will be given to this

1131
matter, and I quite realise the importance of it.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: Can the noble Earl say whether the new edition of the Code is ready?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I am afraid I cannot say definitely, but I think not. Turning for a moment to the words of the noble Earl, he delivered a strong attack on certain features of this Bill, and discussed at some length many of the basic principles of it. I am sure your Lordships will not wish me to go into these matters further at this stage. We have given them very full consideration, and your Lordships have come to the conclusions you have reached after having been thoroughly into these matters. The noble Earl asked me four questions to which I shall attempt to give him some sort of reply. Firstly, he asked whether the thirty miles an hour speed limit would not be brought into operation until the signs which the Minister and the highway authorities are to put up as the result of Clause 1 have been placed in position. I cannot give him a definite assurance that every sign will be put up before the speed limit operates, but I cannot imagine that the speed limit will be put into operation until, generally speaking at any rate, all these necessary signs are in position. Then he referred to the Highway Code, which I have already dealt with, and to the question of road construction.
1132
The question of road construction is a matter to which the Minister is giving the very closest attention. The importance of it is fully realised, and the divisional road engineers are, of course, giving this particular matter their very closest consideration. Every kind of influence is being brought to bear on the highway authorities to improve their roads in this respect, and I think I am right in saying that the Minister is in a position to withhold the grant for any road improvement unless the surface approved by the Minister has been made use of. Lastly the noble Earl referred to the letter written by Sir Auckland Geddes to The Times, suggesting that we should have a scientific inquiry into the causation of accidents. I have not had time to go into that matter or consider it fully, but I will certainly bring the noble Earl's remarks in this respect to the attention of the Minister. I hope your Lordships will now give this Bill a Third Reading.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

POOR LAW (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes before eight o'clock.