Sitting of 9 July 1935

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
City of London (St. Paul's Cathedral Preservation) Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Swansea Tramways Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Leigh Joint Hospital District) Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN PROTECTORATES.
  Mr. PARKINSONasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs when he proposes to make a statement on the position in Basutoland, in view of the recommendations in Sir Alan Pim's Report?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Lord Stanley): My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make a general statement, but I may say that applications have been received from the Basutoland Government for assistance from the Colonial Development Fund in respect of the principal recommendations of Sir Alan Pim's Report. These applications are now being considered with a view to submission to the Colonial Development Advisory Committee.

  SOUTHERN RHODESIA.
  Mr. PARKINSONasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs in what part of Southern Rhodesia were the roads made by native cattle-owners without compulsion; and whether he will
  132
  set up an inquiry into the conditions of road-making in the native reserves of the charter district of Mashonaland?
  Lord STANLEY: The answer which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Mallalieu) on the 14th May was based upon information supplied to him as a result of an inquiry made by the Chief Native Commissioner of Southern Rhodesia with regard to allegations which had been made concerning the construction of roads in the Charter District. In the circumstances I see no need for further inquiries.
  Mr. PARKINSONasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the Government of Southern Rhodesia has been a party to the discussions on the possible transfer of the South African Protectorates to the Union; and what portion of Bechuanaland, if any, would, in the event of such transfer, be allocated to Southern Rhodesia?
  Lord STANLEY: As stated in the reply to the hon. Member's question on the 16th April, a despatch has been received from the Government of Southern Rhodesia on this subject. In reply it has been intimated that their views will not be overlooked in connection with future developments as to the position of the Bechuanaland Protectorate, but their attention has also been called to the position of the Union of South Africa in the matter. Reference to the subject is included in the aide-mémoire which my right hon. Friend handed to General Hertzog.

  LABRADOR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY.
  Mr. LUNNasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the question of granting a loan of £40,000 for the development of the timber resources in Labrador to the Labrador Development Company, of which Mr. J. O. Williams is president, has yet been decided; whether he is aware that this Mr. Williams has been four times bankrupt, on the last occasion the deficiency being 380,000 dollars with nothing at all for the creditors; whether the present Trade Commissioner for Newfoundland in

  133
  London, who was a partner with Mr. Williams in the last-named venture, has any interest in the Labrador Development Company; and whether, before any loan is granted, he will satisfy himself that it is being made to a reputable and sound concern?
  Lord STANLEY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative and to the third part in the negative. As regards the second part, I am informed by the Governor that Mr. Williams has never been declared bankrupt and no bankruptcy proceedings have ever been taken against him or against any companies in which he was concerned, though certain companies with which he was associated went into voluntary liquidation in 1918 and 1926. As regards the last part, the loan has been advanced subject to stringent safeguards, and one of the commissioners has been appointed to represent the Newfoundland Government on the board of the company on conditions which place the Government in effective control of the undertaking during the currency of the loan.
  Mr. LUNN: If I show the Noble Lord a list that I have from business men in Newfoundland in this matter, will he have further inquiries made?
  Lord STANLEY: Yes. If the hon. Member has any information which is not in our possession, I should be happy to discuss it with him.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the Noble Lord aware that the person referred to in the question is no relation to the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams)?
  Mr. HANNON: May I ask the Noble Lord whether it is not a very serious matter to put a question of this kind on the Order Paper affecting the credit of a particular individual who, in point of fact, is not a bankrupt at all?
  Mr. THORNE: Is it impossible to give the terms of the loan?
  Lord STANLEY: We know the conditions already.
  Mr. THORNE: You may, but I do not.
  Lord STANLEY: We are satisfied. The position is that over 80 per cent. of the
  134
  shares of this Company have been transferred to the Government as security for the loan, in addition to almost the whole of the shares in J. O. Williams, Ltd., of Cardiff. One of the commissioners has been appointed with very wide powers, which gives the Government effective control of the undertaking, including the remuneration of the management and the declaration of dividend.
  Mr. LUNN: If I can produce letters from business men in Newfoundland showing that there is something in this question, am I not justified in putting the question?
  Mr. HANNON: On a point of Order. Is it not a fact that when hon. Members put questions on the Order Paper they make themselves responsible for the accuracy of the information embodied in the question, and is it not essential that the hon. Member should be quite satisfied that a statement of this kind is a matter of fact?
  Mr. LUNN: I do accept it.
  Captain PETER MACDONALD: In view of the statement made by the Under-Secretary, surely the hon. Member will apologise to the House and withdraw the statement made in the allegation, which casts a reflection on a man who is in Government employment. It is a very serious matter.
  Mr. LUNN: On the point of Order. I suppose it is usual to put questions down upon information supplied from a Dominion, and as I have the information there is no necessity for me to apologise. I can supply the information to the noble Lord.
  Mr. SPEAKER: On the point of Order. There is a Rule of the House that when an hon. Member makes a statement in a question he holds himself responsible for the accuracy of the statement.

  TRANSPORT.

    MOTOR-CAR INSURANCE.
    Sir JOHN POWERasked the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to introduce legislation to provide that insurance companies undertaking third-party motor insurance shall be required to deposit a sum not less than life insurance companies are required to deposit?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): My hon. Friend will no doubt have seen the Bill to amend the Assurance Companies (Winding-Up) Act, 1933, which was introduced in another place on Wednesday last. The Bill is confined to measures required to meet the immediate needs of the situation and is not concerned with other aspects of insurance law.

    FERRY, KYLESKU, SUTHERLAND.
    Mr. McKIEasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the ferry at Kylesku, in the county of Sutherland, is unsatisfactory and provides an irregular service; and whether he will take steps to get it improved?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): The Kylesku ferry is operated by the Scottish Automobile Association. I am informed that there is a, continuous service during daylight from about the middle of May to the middle of October, but that delay may be experienced at certain low tides. I will, however, send my hon. Friend's question and this reply to the association, together with any suggestion for improvement which he may wish to make.
    Mr. GUY: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider a scheme for replacing this ferry by a bridge?
    Captain HUDSON: We will consider that suggestion.
    Mr. McKIE: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman convey the same suggestion to the Minister in view of the fact that the county council of Ross-shire will be assisted by the Government to the extent of a 75 per cent. grant?

    REGULATIONS.
    Mr. McKEAGasked the Minister of Transport the actual number of Regulations of all kinds which have been issued by the Ministry of Transport since 1st July, 1930, giving separately the actual number (stated consecutively) of Regulations issued under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, and the Road Traffic Act, 1934?
    Captain A. HUDSON: During the five years since July, 1930, 2,907 sealed Regulations and Orders have been issued by my Department under the various Acts
    136
    relating to railways, roads and other forms of transport, and to electricity. Of the total 100 have been made under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, 13 under the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, and 22 under the Road Traffic Act, 1934.
    Mr. GUY: Is it not high time that these Regulations were codified?
    Captain HUDSON: This Department deals with a variety of subjects which are constantly changing, and therefore the Regulations have to be changed to meet the circumstances.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is it not time that the Department was done away with altogether?
    Captain HUDSON: No, Sir.
    Mr. McKEAG: Would it not be possible for the Department to codify the Regulations in regard to specific subjects, at any rate?

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    GERMANY (EXPORTS).
    Mr. GRANVILLE GIBSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the representations made to him by chambers of commerce respecting the adverse effects upon home and foreign trade of subsidised German exports; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has given consideration to the communications addressed to him on this subject. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer to the reply given to my hon. Friend on the 19th June.
    Mr. GIBSON: May I ask whether some scheme cannot be conceived to circumvent the effect of the subsidy upon our exporters, because it is in fact obliterating the effect of the tariff imposed for the benefit of our exporters?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: If the hon. Member will look at the answer to which I referred, he will see that I dealt with the question of the home market and also the exports to neutral markets. If he has any sugestions to make to me, I shall be glad to receive them.

    ANGLO-RUMANIAN PAYMENTS AGREEMENT.
    Mr. GIBSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state when British creditors for amounts exceeding £20 may expect to receive payment of their accounts under the Anglo-Rumanian Agreement; and what steps he proposes taking to obtain fulfilment of the conditions of that agreement?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The facts are as stated in the reply I gave to my hon. Friend on 25th June. The position of the Anglo-Rumanian Payments Agreement is about to be discussed in London with representatives of the Rumanian Government who are coming for this purpose.
    Mr. GIBSON: In view of the great anxiety on the part of industrialists, particularly in the West Riding of Yorkshire, who have hundreds of thousands of pounds outstanding from Rumania, will my hon. and gallant Friend's Department take into consideration the exercising of extreme pressure, even to the extent of an embargo on the export of sterling to Rumania, in order to bring them to their senses and so that they may carry out their obligations?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The matter will be strongly pressed, and the discussions begin to-morrow.

    AIRCRAFT AND ENGINES (EXPORTS).
    Dr. ADDISONasked the President of the Board of Trade how many aircraft or aircraft engines, similar to those supplied to British air forces, have been supplied by British firms to other nations during the 12 months ending May, 1935, and to which nations?
    Dr. BURGIN: I regret that the desired information is not available.
    Dr. ADDISON: Is the hon. Member only able to tell us what the exports are of aircraft engines to any individual country?
    Dr. BURGIN: There is no difficulty about the number of aircraft engines that are exported to any particular country, nor of the value. The difficulty entirely arises from the fact that the right hon. Gentleman in his question refers to particular types. There are not returns separating the types. I could give the gross figure, and I could probably give the number. If the right hon. Gentleman
    138
    has any particular country in mind, I could give him the figure for that.
    Dr. ADDISON: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will give me such information as he can.
    Mr. THORNE: Is it possible to find out the component parts that are exported to be assembled at the other end?
    Dr. BURGIN: It is possible to give the number of complete aircraft, or the number of engines, or the value, but it is not possible to separate the types. Types are not matters on which the Customs authorities have detailed information.
    Dr. ADDISON: If I put down a question and ask for the number of engines and aircraft and the countries to which they have been exported, without distinguishing the types, will the hon. Member be able to give me the information?
    Dr. BURGIN: I should hope that the right hon. Gentleman will Assist by indicating some country. If he makes his question purely general, obviously I will do my best to circulate the information, but I think it would be better that some indication of the geographical area that he has in mind should be given.
    Mr. COCKS: What we want to know is how far we are supplying the military resources of Germany?

    IMPORT DUTIES (OPEN MESH SILK HOSE).
    Viscountess ASTORasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that open-mesh silk hose are not manufactured in Great Britain, he will consider consulting the Import Duties Advisory Committee as to the advisability of reducing the duty on imported hose of this variety?
    Dr. BURGIN: I am informed that open-mesh silk stockings are made in this country and that, if desired, the National Federation of Hosiery Manufacturers' Associations would be prepared to give information as to sources of supply. Any representations for a variation of the present rates of duty should, of course, be made to the Import Duties Advisory Committee by the United Kingdom trade interests concerned.
    Viscountess ASTOR: I am perfectly aware that certain mesh silk stockings are made in this country, but there are others which are not made here, and is

    139
    it the policy of the Government to keep out of the country certain qualities of stockings which we are not able to make in this country? Is the hon. Member aware that I have gone to the manufacturers and shown them this particular type which they say they cannot make, and that if he will only allow these types to come into the country our manufacturers can get busy and produce the same quality stockings which many of us desire to wear.
    Dr. BURGIN: If the Noble Lady will undertake to wear them in this House, I shall be happy to make her a present of open mesh silk stockings made by manufacturers in this country. The question says that open mesh silk hose are not manufactured in this country. That is not the case.

    KRAFT PAPER (IMPORTS).
    Mr. BURNETTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the steadily increasing importation of kraft paper from Scandinavian countries; and will he take this into consideration when the trade agreements fall to be renewed?
    Dr. BURGIN: Yes, Sir.

    CONGO BASIN TREATIES.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) how long the Congo Basin Treaties have been under examination and how far the examination has proceeded to date;
    (2) what action he proposes to take to check the decline of cotton piece-goods imports of United Kingdom origin into the British territories lying within the zone covered by the Congo Basin Treaties?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The question of action on behalf of United Kingdom export trade in this area is governed by the Congo Basin Treaties. The trade aspects of the matter were examined by the Government of the day in 1930. They were further examined by the present Government in 1932 and have since been under continuous review. The legal aspects of the problem have been under close examination since last year and, in reply to previous questions by my hon. Friend, the very complicated character of the difficulties involved have already been indicated. In December last a
    140
    judgment was given by the International Court at The Hague on another matter arising out of these Conventions and this involved further study of the legal aspects of the problem.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: In view of the fact that this matter has been under examination since 1930 and that no action as yet has been taken, can the hon. and gallant Member give an estimate as to how long it will require for examination before action is taken?
    Lieut. - Colonel COLVILLE: The examination is proceeding with all possible rapidity, and I can assure the hon. Member that there will be no undue delay. We are alive to the fact that this question is one of importance.

    INTERNATIONAL TRADE.
    Sir HERBERT SAMUELasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government have taken into consideration the resolution adopted by the International Chamber of Commerce at its recent congress in Paris on the necessity of diminishing the barriers to international trade and the desirability of effecting this through multilateral as well as bilateral agreements, and the resolution urging immediate consultations between Governments with a view to an agreement for the provisional stabilisation of exchange rates; and whether His Majesty's Government propose to take any action along the lines suggested?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I have not yet had official communication of the text of the resolutions in question, but the right hon. Gentleman can be assured that His Majesty's Government will neglect no opportunity that may offer of furthering the restoration of international trade by suitable means.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Has my right hon. Friend noticed how rapidly certain foreign protectionist nations have desired to reduce tariffs now that we have put them on?

  SCOTLAND.

    HOUSING.
    Mr. McGOVERNasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total

    141
    number of houses built in Scotland for each year since 1st January, 1928; and the number for slum clearance, intermediate, ordinary, and the number built for sale and letting respectively?
    Following is the statement:

    STATEMENT showing number of houses built in Scotland for each year since 1st January, 1928.

    Year.

    Number of houses completed.

    With State Assistance.

    Without State Assistance.

    Total

    By Local Authorities.

    By Private Enterprise.

    Total.

    By Local Authorities.

    By Private Enterprise.

    Total.

    Slum Clearance.

    Other than Slum Clearance.

    Total.

    1.

    2.

    3.

    4.

    5.

    6.

    7.

    8.

    9.

    10.

    1928

    …

    2,266

    12,481

    14,747

    3,349

    18,096

    —

    2,147

    2,147

    20,243

    1929

    …

    2,334

    11,982

    14,316

    3,924

    18,240

    —

    1,275

    1,275

    19,515

    1930

    …

    1,523

    6,395

    7,918

    3,138

    11,056

    —

    1,408

    1,408

    12,464

    1931

    …

    2,212

    6,103

    8,315

    2,339

    10,654

    —

    1,814

    1,814

    12,468

    1932

    …

    4,942

    6,689

    11,631

    4,187

    15,818

    —

    1,726

    1,726

    17,544

    1933

    …

    7,199

    8,480

    15,679

    5,236

    20,915

    —

    5,570

    5,570

    26,485

    1934

    …

    8,598

    6,121

    14,719

    3,698‡

    18,417‡

    358

    5,937§

    6,295§

    24,712§

    1935

    …

    5,240*

    1,269*

    6,509*

    —

    6,509*

    83†

    890†

    973†

    7,482

    34,314

    59,520

    93,834

    25,871

    119,705

    441

    20,767

    21,208

    140,913

    * To 31st May, 1935.

    † To 31st March, 1935.

    ‡ These figures include 27 houses which, were completed prior to 31st March, 1934, but intimation of which was not made to the Department until 1935.

    § Includes 260 houses built with State and local authority guarantee under Section 3 of the House (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1933.

    The term "intermediate" as applied to types of houses is peculiar to Glasgow and all such intermediate houses have been built under the Act of 1924. The number of these houses is included in Column 3.

    Information is not available to show how many of the houses included in the statement have been built for sale and how many for letting, but it is probable that most of them fall into the latter category except those built by private enterprise with State assistance under the Housing, etc., Act, 1923 (namely, 17,752 since 1st January, 1928) and those built by private enterprise without State assistance which were probably mostly built for sale.

    Duchess of ATHOLLasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has made any investigation into the houses of rural workers other than ploughmen whose occupation obliges them to live in a particular house; if so, how many of such houses have been visited and in what counties; how many of these houses would be recognised as two-, three-, or four-roomed houses, respectively, under the Housing (Scotland) Bill; and in how
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Jamieson): As the answer involves a tabular statement, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    many cases, with the present occupiers, would there be overcrowding according to the standards laid down by the Bill?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I presume that the Noble Lady has in mind houses occupied by estate workers. If so, no information is available with respect to such houses, but the inspectors of the Department of Health have been instructed to undertake inquiries in the course of their other work.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: Does my right hon. and learned Friend not remember that the Secretary of State for Scotland said in Committee, when this question came up, that he would sympathetically consider making an inquiry which would cover these houses, and I understood it was a special inquiry?
    Duchess of ATHOLLasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of ploughmen's houses investigated in recent months; the counties in which these houses were situated; the number of these houses that would be recognised under the Housing (Scotland) Bill as consisting of two, three and four rooms, respectively; and the number of these houses in which, with their present occupiers, there would be overcrowding according to the standards of the Bill?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: Inquiries have been completed with regard to 1,168 farm cottages situated throughout Scotland with the exception of the counties of Shetland, Orkney, Sutherland, Dumfries and Wigtown. It is estimated that, on the basis of the minimum standard of accommodation proposed in the Housing (Scotland) Bill, 286 or 25 per cent. of these houses are overcrowded. As the

    Size of house.

    Number.

    Percentage of houses of different sizes.

    Number overcrowded.

    Percentage overcrowded.

    Per cent.

    Per cent.

    1 apartment

    …

    …

    …

    …

    11

    1

    8

    73

    2 apartment

    …

    …

    …

    …

    472

    40

    209

    44

    3 apartment

    …

    …

    …

    …

    479

    41

    66

    14

    4 or more apartments

    …

    …

    …

    206

    18

    3

    1·5

    1,168

    100

    286

    25

    GIRLS' HOME, NEWTON STEWART (MATRON'S PENSION).
    Mr. McKIEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the alteration by the Scottish Education Commissioners in the status of a school has led to a loss of pension rights in the case of Miss Munro, who has served that authority as matron of the Girls' Home, Newton Stewart, for 30 years; under what authority the Education Commissioners acted; and whether their action had his approval?
    remainder of the information asked for involves a number of figures, I propose, with the Noble Lady's permission, to circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: Would my right hon. and learned Friend represent to his colleague that we were given to understand on the Committee stage of the Scottish Housing Bill that he was going to make investigations into a second thousand houses or thereabouts, and that the numbers now given do not nearly represent that second thousand houses that were to be investigated?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I will convey the Noble Lady's remarks to my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. McKIE: Will my right hon. and learned Friend convey to the Secretary of State for Scotland the desirability of investigating the figures in the counties not mentioned in the question, including the county of Wigtown?
    Viscountess ASTOR: In view of the conditions in many parts of Scotland, will my right hon. and learned Friend beg the Government to encourage open-air nursery schools?
    Following is the statement referred to:
    The LORD ADVOCATE: If after the change Miss Munro does not occupy a post in which employment is reckoned for superannuation she will not become entitled to a pension. She will, however, be entitled to the return of her contributions with interest and if she is continued in the service of the home the Governors will have power to award her a retiring allowance. As to the second part of the question, the Commissioners in framing their scheme acted under statutory powers. No objections to the

    145
    section of the scheme changing the status of the school were received and it duly received the approval of my right hon. Friend.

    NATIONAL RECORDS.
    Mr. GUYasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has now completed the arrangements for the transfer to the Register House, Edinburgh, of the Scottish national records at present in London?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: There are in the Public Record Office several Scottish papers which were removed to London in 1291, and a number of volumes and Departmental papers affecting Scotland for periods from the 17th to the 19th century. The question of the proper disposal of these records has been under consideration, and it appears that legislation would be necessary before any arrangements can be made. Such legislation will be considered when an opportunity offers.
    Mr. GUY: Is any legislation necessary in view of the fact that the return of these documents was provided for in the Treaty of Northampton in the year 1328?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: My information is that legislation will be necessary.

    LOCAL, GOVERNMENT ACT (KIRKWALL).
    Major Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD (for Sir ROBERT HAMILTON)asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered a communication from the town council of Kirkwall drawing attention to the adverse effect of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, on the finances of Kirkwall, and asking for an inquiry into the results of the working of the Act; and what action he intends to take in the matter?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The town council has been informed that early steps will be taken, as required by the Act of 1929, to investigate its financial working in consultation with local authorities before the expiry of the second fixed grant period on 15th May, 1937.

  BRITISH ARMY: YEOMANRY (ANNUAL TRAINING).
  Mr. NORTHasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he
  146
  can give the reasons which prevented any yeomanry brigade camps being held on Salisbury Plain this year?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): There are two reasons. In the first place, both the yeomanry brigades are stationed in the Northern Command, and, in the second place, the training areas on Salisbury Plain are fully occupied by troops of the Southern Command.
  Mr. NORTH: Will it be possible in the future for these cavalry brigades to go into camp on Salisbury Plain?
  Mr. HACKING: I cannot speak for the future, but there is nothing unusual in this at all. I am informed that they have not trained as a brigade for some years.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir CHARLES MacANDREW: Is it not the case that a territorial brigade is too large a unit to go into training for a fortnight?
  Mr. NORTHasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office how many of the 14 yeomanry regiments have already completed their annual training; how many of these regiments went into camp as single units; and how many went with other units?
  Mr. HACKING: Twelve yeomanry regiments have so far completed their annual training and 10 of these went into camp as single units. Of the two regiments yet to train, one will go into camp with other units.
  Mr. NORTH: Is it the policy of the War Office to send units to do their annual training by themselves?
  Mr. HACKING: No, Sir. I have indicated that there is a difference. Sometimes they are sent with other units, sometimes by themselves.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    SUBSIDENCE, STOKE-ON-TRENT.
    Mr. ALLENasked the Secretary for Mines whether he has considered the memorial from the corporation of the city of Stoke-on-Trent regarding the damage done to small houses in the city by subsidence caused by mining; and if

    147
    he can yet make any statement on the subject?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Captain Crookshank): I have seen the memorandum referred to, but, as has been stated in answer to previous similar questions, the problem raises many issues of a most complicated and contentious nature. I am afraid that I cannot hold out any hope of introducing legislation in the matter in the present state of Parliamentary business.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is not the hon. and gallant Member aware that the Committee reported unanimously in favour of certain definite legislation on this point? That report was made two years ago. Is it not possible for the Government to come to some decision in the matter?

    CLOSED COLLIERIES, DURHAM.
    Mr. McKEAGasked the Secretary for Mines whether it is proposed to take any special steps in regard to the 1,000 unemployed miners who were displaced by the closing down recently of the Hetton Lyons and Hazard collieries, in the county of Durham, and who have not been re-absorbed by neighbouring collieries?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I regret that there are no special steps which I can take in the matter.
    Mr. McKEAG: Has the Secretary for Mines appreciated the fact that the displacement of this large number of men will mean a further charge on a distressed area, and will he see whether any special steps can be taken by the Commissioner to alleviate the conditions?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I have nothing to do directly with the Commissioner for the special area, but I have no doubt that the question of the hon. Member will draw his attention to this matter.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that the Commissioner for the distressed area seems to have nothing to do in the area?

    OVERTIME.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Secretary for Mines whether mines managers are asked to make a return to his Department of the amount of overtime worked; and,
    148
    if so, will he state which county or district had the highest for 1934?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: The answer to the first part of the question is "No." The information asked for in the second part is not, therefore, available.
    Mr. T. SMITH: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that it would serve a useful purpose if managers were compelled to state the amount of overtime worked in view of the fact that there are complaints of overtime in nearly every coal-mining district where mining machinery is in operation?
    Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Does my hon. and gallant Friend realise that in certain mines in this country 8 per cent. of mine work is overtime Whether that be accurate or not, does he not think that it ought to be investigated?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: The hon. Member knows that in all cases where workers are employed overtime beyond the statutory period it has to be put on a register, and that register is open to the mining inspector. I think that for the moment that is probably sufficient, but hon. Members must know that a special investigation has been made in Lancashire and Scotland. The result of the Scottish investigation will be in the hands of the House in a fortnight.
    Mr. SMITH: I am aware of what ought to be done. I know what is done in practice, and it is true that the book is there, but I want to know whether the hon. and gallant, Member will not give some attention to this matter and ask the inspector to have a record of the overtime that is being worked?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: The hon. Member can be assured that this matter is being carefully considered at the present time, and there is a report which he will see in a short time and which I have already seen.
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman take special notice of the fact that working overtime is a double offence—first, working overtime itself, and, second, not entering the particulars in a book?
    Mr. COCKS: Cannot we have a statistical survey—
    HON. MEMBERS: Order!
    Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Tinker.

    HOURS OF WORK.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Secretary for Mines the time of the working day of the underground worker in a coal mine if the average time of one winding were added to it; and whether the time for lowering and raising the men has been increased since 1930?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: The average time spent in the mine by coal miners in Great Britain, including one winding time, is eight hours. The average length of the winding time—approximately 30 minutes—was ascertained after careful inquiry in 1930 and I am not aware of any circumstances that can have caused any appreciable change since that time.

  HIS MAJESTY'S SILVER JUBILEE ("THE KING'S FOREST").
  Sir ALFRED BEITasked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether he will be prepared to plant trees in a prominent place in the form of a royal monogram in honour of Their Majesties' Jubilee, as was done in the case of Queen Victoria's Jubilee on the Sussex downs near Steyning?
  Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE (Forestry Commissioner): The answer is in the negative, but the hon. Member may be interested to know that with the permission of His Majesty the King an area of 6,000 acres recently acquired by the Forestry Commissioners is now called "The King's Forest" in commemoration of the Jubilee and in it will be planted a beech avenue four miles long to be called "Queen Mary's Avenue."
  Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: Can the hon. and gallant Member say where it is?
  Sir G. COURTHOPE: In Suffolk.

  AGRICULTURE.

    CROWN FARMS.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Agriculture what have been the financial results in connection with farms belonging to the Crown which are at present under the management of the Crown Lands Commissioners on account of their inability to obtain tenants for these farms?
    Mr. SERVINGTON SAVERYasked the Minister of Agriculture what financial loss has been incurred during the years 1933 and 1934 in connection with the Crown farms at Swine and Sunk Island, in East Yorkshire?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): It is not in the public interest to publish detailed figures as to the financial results of farms in the hands of the Commissioners of Crown Lands. The figures are supplied privately to the Treasury each year for information. In general they show that in respect of the farming year 1934, approximately one-third of all the farms in hand made a profit and that both the number of acres in hand and the net all over loss per acre have been substantially reduced as compared with the farming year 1933.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that loss has been arrived at after making allowance for rent?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I am afraid I could not go beyond the answer I have given.
    Mr. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the reason why it is not in the public interest to publish this information?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Because, as will be clear to anybody connected with agriculture, it is undesirable to give detailed agricultural information which may very often be of importance to people other than those who benefit by it.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Does it not show that Socialism in agriculture is not a success?
    Colonel GRETTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman not furnish Parliament with a summarised account, giving the general results of the whole transaction?
    Mr. ELLIOT: For nearly 40 years we have been working upon an agreement which was come to between the Treasury and the Public Accounts Committee, and I should hesitate to upset that arrangement without a great deal of consideration.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it not within the knowledge of every Member of the House that farmers are granted the privilege of exemption from giving detailed accounts of their results year by year to the Income Tax authorities?

    BULLOCKS (MARKING).
    Mr. LECKIEasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the unnecessary suffering caused to bullocks by his Department's methods of marking animals passed for sale to butchers; that the process involves the making of a wound which bleeds and causes distress to the animals, especially in hot weather; and whether he will take steps to see that a method of marking is substituted which will not involve either pain or inconvenience to the animals?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Before a decision was reached in the summer of 1934 to adopt ear-punching as the method of marking cattle in connection with the cattle subsidy, careful consideration was given to various alternative methods. The mark must be permanent, and readily applied, and it was found that ear punching was the only method which satisfied these conditions. This method of marking animals has been in operation in this country and in other parts of the world for a long period. If the punch is made near the tip of the ear, between the principal veins, in accordance with the directions issued by the Cattle Committee, there is, I think, practically no bleeding. As at present advised, I can see no alternative method.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it true that only the animals themselves were not consulted about this matter?
    Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure whether this method does hurt the animals or not?
    Mr. McGOVERN: Why not try it on the Cabinet?
    Mr. COCKS: Is it true that ear-punching is the only way of dealing with the Government?

    SUGAR-BEET INDUSTRY.
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in drawing up any scheme for the assistance of the sugar-beet industry for the next decade, he will consider the desirability of including therein a scheme providing for a flat rate for the carriage of sugar-beet to the factories with a view to ensuring a more equitable distribution of such assistance and providing adequate assistance to those who grow sugar-beet at a great distance from the factories?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that all relevant factors will be borne in mind in considering the question of future sugar-beet policy.

  ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Transport what steps are being taken, by unification, amalgamation, or co-ordination of electricity distribution companies throughout the country, to see that the benefits of the grid system result in the supply of cheap electricity at a uniform rate to consumers?
  Captain A. HUDSON: The savings which electricity supply undertakers make as a result of obtaining their supplies from the grid will, as they accrue, be taken into account by them in fixing prices, and my right hon. Friend would have regard to such savings in considering any applications which he might receive for a revision of the existing maximum charges. In a number of the scheme areas the grid system has only recently come into full operation.
  Mr. MANDER: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction throughout the country at the failure of the grid system so far to produce cheap electricity; and will he take steps to hasten the matter?
  Captain HUDSON: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that much still remains to be done to get uniformity.
  Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman take into careful consideration the desirability, in some of the less populated districts, of adopting smaller units rather than these large stations, and adopting the oil engine as the unit in those cases?
  Captain HUDSON: That is a separate question, and ought to be put on the Paper.

  EDUCATION.

    BUILDING PROGRAMMES.
    Sir FRANCIS ACLANDasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will issue a circular to local education authorities with regard to the removal of the restrictions on building

    153
    contained in Circular 1413, and an active resumption of programmes for providing senior schools in order to secure the completion of such programmes at the earliest possible date?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Oliver Stanley): In case the statement made in this House on 17th June has failed to come to the notice of all the local education authorities, I will issue a memorandum informing them of that announcement.
    Sir F. ACLAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to assist and encourage education authorities to complete their building programmes?
    Mr. STANLEY: I think they will find in that statement a great deal of encouragement.

    SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.
    Sir F. ACLANDasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is prepared to make any statement with regard to the policy of the Government as to raising the school-leaving age before the summer adjournment in order to enable local authorities, in preparing estimates of expenditure this autumn, to begin to make the necessary preparations for this reform?
    Mr. STANLEY: I am afraid that I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this matter.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the Government will be in a position to make a statement?

  POST OFFICE (VICTORIA TELEPHONE EXCHANGE).
  Mr. HAMMERSLEYasked the Postmaster-General when Victoria telephone exchange is expected to be on the dial system?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Bennett): It is expected that the main Victoria telephone exchange will be converted to automatic working in the course of 1938, but steps are being taken to convert certain portions of this Area at a considerably earlier date.
  Mr. HAMMERSLEY: In view of the considerable delay which seems to be inseparable from the working of the manual system, could not something be done to expedite the transference?
  Sir E. BENNETT: The conversion of these exchanges is a very heavy work, and we are doing our utmost to cope with the difficulties. If the hon. Member cares to see me afterwards, I will go into the matter with him in more detail and show him facts and figures which illustrate our progress in this particular area.
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Do I understand then, that the dial which was recently fixed in my office in connection with the Victoria Exchange may not come into use for two years?
  Sir E. BENNETT: It may not.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    BIRKENHEAD LAIRAGES.
    Mr. LOGANasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the loss of employment at Birkenhead lairages and allied trades due to tariffs on livestock imported from the Irish Free State; and what steps, if any, does he intend to take to remedy this unemployment?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Ernest Brown): The information which I have does not justify the assumption in the hon. Member's question. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the numbers of livestock imported from the Irish Free State and slaughtered in Birkenhead for a four-week period in June of the last five years.
    Mr. LOGAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the people who kill cattle in Birkenhead do not agree with that statement and that it is definitely stated in the public Press in Birkenhead that only 500 cattle instead of some thousands were killed there last week?
    Mr. BROWN: I would advise the hon. Member to study the rather full answer which I have given to him. If he desires to pursue his researches further, I believe the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board have also some information on the subject.
    Mr. LOGAN: Is the Minister aware that men are unemployed who were

    155
    working there before, and is there any possible chance of getting them back to work?
    Mr. BROWN: I have dealt with the question put down by the hon. Member, and I have provided a very full answer to it, which I hope he will read.
    Following is the table:

    Numbers of animals imported from the Irish Free State and slaughtered in Birkenhead for a four-week period in June in each of the last five years.

    —

    Landed.

    Slaughtered.

    Cattle.

    June, 1931

    8,289

    1,574

    1932

    15,210

    1,411

    1933

    8,127

    1,050

    1934

    9,539

    1,832

    1935

    16,912

    2,876

    Pigs.

    June, 1931

    1,904

    110

    1932

    2,822

    14

    1933

    113

    —

    1934

    274

    —

    1935

    683

    3

    Sheep, Lambs and Goats.

    June, 1931

    31,194

    10,369

    1932

    51,032

    11,066

    1933

    32,068

    7,251

    1934

    56,388

    7,820

    1935

    31,421

    6,637

    AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS.
    Mr. THOMAS COOKasked the Minister of Labour whether he has now any statement to make with regard to agricultural labourers being included in a scheme of unemploymnt insurance?
    Mr. E. BROWN: I am afraid I cannot add anything to recent answers to questions on this subject.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that the Government have definitely made up their minds to do nothing?
    Mr. BROWN: No, Sir.
    Mr. T. SMITH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we are likely to have a definite reply?
    Mr. BROWN: No, Sir.

  UNDEFENDED DIVORCE CASES.
  Mr. McKEAGasked the Attorney-General whether, having regard to the large number of witnesses from all parts of the country who are called upon to appear in undefended divorce cases which on the average only occupy the time of the court for a few minutes, representations might be made to assize judges to indicate, not later than commission day, the date on which it is proposed to hear these cases?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I have brought the hon. Member's suggestion to the notice of the Lord Chief Justice, and am informed that it is at present the practice of the Lord Chief Justice and His Majesty's judges to indicate where possible the date of hearing of these cases. I have no doubt that His Majesty's judges will do all they can to meet the convenience of witnesses in divorce cases.

  ABYSSINIA (LAKE TSANA).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the Abyssinian Government have abandoned the objections hitherto entertained with regard to the concession for a dam at Lake Tsana, mentioned in the London Agreement of 13th December, 1906, and the Anglo-Italian exchange of Notes of 1925, and that the Abyssinian Government are now prepared to enter into negotiations with Great Britain, Egypt, and the Sudan with the object of concluding an agreement on the subject, he will state what action the Government proposes to take?
  The MINISTER for LEAGUE of NATIONS AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): On 10th May the Abyssinian Government invited His Majesty's Government and the Governments of Egypt and the Sudan to send representatives to a conference at Addis Ababa with the object of concluding an agreement on this question. His Majesty's Government did not, however, wish to take any step which might aggravate the present unfortunate controversy between Italy and Abyssinia at a moment when they were using their best endeavours to secure a solution. They therefore informed the Abyssinian Government that they favoured postponement. His Majesty's Government are fully mindful of the interests of Egypt

  157
  and the Sudan in the upper basin of the Nile. These interests have, however, been recognised in the past both by the Abyssinian Government and by the Governments of France and Italy. His Majesty's Government are therefore content to await a more suitable moment before pressing forward with this scheme.

  CABINET MINISTERS (CONTINENTAL VISITS).
  Captain WATERHOUSEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on how many occasions since June, 1929, the Foreign Secretary, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, or other of His Majesty's Ministers directly representing the Foreign Secretary, have left this country for conferences or consultations with foreign statesmen, other than at meetings of the League of Nations at Geneva; and how many foreign capitals have been so visited?
  Mr. EDEN: Fifteen such journeys have been undertaken since June, 1929, and 10 foreign capitals have been visited.
  Captain WATERHOUSE: Can my right hon. Friend give am assurance that now that there are five Ministers interested in foreign affairs this number of foreign visits will not be increased; and may I further ask whether, in view of the very slender results which have been achieved by these many visits—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—he will not consider the advisability of giving up amateur diplomacy and leaving the matter to the officials in his own Department? I want to make it quite clear that I am not casting any aspersions on my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. EDEN: My hon. and gallant Friend's explanation seems a little contrary to his earlier statement, but I would point out that five of these 15 visits took place in the short period of life of the late Labour Government, and I do not think our 10 visits in comparison have been either unnecessary or altogether unsuccessful.
  Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Can my right hon. Friend say whether these visits have caused any unemployment among permanent diplomatists?

  ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider the advisability of proposing to the Council of the League of Nations that a neutral commission should be appointed to investigate the problems arising out of the present dispute between Italy and Ethiopia and Italy's colonial requirements for surplus population generally, and to make recommendations for an agreed settlement?
  Mr. EDEN: I can assure the hon. Member that all possible means of promoting an agreed settlement of the dispute will be considered by His Majesty's Government.
  Mr. MANDER: Might not this be an appropriate occasion to try to put into operation Article 19 of the Covenant through some such machinery as is suggested?

  PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the heavy burden placed on ratepayers where the authority is obliged to secure the passage of a Bill through the Lords and Commons Houses of Parliament, he will consider alternative means of dealing with private legislation?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I would remind the hon. Member that the question of the procedure on Private Bill Legislation was examined by a Select Committee as recently as 1930, and certain of their recommendations have been adopted which do in fact reduce expense. I do not think that the time is expedient for a further inquiry.

  LIGHT OILS (TAXATION).
  Sir H. SAMUELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government have any information showing which countries impose taxes upon light oils used for transport, with exemption or lower rates of tax for similar oils used for industrial purposes; the nature of the discrimination in each case; the method of preventing evasion and the results, both to the Revenue and to the industries concerned; and, if not, whether he will obtain such information through His Majesty's consuls and present it to the House prior to next year's Budget?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): Information of the character desired by the right hon. Gentleman is not at present available, and in view of the complicated nature of the taxation systems in many of the principal foreign countries, I am not sure that it will be possible to obtain it. I will, however, inquire what can be done.

  CIVIL SERVICE (EQUAL PAY).
  Miss CAZALETasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is prepared, as in the case of the London County Council, to apply the principles of equal pay to those Civil Service staffs whose functions and status correspond to those of the major establishment and inspectorate of the London County Council where, since December, 1920, equal pay for men and women has prevailed?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): The answer is in the negative.
  Miss CAZALET: In view of the statement made by the hon. Gentleman in his speech the other day that it was the principle of the Government to keep abreast of the best employers in the matter of fair wages, does he not think this is a good time to put this statement into operation?

  PALESTINE.

    VISITORS (DEPOSIT).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr. Rosenblatt, a British subject resident in Liverpool, who wishes to pay a three months' visit to Palestine but cannot find the £60 demanded as security to ensure his return to this country; and whether he will, in the case of British subjects, cease demanding this security from visitors to Palestine?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I am afraid that I see no reason for suggesting to the High Commissioner for Palestine that he should reconsider the regulation relating to the £60 deposit, which has, I understand, proved most effective in checking illegal immigration.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: What are these regulations? How is it that anybody
    160
    called "Wedgwood" can get into Palestine without paying £60, and if you have a Jewish name you cannot? Is it a question of what class you go in the steamer, or is it a question of whether your name is Jewish or English?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) has made the name of "Wedgwood" a passport in all countries?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it a question of name or of rank whether a tax has to be paid?
    Mr. MacDONALD: It applies whether you are Jewish or not.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Do the regulations not apply to non-Jews and only apply to Jews?

    ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the total number of Jews now in prison in Palestine as illegal immigrants and the total number of such immigrants now free on bail who have previously been in prison?
    Mr. M. MacDONALD: The latest report, dated the 7th June, shows that 85 Jewish illegal immigrants were at that date under detention pending deportation. I have no information as to the number of illegal immigrants now on bail pending deportation, but I will inquire of the High Commissoner for Palestine.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can my right hon. Friend inquire and get an answer to the last part of my question?
    Mr. MacDONALD: That is exactly what I propose to do.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Jews have been deported from Palestine as illegal immigrants in each of the last three financial years; and what is the estimate of the total number of illegal Jewish immigrants now in this country?
    Mr. MacDONALD: These statistics are not available in the Colonial Office, but I have asked the High Commissioner for Palestine to furnish them, if possible.

  CEYLON.

    INFANT MORTALITY.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the infantile mortality rate in Ceylon and the infant mortality rate among the immigrant Indian labourers?
    Mr. M. MacDONALD: The infant mortality rate in Ceylon in 1933 was 157 per 1,000. For immigrant Indian labourers the figure was 181 per 1,000.

    MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many qualified doctors are resident in Ceylon and how many persons there are for each doctor?
    Mr. M. MacDONALD: At the end of 1934 there were 824 medical practitioners registered in Ceylon. There are approximately an average of 6,630 persons for each doctor.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Can my right hon. Friend give the House any idea why they have so few doctors? Is it because the wages of the workpeople are too small for them to be able to afford doctors?
    Mr. MacDONALD: One reason why there are not so many doctors in comparison with other countries is that the pay of the doctors, I am afraid, is lower than in many countries.
    Dr. SALTER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this country at the present moment there are scores of Cingalese waiting for admission to British medical schools in order to obtain their medical education, and that a colour bar is being enforced and they are not being admitted?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Prime Minister the business for Friday?
The PRIME MINISTER: The business for Friday will be the Second Reading of the British Sugar (Subsidy) Bill, which I hope will be disposed of by about 1.30; afterwards, consideration of the Report of the Select Committee on Witnesses; and, if there is time, progress will be made with other small Orders on the Paper.
Ordered,
"That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 14, Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Eleven of the clock."—[The Prime Minister.]

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
David Patrick Maxwell Fyfe, esquire, K.C., for the Borough of Liverpool (West Derby Division).

DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 107.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Metropolitan Water Board Bill, with Amendments.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [11TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]
  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1935.
  CLASS I.
  TREASURY AND SUBORDINATE DEPARTMENTS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £193,406, 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, 1936, for the Salaries and other Expenses in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and Subordinate Departments."
  Whereupon Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Captain Margesson.]
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  UNEMPLOYMENT AND DISTRESSED AREAS.
  3.37 p.m.
  Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD:I beg to move,
  "That this House regrets the failure of His Majesty's Government to produce a considered plan to cope with unemployment and, in particular, their admitted failure to deal effectively with the problem of the distressed areas."
  We are moving this Motion in all seriousness, feeling that the situation with regard to the unemployed is one which is deserving of the very earnest attention of all Members of the House. Unfortunately, the Government have by their extensive poster campaign misled the country by half-truths, and by a suppression of the truth, which is even worse. Their statements have, I believe, bewildered even their own supporters. These hollow claims which have been made and shouted from almost every hoarding in the country will be proved by the test of time. What is it that the Government claim? Their first claim is that there is more work and more trade. Recently, the Prime Minister in a speech in the north of England, the Chancellor of the
  174 Exchequer in the House of Commons, and the Lord President of the Council over the wireless last Thursday congratulated themselves on the extent of industrial recovery in this country. The Lord President went so far as to say over the ether that no other industrial country in the world could show such improvement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Well, we had better look at the facts.
  During the period of the severe depression which began in this country towards the end of 1928 or the beginning of 1929 industrial depression reached its lowest point in 1932. Between the beginning of 1932 and the first quarter of this year industrial production in this country increased by 25 per cent. I fail to notice the cheers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] In the United States the increase was 39 per cent., in Canada 32 per cent., in Sweden 35 per cent., Norway 31 per cent., Denmark 30 per cent., Finland 41 per cent., Japan 38 per cent. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Abyssinia?"] The hon. Member's irrelevancies do not help his case. He is disturbed by these figures. The only countries where the increase in industrial production was lower than in this country were those which were still on the Gold Standard or had only recently left the Gold Standard, important industrial countries like France, Czechoslovakia, Switzerland, Holland and Belgium. In the case of Germany and Italy, which are only nominally on the Gold Standard, during that period when our industrial production increased by 25 per cent. that of Germany increased by 42 per cent., and that of Italy by 34 per cent. In other words, apart from those countries which still remained anchored to the Gold Standard industrial production increased more in practically every other country than in Great Britain.
  The reason, of course, is not far to seek. It is not an accident that those countries which have come off the Gold Standard have increased their industrial productivity at a greater rate than those which still remain on the Gold Standard. I think it is generally agreed that the fact of this country leaving the Gold Standard did a great deal to put a bounty upon our export trade. I want to ask the Government whether they claim credit for being forced off that Gold Standard which they were pledged to defend with their very lives. In the days of the first National Government the real

  175
  fear, which was voiced by scores of newspapers, was that if the Labour Government had remained in office the country would have been forced off the Gold Standard, the pound would have become worth a penny and the country would have come to ruin. In September, I think it was, when the then Prime Minister was otherwise engaged—I believe he was at his country house and not paying very much attention to the Gold Standard—we departed from the Gold Standard, and the very newspapers which had denounced the Labour Government and predicted the ruin of this country if we went off the Gold Standard then sang great hymns of praise, saying this was the finest thing that had happened since the end of the War. And truly it was. It is the one big factor in the economic situation to-day responsible for the lightening of the economic burden, and it came about not because of a deliberate policy on the part of the Government but because they could not help it. They are now claiming on their posters credit for this improvement in trade, for which they are in no way responsible.
  The Government also congratulate themselves on an increase in our exports. The Prime Minister, who must have been badly advised when he made his statement in Yorkshire 10 or 12 days ago, said that our exports were increasing at a time when the League of Nations' statistics showed that world trade is decreasing. If that were true it would be some sign that our economic recovery was a little more rapid than that of other countries, but, unfortunately for the facts, the statistics of the League of Nations are measured in gold values and those of British exports are measured in sterling values. If you translate the gold values of the world trade into sterling values during this period the total volume of world trade increased. I will, however, concede the right hon. Gentleman this point, that our rate of increase was rather larger than that of the world as a whole. We all know that world trade is better than it was three years ago—we are not denying that—but I am going on to say that this expansion of our export trades rests upon a very precarious basis.
  The position is a very unstable one. If there were a devaluation of currency in, say, Germany or France—and neither of
  176
  those things is impossible—if the German scheme to make levies on their internal trade to subsidise their export trade comes into operation—or if there were a cut in wages in the United States and prices in foreign markets were thereby reduced, Britain would be dethroned from her position. She is only in her advantageous position to-day because she has come off the Gold Standard, and if any other nation were to devaluate their currency or to cheapen their prices in foreign markets this temporary improvement in our export trade would vanish. Therefore, we cannot rely on an ever-expanding market for our export industries. Though it he true that, since the lowest point of industrial activity at the beginning of 1932, there has been an expansion of industrial and mining production in this country of 25 per cent., the most important feature internally from my point of view and that of my hon. Friends who sit with me is that there has not been a proportionate increase in employment. Whilst our figures of industrial production have increased by 25 per cent. the volume of employment in those industries has only increased by 13 per cent.
  Take the position in the coal industry. There, there has been no improvement in wages during the last four years. The output per man-shift has steadily increased during those four years, but fewer men are being employed in the mines. In the first quarter of this year the Yorkshire mineowners, who are not in the worst of the depressed areas in this country, made a profit of nearly 1s. 5d. per ton. The figures issued this morning show that in practically every town in the West Riding of Yorkshire unemployment is higher than it was a month ago. It is little use the Government preening themselves with satisfaction because this month's figures show a net decrease. In the north-eastern district of this country there was an increase of unemployment last month of 23,000 people, mostly miners. In my division, not a large town, unemployment is up by 2,300 over the figures of a month ago.
  The increasing activity in the coalfields, which is yielding 1s. 5d. per ton profit to Yorkshire mine owners, is being paid for out of the misery of miners, of whom there Are fewer at work. When the miners are working, their output is higher for no higher wages. Increasing

  177
  mechanisation, which is going on not only in the coalfields but elsewhere, and the improvement of industrial processes, are not being capitalised to the advantage of the people in the industries but are being translated into unemployment. The advantages are being thrown away, with the result that in many areas there is an increasing number of people for whom the prospects of work are practically negligible. There has been some improvement since 1932. We have weathered the storm, but not because of the deliberate policy of the Government. It is certainly not because of tariffs and Ottawa. It is due to two primary causes. I defy contradiction in any quarter of the House when I say that what improvement there has been has been due, in the first place, to the fact that we have gone off the Gold Standard, and in the second place to the large resources which, as an exporting nation in the past, we had at our disposal. Our foreign investments have been a very present help in time of trouble. A sentence in the current issue of the "New Statesman and Nation" is worth recording in the records of this House. It is:
  "In comparison with other countries, we have lived well in the desert because we have the largest hump."
  This country has been largely living on its hump, but even humps do not last for ever. We are not across the desert yet to the fair oasis beyond.
  Let me look at the problem rather more broadly. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I know that hon. Members do not like the figures which I have quoted. Perhaps they will not like my next point. The tide of trade ebbs and flows, rises and falls. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may think that is amusing. We may well be at the highest point of the wave upon a receding tide. We are economically much in the position in which we were in 1928, when we were on the crest of a wave. There was then an ebb tide. The tide is not really rising, but the wave has come back and again we are about at the apex. Before the War—I think these figures are indisputable—the general level of unemployment ranged between 2 and 3 per cent. in the best times and 8 or 9 per cent. in the slump times. In the 10 years after the War, the whole range of unemployment in good and bad times was lifted to a much higher level. In the best of those 10 years it was 10 per
  178
  cent., and in the worst 20 per cent. In 1928 we were at the peak of a trade cycle. I believe we are at about the peak of another.
  At the apex of our activities, we nevertheless have a hard core of 16 per cent. of people unemployed. Unemployment, which averaged about 5 per cent. before the War, and in the 10 years after the War was 20 per cent. in the worst times and 10 per cent. in the best times, is now 25 per cent. in the worst times and in the best times does not go down below 16 per cent. That does not indicate any success on the part of the Government in dealing with the hard core of unemployment, which is becoming larger every trade cycle. It may well be that the temporary expansion of trade is nearly at its end, and that we shall enter upon another trade cycle in which the lowest point of unemployment will not be 16 per cent.; it may be 20 per cent. We have probably reached the point when no further impression upon the problem can be made along the old lines.Another claim made by the Government is that there are more people at work. I am surprised that there is no response to that from the Government supporters. It may seem extraordinary, but it is nevertheless true that there are more people at work than there were in the days of Queen Anne. There are more mouths to feed. Even in the hardest times, the number of people at work depends upon the number of mouths to feed. It is not satisfactory for the Government to say that there are more people at work than there were at the time of the Battle of Waterloo. Everybody knows that that is true. It is no proof of economic prosperity to say that there are more people at work than there were four years ago. There is another side to the matter. There are still 2,000,000 people out of work at any time in this country—
  Mr. BATEY: Registered.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: Yes. The total figure is, of course, rather higher. That figure contains a kernel of unemployed people, numbering 500,000 and likely to grow, for whom there seems not the slightest prospect of employment in the future. In spite of the increasing number of people at work, there is an increasing volume of poverty and destitution in many parts of the country. The

  179
  lengthening period of unemployment, especially in the worst areas, causes loss of unemployment benefit, with the result that an increasing number of people have been driven to the Poor Law.
  We are entitled to ask the Government to explain why, in this era of prosperity, of dogged cheerfulness, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer calls it, there is a staggering army of over 1,500,000 people so destitute that they have to go to the local authorities for Poor Law relief. The figures take a good deal of explaining away. During the term of office of the Labour Government, the economic blizzard was sweeping the world. During those two and a-quarter years, although unemployment was increasing rapidly, the number of people who had to have recourse to the Poor Law was fewer when I left office than when I took office in 1929. Since I left office that figure has steadily mounted month by month. In September, 1931, when the first National Government had declared their policy, there were in Great Britain 953,000 people on the Poor Law. In December of last year the number was 1,620,000, an increase of nearly 700,000 men, women and children in a period of expanding trade. So that today in great centres of population like Cardiff and Sheffield one out of every ten persons living there is on the Poor Law. In places largely ruined by the Government's policy like Liverpool, Lincoln and Merthyr Tydvil, 12 per cent. of the whole population of those areas are now on the Poor Law.
  Many hon. Members opposite realise what that tragedy means. When at the beginning of this year there was a spontaneous revolt in this House and outside against the unemployment regulations—and the author has now found an easier place in the Board of Education—a good deal of the fight was made by Conservative Members of this House who came from distressed areas. They knew that large numbers of our people in those districts were the victims of economic circumstances over which they had not a shred of control. They anew the hard lines in which their lives lay. They knew that injustice was being done to them and they rose, I may say very courageously, to demand, with other people, that the Government should change their policy. Whatever may be said on hoardings about
  180
  the increased number of people at work, they cannot obliterate the growing misery of the distressed areas. In spite of what the Prime Minister has said, the Government have not been lacking in paeans of self-adulation. I think, on the whole, they have done it very well. The Prime Minister told us in his speech at Bramham Park that he wanted to take stock, because people really did not know the wonderful things that were being done by the Government. He went on to say:
  "The fault, I think, lies perhaps in our speeches more than in our actions. We are, though I say it myself, a very good orchestra and we always play in tune. But we have hitherto lacked good trumpeters, and I am one of the worst performers on that instrument that ever was made. I am going to try a little bit and perform on it this afternoon."
  On the previous Monday I was addressing a large meeting of miners. He could not have got away with that story at the Yorkshire miners' meeting. His trumpeting would not have succeeded. Of course, what the Government are trying to do now in their waning months or weeks of office is to fan the smouldering embers which they ignited with all the fears they let loose in 1931. The truth, of course, is that the Government have not, and never have had, any coherent policy for dealing with this problem. They do not even see eye to eye as to the seriousness of it. I will give the Prime Minister credit for being really perturbed about the situation. He has said so more than once, but that does not accord with the complacency of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When we had an historic Debate in this House on the reports of the investigations into distressed areas, when everybody was shocked by the disclosures of the three men appointed by the Government, two of them Members of the Government, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
  "Although in the present case we need not describe the disease as desperate, it certainly is sufficiently exceptional to warrant exceptional treatment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1934; col. 1995, Vol. 293.]
  The disease is not desperate with him, but it is with 2,000,000 of his fellow-citizens. When he goes on to say, on the 14th February of this year:
  "Of course, there can be no satisfaction with 2,000,000 unemployed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th February, 1935; col. 2211, Vol. 297.]

  181
  he is showing a cynical disregard for the seriousness of this problem, which ill accords with the responsibility of a Member of a National Government. I could quote from further speeches to show that right hon. Members opposite do not even agree about the seriousness of the problem, and they certainly have not put forward any considered coherent policy. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said he wanted to take stock when he spoke at Bramham Park. He said:
  "I want to do this particularly because many people, even among our friends, talk as though the work of the National Government was not co-ordinated, not planned, without design, happy-go-lucky."
  That is the charge which we make against the Government. The very first step which they took to deal with this problem of unemployment was the very old one of compelling the poor to economise, and cutting down the public services, and there were the most ruthless economies in schemes of production which would have added permanent assets to this country. There are hon. Members, supporters of the Government, who believe that that economy in public expenditure was unwise, very largely because it further contracted the purchasing power of the great mass of consumers, on whom the prosperity of this country must ultimately depend. Their next adventure in this sphere of policy was through the confused welter of tariffs, quotas, levies and goodness knows what. It is perfectly true that the Tory party have long been wedded to this policy. It is equally true that they had net the courage to apply their principles until they were able to exploit a national crisis for their own party ends under the guise of a National Government. They have given us all these tariffs, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was chortling only last Saturday that Free Trade was finished for ever in this country. In 1924 the Tories said they had a positive remedy for unemployment, and that remedy was in a revolution of the fiscal system. They have got it, and what is the position to-day? It simply is not a cure. It is not even a poultice.
  Look at the position in agriculture. Goodness knows, no industry has been more favoured by this Government than agriculture in all kinds of ways. The Prime Minister said in his last public speech outside the House that agriculture
  182
  had been neglected for generations. His party have been in office during those generations. Money has been poured out literally by millions to farmers, a good deal of it creamed off by the landlords. But what is the position in the countryside? Are the agricultural workers one penny better off? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] I hope some of my friends will quote agricultural wage rates during the last four years. Are the agricultural workers any better housed than they were in 1931? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!" and "No!"] I hope some hon. Member opposite will obtain from the Minister of Health the number of agricultural workers' cottages which have been built to let since 1931. I can tell them of 38,000 rural cottages which have not been built. I can tell them of the last Act which the late Labour Government put on the Statute Book for 40,000 rural cottages, and this Government has not built 2,000. I can tell them they have robbed the rural workers of houses they might have had but were abandoned to balance the right hon. Gentleman's Budget by stealing £2,000,000 intended for the countryside. Has agriculture gained in the field of employment? It has not. There are fewer people on the land than there were. For all this policy of tariffs, quotas, levies and all those contributions which are to inure to the advantage of the farmer, there is nothing to show for the common people who work in that industry.
  Does anybody suppose that this policy of insane economic nationalism has helped the coal miners? It has not. Does anybody believe that the shipping industry is any better off because of this policy of economic nationalism? This Government is acting day by day a whole series of contradictions. Its left hand does not know what its right hand doeth. The Minister of Agriculture is doing his best to help the farmers here, and is very much embarrassing the President of the Board of Trade. The Minister of Mines, it is admitted, is trying to help the President of the Board of Trade by the increase of coal exports, but the Secretary of State for the Dominions, by a silly little economic war with Ireland, is injuring both the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Mines. This policy is not a coherent policy; it is a policy for which fantastic claims have

  183
  been made by the Government, but which certainly cannot be substantiated, and, indeed, now nobody dare get up on that side of the House and defend all these policies on their merits. They only say, "Protection is the one thing we can do to get other people not to do the same kind of thing." In an article in the "Times" yesterday this point was brought out. It was said
  "A general tariff on imports obviously confers upon areas like Greater London or Birmingham, manufacturing largely for the home market, an advantage compared with towns like Swansea or Oldham, relying largely on foreign markets. Our return to the gold standard in 1925 had the same effect in penalising exporting areas: since 1931 devaluation has remedied this, in so far as it has not been offset by heavier devaluation oversea, or by tariffs, quotas and exchange restrictions."
  In other words, in the view of an apparently well-informed writer in an organ which invariably supports the Government, the effect of tariffs and quotas has been to restrict the total field of employment rather than to increase it. Having regard to the seriousness of our export trade, I am certain that nobody will pretend for one moment that there can be any direct improvement of our export trade by trying to keep imports out of this country. Sir Arthur Salter, in an article in the current number of the "Economist," writes:
  "The expansion of internal activity, with the increase of employment which it has secured, has not, indeed, reached its limit, but its future progress must at the best be slower and more difficult. The greater part of our present unemployment is centred in our export industries, or industries dependent upon them. The process of transfer from them becomes increasingly difficult. If our export trade (which has lost about a quarter of its volume) could be restored, we might halve our unemployment figure. If it remains at its present level, still more if it further declines, we must probably be content for many years with an unemployment figure that is nearer two millions than one."
  This policy of quotas and tariffs is designed, and deliberately designed, in the interests of home producers here, to restrict our export industry. Tariffs, we claim, have failed. We never believed that Free Trade would bring in the economic millenium, but we are certain that tariffs and doles will not. As to the dole policy of the Government, I do not remember any Government in modern times that has squandered more money
  184
  on the big vested interests than the National Government. It measures national prosperity by its effect on its own friends. Industry after industry has come on the dole, without any kind of humiliating conditions—without any family means test. It was sufficient to say to the Government, "We are in a very hard way; things are bad with us," for the Government, out of the kindness of its heart, to provide hard-earned money earned by other people, to assist these big industries.
  It is not the masses that have been the Government's consideration, but the classes. The masses have been the last people to be considered. This bounty which the Government has so generously bestowed on landlords, farmers, shipowners, and all those other persons who are on the dole without a family means test, has not trickled through to the pockets of the masses. Where it has trickled through at all, it has been a very thin trickle; the majority of the advantage has remained in the pockets where it was put. As a result of the tariff policy of the Government some of it has come out of the pockets of the poor into the pockets of the well-to-do. Indeed, in so far as this Government has a policy, it is a policy for the penguins, and not a policy for the people.
  The distressed areas are not, of course, a special problem, but they happen to be the high light of the problem of unemployment. On that the Prime Minister himself has admitted that the Government have failed, though it is true that he says, "We must do something more about it." What the Government have done about it is not much. When the new Minister of Thought—he was not Minister of Thought then—spoke, at the time when the Depressed Areas Bill was before the House, he had not very much opinion of the £2,000,000 which was going to be distributed. Indeed, he said that the real charge against the Government was that they had confined the Bill, introduced, as it was, with something of a flourish of trumpets, to the smallest part of the problem. It is not the smallest part of the problem, but it is equally certain that you cannot solve the problem of the depressed areas by sending commissioners with grants to spend money on tidying up slag heaps and building hospitals that ought to be built by local authorities, but cannot be because

  185
  they are so impoverished. We look forward with interest to what the right hon. Gentleman may have to say with regard to his policy for the distressed areas. The Government at heart, on the larger issue, really believe that, if they could only let things alone, things would come out all right, and their interference has been confined to shoring up the crumbling foundations of a system that is no longer working very well.
  A new economic revolution has been taking place, and the Minister of Thought will no doubt be able to hold a kindergarten and instruct members of the Cabinet upon it, because he spoke of it in the House of Commons during the debate on the distressed areas. A great economic revolution is taking place today. The old one of a century and a-half ago nobody understood, and the people of this country had to pay a very heavy price for it. There is no excuse for not understanding this one. The situation to-day is that our powers of production have outstripped that social organisation which might be used to enable consumption to keep pace with production. That is the real problem. The situation is that, with this enormous capacity to produce, we shall never again need art industrial army of the size of the one that we had in the past. We have, therefore, to deal with the problem in two ways, and the Government, in oar view, have neglected both. There used to be an International Economic Conference. Nobody has heard much about it for a long time, but it is certain that the policy of economic nationalism in which this country is playing a prominent Part is no alternative to honest international economic co-operation on a common problem that is afflicting mankind as a whole. We should like to know whether the Government intend to do anything in that field of economic co-operation and economic planning which everybody now realises is essential in dealing with this problem.
  At home we have a problem which may be put in two different ways. We have the problem of poverty in the midst of plenty, and the problem of translating unemployment into new leisure for the people. Unemployment can only be translated into leisure by reducing the strength of our mobilised labour army. It can only be done by shortening the working life, by shortening the working
  186
  week, by shortening the working day. It is right that this power to produce, when it is used, should be reflected in higher standards of leisure for the people. What have the Government done about the raising of the school-leaving age? Nothing. They have funked this question. The Parliamentary Secretary only this week—yesterday, I believe—said that they were waiting for public opinion. It is time, if they realise the problem as we realise it, for them to focus and educate public opinion on this question.
  Seeing that we are now on the high road to a new prosperity, seeing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been able to hand out little doles here and there in his Finance Bill, the Government might spare a little of their thought to demobilising industrial workers at an earlier age than at present. That could be done if the new forces of plenty were released, instead of being damped down as they are by this Government. The attitude of the Government on the question of a shorter working week is a disgrace to a great State. Their bitter opposition to the proposal at Geneva for a 40-hour week cannot have increased the prestige of this country among the workers of the world, and certainly not among the workers of this country. I am not going to pretend that demobilisation of part of the labour force, either by a higher school-leaving age, or a lower pension age, or a shorter working week or day, will completely solve the problem, but at least it will convert into honourable leisure what is now degrading unemployment that is breaking the spirit of 2,000,000 of our people. But there is a larger problem, and in this connection I would like to read a paragraph from the last annual report, published this year, of the Director of the International Labour Organisation:
  "This demand for Government action has been reinforced by the patent fact that the present scarcity is due not to any failure of nature but to a human failure to make the products of nature available to those who need them. … Nowadays the problem of shortage has been solved by science and the pooling of the world's resources. Not only need no one starve, but there is actually a super-abundance of food and raw material in relation to the visible consumption. The farmer is unable to secure the just reward of his labour, although millions are starving or grossly under-nourished for want of the supplies which he has actually placed ready to their hands. This paradox has sunk deep into the popular consciousness, and has probably done more than anything else to

  187
  destroy popular faith in the economic system. The argument that where plenty exists its proper distribution to the best general advantage can and should be effected by human forethought and organisation is really irresistible. That it should be left to the caprice of some obscure law, which apparently does not function, does not seem tolerable, particularly in the light of the spectacular triumphs achieved by science and method in other spheres of human activity."
  I do not believe that any Member of the House will disagree with that analysis. The report goes on:
  "It therefore now seems reasonable to expect Governments to devote the same energy, ingenuity and attention to the provision of the elementary needs of feeding, clothing, and shelter on a civilised scale as to the provision of air communications, wireless services and elaborate systems of national defence."
  That, I think, is one of the most damning indictments of the existing economic system that I have ever read. It is important because of its courageous indication that we have to do things in a different way, and to concentrate on different purposes, if we are to get rid of the spectre of poverty and the perpetual spectre of unemployment in our midst. The Government have not done these things. They will not do them. They have neither the inclination nor the courage to do them. They have never shown any originality. There is not one single original idea that the Government have brought forward and put into practice. It may be that they will go back to a modified scheme of development, but that will not be a cure for this situation. The only way to get out of it, however difficult it may be, is for the Government to go back on their track and have the courage now to see that the system is not producing the goods but is producing unemployment on a very large scale as an essential factor. There is no way in the immediate future on the old lines of reducing unemployment to the old level. It is because of that that we think the Government ought to be censured. They ought to be censured because they are living in a world which is not the world in which the common people are living to-day, because they are clinging to the old ways in new times and because, in spite of all their vaunted courage, which was the courage to defend the existing propertied classes, they had not the courage to adventure into the new world which is now being born. The agony of
  188
  mind, the gnawing sense of hopelessness among hundreds of thousands of our people, and the lack-lustre eyes of the growing generation cannot be tolerated.
  We cannot go on like this. Even the sufferers themselves, broken spirited as they are, will not tolerate it for ever, and the others will not continue to allow 7,000,000 or 8,000,000 people, the unemployed and their descendants, to be consigned to penury and the dwellers in the distressed areas to a hell upon earth. They proved it in January of this year, and it rests heavily on the Government with their great majority, and their new lease of dying life, to do something now. They have exploited the Gold Standard, they have done their best to dam up all the great channels of trade, but they have found no remedy. We know now that, in spite of all the extravagant claims that have been made, the preposterous claims on those enormous posters that are defiling the countryside, they have failed to solve this problem. We know that they have not destroyed that cancer that is destroying the hope of this generation and the lives of the next and, what is even more, destroying the sense of self respect of the nation as a whole. It cannot be that people in this House can look at that spectacle with any degree of complacency. There is not a Member of the House who in his heart of hearts is not ashamed. The Government have no remedy. They came in on a great wave of fear. They came in having aroused hopes which they have not been able to satisfy. They came in claiming that they, this Ministry of all the talents, had sufficient combined knowledge, wisdom and inspiration to deal with this problem. They have lamentably failed. I close with these words which I read in the early hours of this morning in my bedside book, written by G. K. Chesterton, called "An election echo, 1906." The first verse reads:
  "This is their trumpet ripe and rounded,
  They have burnt the wheat and gathered the chaff,
  And we that have fought them, we that have watched them,
  Have we at least not cause to laugh?"
  This is the last verse:
  "Five years ago and we might have feared them,
  Been drubbed by the coward and taught by the dunce;
  Truth may endure and be told and re-echoed,
  But a lie can never be young but once.

  189
  Five years ago, and we might have feared them,
  Now, when they lift the laurelled brow,
  There shall naught go up from our hosts assembled
  But a laugh like thunder, we know them now."
  4.37 p.m.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The task to which I have to apply myself this afternoon is justifying, so far as I can, the actions of the Government in the light of this Vote of Censure which has been put down and to which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken. Once again I am reminded of the wise words of a Member of another place, who for many years was with us, and who said that in his advancing years if one thing struck him more than another it was not so much the diversity of testimony as the many-sidedness of truth, and it is to certain aspects of the truth from the sight of which the right hon. Gentleman turned away his head that I wish to call the attention of the House. We are being censured I see, first of all for having no considered plan. I have never been the slave of a word—I think you may make great mistakes by being a slave of a word—but there is a word which is being rather ridden to death today, and that is the word "plan." I have seen nothing of planning in any foreign country which would lead me to think that it is a universal panacea. The word "plan" itself seems to me rather to take the place of one that was very much in vogue three or four years ago, and that is the word "rationalisation." But I like "plan" better because I always prefer a monosyllable to a polysyllable.
  I do not know exactly, either, what a "plan" is. Some kinds of plan exist in books and pamphlets undertaking to cure unemployment. I have never promised to cure unemployment, and I am sure if I ever had said it the right hon. Gentleman would have dug it up. I have taken risks on unemployment which many of my Friends perhaps thought very foolish. I threw away office and I threw away an election, as it turned out, because I was convinced, as I am now looking back, that among the things that were necessary to help to check the growing unemployment a tariff was a necessity. But a complete cure—that there shall be no unemployment—I have never promised, and I have never suggested.
  190
  I do not promise it now, I shall never promise it on the platform, and I will never stand on a platform with anyone who does promise it. We have not had a plan in that sense, but we have had a policy. The right hon. Gentleman has denied that, but it is one of those aspects of the many-sidedness of truth to which I will call the attention of the House, because I think I can show that by our action during the time since we have been in office we have made a considerable contribution, and hon. Members must remember what the circumstances were at the time when we were asked to make that contribution. That was one aspect of the truth which the hon. Gentleman did not deny but which he ignored. It was not so much the tide that washed us in. It was the tide that washed him and his friends out of office, and it left such a mess on the beach that it was all that we could do to clear it up.
  The right hon. Gentleman only referred for a moment to agriculture. By the terms of the Motion this matter deals primarily with industrial problems, and there will be opportunities for discussing the agricultural queston on another occasion. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that undue attention and undue financial help has been given to agricultural areas. The agricultural problem is perhaps, I will not say the most difficult, but just as difficult in its way as the industrial. It has been extremely difficult to stem the rot that has set in in an industry exposed to unlimited competition in a world where the prices of primary products had fallen almost to zero. But whatever can be done in the agricultural areas even to hold the position so far as those who work in those areas are concerned we must remember, serves a two-fold purpose. It saves the constant drain from the country into the town of men seeking work, and the greatest tragedy of all is that when these men go into the towns to seek work it is in most cases taking away a skilled man and leaving him to compete for an unskilled job.
  When we assumed office now very nearly four years ago, we found the foreign trade of the country contracted, we found that unemployment had been increasing and was increasing at an alarming rate; we found the financial position of the country precarious and increasingly precarious, and we found growing

  191
  throughout the country a lack of confidence which, in itself, was doing a, great deal of harm and helping to create the very conditions in which recovery was made more or less impossible. Therefore, our first task—and a very hard task it was—was to try and improve the general condition of the country. The steps taken are well known to the House. They were steps that required a good deal of courage to take, and they were steps which we thought at the time would be highly unpopular, but they were necessary, because the first thing to do was to balance the Budget and restore the financial position. The result of the work of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported at all points as he was by the Government, through those early months and early years, was to bring our finances in this country into a more stable position than they had been for sometime.
  We have been able, in addition to obtaining the balanced Budget, to make certain reductions of taxation and to give back to the people of this country the cuts that were made, the cuts which they authorised being made by their votes at the last General Election, to give them back now in toto. When you look back at what the finances have been able to do, at the increase in the retail sales of this country, which shows how gradually the stability of the better finances of this country is percolating through all classes of this country, you can see that at any rate that policy is justifying itself in its own process. It is quite true that there is nothing new about the basis of the policy which we have been pursuing. We have been bathing in Jordan rather than the rivers of Damascus. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is the other way round!"]
  The result of our policy has been to create that atmosphere of confidence without which we do not believe that capital will be invested and that new work will be indulged in and that therefore by the fresh use of capital and new work employment may be effected; and in our view there has been no other cure that could have been directed to this object than the cure which has brought about these conditions of confidence and has made it possible for the employment of fresh capital and labour.
  192
  After securing the balancing of the nation's finances, there were other directions in which our policy moved. The balancing of the Budget we regarded as quite essential, but we had three main tasks to which we devoted ourselves in the first two years in which we were in office. There was the attaining of a reasonable degree of security, stable conditions in the home market, and we employed towards that end the imposition of a moderate tariff. There was the development of overseas markets, which we concluded could be assisted by the agreements we came to at Ottawa and the agreements we have made since with foreign countries. With regard to the change of fiscal policy in 1931, I think there was a general agreement that, quite apart from what the effect of that change of policy might be, it was rendered essential to combat the growing and dangerous adverse balance of trade. The balance of trade at that time was very adverse; it was growing very rapidly, and the most immediate and drastic means which could be employed was the tariff. The home industrial and agricultural situations have now certainly got a more stable market than they had before the imposition of the duties. I think that there is no doubt that a large part of the agricultural industry and a very large part of our industrial activities now hold the predominant situation for the the first time in the markets at home.
  With regard to Ottawa, the House may remember that when we returned from Ottawa in 1932 I expressed the view in this House that it would be some time, a year at least, before we could feel any effects from the agreements that had been entered into. That indeed was the case. Our intentions at Ottawa were to stimulate Empire trade, to reduce the internal barriers within the Empire, and our main contribution was a very considerable one. We gave free entry into the United Kingdom, entry free of all duty for a whole range of goods from the Dominions and from India which otherwise would have been liable to the general duties which were imposed by Parliament under the new tariff. And to help the Dominions and India in certain cases we put on specific duties, new or increased, and the Dominions in their turn and India reduced their duties on a considerable line of goods coming from these islands. Perhaps the most interesting feature of

  193
  Ottawa was that it was the first occasion on which by free negotiation Indian delegates representing Indian industry and commerce accepted and acted upon the principle of Imperial preference as between India and the other component parts of the Empire.
  The Ottawa Agreements have been in force long enough, I think, for us to form a preliminary judgment, and I think that the general feeling of the House will be that they have played their part—not so large a part perhaps as we hope and believe they will in the future—in helping us through this most difficult time. Between the tariff which was put on, I think if my memory serves me, in 1931 and 1934 the imports into this country from the Dominions who made agreements under the Ottawa Agreements increased by £30,000,000 and similarly, if we take the year 1932, when the advantages given us by the Dominions first came into effect—between 1932–34, our exports to the Ottawa Dominions increased by £26,000,000. There you have that gradual growth of the British inter-Imperial trade which Ottawa was designed to foster, and it is, as I have often said before in this House, a foundation on which we may hope to build a good deal more in the years to come. The agreements are working better than they have been. I think that we are getting to understand each other better, and there is a more general desire on the part of all the countries in the Empire to develop Empire trade both in and out of these islands to the utmost possible extent.
  We have employed the tariff instrument wherever possible, and we shall continue to do so. We followed Ottawa by a certain number of bi-lateral agreements made between this country and other countries. In the absence of a general tariff, I think the House will agree, agreements of this kind would have been impossible. Attempts have been made before the existence of a tariff to get agreements, but I am not aware of any in recent years that have been carried through with success. The creation of a tariff in this country brought home to foreign countries as they never realised before what the value of the British market is to them, and they have been willing in many cases to pay a certain price to get their share of that market. We have made agreements with 17
  194
  countries in the last three years. The benefits which we have obtained include certain reductions in foreign tariffs, certain undertakings to buy British goods, restrictions of the existing quotas, in one or two cases the payment of old debts, the provision of exchange and concessions on coal. It is very interesting, because that was referred to by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). The figures are not very large, I agree, but it is a start, and it is well known that one of the greatest difficulties in regard to trade in some of our most depressed areas comes from the fact that they have been so dependent on export trade and shipping. We find that with countries that have made no agreements on coal with us, in the two years ending last year the export of coal declined by 1,750,000 tons. We find that with the countries with whom agreements have been made in the same time there has been an increase of 2,500,000 tons. That is not large, but in that trade which has been so upset by world conditions, by international division, even when a bad tendency is checked, even when it can be turned round by only the smallest amount, that is something that we may be glad to see and to try on similar lines to better.
  We have had guarantees for fairer quotas in trade generally—and we have been hit very hard by quotas—from Holland, Italy and France. It is interesting to see that these agreements—and there has been a good deal of criticism of them, in the House—are justifying themselves. I admit again that the figures are not very large, but they are in the right direction. I find that in the first quarter of this year the exports are up £4,500,000 with countries with whom we have made agreements compared to what they were in 1933 when there were no agreements with those countries. That represents a 20 per cent. increase—I do not like dealing in percentages because very often they are misleading; it all depends on the figure from which you start—whereas the increase in exports to all other countries with whom we have made no agreements is only just over £2,000,000, or 7½ per cent. The volume—I do not use value here, because volume is in some ways a safer test—the volume of world trade last year barely exceeded that of the year before, but our increase was 7 per cent. on our export

  195
  trade—in a world trade that was practically stationary. In the first quarter of this year we are up by a large percentage on what we were two years ago. That increased bargaining power which the tariff has given us we have used to the best of our ability, and we shall continue to use it.
  I want to make an observation here on cheap money. By the conversion of the 5 per cent. loan and other conversions that have been made, we have saved the country £38,000,000 a year. The reduction in rates on short-term money taken together with the savings on conversion have reduced the cost of management of the National Debt by 20 per cent. in the last four years. These savings, of course, represent an enormous assistance to the country, and that assistance is being obtained very largely now with the cheap money which we are beginning to utilise and which I hope in future we shall utilise much more. Conversions also of the higher-priced loans have taken place with regard to the Dominions and the Colonies and the local authorities, and in industry too, and I have been assured to-day that a good long-term bond in industry can obtain the money one-third cheaper than at any time since the War. This has been, and will be, an enormous help in housing, and it is of enormous help in providing the means of new capital subscribed. By new capital, I mean new capital and not conversion money, and, while new capital subscribed has not yet got back nearly to the figure at which it stood in the middle twenties, yet it has recovered considerably from the very low figure at which it stood about three years ago. During the last 12 months over £167,000,000 was raised, all of which, as I understand, may be classed as productive capital. In all these ways our aim has been as far as possible to get people back to their ordinary trades and into industry, because in our view, as we have always held, it is far preferable if that can be done to keeping men on relief work. We have, as a matter of fact, about 1,000,000 more in work than were in work four years ago, and 308,000 more than were in work at the time of the last Vote of Censure.
  We claim that by a certain policy, closely adhered to and faithfully followed, we have helped at any rate to bring about, if we have not entirely brought about,
  196
  a great improvement in the conditions of this country, and I should like to know at this point what His Majesty's Opposition are going to do about it if they are returned to power. The right hon. Gentleman reminded me that there will have to be a general election. He named no time, but we will assume that it will be within a year or two, and then he and his friends will have to tell the country whether they are going to continue the methods, which we claim up to this point have not been without success, or whether they have a remedy which is either going to put everybody into work or bring about a first-class crisis. No doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) will tell us when he comes to speak, and also whether the programme is an authorised one or a tentative one. I challenge the hon. and learned Gentleman to show that any country in the world has made more progress during the last three or four years than this country. To maintain progress is not at all the same thing as being complacent. I have never been complacent since the War; I may have been before the War, but never since the War.
  I do not want hon. Members in this House to imagine, when I am placing before them the good things that have resulted, as I believe, from our policy that I am content, or that I feel that we have yet half accomplished the task that was set us four years ago. But I do maintain that it is difficult to visualise that more could have been done in those four years when you have regard to the conditions under which we started. The general business improvement is shown, I think, by various official indices. The index of production, if you take it at 100, 11 years ago, was up to 97¼ in 1932, and last year it rose to 117.4, the highest figure recorded since those indices were prepared. The iron and steel production, which fell after 1929 to a very low figure, is now rapidly running up towards the 1929 figure, and I think that the results of the arrangement made with the general cartel are results of immense value to the trade and labour of both the iron and steel trade and the mining industry.
  But I would like here to say a word or two on what the right hon. Gentleman said at one part of his speech about the want of stability in the situation. I think that possibly, and naturally in his position, his facet of the many-sided

  197
  truth was what might happen if things came to their worst. The instability of the situation in any country to-day is the instability that arises from world conditions, the instability that arises from currency conditions in other countries and from a hundred and one other causes. It is the unsettled state of the world as opposed to the comparatively settled state in this country that makes us feel that it may well be that before we get very much farther there is always the possibility of some check coming from some unknown and unexpected quarter. But that makes it surely all the more necessary that we should take the utmost care that no step be taken in this country at least which could damage the national credit either externally or internally. Any damage to the internal national credit might demolish, or, at any rate, diminish that very confidence which exists to-day in business and which we believe to be one of the most hopeful signs. It was that alone which created the environment in which a continuing activity of business may be found, and anything that shakes externally our credit may set causes into action not dissimilar from those which caused us almost irreparable damage four years ago.
  That brings me, of course, to a point that has been very much disputed among Members of the House and on which different opinions are held. In our view, as has frequently been expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a lavish expenditure, for example, on public works could be justified only if it gave such an incentive to industry as would at, the same time enable the country to bear the burden and also would create such a momentum as would give the necessary volume of employment when the expenditure came to an end. We have seen in another country, and a very great country, an attempt at State expenditure of unprecedented magnitude. Some good and useful results are observable, but it does not appear to me that up to the present it has succeeded in producing the desired natural revival of industry. We have always doubted whether State expenditure—and I would remind the House that experience shows that it is necessary to spend at the rate of £10,000,000 a year for each 40,000 people that you want to employ—on the lavish scale that would be necessary would in fact bring about a revival of industry, and we are convinced
  198
  that such expenditure would be disastrous if it failed to bring about that revival. Again I repeat, we have tried to create conditions of confidence, of security and of cheap money, conditions in which, as we believe, the ordinary activities of the country will grow and spread so long as those conditions last. That does not mean—and you can tell from the actions of the Government—that we are unwilling to see money spent. Indeed, the contrary is the case.
  I rather stress the use of the words "lavish" and "public works." As the House knows, we have assisted the building of the "Queen Mary," and we made that conditional on a reduction of wasteful competition in the Atlantic trade. We have proposed subsidies to tramp owners conditional upon reorganisation within the industry and upon strong efforts to agree with the foreigner as to redundant tonnage. We have proposed loans to cargo owners for the reconstruction or modernisation of ships conditional on the scrapping of old tonnage. We have proposed an Exchequer guarantee to aid the Lancashire scheme on the question of redundant spindles, and we have guaranteed the principle and interest of the London transport schemes which are at present before the House. I would like, on that, to say that we sympathise with the views that were put forward in the House and expressed by Members who represent large areas of London where they would be glad to have similar facilities, and we have appointed Sir Charles Bressey, helped by Sir Edwin Lutyens, to make a complete review of the highway planning of London. That in itself will be a most valuable jumping off ground, I hope, for further schemes for the development of London transport. If I am correctly informed, the last individual to draw up a plan of London highways was Sir Christopher Wren, and I think that London has suffered a good deal because his schemes were not adopted at the time that they were proposed. There is a clause in the agreement under the London transport scheme that in the execution of the work all plant, machinery and material as far as possible is to be of home make, with preference, other things being equal, to the specially depressed areas.
  I desire to say a few words on that most difficult aspect of the problems that

  199
  lie before us, the areas themselves. That conditions were likely to be peculiarly difficult in South Wales, in Durham, in Cumberland and in parts of Scotland I think was known to everyone interested in these things, socially or politically, soon after the termination of the War. Since 1922 successive Governments, including two Labour Governments, have had to consider this problem, and it yet remains, in spite of very slight improvement, perhaps the most difficult and most obstinate problem which can confront a Government. We ought to remember that the general improvement so far as it has gone has touched these areas. Since September, 1931, the total number of unemployed persons on the registers of the employment exchanges in these areas has fallen by 65,000, and the fall since June, 1932, which was perhaps the worst period, amounts to over 100,000. But that leaves—I do not shirk this question for one moment—far too large a number unemployed, and I shall give a few figures on that before I have finished.
  I want to say a few words on a subject which was discussed in 1928, or I think in 1929, but which has not been discussed much later, and that is the question of transfers. I want to discuss it, because I do not think it has been debated in this House for some time, and there are certain things in connection with transfer which I should like to put forward, and no doubt Members will be prepared to debate the question. The transfer policy, as it was called, was introduced about 1928 or 1929, but it was almost dropped by the Labour Government in 1929, and then, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the blizzard came with such swiftness that I doubt if any transfer at that time would have been possible. It is only lately that the transfers, which have gone on quietly all the time, have been obtaining a rather more prominent place. It was never claimed—I want the House to remember this—for the transfer policy that it added to the total number of persons employed, although it could very well be argued that on balance it did, but what was claimed for it was that it gave a reasonable measure of priority of employment to a man or boy from an area where not only were his own chances poor but where other members of the household might also be unemployed. The
  200
  policy is based on the divergence between the severity and the nature of unemployment in different parts of the country. We must remember that in some districts unemployment is well below 10 per cent. while in some towns in the depressed areas it is as much as 50 per cent. The contrast between the position in the different areas is not only in regard to the numbers unemployed, but in regard to the time of the unemployment, which is one of the gravest factors.
  Here are one or two figures. At the end of May there were 107,000 men claimants in the North Eastern Division, over 70,000 in the North Western Division, and over 65,000 in Scotland and Wales who had been unemployed for 12 months or longer, which compares—here is a very remarkable figure—with only 10,000 similar cases in the whole London area, with 3,000 in the remainder of the South Eastern area, and with 10,000 in the whole of the South Western Division. A considerable volume of transference occurs naturally without the interposition of the Ministry of Labour, and, indeed, without their direct knowledge. For instance, large numbers of Welshmen, in addition to those transferred through the exchanges, are known to have gone to Kent and found employment in the Kent coalfields. This, again, is illustrated by the Registrar-General's estimate that for the two years 1931–33 the addition to the population of Greater London by migration was approximately 115,000, and over 250,000 were added to the population of the South Eastern area.
  The object of industrial transference is to supplement the undirected movement of individual workmen from the depressed areas by the use of the machinery of the employment exchanges, and I do want to impress upon the House that regard is paid to the local position. The exchanges do not seek to transfer people into areas where numbers of workpeople of the same grade are unemployed. The steps taken to encourage and facilitate transfer are special facilities by the employment exchanges, training at the training centres, financial and other assistance in the removal of families, furniture and so on. All these various forms of assistance have been devised to meet the needs of men who have been reduced as to their resources by long terms of unemployment. The arrangements are constantly being

  201
  reviewed, and we are only too anxious to see in what way further assistance can be given.
  Very substantial assistance is available, and it is being used. Again, I want to repeat that transference does not consist, as is sometimes supposed, of attempts to settle persons in new areas in the mass or without regard to the unemployment position. It is a carefully fostered movement of individuals to suitable vacancies in districts where the local position affords openings for them. In 1932–33 transference fell off for obvious reasons, but in 1934 it improved, and this year there is a marked further improvement. I hope that both the London Transport scheme and the expansion of the Air defences which we have been obliged to sanction will find employment for suitable men from those areas, and I appeal through this House to employers generally to make use of the exchanges and to give the officials there an opportunity of submitting men and boys from those areas.
  The Motion talks of an admitted failure. I have used the word "failure" Myself—I am supposed to be rather frank in my expressions—and when I have regard to the figures that I have read out from those areas and I compare them with the figures that I have read from other parts of the country I do say that in those areas we have failed to bring them up to anything like—
  Mr. BATEY: Or to do anything.
  The PRIME MINISTER: We have done more than the Opposition did when they were in power. The talk of admitted failure applies in some degree to every Government that has been in office since 1922. I hold very strongly, looking back and putting oneself in the position of 1931, that no one could have foreseen the improvement that has come about in most parts of the country in the short space of four years. We all know that the depressed areas are particularly affected by the export trade, which is the slowest to improve, and by the shipping trade; yet we did hope, and we looked for something approaching the same success in those areas, but we have not yet achieved it. We shall shortly have at our disposal the reports of the Commissioners of the various ways that they have been able to devise, and we shall have an opportunity of examining and I
  202
  hope of utilising whatever schemes of development and amelioration they have been able to suggest. I have not yet seen the reports myself. Whether they will give us all that we hope for or not, I do want to express thanks to these men who have been carrying out for some months a task of extraordinary difficulty and extraordinary complexity.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the reports will be available?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think there will be a question about the matter in a day or two. I hope they will be available quite soon. I understand that proofs are now being put into type. I have not yet seen them. Our desire is to publish them as soon as we have had time to read them. In a day or two I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to give an answer as to the date. My right hon. Friend now says that it may be in the course of next week. I am most anxious that the reports should be published. There is one point that I should like to make about these areas, and it is this. I do regret the fact that none of the new industries which have come down to the London area have thought fit to establish themselves in one of the depressed areas. I cannot see yet how we can bring the Government in by any form of direct action; it would be novel work and might bring in its train many difficulties, but I do appeal with such power as I am able to the men who are undertaking and laying down new works to show their gratitude to the country for protecting them with a tariff by doing something in exchange for the country and going where the country needs them most, and that is in these areas. There is room there, there is labour, both skilled and unskilled, transport, choice of sites and every facility that man can desire.
  Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman include Lancashire in that appeal?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I should be only too pleased to include Lancashire for any industry where the work of people whose hands have been used to handling delicate machinery and products of various kinds is required. For them there could be no more desirable spot than Lancashire. The same remark applies mutatis mutandis to any hon.

  203
  Member who may mention his own constituency. I am afraid that I have taken a rather long time in trying to show the House the way in which our industrial policy since 1931 has brought about an improvement which, having regard to the conditions after 1931, I consider to be unprecedented. It is perfectly true that there is yet a great deal to be done. In particular, we have to try and increase the volume of our overseas trade, the lack of which is so adversely affecting our shipping trade and the industries which depend upon it. But a condition precedent to further improvement in my view is the maintenance of what we have already gained and a continuance of confidence. If confidence is not maintained, business conditions will not be maintained either. It is acknowledged that there has been a widespread improvement—no one can deny it, a marked improvement—but it is true that the improvement has been far too slow in reaching these special areas, and we shall continue to direct our efforts to this problem in every practical way. The first thing we have to do is to examine and, I hope, carry out the suggestions we may find in the reports which will shortly be published.
  This I say without fear of contradiction, that there is hardly a country in the world to-day where the conditions of the unemployed over the whole of the country are better than in the United Kingdom, with all its faults. There has been a marked improvement in the level of real wages. Taking 1924 as the standard, the cost of living has fallen by 20 per cent. while the change in money wages has been less than 5 per cent. The average worker is far better off than we was, because each shilling buys as much as 1s. 3d. before, and, when allowance is made for a reduction in money wages, he is still 2d. in the 1s. better off. There will always be critics. I am always a critic myself; I shall never be satisfied with the progress that is made as long as I am in public life. We expect our critics, and welcome them, but I would say to them that when they have said their worst about us let them compare the conditions here with those in any other country. Have they met a foreigner who when he has once worked in this country wants to go and work in any other? Do they know of any of
  204
  their friends working in this country, any Englishman, Scotsman, Welshman, or a North of Ireland man, who would change it to go and work in any other country in the world?
  5.35 p.m.
  Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has reminded us of the many-sidedness of truth. He was amply entitled to remind us of the effectiveness of the financial policy which the Government pursued in 1931–32 in dealing with the national crisis. Our complaints on that score are two: first, that the Government have failed to build upon the financial Foundations which they laid, and, secondly, that they have pursued an economic policy which has been an effective barrier against the restoration of our foreign trade, which has fallen with special weight upon the depressed areas. The right hon. Gentleman has referred us to the effect of the trading agreements which he says could not have been negotiated but for the introduction of the tariff. The comparison he makes of our exports to countries with which we have concluded agreements is a comparison with our trade in 1933, that is to say, after the imposition of tariffs and quotas had destroyed part of our export trade to these countries. He only illustrates the truth that the effect of these agreements has been to knock down a few of the additional bricks which had been added to the tariff barriers between us and these countries as a result of the Government's economic policy. It is also true, if you look at the result of these agreements or of the Ottawa Agreements, that such increases of our exports to these countries as have been achieved have been at the cost of diverting trade from foreign countries. The first effect of the Ottawa Agreements was to torpedo the World Economic Conference, on the successful result of which the restoration of prosperous international trade depended.
  The House never fails to succumb to the right hon Gentleman's mesmeric touch, but if it means to respond to the country's demand for effective action against the canker of unemployment it must arouse itself from the trance and escape from the spell of the Prime Minister's enchantments. Unemployment was the test by which the Prime Minister declared four years ago that the Government would be judged to-day. This was

  205
  the test by which he confessed failure at Himley last month, beaten, he said, by the problem of the depressed areas. He says that he and his Government have done as much for the depressed areas as the Labour Government. Surely, that is not the test with which Government supporters will be satisfied. In his speech this afternoon he offers no hope to the special areas or to the unemployed except transfer, and the reports of the Special Commissioners which have not yet been published. He says that he has never felt complacency.
  The Prime Minister has certainly been more frank about the condition of the country than most of his colleagues, and I shall have to refer to one or two of his colleagues presently but he now proposes a new test of the efficiency of the Government's policy. He says: "What other country is there to which a British workman would wish to go?" I ask to what other country in any year in which I have been alive would a British workman have preferred to go rather than Great Britain? [An HON. MEMBER: "America!"]. I have met a few in America who were rather sorry that they had gone there on account of the high wages which were so attractive to them when they were in this country. They were much less attractive when they found the cost of the goods they had to buy in America. But I say, what other country is there to which a British workman would wish to go? A few might wish to go to America, and some might want to go to new countries in order to make their way there. That is true to-day, but it is less true to-day than at any time in my life that this country is more prosperous and has a higher standard of living than other countries. Ten days ago the Prime Minister delivered a speech in which he made the resounding declaration—
  "We, the Government, though I say it myself, are a very good orchestra, and we always play in tune."
  Imagine my surprise when I found on the same page of my newspaper a speech delivered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the embodiment of bureaucratic efficiency and complacency, in which he referred to the Prime Minister's confession of failure and added: "I disagree with him." The orchestra was a little out of tune on that particular Saturday afternoon. The speeches of the Chancellor
  206
  of the Exchequer are variations on two themes, one that no improvement is conceivable on the policy of the present Government, and the other that everybody is happy. The Prime Minister's discordant confession stung him into pained and indignant protest. "Our unemployment policy," declared the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this House in December, "is to continue as we have been doing"; and the Prime Minister's speech to-day shows that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is still dominating the policy of the Government and that the protests and constructive proposals of the Northern group of Members of Parliament, supporters of the present Government, have fallen as flat on the Government's doorstep as the proposals of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). Some grants to philanthropic bodies are suggested in the Commissioner's reports. The Government have recently announced some credit facilities for railways who are undertaking much incubated schemes of electrification, some tentative experiments in land settlement and home-crofting, but all the big proposals which would carve chunks out of unemployment, the raising of the school age, the pensioning off of old workers, schemes of national development and the nationalisation of mining royalties, are all turned down or shelved, and in essentials the unemployment policy of the Government is to continue as it has been doing.
  The second theme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that everybody is happy. Within the last two months he declared:
  "We meet in an atmosphere of such happiness and contentment as has not been seen since the War."
  That was not said in Cardiff or Swansea, in Durham or Newcastle, in Glasgow or Motherwell, but in London at the annual dinner of the Bankers' Association. Only last week in the House of Commons he declared in answer to a criticism from, these benches:
  "The outlook remains persistently and doggedly cheerful."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th July, 1935; col. 2142, Vol. 303.]
  A very pregnant phrase—"persistently and doggedly cheerful." What, though our exports in the first five months of this year are £174,000,000, as compared with £309,000,000 for the first five months of 1929. If cheerfulness is characterised by sufficient persistency it will, of course,

  207
  be possible to find some other period with which this Government may make a more favourable comparison, and the Prime Minister when speaking at Bramham Park 10 days ago, took the first five months of 1933, when, with the possible exception of a few months in the previous year, our exports were lower than they have ever been since 1905. And in the same speech, presumably in order to keep in tune with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to keep everybody happy, the Prime Minister made the astonishing statement that it was the present Government which had enabled this country, and this country alone, to increase its exports during this period; but in answer to a question by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) yesterday, we were informed that of the 24 principal commercial countries in the world no fewer than 13 show an increase and only 11 a decrease in exports this year as compared with the same months of 1933.
  What though British shipping, entering with cargoes, declined by 347,000 tons, while foreign tonnage increased by 119,000 tons as compared with last year? The Chancellor of the Exchequer remains doggedly cheerful. What though the load of taxation remains within £4,000,000 of what it was in 1930, just before the world crisis reached its most critical phase, when we were paying our debt to the United States, when provision was being made for sinking fund, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was borrowing on long term at 5 per cent., as against 3 per cent. now, and on short term at £2 5s. per cent., as compared with 12s. 4d. per cent. now? The resources of persistent cheerfulness are not exhausted and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, omitting all reference to the sinking fund, claims credit for restoring taxation to a level fractionally below what it was under a Socialist Government—£694,000,000, as against £690,000,000 when we were already caught in the maelstrom of the slump.
  No reasonable man could or would wish to deny that things have improved since the worst of the crisis in 1931. The right hon. Gentleman who moved this Resolution mentioned two reasons for that improvement—the departure from the Gold Standard and the resources which we have accumulated on the basis of our
  208
  great world trade during past generations. I would add two more—the restoration of public confidence and the cheapness of money which have been powerful aids to recovery. But in my submission we should be false to our duty if, influenced by the taunts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer we refused to confront this gaunt spectre of unemployment, the almost unrelieved misery of the people in the special areas and the depression in our seaport towns. For, remember that it is not in Birmingham where unemployment is only 6.3 per cent., or in our great inland cities, but in our seaport towns which are dependent on shipping and the export trade, cities like Glasgow where unemployment is 25.5 per cent. of the insured population or Liverpool where it is 28.7 per cent., that the problem is worst. And when the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks of the special areas and the seaport towns he must require all his dogged persistence to remain cheerful.
  It is not true however that unemployment is an evil the appalling consequences of which are confined to the special areas. When the Measure dealing with the special areas was passing through the House the Order Paper was covered with Amendments put down by Members in all parts of the House urging that the areas in which they were interested and the conditions in which they knew, should be added to the list of those areas in which a special effort was to be made to deal with this appalling evil of unemployment. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that transfer should play an important part in the solution of the problem of those areas. It may be that it will play a part but if it is confined within the limits which he suggested, that is to say that a man is not to be moved to another area unless there are no unemployed men in that area in the trade or industry to which he belongs so that he will not take the place of another man—if that stipulation is maintained, we can all support transfer but it is not likely to do very much good and is not likely to find many jobs for people from the special areas. But if it means that you are going to bring into these other areas outside the special areas large numbers of men many of whom will be taking the places of men already in those areas, then, I say it will be most unfair.

  209
  I speak with some experience. Under the road schemes of six or seven years ago men were brought to my part of the world in the Highlands of Scotland from the distressed areas. Now in Caithness and Sutherland we have an unemployment figure for men of no less than 42 per cent., and in my own town of Wick we have an insured population of 3,500 and the rate of unemployment among the insured men is actually 41 per cent. This is not a problem of the special areas only. The right hon. Gentleman said that there were 65,000 unemployed who had been unemployed for more than a year in Scotland and Wales and only 10,000 who had been unemployed for more than a year in London. But you do not want to bring men from these districts even to London because it would not be fair to those 10,000 men in London who have been out of work for more than a year if they were to be deprived by these transfers of work which they could do and which they might otherwise get. If there is other work available which they cannot do, then, indeed, on those terms, transfer would only be making a proper use of the labour of the Employment Exchanges.
  It is not, as I have said, a problem of the special areas only and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) did a service to Lancashire which is often forgotten in these discussions in mentioning the importance of the problem in that county. Take the figures for the country as a whole. Before the War—500,000; from 1927 to 1929 1,000,000; now 2,000,000 and as the Labour correspondent of the "Times" reminds us this morning June is the most favourable month for employment in the annual cycle. Yet unemployment remains obstinately at the figure of 2,000,000, not counting agricultural workers and black-coated workers. When the Estimates for the Ministry of Labour were under discussion, the Minister told us that of the 12,000,000 insured workers in this country no fewer than 7,000,000 had made no claim upon the Insurance Fund last year. That means that 5,000,000 did claim. He also told us that the average experience of unemployment of those 5,000,000 was 20 weeks. What does that mean? It means that out of every five insured workers in industry two experienced unemployment and that their average experience was two weeks
  210
  out of work for three weeks in work. That is a very serious position. If you rule out London and the Home Counties, it means that there are not many households in the land which are not visited during the year by unemployment and where even those in work are not cowering under its menace. Yet as we see from the speech of the Prime Minister this afternoon action is wanting.
  Among the unemployed are over 100,000 boys and girls. The case for the raising of the school age has been conceded by the Government in principle. Why then delay action? It is just a year since the Unemployment Assistance Act was passed and yet the draft regulations for its administration still lie in the womb of time. Several Ministers, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, have agreed in principle to the nationalisation of mining royalties which was recommended by more than one of the Government's own investigators but no action has followed. In short there has been no action, apart from housing and there, action has only been taken very tardily, with no proper foundation of town and country planning and with inadequate provision for workers needing houses to let at low rents—only 37,000 houses out of 320,000 built last year will be let at rents of 10s. or less. Apart from housing there has been no effort at the planning or development of our national resources and amenities on a bold scale.
  To some extent it is true that this problem of the development of our national resources and of amenities is covered by the remit to the Commissioners of the special areas, but these are not problems which are peculiar to the special areas, nor have the Commissioners the scope and the power necessary to attempt a solution. When the appointment of these Commissioners was announced we were told that they would be given £2,000,000 which was to be regarded merely as a credit to carry them up to the end of the last financial year, and very severe were the rebukes administered by the Government's spokesmen to any speaker who suggested that £2,000,000 was the limit of the expenditure. Will the Government tell us now whether as much as or more than £2,000,000 is likely to be spent in the distressed areas in the whole of the current year? In the Debate on the

  211
  Scottish Estimates last week we were told that an expenditure from State funds in the special area in Scotland of £767,000 had been approved but no information as to how much would be spent this year was vouchsafed. Much was to be spent on schemes of little employment value, and even allowing for an equivalent contribution from local authorities, it seemed unlikely that out of 330,000 unemployed in Scotland more than 3,000 would obtain employment on these schemes in that special area.
  I have mentioned the need for raising the school age. We must all be concerned about the problem of juvenile unemployment and yet the lack of concentrated and co-ordinated action for dealing with it is appalling. I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour in his place, because I want to give one instance of official inertia in dealing with this problem. I am sure there is no hon. Member here who has not heard of the Fairbridge Farm School and the admirable work which is done there; but for every 20 Members who know it I doubt if there is one—though I am sure that among them the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour may be numbered—who knows that equally admirable work in a similar though not identical sphere is being done in this country, in settling our own boys on the soil of this country and in domestic service, by the Wallingford Farm Training Colony. This, unlike the Fair-bridge school, only takes boys and it only takes them after they have left school. They have accommodation for 250 boys between the ages of 14 and 19 and for 50 boys of over 19 and men on an outlying farm. The boys are trained for agriculture and for domestic service, and there is an increasing demand from farmers for them. In the year before last 71 boys and last year 106 boys were placed, and although many of the boys are backward and difficult when they arrive at the colony, there were only five failures out of this number. At the moment there is a waiting list not of local authorities wanting to get boys into the school but of farmers and other employers wanting to get the boys when they have been trained. The situations secured by these boys are almost all permanent, generally starting at 5s. a
  212
  week with board and lodgings, and in a few months time many of them are earning £2 a week.
  Mr. MAINWARING: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me where they are getting £2 a week from farmers?
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: I mentioned farmers, but I also mentioned that some of the boys were trained for domestic service, and if my hon. Friend wants further particulars I shall be delighted to give them to him if he will ask me afterwards. Yet the astonishing thing, in view of the record of this colony and the position in regard to juvenile unemployment generally, is that the local authorities are giving so little support to that Wallingford scheme that the vacancies in the school are not being filled. The charge to a local authority is only 22s. 9d. a week, and boys of average intelligence can be sure of a job in 12 months. Unless the Government give a lead the charges will have to be raised. Meanwhile, official inertia is at this moment depriving 40 boys for whom vacancies exist at this colony of the chance of good, healthy and lasting employment on the land.
  I pass from this small but not unimportant to a more important and larger sphere of action, where this official inertia is frustrating the development of our national resources. I hold no brief for public works and State expenditure as such, but where, as in many directions, we can see useful and important work waiting to be undertaken, where private enterprise will not undertake it, is not equipped for undertaking it, and has no incentive to undertake it, surely there the Government will step in and take advantage of the present situation, where you have 2,000,000 of your men and women idle, where you have your idle money and cheap rates for borrowing money. The Prime Minister said he disliked lavish public works, but who advocates them? To what foreign country did the Prime Minister refer when he said they had been a failure? Certainly in Sweden the programme of public works which they have undertaken has been a great success, as has been testified by such an impartial authority as the Economic Committee of the League of Nations. The Prime Minister referred to the plans of Sir Christopher Wren, which were neglected at the time, and

  213
  thought how much better it would have been if they had been taken up then. We need to plan now, and not only for London, but for the country as a whole, very much on the lines that Sir Christopher Wren had in mind at that time, but on a greater scale.
  It was the Conservative party, when it was in power in 1929, that was responsible for beginning to damp down the plan for one vitally important piece of planning, namely, the planning of the communications of this country. It was they who were responsible for starting the Treasury's raids on the Road Fund. We were spending, they declared, so many millions out of the Road Fund, such vast additions were being made to the network of British roads, that it was justifiable to ignore the pledges given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs when he inaugurated the Road Fund, and those given by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) when he restored the horse-power tax in 1921, that the proceeds of these taxes and the money in the Road Fund would be expended on the roads, and to divert the money in the Road Fund to other purposes. For my own part, I confess that, motoring about London and seeing so many evidences of fresh road construction, I was astonished when I investigated the figures and found that, while since 1912 the number of motor vehicles in this country had increased 10 times, and the speed and weight and frequency with which they used the roads had increased the wear and tear on the roads many times more, the actual amount of new road construction since 1910 was only 2,400 miles, an increase roughly of from 175,000 to 177,000, or a percentage increase of only 1.4 per cent. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport told us last week that only 400 miles of new roads had been constructed since the War in this country. How different is the position in Germany, where, according to the German Institute for Business Research, 750 miles of new roads are now under construction.
  Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: And some old roads have been reconstructed and broadened.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: Certainly they have, but when you consider the fact that the number of vehicles has increased 10
  214
  times, that the frequency, the weight and speed, the wear and tear on the roads have increased many times more, and when you see the choked condition of many of our roads at the present time, it is apparent that what is required is planning on a very much larger scale than the mere reconstruction of old roads.
  Not only is the provision for motor transport so inadequate in this country, but I do not think the House realises how great has been the diversion of these road taxes from the uses to which they were pledged or how heavy is the burden of taxation on the motor industry at the present time. Vehicle licences and the petrol tax now amount to £75,000,000 a year, of which only one-third, or £25,000,000, goes to road expenditure. Indeed, the motor industry is now paying £20,000,000 a year more in taxation than the whole sum at present spent on the construction and maintenance of the road system of this country. This is hampering the development of the motor industry, it is preventing it from increasing its exports on the basis of mass production, and it is reducing its capacity to increase employment. It is also throwing an unfair and deeply resented burden upon the ratepayers of the country. In my county, out of a consolidated rate of 11s., we spend on housing 2½d., on police 6d., on public health 10d., on public assistance 1s. 9d., and on roads 3s. 10d., or more on roads than on all those other vital services.
  The increase in the number of road accidents has indeed been checked by the emergetic measures taken by the Ministry of Transport for dealing with some of the contributory causes of this weekly toll of slaughter and injury in the country, but it is the main cause, the inadequacy of the road accommodation for our motor transport, which requires an effective remedy, without which the situation will not remain stationary during the next five or 10 years, but will rapidly deteriorate. Last year there were 120,000 motor vehicles added to the roads, and the Minister of Transport told us a few weeks ago that in the first four months of this year 151,000 new vehicles had been registered. Those figures show the dimensions of the problem with which we are faced and the absolute need, on its merits, for a great improvement of our roads. The present five year plan is merely scratching the surface. Too much

  215
  of the burden is thrown on the ratepayers, and the Ministry of Transport has the hopeless task of stimulating and co-ordinating 2,000 local authorities who are resentful of the burden which is thrown upon their rates and each of which has its own ideas on such questions as the width, camber, and surface of the roads.
  Let the Government tackle the problem on a national scale. Let them take over the main roads of the country, and let them improve them, reconstruct them, and plan them by raising a loan on the security of the revenues of the Road Fund, and thus make our roads fit for modern traffic. Nobody else can do the job except the Government. It means the building of new roads and thus giving employment; it means the reconstruction, of course, of old roads, it means rebuilding 2,000 weak bridges, the construction of new bridges over the Severn, the Tyne, the Forth, and the Tay. I would ask the Government to harness the energies of the Minister of Transport to a scheme on that scale, and thus they will not only increase the safety of the public and the employment of the people directly on these works, but they will also create the conditions in which our road transport industry, which already employs 1,250,000 people, will be able to expand its production and multiply its sales, both at home and abroad, and thus increase employment.
  I have been amazed to hear, in the Debates on the Finance Bill, hon. Members opposite supporting the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of piling burdens upon the road transport industry on the ground that it is so prosperous that it can afford to pay. It is the poor, decrepit, old railways that must always be coddled. They would do much more to help the prosperity of our country and employment of our people if they would do something to create the conditions in which youthful and vigorous industries like the road transport industry could expand freely and naturally, than by helping lame crocks over stiles with subsidies or by taxing their competitors.
  It is because we believe that the central fact of our unemployment situation is that we can make no lasting impression upon unemployment, or upon the conditions in the special areas and our seaport towns, unless we adopt a vigorous
  216
  and consistent policy for the removal of trade barriers, the stabilisation of currencies, and the restoration of our international trade; it is because the Government, in spite of encouraging portents in France, the United States of America, and elsewhere, are making no move in that direction; it is because the big legislative projects, such as the raising of the school age and the nationalisation of mining royalties, the case for which on their merits is almost universally admitted, are either shelved or at any rate not being undertaken at the present time; it is because the Government have no plan adequate for the emergency either to redeem their confessed failure in the special areas or to place any substantial number of the unemployed on works of national development which ought, on their merits, to be carried out, that we on these benches will vote for the Motion this evening.
  6.11 p.m.
  Sir ALAN ANDERSON: Among the many virtues for which this House is famed, the one to which I attach at the moment the most importance is its kindness to newcomers. When inexperience comes in the attractive guise of youth it carries its own recommendation, but to forgive the unnatural union between my inexperience and my age, die kindness of the House is indeed needed. I should not have ventured to rise so soon if it had not been that the years of youth which were wasted in not being spent here were spent in the City of London, and this subject of employment is the central subject for all of us in the City of London. Sometimes industrialists even in this country, where we are all close together, are inclined to think that the businesses located in the small area for which I am one of the representatives are not so much concerned with employment as those who see the men and women whom they employ walking in and out of their factories every day. That is a delusion. Employment is simply the human side of trade. To cure unemployment, it is possible either to employ, or to encourage someone else to employ, or to enable someone else to employ. I am not very keen about short cuts in these great economic movements. I believe that Governments often do better by enabling employment flan by actually employing themselves. Possibly

  217
  my feeling about that is due to the fact that we in the City more often enable employment than employ directly ourselves, but we are conscious all the time that this need to restore employment to the world lies behind all our other difficulties and is an expression of them.
  It is not at all difficult, it appears to me, for us, by using our own eyes to look at our neighbours, and by using the eyes of our foreign neighbours to look at ourselves at home, to decide whether we should agree with this Resolution and blame our Government for their failure to restore employment. Every nation all over the world has been set the same problem. Whether it is democratic, autocratic, Fascist or Bolshevist, the need to employ their own people and allow them to work happily to get their living is the central fact for every ruler and governor in these different societies. They have almost all started with the same plan. Almost every Government, when they became anxious about unemployment, adopted the same plan of trying to snatch for their own people work that was done by foreigners. They applied tariffs, quotas and so forth, with the result that by degrees they forced us, who were, and are still, the greatest trading nation in the world, to adopt certain defensive measures. I am not at all a fanatic for tariffs, but I believe that it was essential that we should adopt some such measures. They have been adopted with discretion and care, and I believe that on the whole they have done good, but the result of this scramble was that world trade was approximately halved. The nations of the world, looking upon world trade as a cake of which each one should get its own slice by scrambling, broke up the cake and it crumbled. I do not think we have done that; we have tried to stop nations snatching our bit of cake and have done our best to enlarge the total cake. At the Ottawa Conference with the Dominions and by trade treaties and contacts with nations all over the world we have endeavoured to restore the healthy growth of the world at its periphery which has been the salvation of the world for the last 50 years.
  Then look at the currency question, which is often the next thing to which the nations turn. Partly they were driven
  218
  to reduce the value of their currencies. They had overspent, they did not balance their budgets, and their currencies fell. What followed? A crash, and terrible suffering in one country after another. We were on the brink; we were over the brink. We, the richest nation in the world—as except for war debts we still are—were forced to repudiate our contracts to pay in the coin we had promised. It was a humiliating position, and the whole world gasped and expected us to go down to that abyss of ruin to which so many nations had sunk. Why did we not? Are we to censure His Majesty's Government because they rallied the whole nation to save itself? There are, I believe, signs now that the world is coming to its senses. His Majesty's Government have constantly repeated in their declarations of policy about trade and currency that they realised the need for those fundamental principles which are recommended from the opposite benches. It is clear that we cannot restore the trade of the world unless the currencies of the world are stabilised. I believe that at present sterling is the best currency, and is more stable than any other. It has maintained its stability in goods—a very important factor. Currencies based on gold have suffered because gold has been treated as a commodity and has been partially monopolised, and therefore its price has risen as expressed in goods.
  Are we to seek to bring together all the nations to stabilise on sterling? I should say that that is hopeless. Sterling is too national a currency and they are all used to looking at gold as the proper basis for currency. If gold were swept away or became as cheap as lead, that would be another thing, but as things are now and as a practical policy, I suppose that our object must be to stabilise on gold, but not before gold resumes its proper place as a basis on which stability can be founded. I was in my age of innocence from party politics, about a fortnight ago, in France with the International Chamber of Commerce, and we debated this interesting point of stabilising currency on gold. We expected to be, and we were, attacked by all our colleagues in the gold standard countries, and we prepared ourselves by a careful analysis of our position and our views. We started by finding out what has been the policy of His Majesty's Government in their declarations, and it may interest

  219
  the House to know that at that non-party gathering we practically adopted those declarations and found them in our opinion the practical thing to do.
  I apologise for having intervened in the Debate so soon after my arrival here. I thank the House for its kind hearing. I suppose that as I have joined so lately I should be almost free to censure the Government under whom I am serving, but I do not want to do that. I want to praise them for having given us the lead, and for having rallied the people of our country at a time of crisis. We have lately heard questions in this House whether there was a crisis in 1931. I wonder what greater crisis anyone could wish than a crisis of money, of bankruptcy, of credit, of trade, and, worst of all, a crisis of democratic liberty which was built up here and has fallen in so many other parts of the world.
  6.22 p.m.
  Mr. DAGGAR: I am sure that I shall be acting in accordance with the desire of every Member in offering congratulations to the hon. Member who has just resumed his seat. We shall look forward to many contributions to our Debates, of a similar kind to that which he has just made. Had we on these benches been impressed by the speech of the Prime Minister in Yorkshire the week before last, I presume that this kind of Motion would not have been down on the Order Paper to-day. Like most of the right hon. Gentleman's speeches, it contained several very important statements. Some were extremely interesting and they justify this discussion. He said, among other things:
  "If we could only abolish unemployment, we should have practically banished the spectre of poverty from this country. Unemployment is the worst enemy we have to fight, the most difficult. I have never promised, and never will promise, that I or any Government of which I am a Member has a cure for unemployment. We have all tried our hand at it. We are progressing with it, but we are a long way from conquering it."
  Everyone will agree that unemployment is the worst enemy we have to fight. We also accept the statement that neither the Prime Minister nor the Government of which he is the head has a solution for the greatest of our modern economic problems. Having no solution, it becomes incumbent upon the Government to deal
  220
  with the results of unemployment, and their having failed to do so is a legitimate reason for the Motion of Censure. It cannot be accepted as a defence of the Government's inactivity and their treatment of the situation in the depressed areas to say, as the Prime Minister did in Yorkshire:
  "We have 1,000,000 more in work than we had when we started, and people are saying all over the country 'Things are looking a lot better.'"
  He knows, and every Member of the House knows, that things are not better all over the country. I admit that there are signs or indications of improvement, but no improvement has reached the distressed areas, with the exception of the distribution of a miserable £2,000,000. Surely those areas, with the people they contain, are still entitled to be considered a part of the country. What is it proposed to do in many parts of South Wales? Here let it be said that there is not a Member on these benches who is disposed at this stage to criticise the Commissioner himself, because we hold the opinion which is shared by no less an authority than Sir William Beveridge who, in addition to being an economist, is Chairman of the Statutory Commission under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1934. He states that the Commissioner
  "needs more power to his elbow, far more power than there is any sign of his having yet."
  What is being done to assist the distressed areas? I am in association with what has been done in seven depressed areas in South Wales, namely, Abertillery, which is in part of my own division, Abercarn, Brynmawr, Ebbw Vale, Nantyglo and Blaine., and Rhymney and Tredegar. These seven areas recently submitted schemes to the Commissioner, involving a considerable expenditure of money, and only one or two thousand pounds are to be handed out to these areas where no less than 50 per cent. of the insured population is unemployed. In some of those areas the percentage of unemployed varies from 70 to 82. During the three years 1932–3–4 no less than £2,908,462 was paid in unemployment benefit and transitional payment, and in each of the seven areas the local authorities are burdened with enormous sums of outstanding loam, uncollected rates and arrears of rent on houses owned by the authorities. These authorities

  221
  could easily utilise a large proportion of the £2,000,000 which it is proposed to distribute throughout the whole of the distressed areas in Great Britain. Notwithstanding the number of Debates we have had in the House regarding the condition of the depressed areas, I am still disposed to think that even now people are not conscious of the position in those areas. I am not alone in that opinion, because at a meeting recently held at the Central Hall, Westminster, a supporter of this Government, Dr. S. M. Berry, stated that he never came back to London from the distressed areas without feeling that London simply did not know the truth. He said:
  "I was visiting a little church the other day up in the North-East, and every one of the deacons was on the dole'—in fact, I believe it would be true to say that not a regular member of the church was in regular work."
  He declared that he had always been a supporter of the National Government, but he felt that it had not brought to the problem of unemployment anything like enough concentration of energy. Does this House yet realise, as stated in the Memorandum submitted by the seven depressed areas to the Commissioner, that
  "Decay and desolation have proceeded unfettered and unless this process is soon arrested, we fear that a grave situation will arise which will be disastrous both to the communities we represent and to the nation. The effect of steadily worsening conditions upon the morale of our people is tragical and the sum total of misery and despair in these areas cannot be calculated."
  Those who live in those districts and know the conditions cannot question the accuracy of that statement. If Members of this House know the facts and refuse to act they must accept full and complete responsibility for the misery, despair and material degradation of the people who are compelled to exist in such areas.
  In view of these facts it is strange that we should have a Prime Minister making this declaration in the speech to which I referred:
  "And what does rebuilding England mean? It means, to my mind, the security and happiness that follows security for the men, women and the children of this island."
  I ask what security is there for the people to whom I refer? What happiness can there be in living on faith, hope and charity and political promises and pledges which are not to be fulfilled and redeemed? These local authorities have
  222
  appealed to the Commissioners for the establishment of new industries in their areas, but the Government and development representatives have on more than one occasion declared that those who have the money—even foreigners—have the right to establish their undertakings where they like. And the Prime Minister talks about planning and rebuilding England. I agree with him that the word "planning" is freely used to-day, but I hold the opinion that the planning of the industries of this country is being undertaken, and will be completed by the people who own the industries, and not by this or any other Government. To talk about "security for children" and the "rebuilding of England" is, in any opinion, nothing short of cant, humbug and hyprocrisy, when in those seven areas there are 5,323 children being fed at school and over 8,240 persons who have to depend upon public assistance.
  Let me extend the circle of my criticism. I have ventured to assert in this House on more than one occasion that there is little hope for either the depressed areas or South Wales without a resuscitation of the mining industry in one form or another. The truth of that statement can be demonstrated from the utterances of the Prime Minister himself and the late Secretary for Mines. Both have boasted of the general improvement in trade. It is true that the output of coal in Great Britain in 1934 showed an increase as compared with 1933 of approximately 14,000,000 tons, but as compared with 1930 there was a decrease of no less than 23,000,000 tons, and as compared with 1929 a decrease of no less than 37,000,000 tons. In South Wales in 1934 the output of coal as compared with 1929 showed a decrease of 13,000,000 tons and as compared with 1930 a decrease of 10,000,000 tons. It is true that even in South Wales the output of coal in 1934 as compared with 1933 was approximately 984,016 tons larger. With all this talk about improvement in coal production the share of South Wales was less than 1,000,000 tons out of the increase of 14,000,000 tons for the whole country.
  When we consider the number of men employed in the mines the position is much worse. Although the output of coal increased in 1934 as compared with 1933 by 14,000,000 tons, the number of men employed increased by only the

  223
  paltry figure of 660. If we compare the number of men employed in the mines in Great Britain in 1934 with the figures for 1930 there is a decrease of 140,028, and as compared with 1929 the decrease is no less than 165,000. In South Wales the position is much worse. Though South Wales showed an increase of 984,016 tons in the output of coal in 1934 as compared with 1933, the number of men employed was 3,249 less than in 1933, 38,249 less than in 1929 and 32,733 less than in 1930. These figures, I submit, prove my contention that the improvement of trade in the coalmining industry has not affected South Wales, and therefore cannot have affected the depressed areas. I anticipate the nature of the Government's reply, because in the course of his optimistic speech the Prime Minister stated that in the first five months of this year our export trade had risen by £27,000,000 as compared with the corresponding months two years ago. He added:
  "How much extra employment do £27,000,000 of extra exports give? And these agreements this extra export trade, are due to the direct action of the Government, and they have lifted that terrible shadow of unemployment from thousands of homes, and from tens of thousands of men and women."
  No one disputes the accuracy of the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman, but to what extent has that improvement affected the people in the depressed areas whom we represent, many of whom have to exist upon less than is expended by some persons in this country upon the maintenance of prize dogs? It has had no effect whatever. Although there was that improvement in the export trade in the first five months of this year as compared with the first five months of 1933, if we take a similar period in either 1930 or 1929 we find that there is a decrease of over £106,000,000 as compared with 1930, and of over £162,000,000 as compared with 1929. The Prime Minister, with more discretion than the late Secretary for Mines, never referred to the export of coal, because the figures there were useless to a man unaccustomed, as he said in his speech, to the blowing of his own trumpet. Let me compare the exports of coal from this country for the same five months—January to May—with the exports in a similar period in previous
  224
  years. In 1934, as compared with 1933, there was an increase of a little over 82,000 tons, but as compared with 1930—that is the year he did not take into consideration—there is a decrease of over 8,500,000 tons and as compared with 1929 of no less than 7,265,000 tons. If we take the figures for the year the position is much worse, but I am taking precisely the same periods—from January to May—as the Prime Minister took. I cannot give comparable figures for South Wales for the first five months of this year, but for the first three months of this year the output of coal compared with a similar period in 1933 shows a decrease of no less than 541,000 tons. The exports are down by 270,000 tons, and home consumption by no less than 271,000 tons.
  Having been interested in the mining industry all my life, I hope the House will permit me to emphasise a point which I have endeavoured to make on several occasions, that several factors which up to now have been insufficiently considered by this House are bound to increase the number of unemployed miners in South Wales. I said in 1934:
  "With the continued introduction of machinery, the concentration of production by amalgamation, improved methods of production, organised marketing, the general rationalisation of the industry and the adoption of more economical methods in the consumption of coal in the production of gas, electricity, iron and steel, the position is bound to become increasingly worse every year."
  That opinion is shared by no less an authority than the person who is responsible for writing some of the leaders in the "Times." This statement is to be found in one of the leaders of the "Times" for 1st April this year:
  "There can be little doubt that the growth of the use of machines will operate against an increase in employment for miners unless new markets and new uses for coal can be found to counteract the greater productive capacity of the individual."
  Here is a striking observation:
  "If the total output of coal in 1934 had been the same as in 1913 more than 100,000 fewer miners would have been required to produce it."
  Again, when the right hon. Gentleman opposite who has changed his position and who, I am sure, is capable of changing it many more times, was Secretary for Mines he was asked on 4th April whether he had read the statement made by the

  225
  President of the Iron and Steel Federation in which it was shown that the Research Council of those two industries was saving no less than £4,500,000 per annum, and that on this basis of the quantity of coal saved in 1934 the saving amounted to 6,250,000 tons. That saving means that the services of 22,000 miners are no longer required. It is because the Government are doing nothing to face that situation that I support the Motion now before the House.
  If the Government admit failure to solve the problem of unemployment, they must deal with its effects. The number of unemployed is the critical fact, and not the number in employment. This is what has been appropriately described by the "Times" as the abiding problem. In an article under that heading on 20th March this year, these words appeared in the "Times":
  "As long as the distressed areas remain a social sore they will be a political danger. The reasons for taking bold action to revive them and to dissipate their distress do not grow less as time passes, but more and more strong."
  We want to know what steps the Government are taking in the direction of reviving the areas and dissipating their distress, The distribution of a miserable £2,000,000 is no good, neither is the political Couéism which consists in reciting:
  "Day by day in every way, things are getting better and better."
  because that is deceit and delusion. The passing of a Prime Minister will do no harm. Some of us would like to read the news in the paper that he had done the best thing, and that was to go out and hang himself. His successor needs a reminder which the "Times" gave him in a leading article four days before he delivered that speech in Yorkshire. The article stated:"The relief of poverty is not, however, the greatest need of the unemployed and the distressed areas. They look for a return of the opportunity to work. The distressed areas remain distressed. All that has been done for national recovery has left them unimproved."
  What is necessary to deal with the situation? What do we on these benches want? [An HON. MEMBER: "Hanging!"] It is not my intention to tell the Prime Minister in my own words, but in the words of one who, if he rose to speak this afternoon, would immediately get the ear of this Assembly. He said:
  "What the country requires is a Government which will boldly face the problem of
  226
  the abnormal element of the live register, and set itself strenuously to do everything to develop our natural resources, so that hundreds and thousands of people may be taken off the Fund and put to doing productive work."
  With that we agree. In the same speech he also stated:
  "We are not discussing an abstract problem now, but a problem which affects not merely the whole foundation of this country, a problem which affects with menacing force 1,500,000 men and women directly, and another 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 indirectly in their homes."
  In the same speech he said:
  "The nation cannot stand this sum total of human misery which is implied in an unemployment figure of 1,600,000."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1930; cols. 807–812, Vol. 237.]
  Those are extracts from a speech delivered in this House on 28th March, 1930, when there were only 1,500,000 unemployed, by no less a person than the Minister of Labour. It will be very interesting to have his later and considered observations on a speech which he delivered in this House before the substantial increase to 2,000,000 in the numbers of the unemployed. If the speech was needed then it is needed to-day, and the distribution of £2,000,000 will not save the situation, nor will waiting for the report of a person appointed to distribute that amount solve the problem of the distressed areas. For those reasons I support the Motion before the House.
  6.50 p.m.
  Mr. MACMILLAN: As the first Member of his party who has spoken since he made his speech, I would like to be allowed to pay my tribute to the maiden speech delivered by the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir A. Anderson), both as to its matter and its form. We expected that the matter would be weighty, because of his great reputation in the subject which we are discussing, but he delighted and charmed the House with the form in which he delivered his speech.
  The Prime Minister had no difficulty in dealing with the first half of the Motion. He found it fairly easy to answer the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who moved it. He was able to show a very great increase in prosperity in the period of his Government, and to make what, to the ordinary and impartial eye, was a sound defence of the conduct of the Government

  227
  during the first three or four years of office. It was clear that while he was devoting himself to that part of the speech he was, so to say, batting upon a fairly easy wicket. He had only to compare the successes of his Government with the failures of the Government that preceeded him. When he came to the second part of his speech and told us how the policy of the Government was to be further developed and what were to be the fresh subjects with which legislation and administration would deal, I did not think he felt so comfortable. He gave us the impression that bowling was not quite so easy, and that he would have to play carefully if he were to avoid disaster.
  He told us, in the course of a speech which will need careful reconsideration in writing in order to get the exact emphasis, that the Government were against lavish expenditure on public works. I pin my faith to the inclusion of that word. If by "lavish" you mean "imprudent and ridiculous," that is all very well, and the Prime Minister gave us to understand that the Government were not adverse to the expenditure of public money in certain directions. He gave us instances of what they have already done and of what they hoped still to do. I hope that the appointment of the distinguished architect Sir Edwin Lutyens will not be comparable to the appointment of Sir Christopher Wren, and that the Government, after receiving his report, will not wait 200 years to act upon it.
  When he came to the distressed areas, which he called "special areas," as though changing the epithet would help the people who live in them, I was somewhat disappointed. He told us that we must rely largely upon a continuation of the policy of transfer. In a word, we are to go to our people and say "You are now depressed; you must become derelict." Is that the reply of the Government to the cry which goes up from the North-East, South Wales and Tyneside? The Prime Minister told us that the Commissioner's report would soon be available, and that there would be, he hoped, many useful things in it which would be developed. There were other reports a year ago presented by his own Commissioners. My hon. and gallant Friend who was at the Admiralty and is now at the Home Office presented
  228
  a report which contained very important and definite suggestions, none of which has been carried out.
  The Prime Minister, with engaging frankness, said that he realised that the problem of attracting new industries to the old areas was the essential problem for the Government. That the social capital which is now invested in those areas should be allowed to be drained away and become derelict is a very serious proposition for this country to face. He said that at present he had no ideas and no positive plan to suggest, in order to secure what one might call the return of industry and the putting of new industries into the old areas. Might I suggest one or two? Might I suggest that it is now common history that the Government should reconsider the policy of derating and revert to what was the original policy of de-rating before the Government of 1924–1925 materially altered it, before bringing it before Parliament. The original plan was totally to derate productive industry. It was the leaving in of the quarter which completely destroyed the object of the scheme, which was to say, "It will cost you just as much whether you are in this area or that." If you leave the quarter, the relative disadvantage of a high-rated area as against a low-rated area remains.
  May I suggest another source of investigation What is the main reason why the new industries group around the London area? One of the reasons is that power has become mobile. There is no need to-day, as there used to be, to put down plant near the coalfields; modern industrial plant is run by power which is essentially mobile. What is more important is that it should be put near the market. The London area already comprises nearly a quarter of the people of these Islands, and, if we do not do something about it, within a generation it will comprise half the population. That market is the richest and most attractive. It attracts more and more industries, and as that process goes on it becomes still more attractive. Power is not now the main consideration, but transport.
  I suggest for the Prime Minister's serious consideration that something might be done on the lines of modern

  229
  transport. The railway companies have tried to make a contribution. Agreements are now possible under the Road and Rail Traffic Act, and those made by the railway companies and many of the other great users have opened up a completely new conception of transport. If something could be done to cheapen transport from the more congested areas, and to make transport a charge upon the total turnover rather than related to the exact cost of each particular piece of work, there might be a great field to be considered.
  The next policy which might be considered is that of making the distressed areas really attractive commodities by undertaking, on a broad basis, to clear the whole of the site and form new factory sites. That has been done in some of the areas around London. Some of the sites which were left after the war have been made particularly attractive to modern light industries because they were cleared, made accessible by railway and provided with light, power and all those things. If that were done upon a large scale under Government control, it would do a great deal to make the old areas more attractive to new industries which may come.
  The main difficulty—I say this not in criticism of the Government, because I would like much more carefully to consider exactly what the Prime Minister indicated—in all these arguments is one rather of emphasis than of principle. Everybody recognises the value of what the Government have done in recent years. Everybody realises that Budgets have been balanced and confidence restored and that the Government are entitled to take credit for the good that has been done. Nobody ever makes a concession to them when they run into a piece of bad luck. We have had this advantage. We have the good luck to do two things at the same time. We have been able to introduce a tariff system at a time when the world prices of the main raw materials were continuing to fall. That means that we have not had the reaction we might have had if the world prices of raw materials had started to rise. We have introduced and got all the benefits of a tariff system, and at the same time we have had the great benefit of having gone off gold and started on a managed currency.
  230
  The right hon. Gentleman who moved this resolution made a great point of the real benefit which the Government secured by going off gold. I would say, in reply, that if you are on a gold basis it is not so important to have confidence in the Government of the day, because your currency is operated on an automatic basis; but, if you are on a managed currency and you are no longer tied to any automatic control of the volume of credit, then it is very important that those who control credit, the Government of the day, should have the confidence of all classes. Therefore, I say, that the extent of these benefits is largely due to the action of the Government itself.
  Nevertheless, we must not forget that we have now these two dangers. We have achieved for the moment the apparently impossible object of gaining both upon the swings and on the roundabouts. We have got a protectionist system which gives us the benefit of the home market and which has operated successfully because there has not been the pressure of rising prices of raw materials outside; and we have got all the benefit of a managed currency, which is a special advantage to us since so many of our competitors are clinging to a gold basis and in almost every case upon over-valued currencies. Those advantages may not be permanent, and without being a pessimist I think we must ask whether we ought not to take advantage of this temporary gain in order to advance more powerfully and with more decision, and with more ambitious hopes to exploit the gain which the Government claim for themselves. It is one thing for a general to win a tactical success and another thing for him to follow it up and turn it into an overwhelming victory. To do that needs elan, daring, courage and imagination. It is for that that we look to the Government of the day.
  The problem raised by this Motion really falls into two categories. We have the whole series of economic problems, and we have the social problem. As regards the economic problem, we must recognise that recovery, though great, is not complete; though remarkable and welcome, it is not necessarily stable. Can we make it more complete and can we make it more secure? I believe we can. To make it more complete means a resolute determination to bring into production all those productive forces now idle.

  231
  "We have the plant, we have the men, we have the money too." Can we marry the idle men and the idle money? Of course we can. Even those who see the dangers of this policy would not say that it was not economically possible. Of course it is possible. By a concerted effort upon a large number of lines pursued concurrently, of course it is possible to bring this into effect. The danger—and this is the very point which the Prime Minister made—is whether when the monetary support for the policy of expansion begins to be withdrawn there may not be a collapse. That is the really substantial point made by those who are opposing this policy.
  How can we make it secure? That is what I mean by planning. Planning implies that as an essential preliminary of a policy of expansion there should be set up a national organisation by which the Government of the day, sitting as the supreme authority, with the help of a suitable body of technical advisers, can form a general survey of the economic problems and at any rate secure that their own policies are coherent and not mutually contradictory. This is necessary to secure that foreign trade policy is not in direct conflict with agricultural policy; to adapt agricultural policy to our industrial needs in the home as well as in foreign markets; to relate our tariff policies to both; to relate our monetary, policy to the existing situation industrially and economically; to relate our social policies, such as housing, slum clearance, pensions and the like, to all these considerations—and, in a word, to formulate and carry out as far as possible a coherent policy. In conjunction with this overriding duty of government, we should secure to industry the maximum freedom and encouragement to plan itself. There should be such a devolution towards industrial self-government, with proper safeguards, as will enable industry to develop a policy of mutual help instead of mutual destruction. A further aim would be to build into this the whole of the trade union movement and to secure in a much wider degree than has ever been secured before the partnership of labour and capital; and to achieve in each industry thereby the same harmonious progress which we attempt to achieve in the State as a whole.232
  With such an industrial structure on the way to development the old slogans disappear. The old question of interference goes by the board, and a new conception of mutual assistance between industry and the State becomes possible. This is the only possible solution of these problems. It is the only way that we shall bring new industries to the depressed areas. It is only when you have some idea of the location of industry and some machinery for using its resources in a useful and proper way that this can be done. Side by side with these aims, our monetary policy must always be in harmony with the general plan. The relationship of the Bank of England to the producing section of the community and the public as a whole needs to be redefined. The function of the money market and its technique needs to be brought up to date. The enormous problem of the optimum rate of savings needs to be considered; and our taxation and social policies brought into harmony with modern needs. We can then perhaps consider a possible re-orientation of our tariff policy to build up a group of low tariff countries who wish to promote a mutually beneficial increase of trade. We might even consider a short-term experimental stabilisation of currencies with such a low tariff group of countries.
  All these are purely economic questions, and there are very great social questions also involved. I wish the Prime Minister had been able to give us some more light on these. What is the most marked change in public opinion in recent years? I should think it is the widespread recognition of the fantastic paradox of poverty in the midst of plenty, which is always before us. In bad times people have grumbled a bit, but they have tightened their belts and said: "Oh well, the depression will pass." If there happened to be a General Election during the depression, they voted Conservative. It was a very old tradition in bad times to do that, and they were quite right, because they felt that the best cure for a depression was a revival of confidence—that is the confidence of the capitalist class. But times have changed. The people have done their part; confidence has been restored and things are better. But all the time there is spreading the uneasy feeling that things might be far better still and

  233
  that we might raise our standards much higher. And at the same time over some parts of the country—like the part I represent, where even in the last month we have had not a decrease but an increase of unemployment—there stalks this frightful shadow of long-continued unemployment, and moral and material decay spreads over the whole community. More and more people, whether employed or unemployed, are feeling that the standards of living are lower than they should be. They say: "Why should we tighten our belts in a world of plenty? In a beleaguered city, yes; we share and share alike; but in an open city to starve after the relieving armies have marched in with bands playing and colours flying is not common sense."
  I think the people are patient. They recognise the immense difficulties placed upon any economic system which has been subjected to such strain as has come in the War and post-war years. They realise that in the organisation of the production of goods and services so that they will interchange there is a huge technical problem to be solved. They accept the necessity for bringing production and demand into some sort of relation if we are to maintain a stable economy at all—but they will only be patient if determined steps are being taken to solve these problems.
  They will accept temporary hardships if they feel them to be temporary. They will accept regulation of production as a short-term policy; as a long-term policy they will insist on the increase and stimulation of demand. They will accept short commons for a bit while the transport and commissariat are being organised. But they will not consent to a permanent maintenance of siege conditions. In a word, while the people recognise the difficulty of re-organising the economic system to fulfil its functions and are prepared to wait patiently while determined efforts are being made they will not wait indefinitely. If they form the conclusion that the maintenance of poverty and plenty is an inseparable part of the profit-making system then sooner or later the profit-making system will go.
  The Prime Minister spoke of the lack of stability all over the world. What is the cause of instability. It is caused all over the world because there is a spreading feeling that those who are in charge of profit-making, those who are running
  234
  the machine, are not able to run it so as to solve these problems. All realistic minds therefore—more especially those who believe as I do that private enterprise has a great and useful part to play—must take note of this new phase of public opinion. Indeed, it meets us wherever we go. All kinds of panaceas are suggested. The Marxists have their policy; the official Socialists have their policy; Major Douglas has inspired a large number of his fellow citizens with an almost apostolic fervour in support of his nostrum; the followers of Professor Soddy and Mr. Hobson on the one side and of Dr. Hayeh and Professor Robbins on the other have all got their plan. The very enthusiasm with which these people study these questions shows how much importance they attach to them. They are like sheep; they are hungry; they look up and are not fed. Or at least they are fed only on the husks of conflicting and unsatisfying doctrine; they are not fed upon the satisfying bread of accomplished amelioration and the rise that should come in the standard of their living.
  I know it is said—and I want just to strike a personal note—that anyone who puts forward a policy of this kind is in some way in league with the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). We are all very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has returned to active politics, but perhaps I may, without, I hope, saying anything to which he might object, say that I and my friends have been preaching this policy for four years. The northern group of our party, and friends who are associated with me in all kinds of activities, men of all parties and all groups—economists, thinkers, and people of all kinds who are studying these questions—have been preaching this policy for four years; and, even if we have fallen under the wiles of the wizard, he has not been able to ante-date his magic by that time; we have done this on our own account. I welcome, however, the right hon. Gentleman's return to politics. More than that, there is the new feeling that is growing up all over the country among all kinds of groups that a much more active policy is now possible, and I think any reasonably impartial man would say that it is possible largely because of what the Government have done. Whatever one may say of the past, with regard to the future we

  235
  have now possibilities of wealth and power that were undreamed of before.
  So far we have only been dealing with the question of the necessities of life. Mention has already been made to-day of housing, food, leisure, the possibility of old age pensions, and so on, and therefore I will not say what I was going to say on these matters. It is common knowledge, however, that a few months ago there arose a great dispute between the authorities of the Ministry of Health and the British Medical Association. The Ministry of Health alleged that life could be supported on an expenditure of 5s. 1½d. per week per person, while the British Medical Association asserted that a sum of 5s. 10½d. per week per person was required. After a certain time, the controversy was got over by the appointment of a fresh committee, and a compromise figure was arrived at. At the same time, however—and this is the point of my argument—certain other people undertook an investigation, not as to what in theory doctors said health could be maintained upon, but as to what in fact people spent upon their food per week per person. The investigation was made under the authority of the Pilgrim Trust, and it was found that, in the case of the samples taken, one in Poplar and one in Sunderland, the amount actually expended on food per week per person did not even reach the lower figure of 5s. 1½d., but was something like 3s. 2d. These investigations included, not only unemployed families, but employed families, and it was shown in Becontree that none of the employed families concerned, after paying for transport to and from their work, rent, clothing and so on, spent anything like that lower figure of 5s. 1½d. on food.
  There are possibilities of expansion of demand. We have started to feed the children in our schools under the excellent scheme of the Minister of Agriculture and the Board of Education, whereby it is possible to buy milk at a cheaper rate, but, nevertheless, only those children who are shown on medical grounds to be underfed can receive free meals. That is not a very logical policy. There are immense possibilities in giving, if necessary, free food to all our schoolchildren, in increased expenditure upon free housing, if you like, or upon clothing for the unemployed. Why cannot you
  236
  give away to the people some of this vast plenty which you are now finding it necessary to destroy? Public works, so far, have only dealt with the necessities of life. Are there no amenities of life upon which the expenditure of money is required? Are there no recreational facilities, no open spaces, no national parks that would preserve at once the threatened beauties of the countryside and be a lasting joy-giving possession to a great people? Are there not splendid public buildings to be erected? When was this gloomy, dismal view invented that a legitimate public work must always earn its exact amount of revenue? On that basis Pericles would not have built the Parthenon unless he could have shown to his colleagues on the front bench that the revenue from tourists who would come to look at it would pay interest and sinking fund on it for all time. Even our medieval ancestors—obscurantists, as I suppose the complete commercialist to-day would call them—built for us their abbeys, their cathedrals, their schools, their foundations, which we still regard as among the greatest of our architectural glories, and among which our youth are brought up and inspired and educated. Even the tyrants, old and new, Caesar and Mussolini, have followed this tradition, as witness Caesar's will, in which:

  "He hath left you all his walks,

  His private arbours, and new-planted orchards,

  On this side Tiber; he hath left them you,

  And to your heirs for ever; common pleasures,

  To walk abroad, and recreate yourselves."

  When we have dealt with the education of our growing people, when we have raised the school-leaving age—for four years the Government have been going to raise it, but have not yet started to do anything except talk about educating public opinion—when we have looked after the education of our growing people and the pensions of our aged people, and when we have taken care of the housing, feeding, and clothing that our people require, there are still great educational possibilities, and great expense is still required to give them, not only a healthier life materially, but a nobler and fuller life spiritually. It is difficult for me now, after the Debate has already lasted for some hours, to express exactly

  237
  and in as full detail as I should like the policy which I should have hoped the Government would have been able to outline to-day. I hope, at any rate, that we shall have within the next few weeks a much more complete and comprehensive statement than the Prime Minister has been able to give us to-day.
  I am afraid it has been said of my contributions to these Debates—which, anyway, are not very frequent—that they are too dry, too academic, and too precise; but that is not because, either in private or in public affairs, those who speak most readily and babble most freely necessarily feel the most deeply. I am much concerned about the political future of this country. We have a situation almost unique in our history. The official party of the Left is in such a formation—I am not blaming them—that, unless anyone will accept the shibboleths in which they believe, unless one is prepared to tie oneself to acceptance of nationalisation of all the means of production, distribution and exchange, they are not prepared to co-operate with other parties. That has never happened in this country before. Previously, in operating the Parliamentary system, we have always had parties of the Right and groups of the Left, Governments formed with Whigs, Liberals and Radicals. That was so in the last century, and they worked together. To-day, because of the attitude of the official Labour party, no party of the Left can be formed. They do not themselves think that they are going to win the next election—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, yes!"]—and they are not very convinced that they are going to win the election after that.
  What does that mean? It means that, although the English people may want a policy of the Left Centre, or even of the Centre, although they may want a policy far more advanced, far more ambitious, far more risky, if you like, than any upon which this Government will embark, there is no political mechanism by which they can obtain it. The only Government that can be formed is one which must depend mainly for its support upon the parties of the Right. That seems to me to be a very dangerous situation. At all events, it puts an enormous responsibility upon the Prime
  238
  Minister and those who have faith in him. It puts upon him a double burden of responsibility—first, that he should not shirk the great responsibility he holds in this country in its present state of development; and, secondly, that he should not exploit for the benefit of one party this rather unnatural Parliamentary and political situation. If the people find that they cannot get what they want through the ordinary groupings of Parliamentary movements, through the ordinary Parliamentary machine, they may be driven ultimately to other means, and, if they are, the Prime Minister and his colleagues will be the only true begetters of revolution. There is still time. Let, the Prime Minister make a, different speech, a more inspiring speech, a greater speech than that which he has made to-day. Let him and his colleagues search their hearts; let them revive the generous emotions that brought men of every grade, party and class together four years ago. Let him appeal to that great common sense of justice which animates the people. Let him take all the credit, as I think he is entitled to do, for the gains that have been made up to date, and form a real national policy to exploit those gains in the future. The time is short; the sands are running out.
  "There is a tide in the affairs of men
  Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune."
  Let the Prime Minister form his policy with courage, let him press it with determination. The tide still flows, though it is a slackening stream. Let him launch his bark upon it with faith and hope, before it ebbs for ever.
  7.25 p.m.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR-WEDDERBURN: My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton (Mr. Macmillan), towards the end of his speech, quoted from "Julius Caesar" the passage in which Mark Antony reads out Caesar's will to the citizens:

  "He bath left you all his walks,

  His private arbours, and new-planted orchards,

  On this side Tiber; he hath left them you,

  And to your heirs for ever; common pleasures,

  To walk abroad, and recreate yourselves."

  I am not sure that that was a very happy quotation from my hon. Friend's point of view. He will remember that the

  239
  motive of Antony in reading out the will was to stir up the citizens to mutiny, and persuade them to tear down the houses of Brutus and his colleagues; and when he had succeeded in doing that, and the citizens had departed, leaving him alone, Antony remarks with great satisfaction:
  "Now let it work! Mischief, thou art afoot,
  Take thou what course thou wilt!"
  My hon. Friend may remember the beginning of the next act, when Antony is found having a private conservation with Lepidus and Octavius, in which he asks for the will, which has now served its purpose, and says:
  "We shall determine
  How to cut off some charge in legacies."
  My hon. Friend dealt at some length with the contrast that may be drawn between the existence of poverty on the one hand and the superfluity in certain kinds of commodities on the other—what he called the paradox of poverty in the midst of plenty. I think most people will probably agree with my hon. Friend that, if the productive power of modern society could be exerted to its full capacity and the products effectively distributed among those who need them, we should be able practically to abolish poverty, and certainly to raise our ordinary standard of comfort to a far higher level than that to which we are now accustomed. But before we begin to look for a remedy let us observe this. If it be true that we have poverty in the midst of abundance, it is the abundance that is new and not the poverty. In this country at least there is less poverty to-day than there has been at any period of history. The poverty that remains is not new, but it is only within the last dozen years or so that the sudden rapid excess of productive power over the effective demand has begun to be remarkable.
  When we reflect that for centuries civilisation has been obliged from necessity to conduct its affairs on what are called scarcity economics, and when we consider that all our traditional economic ideas, both the ideas of capitalism and those of Socialism, have been formed on that basis, it is not a matter for surprise or for dismay that the world should take more than a few years to adapt itself to these changing conditions and to the difficulties which are attendant upon them. There has been no lack of experiments. In the United States we have
  240
  witnessed the most heroic efforts to create a sufficiency of purchasing power by artificial methods. In Russia there has been for many years a powerful autocratic Government which has always made a speciality of economic science and which continues to produce one five-year plan after another, while in Germany economic affairs have been placed under a powerful and resolute dictatorship which is determined to control both the supply of money and the production of goods in the interest of the German people. But none of these countries have been nearly so successful in their struggle against economic depression as our own, which so far has proceeded empirically without paying too much regard to economic theory.
  I think my hon. Friend meant to imply some criticism of the Government because their policy was not sufficiently co-ordinated. He said that the policy of the Ministry of Agriculture was sometimes in conflict with the policy of the Board of Trade. Ministers did not work together in order to produce what I think he called concerted effort. He mentioned one or two examples, particularly the Act of last year dealing with milk. I think most of us will agree that the principle cause of the present depression has been the deflation of wholesale prices, which has deprived the wholesale producer—by that we mean principally the farmer—both of the reward of his labour and of his purchasing power in the markets of the world. Therefore, every measure that the Government can take—I do not care how artificial it may seem—to revive agriculture is not only necessary for the sake of agriculture but for the sake of economic equilibrium as a whole, and I do not think you will get a better instance of that than the one that my hon. Friend gave, the Milk Act, which enables milk to be obtained at low prices, not by children who have rickets, not by children who are unhealthy, but by any who desire it. I was very interested indeed to see in the Prime Minister's speech the other day that the Government had been so much encouraged by the success of this milk distribution scheme that they intended to see how its provisions could be applied to a greater number of people.
  May I turn from these general considerations to the subject of the depressed areas themselves, which certainly provide

  241
  us with an example both of poverty and of productive power which is frustrated and inoperative. The former wealth of those areas depended on a volume of foreign trade which was always precarious and which is never likely to be restored in full, and, if we do not wish to see a considerable part of their population living for the rest of their lives on unemployment relief, I think we must accept, as I certainly accept, the statement of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department in his report that they can only be rescued by some form of positive external assistance. That kind of assistance which has so far held the foremost place in the activities of the Commissioner has been land settlement. By land settlement you may mean a great many different things. You may mean the provision of plots as a useful subsidiary occupation to an employed or an unemployed man; you may mean settlement on family holdings, or you may mean group settlements, such as are now being established, in which the settlers produce mainly for their own consumption.
  But there is a fourth kind of settlement to which I would invite attention, and that is the new kind of land settlement that was started last year by the Department of Agriculture in Scotland, settling men not necessarily in groups on very small holdings of from five to nine acres, on which they grow generally vegetables or pig products or fruit or poultry; and it is notable that they do not have the same difficulty in disposing of those commodities, for which there is an increasing demand, as is experienced in the more staple products of agriculture. The Chancellor of the Exchequer last year provided £750,000, and it was estimated that this sum would settle 1,000 men on the land in a period of three years, and it was further estimated that the Scottish Office would derive a net return of 3 per cent. on that expenditure. That scheme has now been in operation for one year, and I think the results so far justify us in hoping that the estimate will be realised. I know that the obvious objection to the scheme is this. You cannot declare positively that it is a success until you have had several hundred men paying their rent and earning their living for three or four years. I agree that that is so, but I would ask the Government to examine very carefully the progress that has been made so far by the Scottish
  242
  Office, and I submit that, if the evidence so far available makes it seem probable that the finance of the scheme will satisfy those conditions which the Chancellor always lays down, we ought not to wait three or four years before we proceed on the rapid extension of that policy.
  There is one thing that the Commissioners cannot do. For obvious reasons, the Act does not allow them to give assistance to undertakings that are conducted for profit. I think we should mostly agree that the depressed areas will not be brought back to their normal place in the life of the country until they have attracted a great diversity of new industries that are run for profit. It would clearly be unfair that the Government should give direct financial assistance to an undertaking which might be competing with similar undertakings in other parts of the country. But there are two things which I think the Government could do without upsetting the economic balance in any branch of industry. They can to some extent control the course of investments, as they have recently done by the establishment of a holding company to finance the new developments for London traffic, and they can possibly acquire in the special areas estates which may be suitable for industrial development and which might very quickly attract new industries if they were prepared with that purpose in view. There is no lack of new industries waiting to be established. The only question is where shall they go. At present they are apt to crowd themselves together in the neighbourhood of London, urbanising a great part of the home counties and producing a congestion, both of factories and of dwellings, which constitutes a growing mass of ugliness in time of peace and a frightful danger in time of war. It should not be beyond the powers of a modern State to correct a mal-distribution of this kind, to direct investment into those parts of the country where employment is most needed and to check the unhealthy congestion of industry in the neighbourhood of the metropolis.
  I have never complained that the Government for the last three years has acted with caution nor do I complain that the Prime Minister has spoken in very guarded terms on this subject. I think it ought to be remembered that, if we are to do anything effective in the depressed

  243
  areas, we must continue to preserve confidence and an abundance of credit. The Government have established these two things, and any rash and precipitate action might easily destroy them and make it impossible to do anything at all. I hope the Government will not produce a great spectacular policy, because I believe the more spectacular and grandiloquent it is the more likely it is to be deceptive. No one who has any familiarity with these depressed areas, and with the difficulties of their population, can wish to see the misfortunes which they have endured with so much constancy, and the hopes that they have resolutely refused to abandon exploited in the interest of any old-fashioned political gamble which presents any policy for the sake of gaining votes and which most people know in their minds is not likely to produce the results that are represented. I hope the Government are preparing proposals. We do not expect them to work miracles. We only ask that their proposals shall be practical, we ask that they shall be directly related to their object, and we ask that they shall be of such a kind that we can conscientiously recommend them to the acceptance of the country.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. WEST: We on this side of the House listened attentively to the interesting, and at times, I think, rather menacing speech as far as the Government are concerned, of the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Macmillan). I was specially interested when he claimed that he had been propagating his ideas for four years. I have a dim memory of hearing very similar ideas propagated at the street corner 20 years ago by members of the Labour party, and if the hon. Member continues to go to the Left at the same rate, in 20 or 30 years from now he may be a member of the Labour party. I have not the time, unfortunately, to follow the hon. Member in regard to his interesting points, nor even to criticise the lack of policy of the Government, as I would like to do. I am going to forego that temptation and try to put forward an individual proposal, I hope modestly, of my own, which, if adopted, might bring some help and amelioration to thousands of men and women who are unemployed at the present time.
  244
  I believe that most Members of this House are at least agreed upon one essential point about unemployment. What we need, perhaps, most of all under the present system is to obtain more customers for the goods which we can so abundantly produce. The problem is how can we obtain those customers. Clearly we have not much hope of increasing our foreign customers. Foreign trade has declined enormously in the last five years, and there are but few optimists who believe that it will increase enormously in the next 10 years. Therefore, we must find new customers and greater markets. If we cannot find markets abroad we are left with the only alternative of trying to find markets at home. If we cannot get more extensive markets, how can we get more intensive markets? Here is something in connection with which we might get something practical done in our time. There is an enormous potential demand for goods of every kind in Great Britain, for boots, clothing, furniture, food, and for every commodity which we so adequately produce, and the only reason why those goods are not the subject of effective demand is because the people who would consume them are at present without the purchasing power to bring them into consumption.I have a suggestion to make to the Government. I may be greatly daring, but I am going to risk it, and if there is any economic flaw in it I hope that somebody will be good enough to show me where it is. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour told the House some time in March that there were over 2,000,000 adult males in Great Britain receiving wages of 45s. a week or less. I do not believe that the most diehard Member of the House will expect that an adult person with £2 5s. or less per week can live decently and purchase the goods that he, and perhaps his family, urgently need. My suggestion, therefore, is that if the average wage of those 2,000,000 adult males at the present time is £2 a week, and if we had a Minimum Wage Act of £3 a week, which sum is shockingly low from the point of view of a living standard, it would mean an increase of buying power of £2,000,000 a week or £100,000,000 a year. This afternoon the Prime Minister has told us that £10,000,000 spent in productive expenditure would give employment to 40,000

  245
  workers, and if that is so—and I have no reason to doubt it—my proposal to give an effective increase of buying power of £100,000,000 per year would on that assumption give employment to 400,000 men and women who are at present unemployed—one-fifth almost of the present total of unemployed. What is there in that suggestion that is unpracticable or uneconomic? I should like to know. I do not suppose that on the moral side of the question any hon. Member would say that £3 a week was too much. If there is any objection on moral grounds, let me read a quotation from a report to Congress by Mr. Davis, Secretary for Labour in the United States. He said:
  "The employer who pays low wages is a parasite who throws on the community the expense of the unpaid grocery bills that should be met by the wages he should pay. … Sometimes it is argued that low wages lead to more foreign sales. The answer is that it reduces the home market far more than it increases the profits from abroad. Even dullards must see the folly of killing the purchasing power of the greatest buyer, the worker, in the home market."
  If we agree on that, what are the arguments against high wages? I will try to answer two or three of the arguments which I have heard in this House since I became a Member. The first is that we cannot pay the high wages which we should very much like to do because if we did we should not be able to compete with low-wage industries abroad. That is the commonest of the arguments one hears usually. The facts do not bear this out. If low wages give a country a definite advantage one would expect that Italy, Spain, Portugal and other low-wage countries would be in a most prosperous position and have an enormous foreign trade; but the opposite is the ease. The countries with the greatest export trade in the world are not the low-wage countries but the highest wage-paying countries, Great Britain, United States of America, Scandinavia, Holland, etc. The low-wage-paying countries are the poorest countries economically and from the export point of view. Our chief competitors are not low-wage-paying countries, not even Japan, but the United States of America where wages compare at least as favourably with those paid in our highest-wage-paying industries. The "Evening Standard," a paper which does not support this party, said:
  246
  "It is the United States of America rather than European lands that British paper manufacturers fear."
  We talk of competition from cheap labour countries, but it has no foundation in fact. We beat low-wage countries more frequently than they beat us as our export figures show year by year. If low-wage-paying was a great advantage, everyone would expect that China would have all the foreign trade in the world, but the reverse is the case. The second argument is that high wages cause high costs, and it is another, and perhaps even greater, fallacy. If that were true, why is it that some of our cheapest English goods are made by the highest paid labour while some of our dearest goods are made by low-paid labour, or why is it that some of our high-wage-paying industries show the greatest increase in foreign trade, as, for example, the electrical industry, and some of our lowest-wage-paying industries are suffering the greatest depression—coal, for example, and other industries? The answer is an easy one. It is that low wages often mean high costs of production, and that high wages often lead to low costs of production, because they result in more efficient workers and better organisation of the trades concerned. There is ample evidence available in support of my assertion. There is the case of the Ford Motor Company. Members of this House will be familiar with the statement of the chairman of that company in 1930 when he said that the company had factories in most European countries and that where they paid the highest wages, in Denmark, they had the lowest costs, and that where they paid the lowest wages, in Belgium, they had the highest costs, though they had the same tools and equipment, and the conditions were exactly identical. The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) told us in the House a few weeks ago that in New York wages in the building trade were double those of the London building workers, and yet the building costs in New York were lower than those in London. The chairman of the London Brick Company, Mr. P. Stewart, on 2nd March of this year, said:
  "The advantages of raising wages are widespread … a large proportion of the extra wages finds its way through shops to factories, thus producing more goods and absorbing more unemployed. Better wages mean better trade."

  247
  This company at that period increased the wages of all their workers, and in the same week reduced the price of bricks by 3s. per 1,000, which is convincing proof, if proof were needed, that high wages do not necessarily mean high costs, but, on the contrary, may even lead to lower costs.
  I believe it is true to say that our foreign trade was never more than a quarter of our total trade, and to-day, owing to tariffs, etc., it is not more than an eighth of our total trade. Therefore the seven-eighths of home trade is very much more important to us than the one-eighth of foreign trade. Much of our foreign trade is what we might call non-competitive. We cannot grow coffee and oranges, etc. Most of our foreign trade is with Empire and high-wage-paying countries. Very little of our foreign trade is with low-wage-paying countries. There are many industries in this country which have no foreign competition whatever. There is no foreign competition against our distributive, catering, building and transport trades. There you have trades employing millions of workers which can never suffer from the dangers of foreign competition, and even where we have direct foreign competition—in the case of coal—everybody will agree that there is sufficient margin between the wholesale or pithead price of coal and the retail price in London, between 14s. a ton in Yorkshire and 44s. a ton on the London streets, to give every miner in this country double the wages he receives at the present time without increasing the price of coal even by a penny a ton. If evidence were needed of the truth of that assertion, it could be found in the fact that during the last 12 years the wages of miners have been halved, yet the price of coal in London is practically identical with the price 10 years ago. It is still 2s. 6d. a cwt., although a man may be paid only 2s. 6d. a ton for risking his life.
  There is an easy opportunity for increasing wages in these trades without increasing prices at all. Better organisation and fewer middlemen, speculators and directors would give us economies quite ample enough to compensate for giving the better wages which are essential to give more buying power to the workers of this country. If this
  248
  Government had spent the time I believe to have been wasted on the sedition Bill in trying to bring in minimum wage Acts to increase the spending power of the great mass of our workers to a reasonable level, to at least £3 a week, to give a very ordinary and still poor wage to our weekly workers, the result would have been to stimulate the demand for commodities to increase vastly the buying power of our best customers, the working people of this country, and to raise the standard of life of millions of our workers and at any rate to give the National Goverment a truthful reason for the boast that they have done something to help the unemployed victims of the system and to help the people of this country generally.
  8.1 p.m.
  Mr. STOREY: The resolution which is now before the House is not one which can command the support of anyone who has studied this problem, because the policy which the Government up to now have followed, that of general stimulation of industry, is the best that could possibly have been adopted. Although I feel that up to now that policy has been a right one, I would not go so far as to say that it would be the right one for the future. Although the country is mainly prosperous and though a large part of the unemployment is of short duration, we undoubtedly have that problem of the special areas which demands special treatment. The position in which the special areas find themselves is not one which is of their own creation. The extension of cheap power facilities and the availability of amenities have made it possible for the light industries to concentrate around their largest market, and, therefore, the special areas have lost that variety of industry which is essential to their well being. For that reason, I feel that the problem of the special areas is not a local one but a national one, and they are entitled to think and to expect that the prosperity of the remainder of the country and the credit and the resources of the country should be used in the solution of their problem.
  As an hon. Member said just now, we do not expect the Government to perform miracles, but if they want at the next election to see a complacent look on the face of the special areas they must take some more definite steps than they have

  249
  taken up to the present time. One approach to the problem is to allow hard economic facts to work out the solution for the special areas. I do not feel that we should follow any such solution; it would entail far too great a suffering to allow hard economic facts to play their part. We have also to face the fact that the Government's policy of the general stimulation of industry has involved interference with hard economic facts, and that interference will compel further interference. We have seen that devaluation of currency has helped the export trade of certain areas. On the other hand, it has made the raw materials of other areas more expensive. We have seen too that interference with economic facts, such as trade treaties, while it helps the coal exporting of the North of England has increased the competition which the coal exporters of Wales have to face. Therefore, we cannot allow hard economic facts to play their part, and the Government must continue their efforts for the general good by helping industry wherever it can.
  Another approach is that of special schemes of work, of which we have heard a good deal this afternoon. A great deal can be done on the lines which the Prime Minister indicated, but I do not feel that therein lies the real solution. On the other hand, I think that there is room for a very big increase in the work of the special commissioner. I am glad to know that we may soon expect his report, for I am certain that we must redouble our efforts for the special areas to make them more attractive to industry, to encourage the light industries and the variety of industries which are necessary for the well being of the special areas. We must do all that we can through the special commissioner to improve the facilities of the special areas for these industries; provide sites with cheap power available, use the special commissioner to rehouse the people of these areas where housing conditions are so bad, improve the amenities of these areas so as to attract people to them, and use modern methods of publicity to break down the prejudice which exists against the special areas and their workers. As the closeness to a large market is so important a factor in the allocation of industry, as it is so undesirable from an amenity point of view that industries should migrate to the South and other
  250
  parts, as it is so important from an economic point of view that the light industries should remain in the special areas and move there, the Government should consider very seriously whether by freight assistance they cannot induce the lighter industries and the variety of industries to stay in the special areas or go there.
  The other approach is to provide special treatment for the special areas. After all, in the Services when there is a block of promotion it is customary to offer special terms of retirement to those who are willing to leave. Why cannot we deal with a special problem by special treatment? The cost would not really be greater. Unemployment assistance is equivalent to a pension of 26s. a week to a man and his wife. Surely it would be well if for a limited period under special terms we offered to make it easier for the older men who are willing to retire to make way for the younger men who are only too willing to work. For the future I should like to see the Government tackle the problem of higher pensions on an actuarial basis. There is a desire for such pensions, coupled with a willingness to pay increased contributions. When we realise that there are more people employed than ever at the present time a full share of the benefits of a mechanical age should go to the worker in enabling earlier retirement, in shorter hours and in holidays with pay. I hope that the Government are going to press on earnestly with the inquiries which they are making into these subjects and that they will take action to bring them nearer.
  Particularly do I hope that they will press on with the raising of the school age, because I am absolutely convinced from my experience as an employer in a small way that we can get much better results, as I have done in my own firm, by refusing to take boys of 14 and recruiting from the secondary and junior technical schools at 16. If such treatment as I have suggested were adopted, it would not only benefit the special areas but the country as a whole. Therefore, it seems essential that it must be coupled with an increase in our work in industrial transference and with such training as the right hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) indicated to us. There is very great scope, and it should be impossible for the Minister of Labour to

  251
  have to record the fact that in some areas there is a shortage in the engineering industry while we know that in other areas there are many men unemployed. The need is urgent. The right of these special areas to special treatment is unquestioned, and therefore we do expect the Government to take prompt action in this matter.
  8.14 p.m.
  Mr. McGOVERN: I desire for a short time to offer my criticism of the speech of the Prime Minister. It is true to say that since I have come to this House I have never heard a flatter speech made from that Front Bench by a representative of any of the Governments which have gone before. During the time the speech was being made I drew the attention of a Member on the Liberal benches to the fact that there were at least 12 Members on the National Government benches who had fallen asleep. I am always prepared to be generous to people whether they belong to the opposite party or not if they give of their best and make a good defence and offer concrete suggestions for the future. I examined as carefully as I could the speech of the Prime Minister, and the only two things that I could get from it were, in the first place, an appeal to employers, in return for tariffs, to show their appreciation by starting new industries in the depressed areas. It is a new thing for me that employers in this country are going to be actuated by generosity because of the fact that the Government have given them something to fill their pockets.
  The second part of the speech was that the Government were considering the moving of people from the depressed areas into other areas where employment might be found. That is a wonderful suggestion. I have heard it from almost every Tory platform by economic hacks since 1918. I remember a man in the area that I represent coming to me some years ago and saying: "John, they want to send me to England to a job where they are offering to pay low wages. They want to train my daughter and send her to the Highlands on domestic service. They want to send my sons to Canada and Australia to do farming, but I have made up my mind that if I am going to live and die in poverty I am going to live and die in the Shettleston area." That is the feeling in the minds of the people. It
  252
  reminds me of a story that was told by the former Member for Shettleston, the right hon. John Wheatley, of a man who worked in the mines during Mr. Wheatley's early boyhood. The man was troubled by the presence of a collection of dirt in his working which obstructed him. He called the attention of the foreman to the presence of the dirt again and again but the foreman simply looked at it, shook his head and passed on. Finally, the man said: "You must tell me what to do with this dirt, for I cannot get on." The reply was, "Throw in one way or the other, and you may lose it in the process." That seems to be the policy of the Government in dealing with the people in the depressed areas.
  All the discussion to-day has gone very badly against the Government. One of the most notable speeches of censure came from the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Macmillan). He approves of a National Government but not this type of National Government. He wants the old crocks on the Front Government Bench cleared off, and I agree with him. They are the failures of the parties in the past. They have got together because they have been failures in their individual parties, and now they come along and say: "Here we are again. We are not the old Tory party. We are not the old Liberal party. We are like Charlie Peace. We change our name but we have our false faces on." There is not a single intelligent or progressive idea among them. If I believed in a National Government I should say that the best thing that the present Prime Minister could do would be to resign office and then His Majesty could send for the hon. Member for Stockton to form a National Government of intelligent, progressive and capable men.
  This is a very opportune moment for the Labour party to put down a Motion of Censure. It is the orthodox thing periodically to move a Vote of Censure. Whether orthodox or not, I agree that on this occasion a Vote of Censure is very essential, because of the fact that we have had a change in the Government. We have a new Prime Minister. This Government is run and has been run by Laurel and Hardy. Laurel has changed places with Hardy and Hardy has changed places with Laurel. Hardy takes Laurel's salary and Laurel takes Hardy's salary. Then they bring in a

  253
  member of the former Prime Minister's family and put him into the Colonial Office. They bring in Jackie Coogan in order to assist them with their great national drive to deal with the affairs of the country. They also bring in Charlie Chaplin, the silent Minister, the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord Eustace Percy). He does not believe in the talkies. He is to be the silent Minister, the one who thinks for the Government. There have been tremendous changes. Then they bring in the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay) because he expects to be a member of the family of the late Prime Minister. The Government would not impress any intelligent man in the country or in this House.
  The Prime Minister tells us to-day that he has never said on the platform or elsewhere that he has a cure for unemployment. What a confession of defeatism to say that he has no cure for unemployment and that he will not stand on a platform with any candidate and say that he can cure unemployment. Here is a confession that the Government are going to adopt a policy of drift. Like Micawber, they are going to wait for something to turn up. If something turns up and proves to be a success, they will claim that it is a success because of their genius. If it proves to be a failure, they will say that it is only another extension of the world hurricane. The Prime Minister tells us that we have cheap money. Is that an achievement of the Government? There is cheap money in France, in America and many other countries. We are not entitled to accept the view that it is because of any great gifts of the National Government that money is cheap.
  The Prime Minister also says that unemployment has been falling. It has been falling in America and France and many other countries. To-morrow there may be a further descent, even at a more rapid rate, when unemployment will go down to a greater degree than before. Nobody knows what will happen. Many suggestions have been made to-day by supporters of the Government to show how capitalism can be kept going; how the capitalist system can be made to work. I cannot see how that system can be made workable in any country. The
  254
  intelligent thing in statesmanship for the present Prime Minister to do would be to call a conference representing the Governments of the world and say to them, in no unmistakable language: "The old order is dead. We want experts to take stock of the whole of the available raw materials in the world, and we will take charge internationally of those raw materials. We will set people to work producing the essentials of life. The raw materials shall not be the possession of any one country, because nature intended them to be the common possession of mankind. They shall be rationed out according to the needs of the peoples and according to climate in every land. Unless we are prepared to move speedily there will be a tremendous reckoning. The old order will come down in chaos and revolt and will probably bring civilisation crashing to its very foundations. Therefore, we advise that the old order should be scrapped and a new order set up." That might mean that kings and emperors, capitalists and bankers, would go, but it would mean a common possession of the raw materials of this world and a common possession of the gifts which science has brought to us. If we could put this machinery into operation we could, by international effort, raise the standard of life of every person throughout the civilised world. We could give recreation and pleasure, opportunity and education, to all mankind. That is the only alternative I see to the present system of chaos and confusion, evident throughout the world to-day. Statesmen I know love power, and capitalists love to feel that they have wealth and power, and they do not look kindly on any idea that they should come down from their pedestal and make way for the masses of the people. If I had time I should like to have analysed the actions of the Government, but in connection with the depressed areas let me say that I do not think much of all the talk about Father Christmas moving about in these areas giving plots of land for them to grow a few turnips and cabbages. All the turnips and cabbages I want the farmers can grow. Henry Hall, on the British Broadcasting Corporation, has a good tune which is called "Here comes the Candyman." Sir Arthur Rose seems to me to be the candyman of the distressed areas, going round giving balloons and the candy rock to the people, trying to

  255
  make them believe that they are going to add to the national prosperity in this country.
  Any little device or trick will be attempted. The obvious thing to do is to make fundamental changes in the present organisation of society. On the one hand, you have a glutted market of all the goods which can be produced by mankind through the aid of machinery and, on the other hand, the unemployed, the underpaid man, the great starving multitudes. The problem is simply one of moving these goods, food and clothing, into the centre of the hungry multitude. The Government say that it is a tremendous problem. I have heard people talk of what it costs to feed a child. To me it is not whether it is 5s. 10½d. or 5s. 11½d. or 6s. When my child sits down at the table he eats until he is satisfied. That is the only proper measure; and it is the measure which hon. Members apply to themselves in the dining room and when they are lunching. They eat, drink and are merry, satisfy their wants, and then come and consider how little the people can live upon; let us keep them down to the bare standard of life and subsistence. To me there is no problem. All that is wanted is the will, the courage and determination to effect these changes and bring these goods into the home of the people. That means a fundamental change, a complete nationalisation, or internationalisation, of the ownership of the means of livelihood. Some people seem to stand aghast at Socialism. I do not care what you call it, but I do say that it would be an intelligent, humane and civilised order of society. The present system has broken down. The longer the present Government goes on the greater will be the poverty and degradation.
  If schemes are wanted, I will suggest one or two. The things which will be wanted, if we are to have a National Government in the future, will be poorhouses, cemeteries, prisons and lunatic asylums. These are the things which follow a National Government because they are reducing the standards of the people. We are told that there are evidences of malnutrition; doctors say that women and children are deteriorating, and the physical unfitness of the people is such that recruits for the Army and Navy are turned away in thousands
  256
  because they are not up to the standard required. The number of suicides since 1919 has increased from 3,000 to 17,000 last year, because of the present collapsing system of society. We have Hitler in Germany and Mussolini in Italy, and every attempt is being made to bring in by backdoor methods other means of dealing with the present system of society instead of withdrawing it and passing to a more happy episode.
  There are the proposals of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). When are these proposals going to be placed before the House? He struts around the country like a peacock, telling us of the great plans he has for dealing with unemployment. It seems that brilliant ideas only get into the heads of politicians when they are out of office; when they are in office creeping paralysis of the brain seems to overtake them. They cannot formulate schemes when in office, but when out of office they have plans. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs says that he is going to submit them to the Cabinet, he cannot state them on the platform; they are sub judice as the lawyers say, they are secret. This is the place to analyse any plans which may be brought forward. We can criticise and analyse and, if necessary, paralyse them. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon. Boroughs should bring his schemes before this House and not go round the country pretending that he has a remedy for unemployment. He has not. They are only a copy of the old ideas of the Yellow Book, the schemes of defeated politicians of the past. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman come to this House and discuss his plans? Why go to Glasgow and the industrial areas? Let him come to the national tribunal, put his plans before it so that they can be analysed and examined.
  What is wanted is a vacuum cleaner on the Front Government Bench to suck all the old politicians off it and put new life into the Government. I wish I could see an alternative Government. It is a great tragedy that in this country we have an opposition going round saying that they believe they will get 180 to 200 seats in the next Parliament. If the leaders of the Labour party were worth their salt, they would imbue their people with the idea of victory and going ahead against this national discredited Government. If

  257
  this Government comes back it will not be because of any ability on their part but because of the lack of a vigorous opposition in the country. I wish I could see the end of this Government because, in my estimation, as long as they remain in office they will continue to fill the pockets of their friends by their legislation and take out of the stomachs and off the backs of the poor of this country.
  8.35 p.m.
  Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: Those who have heard several Votes of Censure on the subject of unemployment debated under successive Governments are bound to find a certain family resemblance between these discussions. The Opposition always take the figures of unemployment as they are announced at the time and use them as a kind of club against the Government. No allowances whatever are made and indeed it is sometimes hinted that the figures ought to be a great deal larger than they are. The Government on the other hand take away from the figures here and take away from them there and argue that, a certain proportion of the unemployment is purely temporary and that too much account should not be taken of it. Indeed they almost lead one to suppose that unemployment is largely a matter of imagination. That contrast seems to hold good whoever happens to be sitting on the benches opposite and whoever happens to be sitting on this side of the House. My own sympathy I am bound to say is rather with the Opposition on these questions because a kind of complacency seems to overtake the people who sit on the benches opposite.
  It is not enough that we should console ourselves, as the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Mr. Scrymgeour-Wedderburn) suggested in his interesting speech, with the fact that there is less poverty in this country than ever before. That may be true, but the aspirations and opinions of the people change as times go on and they are not to be satisfied merely with that assurance. If it be true that people on the dole to-day are earning more than their grandfathers earned when in full work, that is no answer to the demand of the present generation. A better answer will have to be found. I am content to take the figure which I saw in a publication favourable to the Government and issued by the National
  258
  Labour party, according to which there are 600,000 people now who have been out of work for over six months. That is a terrible figure and although I freely admit, that in Middlesbrough employment is a, great deal better than it was and that there has been a substantial improvement, there is still, after the years of suffering through which that locality has passed, a terrible proportion of people, including people whose cases are known to me personally, who have been out of work not for six months but for years. I cannot help feeling that if this problem is merely left to natural development, no ordinary course of revival of trade is going to bring these people back into active work.
  I want to consider, as other speakers have done, the problem of the special areas, and as the Minister of Labour is in his place I should like him to note for future reference—because he may not have an opportunity of replying to the point to-night—that in dealing with the special areas at present we are working on a rather artificial basis. The special areas have been given a definition in an Act of Parliament. That definition was not arrived at and it is not pretended that it was arrived at as the result of scientific examination. It is the result of accident. For instance, the hon. and gallant Gentleman who at the time was Civil Lord of the Admiralty and who conducted one of the investigations, said plainly in his report that one of his principal reasons for leaving out Teesside was that he had not time to get there. He said that if he had taken in all that area he would have had to cover so much ground that it would have prevented him from making a proper report, and he thought it was better to make a complete report about a small area than a scant report about a larger area. That is an intelligible reason but it means that whereas we now have plans and schemes to deal with depressed areas, we are not dealing with scientifically defined areas. We are leaving out a lot of depressed people who do not happen to live in depressed areas. I suppose I ought to follow the fashion and refer to them as special people but not living in special areas.
  I sent a case recently to the predecessor of the present Minister of Labour. It was the case of a man from my own constituency who had been

  259
  industrially transferred. That is generally supposed to be a desirable thing. This man got a job at Dagenham but his wife and family were left at Middlesbrough. He wanted to move them and his furniture to Dagenham but he had not enough money to do so. He applied for a grant and was told by the Ministry, no doubt properly, that because he did not come from a special area it could not be done. It would be a disaster if that man had to go back from the place where there is work for him to the place where there is no work for him. That kind of thing is happening because there has not been a proper scientific delimitation of the special areas. That however is a point of detail which perhaps can be dealt with at some future time.
  I cannot help feeling that the kind of proposals we are likely to get out of the Commissioners, as at present appointed, are not likely to lead to much. I do not say that in any criticism of the Commissioners personally. I have no doubt they are excellent people, but I feel that this whole thing has been started on too small a scale. I wish I had heard in the speech of the Prime Minister anything which would give me the hope that something larger was going to come out of it. It is rather a shock to find the right hon. Gentleman building so much on the possibilities of transference. I am not pretending that nothing can be done by transference, but I thought I had secured from the previous Minister of Labour and the previous Parliamentary Secretary an admission that transference was "drying up," that although it was not stopped it was, on the whole, supplying fewer people and as a remedy, was growing less as time went on. I thought it almost inevitable that such would be the case. The areas to which transfers have been taking place have their own problem of unemployment to deal with and are not likely to welcome an indefinite influx of people from the special areas. If transference, strictly so called, is, as I believe, growing less as a remedy, what is to be done for the people in these special areas? It is not enough to leave it to natural forces to provide means of obsorbing those people. The drift is still going the other way.
  260
  In most of the areas, certainly in Durham at which I can look across the Tees from Middlesbrough, there seems little prospect of a natural revival of industry. If that be so, there must be some kind of artificial stimulus, some kind of starting or re-establishment of work. If the Government want schemes for giving employment and if they are shy, as they appear to be, of the mere name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caernarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George)—though I am sure the Minister of Labour, for old time's sake, would be glad to listen to any suggestion from that quarter—they have had sufficient suggestions from their own benches this afternoon to make a very promising start and one which would give a great deal more encouragement to the country than anything we have had from the Prime Minister to-day. I was delighted with the speech of the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Macmillan). I do not know whether it is because we are neighbours on Tees-side or whether it is due to a natural community of mind, but when the hon. Member speaks I nearly always find that I agree with him, and afterwards I am distressed to find that we are in different Lobbies. I do not know whether that is going to happen to-night or not. But certainly in his speech there was enough inspiration, if the Government wanted to take it, to provide some kind of start.
  We have to remember that, with great candour, the head of the Government has made a confession of failure with regard to these areas. Reasons of course were given for it. He said there were other tasks which had to be done. But the people who are the victims of the failure find it difficult to listen to explanations and excuses and if they are left, as they are left at the present moment, with the impression that their case is the last case for the Government to deal with, they will want a Government next time that will put their case first. I wish the Government would appreciate that fact. A campaign is going on with regard to peace and reconstruction. The papers try to make little of it. Even the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) has tried to make little of it.
  It is not so much the facts and the details of that campaign, which we shall get in due course, that are important to the Government as the fact that that

  261
  campaign is there and that if one had not been started by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), it would certainly have been started by somebody else. If he had not spoken, I feel one might say that the very stones would have cried out, because the problem, though concentrated, is so urgent where it is that these people are bound to feel that something must be done, and they demand a bold programme of construction, for which the Government have the basis in the report of their own Commissioners, like that of the hon. Gentleman who was Civil Lord of the Admiralty. They could elaborate the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. MacMillan) and by others of their own party to-day, and if they will take vigorous action of that kind, they need not be afraid of any campaign. They can take the campaign along with them and make it their own campaign, and I should be very glad to see them do so.
  I do not stand here in a spirit of opposition. I stand on this side because I found I had to vote against the Government too often, and it was not fair to continue to do so from that side. But as I stand here I am still delighted on every occasion when I can find the Government taking an active policy. It does not matter to us who does it, but it is better that it is the Government that should do it. I ask them to learn some lesson from the Debate to-day, a lesson which must surely be, if they will pay attention to the speeches of their own supporters, that they are, either openly or covertly, dissatisfied with the statement made by the Prime Minister, just as they have been dissatisfied with the statements made by the late Prime Minister, that they want a new policy, and that they will get it from somewhere.
  8.48 p.m.
  Mr. MARTIN: Following on the last speaker, I wish to emphasise the appeal he has just made and to underline his statement that he would not mind from what quarter a real, progressive policy came. He would support it if it came from the Government, although he sits on the benches of the Opposition Liberals. That sort of statement I welcome. It seems to me that at the present time—this Debate has shown it—the essentially important thing is to mobilise all the opinion in this House and outside which
  262
  can support a Government which will, as I believe this Government will, put forward a progressive policy to deal with the problem which we are discussing this evening. I am interested too that he is able, as an Opposition Liberal, to forget some of the jibes that were cast from the official Opposition benches about what has been done and what has not been done by His Majesty's Government. I am glad to find that people in this part of the House are not only prepared but anxious to remember what has been accomplished.
  I hope that whoever replies for the Government will not listen to the cheap jibes of the right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate, but will answer the serious speeches that have been made. We all know that the Opposition's duty is to oppose. We all know that party politics are the rule in this country—thank God, we have party politics, instead of a dictatorship, either of the right or of the left—but we ask that His Majesty's Opposition should concentrate their opposition on some sound constructive criticism, and I hope that whoever replies for the Government will, as I say, ignore the cheap jibes of the right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate and pay attention more to the speech which we have just heard and such speeches as that by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees and the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scrymgeour-Wedderburn). I hope I do not tarry behind anyone in this House in acknowledging the work accomplished by the Government. A great deal has been done.
  The right hon. Gentleman who is now Minister for Labour has accomplished much in his former spheres, and I hope he will accomplish as much and more in his new office. I believe he has that spirit, that ability, which will lead on to greater things. He knows—who better than the Minister of Labour?—that there is still the fact at the present time that, although in Greater London there is one in 12 unemployed, Durham still has one in three unemployed. It is perhaps unnecessary to repeat that fact. I say "perhaps" because sometimes one gets a rude jar from the leaders of one's own party and Government, just as we have recently from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Prime Minister made a speech in the country, an admirable

  263
  speech, in which he said, quite frankly, that there was one failure. May I quote his words:
  "We have been beaten so far by a problem that has defeated the efforts of two Governments, the problem of the distressed areas. I feel it is up to us in the Government, it is up to all of us, to start again with renewed efforts and renewed intentions to tackle this problem which so far has defeated us."
  Those words cannot be changed or minimised. There they stand, and they are a challenge, not only to the right hon. Gentleman's own colleagues on the Front Bench, but to every hon. Member who supports the National Government. Therefore, it was somewhat of a jar to find the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few days later saying this:
  "With all respect I disagree with the Prime Minister in that phrase. We have not failed, because we have not done with the depressed areas."
  When the Prime Minister has stated a rather unpleasant fact and we find the Chancellor of the Exchequer going back on his leader like that, it seems to me that it is unfortunate, that such an expression of what may not have been intentionally self-satisfaction or complacency should have been brought forward at this moment and should have been before us when we debate this particular subject. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not complacent. I hope and believe it does not mean that all the efforts which are to be made are going to be met by the Treasury with a blank refusal to move in any direction. I hope it does not mean that action will be continually deferred. If it does mean that, I see disaster ahead. I am reminded of the advertisements which we see in the papers at the present time of a very prehistoric animal, the brontosaurus, which is not changing his form with the changing times. I would remind the Minister of Labour that times are changing so quickly that we have no room for a brontosaurus on the Front Bench. But I believe that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer's spirit is encased on the weighty carcase of such an animal, the right hon. Gentleman's other colleagues, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Labour, will see to it that it is the fittest who will survive and not those who do not change with the changing times.
  It has been acknowledged in several parts of the House that much has been
  264
  done for agriculture. Coming from a distressed area, I realise as acutely as one who comes from an agricultural area that it is for the benefit of the country that so much attention should be paid to agriculture. I welcome it, and I would like to see things more flourishing for the agricultural community than they are at the present time. Recently in Newcastle the Royal Agricultural Society held their annual show. It was a great occasion. There was set before what were essentially the inhabitants of an industrial town, a great trading city, all the best work that has been accomplished throughout the year by the agricultural community in the whole of England, Wales, and Scotland. The people from the industrial areas went to see what the farmers had been doing. The Lord Mayor of the City was there, but he also had another duty to perform. He got into a boat and went down the River Tyne. On the river bank there was, a certain amount of activity, but there were also derelict yards, inactivity, and stagnation where formerly there had been busy hammers and active work, and he went out to the mouth of the river to greet a famous ship that was passing by on its way North to be broken up. That ship had been built on that river. It was the pride of the river. The "Mauretania" was going on her journey North, and as she passed from her home she said "Good-bye." May I draw the attention of hon. Members to the telegram that was sent by the captain of the "Mauretania" to the Lord Mayor of the great city where she had been built:
  "For 28 years have I striven to be a credit to you, and now my day is done. Though I pass on, may Tyneside ever reach out to further and greater triumphs. With pride and affection. I greet you. Farewell.—Mauretania."
  Here was a ship which was an exhibition of all the skill and brains of that great riverside, and she hoped that the Tyneside would ever reach out to greater triumphs. I want to ask the Government whether they have any conception of the future industrial organisation of a great port in an industrial area like the Tyne. It is typical of several other areas which we are discussing to-night as special areas. Have the Government any coherent conception of its possible or probable future, has any industrialist any conception of what the future will be? Are we ever likely to be asked to build

  265
  great ships like the "Mauretania" again? Is the population which formerly put its energy, its brains and its skill into a great work like that ever to be employed again on any appreciable scale, except perhaps in building ships of war, for which their skill is so highly fitted? It seems to me that the answer is that nobody knows. The Government, with their present fiscal policy and their policy of expanding trade, cannot judge what the future of the great basic industries will be, and I do not believe the industrialists can help the Government at the present time because they are all competing at great pressure instead of trying to co-ordinate and combine with the Government.
  Therefore, a great problem is left to the Government. If the transference, about which we have heard so much, takes place and an area is denuded of its population, skilled and otherwise, what about the burden that will be laid on the remaining population? What will happen about the Government's policy of housing, health and all the social services? Is the Minister of Health to go forward and ask such a community to go on building houses? These problems will have to be met, and I would suggest that when people in many parts of the House and in the country get somewhat frightened at a suggestion that there should be any kind of plan, they should feel at least that there can be no harm, but only good, in looking ahead and forming some kind of coherent policy which can be stated categorically, but not necessarily in detail. If that can be done, it is what is meant in a great many minds by a plan. The alternative to that conception of planning is a continuance of chaos. It is no good suggesting that the people who talk in that strain are merely theorists, for it seems to me that we shall be bound in the end to adopt some form of straightforward policy of that kind. A great many industrialists throughout the country have changed their outlook on this problem, and the Government need not fear that there will be any opposition from the majority of industrialists if they launch on such a policy. There are a few people like the Lord Mayor of Newcastle who went out to greet the "Mauretania," who stick doggedly and with pathetic faith to the shibboleths of laissez faire Liberalism, which even liberals themselves admit is no longer
  266
  existent. It is a dying part of the community.
  Therefore, the Government will find great support if they will only go one step forward and say that they are not going to accept any kind of enforced reconstruction, either from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) or from any other party, and that they do not need to drag in God on their side as the right hon. Gentleman has dragged in God on the side of the minority Liberal party, and that only for election purposes. If they have faith and really believe, knowing the conditions of the people, that some such coherent policy will help to solve the problem, they will get a lot of support from workers who are unemployed and from industrialists who have long ago left the policy of laissez faire behind. An interesting thing in our national life is the number of books and plays dealing with the tragedies and difficulties of unemployed people. A play, which has been mentioned in the House before, is running in London, and a book dealing with the mining community in the north has been selling in vast numbers. The fact that such a book is a best seller and that such a play is running still seems to me to be an indication that the public conscience is awakened to such an extent that it is becoming more and more critical of the strategy of inaction, which it is sometimes hinted is the policy of the Government. When the public conscience is roused in this way, there can be no following for any Member of the Government who tries to minimise the situation.
  It is right and proper that the Government should put forward their achievements. No one will deny their achievements, and we all take credit for some share, however small, in having supported the Government in bringing about those, achievements, but I believe the time has come, the achievements having been established and the state of confidence and stability having changed into a slow forward move, to announce a really forward programme. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has perhaps the key of the political situation in his hands at the present time. On him as Minister of Labour depends very largely the date of the next election. It is his onerous task to bring forward the new regulations in connection with unemployment

  267
  relief. I know not what is in his mind. I hope he will not hurry things, but I do know that whenever he decides that it is the right moment to bring in those regulations, and however long he thinks they ought to be worked in practice before an appeal is made to the country, that however well he has done his work it will be of no avail as a piece of sound legislation to the credit of the National Government if all the other things have been put aside under a policy of steady inaction.
  Therefore, I implore the right hon. Gentleman to use his influence in his high office to make not only the regulations a foremost point, but to make an industrial policy an even more important point, in the Government's programme. May I suggest two things to him? If we take transference as one solution of this problem we have got to face much that is difficult in the residual problem, and will still have our problem of unemployment with us; but I think the Government will cast that solution aside except in so far as individuals can be transferred, because an area cannot be left practically derelict. The right hon. Gentleman's Department are carrying on the work of individual transference very successfully, and I should like to pay a warm tribute to his officials at the Ministry of Labour and the officials of the Employment Exchanges for the admirable way in which they carry through that part of their work. Over and over again I find that the officials of the Employment Exchanges know their men, know the families of their men, give help where they find that help is really necessary, and, to a very large extent, encourage men who are suitable for transference to go to other parts of the country to find work. I have great admiration for the work that is done, but I realise that it provides only a small part of the solution of the problem in those areas.
  If transference on any large scale is not to be attempted, what is left? Again we come back to the subject which has been debated so often in this House, and that is the revival of the heavy industries or the encouragement of new industries in those areas. Only by the latter course can we really hope to bring unemployment in those areas down to any manageable proportions. It would take too long
  268
  at this time of night to go into the intricacies of the export trade, on which the heavy industries so largely depend. I would only refer to the steel industry, which was mentioned by the Prime Minister in his speech this afternoon, to point out that there we have an admirable example of careful planning on the part of industrialists. Not only have they formed a scheme for this country but they have gone into a scheme of international planning which the Prime Minister rightly says is saving the steel industry and will bring many more people back to employment. It is a good example of this particular type of planning, which has been carried out with great benefit and will bring further benefits to those engaged in that industry.
  I want to deal for a few moments with another aspect of this subject. The Prime Minister in a recent speech used the phrase "Rebuilding England." No one would have a more enthusiastic following in this country than the Prime Minister if the people knew exactly what his programme was in his attempt to rebuild Britain. Unless something happens in international affairs—something which would mean that the Government must have all our support in the coming weeks—to take away their attention and energies from the state of affairs in industry at home we should look for a real lead which shall be coherent to the ordinary man in the street. It is no good just to say after something has improved "That was planned." It must be so obvious that it will arouse the enthusiasm of all the followers of the National Government throughout the country. I should like to put forward one proposal in conclusion. There is one Minister without Portfolio to whom no particular duties have yet been assigned.
  I should like to propose, and I hope the Minister of Labour will pass this suggestion on to the Prime Minister, that that Minister without Portfolio should be given the duty of co-ordinating and bringing together all the schemes of the different Departments, all the proposals put forward in different parts of the country, not as a Minister for the special areas but as the main architect, with the Prime Minister, in a plan to make the rebuilding of Britain possible. After all, every architect has to put his plans on paper. The Noble Lord the Member for

  269
  Hastings (Lord E. Percy) has the ear of most sections of the House. He is sympathetic to both what is called the right and the left of the parties which support the National Government, and perhaps no one better than he could carry out the task of bringing together and co-ordinating the points of view, the proposals, the enthusiasm, and the schemes of all sides of the House. I believe that if that task were undertaken immediately—not deferred until October—without any particular reference to the special areas, there might be some hope that a general agreement could be come to throughout the whole country, and particularly among the different sections in this House, which would be a real value before the election comes.
  My last word is that I support the National Government. I recognise and applaud the great, things which it has accomplished, but unless some such co-ordination as I have suggested can be achieved, unless there can be a great move forward and a realistic facing of the situation as it may be not just now but in six months, 12 months, or three years time, I am afraid that my allegiance will weaken, and I shall feel, as I have felt before, disappointed. That disappointment will leave me, as it will leave a great many people in the country, in such a state of dissatisfaction that when the National Government appeal to the country next time they may not find the support which they hope to find. I know, and the right hon. Gentleman knows, the feeling in the depressed areas. People believe in the idealism, capabilities and mental powers of the National Government. We know that the Opposition rely mainly for their support upon the result of appeals to sentiment, and very often to class prejudice. Many Members of the Opposition rely on appeals to class prejudice and try to work that up in order to engender opposition to the National Government. If the National Government wish to make that process ineffective, they must put forward some plan or scheme of such simplicity that the average man-in-the-street will understand it and will give it his wholehearted support.
  9.16 p.m.
  Mr. BATEY: The last speaker said that we appeal to class prejudice in order to make opposition against the Government. He does not do that, but he does not
  270
  seem to be satisfied with the Government. He seems just as dissatisfied as we are. I was greatly disappointed today with the speech of the Prime Minister. I wanted to hear what the Government were going to do for the distressed areas. A few days ago the Prime Minister confessed the Government's failure, but I could not imagine a Prime Minister coming to the House of Commons to-day to deliver a speech without propounding some remedies for the plight of the distressed areas. It was not sufficient for him to tell the House what the Government had done. We knew what the Government had been doing, which was nothing at all, or if they had done anything it was injury in the depressed areas. We wanted to know what the Government were prepared to do. When the Prime Minister talked about cheap money, tariffs and other things, he left me cold. I want the Prime Minister to face the question and let us know what he proposes to do.
  The Prime Minister talked about the slight improvement in the depressed areas. If that is any encouragement to the Government in propounding remedies, I cannot understand it. Yesterday I had a question answered by the Minister of Labour. He said that in the County of Durham, which is one of the hardest hit of the depressed areas, we had, on 27th May this year, no fewer than 3,055 persons who had been unemployed continuously for five years and over, 9,400 who had been continuously unemployed for four years but less than five, 10,686 who had been continuously unemployed for three years but less than four, 10,581 who had been continuously unemployed for two years but less than three, and 13,188 who had been continuously unemployed for over a year. Reckoning up that total we have, in the County of Durham to-day, 46,892 who have been continuously unemployed for a year or more. We say to the Government, "What are you going to do for those men?" It is no use the Prime Minister saying that there is a slight improvement. There are the facts in the County of Durham, and we are entitled to ask the Prime Minister to face the question and not to evade it as he evaded it to-day.
  If I understood the Prime Minister aright, he suggested two things. He said that the Commissioner who is in County

  271
  Durham now is sending his report, which may be printed next week. He said also "When we get the report we may act upon it." That was one of the lamest excuses any Prime Minister ever offered. When the House appointed the Commissioners to make a further investigation in the distressed areas, we told the House that there was no need for the Government to appoint those Commissioners, because the Government then had all the material they needed. The Government, to waste time, appointed these Commissioners. The Civil Lord went to Durham. He was helped in Durham, and he gave his report, but the Government did nothing at all; yet the Prime Minister says to-day, "Here is another report, of a later Commissioner." What report can he get from this latest Commissioner? That Commissioner, who has been in Durham, has done absolutely nothing to find employment except what the local authorities could have done. When the House made the appointment we criticised the Vote of £2,000,000. We knew that merely to vote £2,000,000 for four distressed areas, the North of England, South Wales, Cumberland and Scotland, with the limited powers which were given to the Commissioners in the Bill, would mean that the Commissioners would do nothing. We are no better off, after the Commissioner has been there all this year, than we were when he was appointed.
  Now the Prime Minister says quite clearly, as if there were something in the proposition, "When we get the Commissioner's report we will study it, and we may act upon some of it." Why, the position in the county of Durham has become ridiculous. I was addressing a meeting in a county village two or three weeks ago, and a man said to me, "Joe, there is some work being done, and some unemployed men are being sent out for the job from this village. Will you tell us where the money is coming from? Is it coming from the Government, from the Commissioner, or from the Council of Social Service If you don't know, I don't know. They don't know in the village who is finding the money to do this job." I replied, "I will tell you what I will do. If you wish, I will try to find out for you." "Ah, no," he said "don't." "Believe me," he said, "there
  272
  is a lot of money knocking about just now in the County of Durham." He mentioned the office of some of the officials connected with the organisation and said: "Each one has a Rolls Royce motor car. They have one each to take them about to inquire what jobs there are to be done." That is what is happening in the County of Durham at the present time. There is nothing being done for the unemployed. But there are some officials having a really good time and simply doing nothing and leaving the unemployed with very little help. [Interruption.] If they were check-weighmen they would never belong to the Tory party. I do not mind telling the hon. Member where that place is if he contests my statement.
  I was interested in the statement of the Prime Minister that all the Government were settling down to do to help the distressed areas was to encourage the policy of transference. That policy has been tried again and again and again. I remember when it was first started in 1927 and the Industrial Transference Board was set up and when there were such high hopes that the board would be able to do something to help men in the distressed areas. That proved a failure. Then 12 months ago the Government talked of doing something more about transference. Whenever the Government are in a hole they think of transference and say, "We will transfer some of the men from the distressed areas to some other place." There is no hope in transference. The report of the Commissioners and the policy of transference were the only two proposals which the Prime Minister put before the House. If that be all the Government are going to do in the distressed areas, the Prime Minister had far better never have spoken, for we shall be as bad next year as we are to-day. There is no hope for the people in the distressed areas along these lines.
  I wish to say just a word to the Minister of Labour. He was speaking at a big Tory meeting a week or two ago, and of course he had to justify his position at that meeting. At that meeting he spoke of a boy in a class being shown a white sheet of paper with a black spot on it and being asked what it was. The boy said it was a black spot. The Minister of Labour said it was not that, but a

  273
  white sheet of paper with a small black spot upon it, and he added that that was typical of this country—that the small black spot represented the distressed areas and that the big white sheet of paper represented the rest of the country. I hope the Minister of Labour is going to get the impression out of his mind—that the distressed areas do not matter. [An HON. MEMBER "He did not say so!"] But that is the impression which his speech has caused. You can—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): The hon. Member must not address other Members but must address the Chair.
  Mr. BATEY: I am sorry. The most important thing which I wished to say to the House was that the proposals which the Prime Minister made to-day mean nothing to the distressed areas. We shall be no better next year than we are today. We want the Government to help in re-organising the coal industry, especially in die direction of the extraction of oil from coal. I am satisfied that we need money in County Durham for the purpose of starting these by-product works to extract oil from coal. The Government have been prepared to give a guarantee of £40,000,000 to the London and North Eastern Railway for the purpose of transport in London. If the Government would find £10,000,000 for the county of Durham, I am satisfied that we need not have a single miner out of employment. There are two plants already on the East Coast, but we can do with far more than two plants. If the Government would find £10,000,000, they could cure the problem of the distressed areas and put every one of our men back into work. I have received a letter from a clerk to a local authority with regard to one of our collieries which is typical of what is happening in Durham. He says:
  "My council are given to understand that the above colliery (Littleburn Colliery, Langley Moor) is expected to close down in about one month's time, which will result in a considerable number of men being thrown out of employment. At a meeting of my council held last night I was instructed to ask if you would kindly approach the Special Commissioner with a view to inquiring whether he can do anything with a view of establishing some industry in Langley Moor, with the object of employing the men who will be thrown out of work by the closing of the colliery."
  274
  That is typical of the position in Durham. Since 1924 we have had no less than 86 pits closed, and many of them are not to be re-opened. Here is another colliery which is to close down. We want the Government to find the money to come to the rescue of Durham. The Government can do it, but they will never do it by relying upon transference and the report of the Commissioner.
  9.32 p.m.
  Mr. WISE: If it be true that a Government in order to be effective must have an effective Opposition, this Government starts under a very serious handicap. I have listened to most of the speeches of hon. Members opposite, and at no time have I seen so much contradiction of one Member of a party by the next speaker of the same party—even during some of their previous efforts in this Parliament. We have here a Socialist party which on every possible occasion has opposed subsidies and tariffs. Then we have the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) demanding a subsidy for an industry in Durham—the same sort of subsidy which he opposes for every other industry. He also demands this for an industry which could not possibly produce its product except under an extremely high protective tariff. No man in his senses would claim that the production of oil from coal is going to compete on level terms with making a hole in the ground and letting the oil come up. If the oil-from-coal industry is to be fostered in any way, it demands a very high protective duty and a permanent protective duty. Yet the hon. Member belongs to a party which opposes protective duties and which cannot stand the sound of the word "subsidy." As long as attacks on the Government are confined to that sort of contradiction, the Government have a very easy row to hoe. I think the most dangerous attack on them came, not from the official Opposition, but from certain members of their own party—the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Macmillan) and the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Martin), both of whom almost filled me with wonder, because I began to think that at least both they, and I could not be Tories, that either they were or I was not; and I am not quite sure which in fact it is.
  Mr. CURRY: You are.
  Mr. WISE: I am very glad to hear from a member of the Liberal party that I at least am a Tory. The attack from that quarter was most dangerous because it was delivered with a good deal more confidence, although from just as misguided a thesis, as the attack of the official Opposition. I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Blaydon that his theories would make an attractive election cry for the Government to appeal to the country with at the next election. As far as I can see, his idea of putting a "punch" into election questions would be to outline the rather complicated details of the Steel Cartel, and I cannot believe that the country would readily assimiliate any such idea. I would also like to suggest that this form of planning—an odious and detestable word, but it must be used—is not a cure for unemployment. It is a cure for bad profits in industry, and they are not necessarily the same thing. It is in fact a form of hyper-rationalisation, and rationalisation does not necessarily mean the employment of more people. It may ultimately do so after a long period, but its immediate effect is entirely the opposite.
  For some reason or other, there has been a constant objection to the idea of transference which the Prime Minister outlined in his speech. It came from the left wing of the Conservative party, it came from the Socialist party, and it came from the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey), who wanted new Industries taken into the distressed areas. Looking at the distressed areas, however, what new industries can be taken into most of them? Industry has not migrated from those areas for fun; it has migrated because other areas are economically more suitable. You cannot take new light industries into the South Wales valleys. There is not a factory site in all those valleys; the coalpits are going to work on reduced production; and the population of those valleys are not going to be employed again in those areas, so that work must be found for them elsewhere.
  Indeed, all industrial history is the history of transference. The county of Sussex was once the centre of the iron trade of Great Britain. It migrated northwards to Staffordshire, and finally further north to Durham; and labour followed the migration of raw materials and capital. It must occur, as one form
  276
  of trade is worked out or one source of raw material is worked out, that creative effort is transferred somewhere else. Further, I would like to suggest to my right hon. Friends that transference does not necessarily stop inside one island. Transference will take place to countries where raw materials are most plentiful and where there is most room. If there is to be transference from one area to another, let us consider that there are far better areas to which these people could go, where they would have far more chance of earning a really good living than if they were moved to already crowded industrial areas, even though they may be prosperous ones, in this country.
  That, after all, is the only long-term policy that we can face. It may be possible to produce palliatives to absorb all that we produce in this island at the moment, but with a normal increase of population, or even without an increase of population, industry is sunk anyhow, because consuming capacity will be outstripped even more than it is now by production. With the normal increase of population, in 100 years' time we shall be trying to feed 80,000,000 people in this island—an impossible task, however efficient industry or agriculture may be, or whether there is public ownership, private ownership, a soviet or capitalism. Our long-term policy must be a wider transference than we are contemplating at the moment. I believe that to be the right policy; I believe it to be the policy for which the men who are out of work are themselves waiting; and I believe that it would meet with an instantaneous response to an appeal to the country that would be far more effective than anything else we could put to them.
  9.43 p.m.
  Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I do not want to follow the argument of the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Wise), but I fail to understand what he thinks transference is going to effect if it is not to increase the productive capacity and the production of the country. He seems to think that these people can be transferred from doing nothing in Durham to doing nothing somewhere else. The Debate must have been a most disappointing one for His Majesty's Government. It is on a Vote of Censure on the most vital matter of domestic politics, and yet I think it is fair to say that

  277
  there has been hardly a single speech in whole-hearted support of the Government. Even the Government's own supporters who have spoken have very largely spoken with veiled opposition, and certainly with unveiled criticism of the Government's inertia. It has been suggested to me that it might be helpful to the Prime Minister if he were to consider, after his speech, the appointment of a new Commissioner for Depressed Areas, the depressed area in question being the area behind him on the Government benches.
  The right hon. Gentleman invited me to elaborate an alternative programme, and I adopt the answer which he uniformly gave when he was on the Opposition side of this House, namely, that, this being a Vote of Censure on the Government for their lack of policy, it is not the occasion for the Opposition to put forward their policy which they would be prepared to follow when they occupy the benches opposite. I have a suspicion that the question was put at the instigation of the Home Secretary. Familiarity with his methods of advocacy leads me to suspect that, as often before, when he has a thoroughly bad case himself he makes a feint of attack on the other side. The House will be able to judge, when they hear his speech, whether I am right or not in suspecting that the paucity of his own arguments will lead him into an attack upon the Labour party's programme.
  The most noticeable thing in the Prime Minister's speech was his complete failure even to attempt to answer the overwhelming case put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). A more feeble defence of four years' policy can seldom, I think, have been heard from the Front Bench of the Government in this House. What did it amount to, when one strips it of the pleasant verbiage which the right hon. Gentleman uses so adeptly? "We believe," he says, "that the existing system is all right. We have done our best to shore it up, and we hope it will not fall down. We admit that we have been unable to deal with these worst evils in the devastated areas, but we hope the Commissioners may provide us with some brain wave, because we have not any ourselves. All we can think of is the old idea; of transference, which we admit
  278
  does nothing at all to increase employment, but we hope people will use the employment exchanges more freely in the future than they have done in the past." What a policy to put before the hundreds of thousands of people who are suffering in the devastated areas. Then, adding insult to injury, he makes an appeal to the charity of the private employer, an appeal which never yet has accomplished anything, to go into the distressed areas with his factory. As he made it, my mind went back to the time when his predecessor one Christmas eve made an appeal for old clothes for miners in the devastated areas. That does not seem to us to be a very adequate attitude for His Majesty's Government. There was one phrase that he used that struck me as curious. He spoke of the mess left on the beach when the Labour Government went out. I was aware that there was not a feeling of complete unanimity in the Cabinet to-day, but I hardly expected the Prime Minister to refer to the Lord President and the Dominions Secretary in quite those terms.
  When he came to the matter of agriculture, which I can understand his shying at, he stated that in his opinion it was a separate problem. Nothing can illustrate better the complete lack of planning in the ideas of this Government than the fact that they are prepared to treat the great industry of agriculture as something that is divorced as a problem from the whole industrial situation of the country. It is a vital part of it. It cannot be separated from it, and it must be dealt with, owing to its repercussions on the whole industrial life of the country, as one unit in that industrial life. Then we got that curious claim that comes up whenever the Government are trying to justify themselves, that they have been responsible for the provision of cheap money. I should like to know one day how they say they have provided it. It is true that there is cheap money, but it is also true that the cause of the cheap money is the failure of the Government to bring about a revival of industry. Everyone knows that the accumulation of profits, which they have fostered so carefully, without any outlet is that which has caused the fall in the price of money, and, if they could cure the position, they would only too gladly

  279
  do so. They would be delighted if they could see the cost of money rising and money no longer so cheap. When that happened, the vaunted economy, on which Mae Prime Minister placed so much reliance, of the reduction in the amount of interest paid on short-term money would, of course, automatically disappear and the already unbalanced Budget would be still further unbalanced. Just as the fall off the Gold Standard, that unwilling acrobatic feat of the Government, is constantly called to its aid as being a matter of pride and a matter of achievement, so this provision of cheap money, for which they are not responsible, and which they have done everything they can to avoid, is also brought forward as being one of their star turns. Indeed, both these things are marks of the failure of that which they set out to do.
  Then we come to the old cry, "We have restored confidence and security." [Interruption.] Hon. Members are prepared to cheer me when I say that, but they were singularly silent when the Prime Minister made the remark. To whom has this confidence and security come? Not to the people in the distressed areas, nor indeed to the workers of the country, but to the profit owners and the bankers. [HON. MEMBERS "And the lawyers!"] They are the people who feel the confidence and the security—not alas the lawyers. They have not yet reached the same high position in the estimation of His Majesty's Government as the bankers. The right hon. Gentleman says that this confidence and security is something which must at all costs be preserved. If you are going to preserve the present system, with the economic power in private hands, you must, of course, I agree, allow those people in whose hands it resides to have confidence in the continuance of their profit, but that is cold comfort to those who cannot buy Rolls-Royces. I suggest to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen that, if any of them were subjected to the means test, they would neither feel confidence nor security, and low wages and unemployment produce neither of those sensations in the ordinary man.
  It is really only when you look at this problem through the spectacles of a profit earner, and not through the spectacles of the worker, that yo n talk about
  280
  confidence and security returning. Indeed, the speeches that we have heard to-day, the frightened speeches, from Government supporters from the distressed areas, show well enough that there is no feeling of confidence or security in those areas, and this outlook of His Majesty's Government through the spectacles of the profit earner is, of course, an outlook that is forced upon any Government that is attempting to operate our present economic system. No one denies our potential power to employ everyone if we liked, and to produce a much higher standard for all the people in the country, even without any redistribution of wealth, if only the system would allow us to make use of that wasted energy which is at present represented by this body of 2,000,000 unemployed persons. Indeed, the unemployed are the measure of the failure of the Government to give the people what science and technology has made it right that they should expect to get.
  It is suggested by the Prime Minister that, after all, things are getting better than they were. Of course, no one in the world denies the very simple fact that booms and depressions, coming in cycles, are inherent in our economic system. It is, indeed, one of the main criticisms that have been made of the system by the adherents of the system themselves, and always when the depression slackens or the sign of the boom comes the most rosy pictures are painted that we are on the upward grade, and that we shall progress and go on for ever. Nevertheless, those pictures have never materialised because the ensuing depression always cuts off the hopes and leads to all those so-called economies which are brought in to try to right the system immediately depression starts, and thus employment is undoubtedly tending to become more and more rapid in the world as the technique and science of manufacture advances and increases. The liability to what is called over-production increases, the more rapidly it is possible to erect factories and to develop natural products and bring them under cultivation.
  We have witnessed in this country during the last few years one of the most acute depressions of the system, and we have witnessed the slow return of a profit boom, encouraged, it is perfectly true, by the policy of restriction which the

  281
  Government have imposed upon the country, tariffs and quotas and all other restrictions which they have utilised, quite properly according to the capitalist theory, in order to try to restrict the markets so as to give the system the possibility of recovery. It indeed always has been, and always must be, the technique of capitalist industry to restrict production or to destroy goods that are produced in order to try as far as possible to maintain prices and profits. There is the old familiar example which we know so well of the fish that were thrown back into the sea because the price was too low at which to sell them, not because there were not thousands and tens of thousands of people anxious to consume the fish, but merely as a matter of regulating the market price in order that a profit might be earned from the catching of the fish. Such restrictions may be quite pleasant to those who are living by the profits of the enterprise which is producing the goods for the restricted market, but they certainly are not pleasant for the consumers in this country who are living in many cases on a standard which is on the verge of starvation, as has been fully certified by many medical authorities.
  The feeling of returning prosperity in this boom, just as in previous booms, does nothing, or very little, to meet the right and just demands of the workers for better conditions. It may transfer a few persons from a miserably inadequate dole to a miserably inadequate wage. In some cases there may be small rises in wages, but, on the whole, the profit boom which has been experienced in the last few years, and which is referred to as the gradual return to prosperity, has done little or nothing to touch the standard of the workers in this country be they employed or unemployed, and, as we know from previous experience, that little difference is quickly withdrawn as soon as depression comes. The actions of this Government cannot be judged by the benefits they confer upon their wealthy supporters. They are better judged by the permanent changes that they have failed to make to cure the recurrent evils of society as they affect the workers of this country. The late Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland, when he was speaking in this House in April, 1934, said very truly of the capitalist system:
  282
  "We are clearly getting over this slump, but, unless something is done to prevent others, all the signs go to prove that slumps in the future will not be less but more acute than slumps have been in the past. If, therefore, nothing is done, I make a present to the right hon. Gentleman who is going to speak after me of the suggestion that the capitalist system will then indeed be on its trial and will deserve to be so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th April, 1934; col. 1238, Vol. 288.]
  That was from a very thoughtful and eminent Conservative who, we all deeply regret, is not with us now, and since the date when that speech was made not a thing has been done in any direction to remove the dangers of the slump, or even to deal with the immense problems, as they are admitted to be, of the present so-called boom. It is of interest in this relation to examine the comparative results of how this policy of allowing or encouraging industry to revive itself has come out as regards the different classes of persons in this country. If one takes the figures of profit from the "Economist" report which, as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen know, are collected from 1,975 representative companies, one finds that there was an increase between 1934 and 1935 of 16.6 per cent. in the profits returned by those companies. The actual figures were, roughly, £144,000,000 in 1933, and £168,000,000 in 1934, and, taking the first quarter of 1935 and comparing it with the similar period in 1933, there is an increase of 28.9 per cent. in the profits returned to the persons fortunate enough to have investments in those companies.
  That shows clearly what the effect of the Government has been as far as what I may call their friends are concerned. [Laughter.] Before hon. Members laugh too loudly let them consider the same question for a moment from the point of view of the money wages of the worker. The increase in money wages in 1933 and 1934, when this list of profits went up 16.6 per cent., was one-half of one per cent., and the increase so far in the first months of this year has been rather less than that amount. So that altogether taking the first quarter of 1935 and comparing it with the similar period in 1933, it would be fair to say that, while the profits of these respective companies have increased 28.9 per cent., the wages of the workers have gone up less than one per cent. One has to take side by side with this consideration of money wages the matter of the cost of living. Because

  283
  that affects the profit-earner and the worker equally, we can leave it out in a comparison between the two, but what we have to consider is the increasing productivity per man and the increased strain of the faster work of mass production it has put upon a great many of these workers who are drawing the same, or very slightly higher wages, whereas, as far as I know, there is no increased strain on the profit-earner when he draws 28.9 per cent. more than he did the year before. The figures of increased production are too well known to recite to the House, but let me remind them of one or two, taken, of course, over a longer period. Between 1924 and 1933 in the building industry the productivity per man increased 29 per cent. On the railways the train miles run per employé rose 25 per cent. In the steel-smelting industry the output rose 40 per cent. Where has the result of that increased energy and productivity of the man gone? It has not gone into his wages, nor has it gone to his unemployed brothers and sisters, who have indeed during the last three years suffered the means test. The situation is well summed up in the "Business Barometer" issued by the Federation of British Industries:
  "We are no longer living in an expanding but in a contracting world. The notion favoured by economic theorists of an economic community, capable of a more or less unlimited expansion in its standard of living, seems incapable of realisation in practice. … Were it possible to add up all the items which go to make up what the ordinary man regards as his standard of living, it may be doubted whether we should find that as a nation our standard of living is rising at all."
  That is on the average. If that be the true estimate of the average, then the profit figures which I have already given to the House make the implication as regards the workers' position a very obvious one. The attitude of mind which is shown in that article is the Government's outlook. They still live in an atmosphere of the necessity and scarcity of contraction. Although productivity has increased, they still adopt a policy which depends fundamentally for its success on the creation of a condition of scarcity. It can hardly be wondered that in these circumstances you cannot utilise the full productivity of your people. Instead of shortening the working life and the working week, they allow to be
  284
  perpetuated long hours in industry on the one side and complete unemployment on the other. It is no answer to this complete failure to give the workers the benefits of the potential abundance to point to the swollen activities of the breweries and the aviation manufacturers, and say, "Look how prosperous we all are." Indeed, one of the most dangerous forms of all private booms is that caused by increased manufacture of armaments.
  I was horrified to-day to hear the Prime Minister refer to the fact that increased employment was being given by the increased demands of the Royal Air Force of this country. There is the absorption of men in military forces and armaments manufacture in almost every country of the world. The building up of these great establishments in peace time, even from an economic point of view, is most unsatisfactory. Their continuance in times of economic difficulty is always liable to bring a great temptation to Governments to continue to seek the solution of their unemployment difficulties by increased manufacture of armaments. Such employment cannot be put to the credit side of any Government; it must be put to the debit side. The methods which the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the Government have attempted to apply are purely opportunist in their character.
  If one can dignify what they have done by the name of a programme, I should say that it was a programme depending on the inspiration and suggestion of the moment. One of the most vicious and uneconomic methods of transferring wealth which they have introduced is wholesale use of the subsidy, to subsidise private enterprise; this means that they are transferring the wealth of the mass of the community into selected pockets. They get it without any test as to whether they need it or not. Apparently, a means test is not a dignified thing to apply to one's friends, but quite dignified to apply to the workers. How great this subsidy system has become will be realised by anybody who looks through some of these gifts and finds out what during the life of this Government has been handed out in doles in one form or another. In regard to de-rating, which has benefited industry and agriculture, there is a sum of well over £150,000,000 that is being held out in subsidy and relief by this Government.

  285
  It is not a policy which is justified by its results, or which can be followed as a permanent feature in the life of any country. If the profit fund in that industry is low, apparently, at the present moment they have only to make themselves sufficiently offensive to the Government to be paid something to call off that offensiveness. When it comes to the depressed areas, where it is not a particular group of shipowners or sugar-beet owners or some other kind of owners, the combined pressure of all the unemployed in the distressed areas cannot wring the heart of the Government to produce any scheme in order to alleviate their lot. We have the fantastic picture of the encouragement of great capital expenditure at a place like Corby where they are setting up a new town, which is going to draw away even more industry from the distressed areas, which is going to demand of a community the building up of a whole lot of social services, which is going to lead to the scrapping of social services elsewhere, just through the whim of financiers or private manufacturers who are allowed to go where they like over the countryside.
  That is typical of the lack of planning by this Government. It is typical of their failure to take industry into the distressed areas. If this country believes that as a matter of policy, as the Prime Minister said, it is sound and right that these industries should go into the depressed areas, why cannot we order them into the depressed areas? [Laughter.] Hon. and right hon. Members laugh, but it is no laughing matter for the derelict workers in those areas. There is only one reason that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have why they should not be ordered into the depressed areas, and it is not the interest of the country but the interest of the individual who wants to make a profit out of that industry. There is no other argument that can be put forward for this unplanned and chaotic system of dealing with the industries of this country.
  Just as in the past in the depressed areas industries have gone and sucked them dry by exploitation and then decamped and left the ambulance work for the community to do, so the new industries in their turn, in a few years, will do exactly the same thing. You have a system by which you are going to allow private individuals to create difficulties
  286
  for the community, as they have done by developing industries in Durham, Lancashire and other places for their profit, and then turn round to the community and say: "We have got all the profit we can out of this place, and now it is your job to look after what we have left." That is the method which to-day is being followed and approved by His Majesty's Government, and that is why in our Resolution we say that we regret
  "the failure of His Majesty's Government to produce a considered plan to cope with unemployment."
  This hand-to-mouth policy, this policy which is the result of the pressure of one or other private groups in the country, is not good enough for the workers of this country in the organisation of their lives. The record of this Government shows nothing except that it has attempted to bolster up the chaotic and anarchic system which is responsible for all our evils to-day. Hon. and right hon. Members may say what they like, but we have had a capitalistic system in this country for a hundred years and whatever we are suffering from to-day is the result of the inability of that system to adjust itself to changed circumstances, and, unless the Government are prepared to do something more than merely play with this problem, then I believe the workers of this country will take the only sensible step that they can take, and get another Government.
  10.19 p.m.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): The Prime Minister, earlier in the Debate, referred to the many-sidedness of truth. If there has been any impartial visitor who has been following our disscusion to-day and he listened to the speech which has been made by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), I feel that he must be more puzzled than ever to know how on earth a Government destitute of every possible principle of morality or common sense can possibly enjoy the support of the great majority which this Government has. It would be quite impossible to correct every misstatement of the hon. and learned Member, but let me take one. In his catalogue of Government crimes he ultimately came to the new community at Corby in Northamptonshire. He made it one of the heads of his indictment; we are all

  287
  responsible for this piece of folly. The reason why the new community is established at Corby is because the ore is there. No doubt in a future Socialist Government it will not be the men but the materials which will be moved. [Interruption.]
  HON. MEMBERS: Why not?
  Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot carry on the Debate with constant interruptions.
  Sir J. SIMON: In point of fact there are some 3,000 men who are now being employed there in connection with ore which was formerly imported from the north of Spain, and the whole matter has nothing in the world to do with Dowlais.
  Let me pass to deal briefly with three points which were made by the right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate. He started by lecturing us about half-truths. I am certain that there are one or two matters upon which he would like to be corrected. He gave the House figures on the subject of industrial production, and made a great point that between certain dates, which he chose, 1932 and the present day, the increase in industrial production in this country was 25 per cent., whereas in the case of some other countries the increase was more. That is quite true, but I should be doing the right hon. Gentleman more than justice if I were to say that it was as much as half of the truth. The increase in percentage differs in different countries because of the depths to which some countries had sunk in their industrial production. I have here the figures of the years 1929 and 1934, and as far as this country is concerned our manufacturing production is up to the level of 1929. If you take the whole of our industrial production we are within 1 per cent. of the level of 1929. In the case of France there is a 29 per cent. decrease, in the case of Germany a 15 per cent. decrease, and in the case of the United States a 34 per cent. decrease. In these circumstances, what is the sense of pretending that there has not been in fact in this country a restoration to a level which has not been attained elsewhere?
  My second illustration is an observation which the right hon. Gentleman made not for the first time, which has no foundation at all, on the subject of the Housing Act of the late Government.
  288
  He suggested that the policy of the present Government had destroyed the prospect of the 40,000 houses contemplated under the Housing Act of 1931. He has alleged before to-day that this was stopped by the National Government. He has been publicly corrected in this House, and I regret that he has repeated it to-day. I recollect that at the conclusion of his speech he quoted some verse which said that a mis-statement "can never be young but once." That is quite true. The fact of the matter is that that Act which placed the sum of £2,000,000 at the disposal of the Ministry of Health provided that any applications were to be received within four months from the passage of the Bill. It will be remembered that the late Sir Tudor Walters was very closely associated with the matter. They all had to be received by November, 1931, and only 4,000 applications were received.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: Why?
  Sir J. SIMON: As a matter of fact, the crisis was already upon the country and when the Committee which had been appointed to examine the applications did so it was found that not one penny of the extra money over and above the Wheatley subsidy for rural areas was needed, and there is every reason to believe that these 40,000 houses have been built in the intervening years, and there is not the slightest foundation for saying that the National Government put any obstacle in the way at all.
  I take the third of these unfortunate misapprehensions. Not for the first time the right hon. Gentleman has been telling the House to-day that the fact that there are additional numbers of persons receiving assistance through public relief proves that the reduction in the unemployment figures is a sham.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I never said that.
  Sir J. SIMON: Perhaps then the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me on this, that the fall in the figures of unemployment is a real fall and is not accounted for by transferences to the Poor Law.
  I am going to the best of my ability to join battle with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol, but before I do so I would like to say a few words on a matter which is not controversial, about the attitude and

  289
  approach which I am sure we all share to this fearful problem of unemployment. I think it is very much to the credit of the House of Commons that no time has been occupied in merely dwelling upon the tragedy of human suffering which we all appreciate and feel, and, while I am going to deal with a few figures, I would like to say this. We all realise that statistics of reduced totals of unemployment and improved figures of trade give no comfort to the individual who is out of work. Increased exports are a very good thing, over which we are all willing to rejoice, and so are particulars of new enterprises in certain parts of the country, but they do not give new courage and hope to areas that are specially affected by long unemployment. It would be a great pity if the House of Commons in a controversial Debate did not spend a few minutes in registering their common agreement about these simple facts.
  It is perhaps unfortunate that this Debate should take place before the Commissioners' reports, with their observations and suggestions, are available. I cannot anticipate them, and I am sure the House would not wish me to do so, but they are going to be published. May I be allowed to say, however, that the Government who have pursued a policy which is laying the foundations for recovery are not accepting the present situation as one in which there is no more to do. There need be no doubt at all in any quarter As to the Government's resolve to tackle every aspect of the case by every means which will not undermine the very foundations which we have laid. But we have our responsibilities not only to the unemployed but to those who have got employment. Our responsibility to those who are in work is one which makes it necessary that no policy should be pursued which would jeopardise their work.
  Having made that general observation, I want to say a few words about the attitude taken by the Opposition in this matter. This is a Vote of Censure by the official Opposition, and while, of course, we ought to welcome informed and responsible criticism from those who are qualified to give it, I think that, at the end of this Debate, we are entitled to ask ourselves who the critics are who propose this Motion of Censure, and what there is in their past record or in their
  290
  present policy which would lend special authority to a Motion of Censure on this subject at their hands. I pause to observe, as another illustration of the many-sidedness of truth, the peculiar view taken by the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on the opposite side. I recall a Debate on a Motion of Censure in this House on the question of unemployment, moved against the late Labour Government, in April, 1931, at a time when it was unfortunately the fact that the figures of unemployment had gone up since they came into office by a million and a half. The hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite felt it their duty to support the Labour Government and to resist the Vote of Censure. Now we have a Government who at least have this fact in their history, that there has been a reduction in their lifetime of nearly a million in the figures of unemployment, and that a larger number of people are now employed in this country than ever before. So remarkable is the many-sided character of truth, that hon. Members below the Gangway opposite say that this time they must vote for the Vote of Censure.
  Now I return to the official Opposition. Alter all, we are entitled, I think, to remind ourselves of this fact, that among the leaders of the official Opposition sitting there are those who refused to be responsible for the drastic and disagreeable action which was necessary to deliver this country from the crisis in 1931. If I am not mistaken, there are some among the rank and file at any rate who are rather disposed to deny that there ever was a crisis at all. Well, we have had a speech to-day, a maiden speech, from an hon. Gentleman who represents the City of London (Sir A. Anderson), who pointed out to us, from his own special knowledge, how near we were to the brink, and over the brink, and I am bound to say that I think the country as a whole will prefer the views of a gentleman with that experience to the views of those who deny that there ever was any crisis in 1931.
  Is it denied that we were in a situation in which the Budget for successive years would not balance? Is that denied? Is it denied that our exports had dropped in two years by nearly half? Is it denied that our balance of trade was on the wrong side by about £100,000,000 and that

  291
  unemployment had increased by 1,500,000 in a couple of years? Is it denied that authorised borrowings for the Unemployment Insurance Fund had reached the stupendous figure of £115,000,000? Is it disputed that the situation was such that one of the most important officials of the Treasury reported that
  "continued State borrowing on the present vast scale without adequate provision for repayment by the Unemployment Insurance Fund would quickly call in question the stability of the British financial system?"
  Is it denied that the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the Labour Government published that statement as a White Paper in order to inform the country? I am very willing to agree at once that the situation of 1931 is not to be laid wholly at the door of the party opposite. It was very largely due to world causes which neither they nor anyone else could control. The question, after all, is not who was to blame for it, but whether it was a fact, and whether, being a fact, it is not the drastic measures which the National Government have taken which has delivered us from that crisis by degrees, and from a situation which hon. Gentlemen opposite were not prepared to tackle.
  I come to another observation of the right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate. He said, I think without any warrant, that the last General Election was won by the National Government by raising tremendous hopes. As a matter of fact, I should have thought there had seldom been an election fought in this country in which the successful Government had held before the people of this country less prospects of an easy restoration. What the Government said was that by a united effort we ought to be able to get ourselves out of the mess. They said that the method which they might have to pursue would be drastic and could not be precisely decided. They asked for a doctor's mandate. If at the last General Election the Government had then held before the country the prospect of what has happened since, if they had said, "Vote for us, and you shall see that this terrible drop in exports shall be stopped and exports will begin to rise; you shall see wages rise in a few years to a point above what they had been ever since 1927; you shall see the credit of this country restored until it is the admiration of the world"
  292
  —if they had said half of that, hon. Gentlemen opposite would have told us that e were bribing the electors. In fact, e did nothing of the kind. We seized a situation which had to be tackled with firmness, with the result that we can now see. Those are the critics.
  I am going to follow the course of inquiring what is the remedy which they seek to apply. I hope that they will not try to prevent me from stating that remedy, for the more it is known to the country the better they will like it. Let us see what the remedy is. The recovery of the country is due, first and foremost, to the restoration of confidence, and the restoration of confidence has been due to our financial policy. That is due to the first Budget for which Lord Snowden was responsible and to the steady pursuit of a sound financial policy ever since under the guidance of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is the foundation upon which recovery is being built. Destroy that foundation and it is no good talking about a superstructure; you will make a superstructure impossible. The Motion of Censure talks about a considered plan, and the Prime Minister has made an observation about this use of the word "plan." It is a very convenient word. It sounds like something you can frame a questionnaire about, something you can treat as a test of orthodoxy, whether the man who answers the question has read it or not. You can even treat it, if you like, as the test of genuine devotion to a cause which all of us are doing our best to serve.
  But, after all, what is the view of the Movers of this Motion of Censure about a plan, a considered plan? In place of confidence we have the assurance of the hon. and learned Gentleman, which all his companions on that side are delighted to hear repeated as often as possible, that if he and his friends get the opportunity they promise us a first-rate financial crisis. [interruption.] I quite understand the feeling of nausea of some hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I would point out that what really matters about this is not that it is so annoying to have it repeated but that it is quite true. It is not right that the hon. and learned Gentleman should have all the limelight in this matter. It is not fair. Let me take the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), whom I
  293
  do not see at the moment. He contributed to a book called "Problems of a Socialist Government." I am glad to know that even they will have their problems. In his contribution he wrote:
  "I am envisaging the period of the first Socialist Government in power as one of crisis."
  A very large number of people in this country are under the impression that there was a crisis in 1931. A very large number of people are under the impression that they were delivered from that crisis by their own courage and by the National Government. Now they are told quite plainly, "If you like to have another crisis we can give it you." Mark you, Mr. Speaker, it is under those favourable conditions thus envisaged by hon. Gentlemen opposite that they are going to cure the problem of unemployment. They too have their plan of action. I hold in my hand a recent publication of the Labour party. I do not call it a yellow book but it is a yellow pamphlet. It is called "Programme of action." Whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) or Transport House is going to bring an action for copyright against the author I do not know. At any rate, here it is, and it is directly concerned with the notion of hon. Members opposite of how to cure unemployment:
  "What is necessary is this, and it must be done at once. There must be a policy of full and rapid Socialist planning. The public ownership and control of the primary industries and services is an essential foundation step."
  Now, our view is that the foundation for better trade and more employment is confidence, and good financial administration.
  But there is another view as to the foundation. It is
  "the public ownership and control of the primary industries and services."
  In order that nobody should be left in doubt as to what this means—remember that it is hon. Members' preliminary action in the cure of unemployment—they are good enough to give us the list:
  "Banking and credit, transport, water, coal, electricity, gas, agriculture, iron and steel shipping, shipbuilding, engineering, textiles, chemicals and insurance."
  In all those
  "the time has come for drastic reorganisation and for the most part nothing short of immediate public ownership and control will be effective."
  294
  What a formidable step towards curing the evil of unemployment. It is only fair to say that the authors of this document go on to say
  "the public acquisition of industries and services will involve the payment of fair compensation to existing owners."
  Therefore, it is not altogether unnatural that they should go on thus:
  "much will depend upon the actual economic situation."
  That is not the whole of it. It is essential that I should give these quotations because, inasmuch as it is suggested by hon. Gentlemen opposite that there ought to be a considered plan, I am examining their considered plan, and this is it. It consists of more of the same matter. It is most comforting to know that they intend that there should be fair compensation to existing owners, but Mr. Morrison explained recently what that really meant. The explanation is in a passage full of value, which, I hope, the House will allow me to read it. Mr. Morrison, at the Labour Party conference at Southport in October of last year, said that
  "they had to ask themselves, if they went to the country at the next general election with a policy of confiscation, modified to meet absolute hardship, whether the country would give them a majority to do it."
  —not to ask whether it was fair or unfair.
  "Can we be sure that the country will give us a majority if we said, to start with, that we were for confiscation?"
  Mr. Morrison went on:
  "If they were almost certain that the country would reject such a policy, they had to ask themselves whether they could cut themselves off from political power and prevent themselves from being politically competent to put their policy into force. Then he would sooner get on with the job of Socialism by paying fair and reasonable compensation, but not a penny snore than was necessary. He would sooner the State got into its control key industry after key industry, until, within a reasonable time, they were substantially masters of the economic fabric of the community, and of the means of production and distribution. Then would be the time to take the big decision which he could assure them he would not be afraid to take when the time came and say that the burden of capitalised industry must stop and a settlement of accounts begin. Then they could make a fair, clean, and equitable sweep."

  295
  I think I have said enough to show that the authors of this Motion of Censure, who clamour for a considered plan, have got a plan which it would be very well for the country as a whole to consider. I am sure that they would be very grateful, if having put down this Motion, there is the opportunity of considering what it is they want to propose.
  The real truth about the matter is that difficult and intractable as this subject is, hon. Gentlemen opposite are the very last to have the right to come down here to the House and lecture us or anybody else about the handling of unemployment. The special areas, whose fate is so tragic and which we are all doing our best to help, are not a new problem. The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), in an earlier speech, said quite frankly and fairly that the special areas problem had been known to him for 12 years, and that he had been in two Governments during that time. That is the measure of the difficulty of that problem. For the rest, I believe that the whole country is at one with the Government in rejoicing in the substantial improvement which has taken place during the Government's years of office. We do not claim that every item in that improvement is due to Government action any more than we accept censure for every evil that remains to be removed. Not merely we, but, I think, the whole country take sober satisfaction in noting how vast the change is for the better since the adoption and pursuit of the policy for which we are responsible. And while we deplore with the rest of our fellow-countrymen—and I know how sincerely hon. Gentlemen opposite deplore it—that the figure of registered unemployed should still be above the 2,000,000 mark, we rejoice, and I think others should rejoice, that it is the smallest figure recorded in any month for the last five years.
  I notice that this yellow pamphlet lays stress on the fact that the figure is still above 2,000,000. Perhaps there will be a new edition wanted very shortly. We shall adopt every course that intelligence can suggest to bring that figure down, and especially in the areas which are still
  suffering severely. But I do not make these claims for any body of Ministers or for the Government; I make them for the British people—whose spirit was roused when leadership was given them and who themselves are responsible for their own recovery. It is the British people to whose spirit of courage and resolve the recovery is very largely due; and I cannot believe that the British people are likely to jeopardise what has now been gained by returning to the very course which helped to bring upon us our misfortunes. The collapse of 1931 was due to lack of confidence in Britain's position and in Britain's future. This lack of confidence at the time was not limited to foreign countries, but extended to some people inside this island. Everything that has since taken place is due to the restoration of confidence as the result of the sensible policy of sound finance under the guidance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Motion speaks of "admitted failure." It seeks to exploit an observation made with his characteristic straightforwardness and courage by the Prime Minister. Is it not better to admit that over a portion of the field success has not yet been attained? Is it not better to call upon the British people for their support for a further effort rather than to pretend that there was no crisis in 1931, or to produce nonsensical explanations like "the bankers' ramp," or "the Buckingham Palace intrigue." Censure from such a quarter as that is not very impressive, and it is not very difficult to meet. We appeal to the steadiness of the British people, which, by rejecting wild experiment and encouraging every well conceived effort for further improvement, is bringing this country step by step through most difficult times, and has made its progress towards recovery the envy and the admiration of the world.
  Question put, "That this House regrets the failure of His Majesty's Government to produce a considered plan to cope with unemployment and, in particular, their admitted failure to deal effectively with the problem of the distressed areas."
  The House divided: Ayes, 76; Noes, 450.

  Division No. 266.]

  AYES.

  [10.58 p.m.

  Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

  Banfield, John William

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

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Batey, Joseph

  Buchanan, George

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. Clement R.

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Cape, Thomas

  Cleary, J. J.

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Nathan, Major H. L.

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Owen, Major Goronwy

  Cove, William G.

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

  Parkinson, John Allen

  Cripps, Sir Stafford

  Harris, Sir Percy

  Rea, Sir Walter

  Curry, A. C.

  Hicks, Ernest George

  Rothschild, James A. de

  Daggar, George

  Jenkins, Sir William

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

  Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

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

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

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

  Dobbie, William

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

  Smith, Tom (Normanton)

  Edwards, Sir Charles

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Weish Univ.)

  Kirkwood, David

  Thorne, William James

  Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

  Lawson, John James

  West, F. R.

  Gardner, Benjamin Walter

  Leonard, William

  White, Henry Graham

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

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Lunn, William

  Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

  George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

  McEntee, Valentine L.

  Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

  Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

  McGovern, John

  Wilmot, John

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

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

  Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)

  Mainwaring, William Henry

  Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Milner, Major James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Mr. Paling and Mr. D. Graham.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Burnett, John George

  Davison, Sir William Henry

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

  Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

  Butler, Richard Austen

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Denville, Alfred

  Albery, Irving James

  Cadogan, Hon. Edward

  Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

  Alexander, Sir William

  Caine, G. R. Hall-

  Dickie, John P.

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

  Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

  Doran, Edward

  Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

  Dower, Captain A. V. G.

  Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)

  Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

  Drewe, Cedric

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

  Caporn, Arthur Cecil

  Duckworth, George A. V.

  Anderson, Sir Alan Garrett

  Carver, Major William H.

  Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Cassels, James Dale

  Duggan, Hubert John

  Apsley, Lord

  Castlereagh, Viscount

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

  Assheton, Ralph

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Dunglass, Lord

  Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

  Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

  Eady, George H.

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

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

  Eales, John Frederick

  Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

  Eastwood, John Francis

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

  Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony

  Bailey, Eric Alfred George

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh

  Edge, Sir William

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)

  Edmondson, Major Sir James

  Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

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

  Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

  Balniel, Lord

  Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

  Elliston, Captain George Sampson

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

  Elmley, Viscount

  Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

  Christie, James Archibald

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

  Bateman, A. L.

  Clarke, Frank

  Erskine-Bolst, capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

  Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

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

  Clayton, Sir Christopher

  Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

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

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Beit, Sir Alfred L.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Fermoy, Lord

  Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

  Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

  Fleming, Edward Lascelles

  Bernays, Robert

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Ford, Sir Patrick J.

  Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

  Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Fox, Sir Gifford

  Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

  Conant, R. J. E.

  Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

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

  Cook, Thomas A.

  Fremantle, Sir Francis

  Blaker, Sir Reginald

  Cooke, Douglas

  Fuller, Captain A. G.

  Boothby, Robert John Graham

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)

  Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

  Boulton, W. W.

  Copeland, Ida

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Courtauld, Major John Sewell

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

  Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

  Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

  Gibson, Charles Granville

  Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

  Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

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

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Gledhill, Gilbert

  Bracken, Brendan

  Craven-Ellis, William

  Gluckstein, Louis Halle

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

  Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.

  Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

  Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Goldie, Noel B.

  Brass, Captain Sir William

  Crooke, J. Smedley

  Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

  Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

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

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Broadbent, Colonel John

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

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

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Cross, R. H.

  Granvlile, Edgar

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

  Crossley, A. C.

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

  Brown, Rt. Hon. Ernest (Leith)

  Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

  Graves, Marlorle

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

  Cuiverwell, Cyril Tom

  Greene, William P. C.

  Browne, Captain A. C.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Grigg, Sir Edward

  Burghley, Lord

  Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

  Grimston, R. V.

  Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

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

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

  298

  299

  Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

  MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. Sir Charles

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  MacAndrew, Major J. O. (Ayr)

  Robinson, John Roland

  Guy, J. C. Morrison

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

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

  Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

  Hales, Harold K.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Bassetlaw)

  Ross, Ronald D.

  Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

  Hammersley, Samuel S.

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

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

  Hanbury, Sir Cecil

  McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  McKie, John Hamilton

  Runge, Norah Cecil

  Harbord, Arthur

  Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

  Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

  Hartington, Marquess of

  McLean, Major Sir Alan

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Hartland, George A.

  McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

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

  Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

  Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

  Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

  Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)

  Maltland, Adam

  Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

  Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

  Makins, Brigadler-General Ernest

  Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

  Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

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

  Salmon, Sir Isidore

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Sir Cuthbert

  Marsden, Commander Arthur

  Salt, Edward W.

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Martin, Thomas B.

  Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

  Henderson, Sir Vivlan L. (Chelmsf'd)

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

  Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

  Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

  Meller, Sir Richard James (Mitcham)

  Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

  Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

  Mellor, Sir J. S. P.

  Sandys, Duncan

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

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

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

  Milne, Charles

  Savery, Servington

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

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Selley, Harry R.

  Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. Leslie

  Mitcheson, G. G.

  Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

  Hornby, Frank

  Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

  Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

  Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

  Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

  Horobin, Ian M.

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

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

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

  Shute, Colonel Sir John

  Howard, Tom Forrest

  Moreing, Adrian C.

  Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

  Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

  Morgan, Robert H.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

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

  Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

  Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

  Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

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

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Hume, Sir George Hopwood

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

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

  Morrison, William Shephard

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

  Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

  Moss, Captain H. J.

  Smithers, Sir Waldron

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

  Somerset, Thomas

  Hurd, Sir Percy

  Munro, Patrick

  Somervell, Sir Donald

  Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

  Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

  Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

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

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

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

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

  Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

  Iveagh, Countess of

  Norle-Miller, Francis

  Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

  Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

  North, Edward T.

  Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

  Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)

  Nunn, William

  Spencer, Captain Richard A.

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

  O'Connor, Terence James

  Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

  Jamieson, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  O'Donovan, Dr. William James

  Spens, William Patrick

  Jesson, Major Thomas E.

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

  Joel, Dudley J. Barnate

  Ormiston, Thomas

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

  Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

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

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

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

  Orr Ewing, I. L.

  Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

  Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

  Palmer, Francis Noel

  Stones, James

  Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

  Patrick, Colin M.

  Storey, Samuel

  Kerr, Hamilton W.

  Peake, Osbert

  Stourton, Hon. John J.

  Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)

  Pearson, William G.

  Strauss, Edward A.

  Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

  Peat, Charles U.

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Kimball, Lawrence

  Penny, Sir George

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Kirkpatrick, William M.

  Percy, Lord Eustace

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Perkins, Walter R. D.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

  Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

  Peters, Dr. Sidney John

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

  Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

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

  Summersby, Charles H.

  Law, Sir Alfred

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Sutcliffe, Harold

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

  Potter, John

  Tate, Mavis Constance

  Leckie, J. A.

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

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)

  Lees-Jones, John

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Templeton, William P.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Procter, Major Henry Adam

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

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Pybus, Sir John

  Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

  Levy, Thomas

  Radford, E. A.

  Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

  Lewis, Oswald

  Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

  Thompson, Sir Luke

  Liddall, Walter S.

  Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

  Thomson, Sir James D. W.

  Lindsay, Noel Ker

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

  Thorp, Linton Theodore

  Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

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

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

  Ramsbotham, Herwald

  Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

  Llewellin, Major John J.

  Rankin, Robert

  Train, John

  Lloyd, Geoffrey

  Ratcliffe, Arthur

  Tree, Ronald

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

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)

  Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

  Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

  Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)

  Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

  Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

  Loder, Captain J. de Vere

  Reid, William Allan (Derby)

  Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)

  Loftus, Pierce C.

  Remer, John R.

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

  Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

  Renwick, Major Gustav A.

  Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

  Lyons, Abraham Montagu

  Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

  Ward, Sarah Adelside (Cannock)

  Mabane, William

  Rickards, George William

  Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

  300

  301

  Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

  Womersley, Sir Walter

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

  Watt, Major George Steven H.

  Wilis, Wilfrid D.

  Worthington, Sir John

  Wayland, Sir William A.

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

  Wragg, Herbert

  Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Wells, Sydney Richard

  Wise, Alfred R.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

  Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

  Captain Margesson and Mr. Blindell.

  Resolution agreed to.

  CRIMINAL LUNATICS (SCOTLAND) [MONEY].
  Resolution reported,"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the establishment of a criminal lunatic asylum in Scotland, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

  (1) of any expenses incurred in respect of the establishment, maintenance, and management of any criminal lunatic asylum established in Scotland in pursuance of the said Act and of the maintenance and treatment of persons detained therein; and

  (2) of any expenditure incurred by an Advisory Committee appointed in pursuance of the said Act, including
  302
  travelling and other personal expenses incurred by members of the Committee, to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Prisons Department for Scotland with the consent of the Treasury."

  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  CRIMINAL LUNATICS (SCOTLAND) [MONEY].

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

  SAFETY WEEK (SCHOOL CHILDREN).
  SAFETY WEEK (SCHOOL CHILDREN).
  TELEGRAPH POSTS, CLYNNOG.
  TELEGRAPH POSTS, CLYNNOG.
PUBLIC HEALTH.
  VACCINATION.
  VACCINATION.
  TUBERCULOSIS.
  TUBERCULOSIS.
  PUERPERAL FEVER (SERUM).
  PUERPERAL FEVER (SERUM).
  GAS INDUSTRY.
  GAS INDUSTRY.
  DISTRESSED AREAS (SOUTH WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE).
  DISTRESSED AREAS (SOUTH WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE).
  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (SHEFFIELD).
  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (SHEFFIELD).
  ROBBERY AND ASSAULT (CONVICTIONS, SCOTLAND).
  ROBBERY AND ASSAULT (CONVICTIONS, SCOTLAND).
NATIONAL FINANCE.
  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
  CUSTOMS DUTIES (FOODSTUFFS).
  CUSTOMS DUTIES (FOODSTUFFS).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE.
The Right Honourable Charles, Baron Bledisloe, G.C.M.G., K.B.E., having been created Viscount Bledisloe of Lydney in the County of Gloucester—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR.
John Buchan, Esquire, C.H., having been created Baron Tweedsmuir of Elsfield in the County of Oxford—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (SCARBOROUGH) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Gainford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Amendment of s. 38. of 13 & 14 Geo. 5, c. 16]:
LORD GAINFORD: There are three Amendments to this Clause. The first two are only drafting, and the object of
64
the third is to meet the point raised on the Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell. The point which he raised was that though the Bill was an uncontroversial Bill certain fishermen would be deprived of their rights of fishing. I understand that the Amendments, which have been drafted by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, meet the noble Lord's points. All parties are agreed, therefore, and I now beg to move the first two Amendments, which are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Clause 2, page 1, leave out lines 14 to 18 and insert:
("The following amendments shall be made in Section thirty-eight of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1923 (which section specifies the matters which may be provided for by an order made under Section thirty-seven of that Act):
(a) in subsection (1), after paragraph (k), there shall be inserted the following paragraph")
Clause2, page 2, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert:
("(b) at the end of subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following proviso:—").—(Lord Gainford.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved to insert at the end of the clause:
"(c) at the end of the section there shall be added the following subsection:—
'(4) An order under this Part of this Act for the regulation of eel fisheries or elver fisheries in any particular area shall not be made unless that order, or a previous order under this Part of this Act which is for the time being in force, contains provisions for securing that the members of any fishery board established within that area under this Act or under any Act repealed by this Act include one or more persons appointed by the Minister as representing the interests of persons who carry on in that area the business of fishing for eels and elvers otherwise than with rod and line.'"
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 8, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Gainford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: Before the clause passes I should like to thank the noble Lord and Lord Mount

65
Temple for their help in securing the passage of the Bill, and in meeting the point which I raised on the Second Reading.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Certain dealings with sand or ballast to, be by weight or by the cubic yard.
1.—(1) No person shall (whether on his own behalf or on behalf of another person) sell, agree to sell or agree to carry any sand or ballast otherwise than by weight or by the cubic yard:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply in relation to any sale, agreement for the sale, or agreement for the carriage, of a quantity of sand or ballast the weight of which is less than one ton and the volume of which is less than one cubic yard; and any such sale or agreement is hereafter in this Part of this Act referred to as "an exempted sale or agreement."
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR moved, at the beginning of the clause, to insert "Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act." The noble Marquess said: I venture to think that this Amendment is quite necessary on account of the wording of the title, where the word "conveyance" covers everything that is done in this Bill. It appears that no one can convey his own belongings without all sorts of conditions and restrictions, notwithstanding the fact that the things are his, that he has no agreement for sale or conveyance or anything at all, but is merely carting them about his own purposes, to maintain his own property. I think it will be conceded that there are a great many restrictions and conditions already in regard to the use of highways by vehicles, both commercial and private, and that it is undesirable to increase their number.
It is perfectly true that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill—and I have considerable sympathy with him, because he is not a Minister of the Department concerned, but merely represents it in your Lordships' House and therefore he is not exactly responsible for the exact terms of this Bill—has put down two Amendments to Clause 4 with the object of helping people who convey their own sand and ballast otherwise than on a highway. But there are still quite a number of landowners through whose property highways pass. It will therefore follow that they would not be able to convey their sand or ballast either across or along a highway, even if the Amendments of the noble Lord were agreed to. The whole object of my Amendment is to pave the way for the new clause of which I have given notice after Clause 6, and which lays it down, shortly, that owners of sand or ballast who are conveying their sand or ballast for their own purposes, and not by way of trade or sale or agreement, shall not be subject to all the restrictions and pettifogging conditions laid down by this Bill. In these times, when one wants to encourage people to do things for themselves, I do not see why, after paying for their licences and so on, people should not be allowed to carry their own goods on their own land or across a highway which passes through their own land, without being subject to the surveillance or inspection of the local authority inspector, Customs and Excise officers, and the like.
My proposed clause would also cover the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Eltisley, who wishes to exempt drainage boards from the provisions of the Bill. A drainage board must carry about sand or ballast for their business, but when they do carry it about it is their own property. Therefore I say that if my proposed clause is inserted after Clause 6 it would cover the Amendment of Lord Eltisley. I think it ought to cover all sorts of sand and ballast conveyance. Under the Bill, if a county council or a highway authority happens to go through another county, perhaps, or another authority's area, apparently it could not convey its sand or ballast for making roads without being subject to the inspection and surveillance of the neighbouring authority. This Bill may be de-

67
sirable in some respects, but I think it has been drawn up without very much knowledge of the actual use of sand or ballast; and, indeed, that is evident by the enormous number of Amendments which have been put on the Paper by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. In the hope that it may be able to help owners, whether public or private, in the carrying on of what they have been allowed to do in the past without let or hindrance, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, at the beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act ").—(The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair.)
LORD TEMPLEMORE: At the outset I must express my gratitude to my noble friend the noble Marquess for his words of sympathy with me in the conduct of this Bill. Although I may be at a disadvantage in not being Parliamentary Secretary to this Department, and am only answering for it, as it were, in your Lordships' House, I assure your Lordships that I do not stand in any way in a white sheet and apologise for the badness of this Bill. May I say, with all due respect to my noble friend, though I make no complaint whatever, I think his speech was more suitable to some of the Amendments on which he is going to speak later than it was to this particular Amendment. Also he gave what I may call, without disrespect, a kind of dissertation on the evils of this Bill which was hardly suitable, perhaps, to the Committee stage. As regards this particular Amendment, I am afraid I cannot accept it, because the words which are proposed do not affect the sense of the Bill in any way, and are unnecessary. The noble Marquess will, I am sure, agree with me that there are obvious objections to including redundant words in an Act of Parliament. In that case I hope very much that my noble friend will not press his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out the proviso and insert:
"Provided that this subsection shall not apply—

(a) in relation to any sale, agreement for the sale, or agreement for the carriage,
68
of a quantity of sand or ballast, the weight of which is less than one ton and the volume of which is less than one cubic yard (any such sale or agreement being hereafter in this Part of this Act referred to as an 'exempted sale or agreement');

(b) in relation to any sale, or agreement for the sale, of any sand or ballast, being a sale or agreement of which it is a term that the purchaser is to take delivery of the sand or ballast in or from a vessel as defined by Section seven hundred and forty-two of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894; or

(c) in relation to any agreement for the carriage of any sand or ballast, it and in so far as the agreement provides for the carriage of the sand or ballast by water, and is made for the purpose of giving or taking delivery of that sand or ballast in pursuance of such a sale or agreement as is referred to in paragraph (b) of this proviso."

The noble Lord said: This Amendment retains the exception already provided in the Bill for the sale or carriage of small quantities, and adds a further exception which is intended to meet a point raised by Lord Clwyd in the debate on Second Reading. Dock and harbour authorities sometimes buy or sell sand or ballast by the boat-load. In such a case the quantity of the material is not computed by weight or by the cubic yard but by reference to the tonnage of the vessel in which it is loaded or by some other means. It has been represented on behalf of these authorities that it would cause great and unnecessary hardship to be compelled to weigh these large quantities of material or to measure them by the cubic yard. It is possible to exempt water-borne material from the operation of the Bill without interfering with the main purpose of the Bill, which is to regulate dealings on land. The conveyance of sand and ballast by water has not been subject to malpractices such as have occurred on land. Accordingly this Amendment provides that Clause 1 shall not apply to a sale or agreement for sale where the purchaser is to take delivery in or from a vessel, nor to an agreement for carriage by water for the purpose of giving or taking delivery in such a case.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, leave out lines 12 to 18 and insert the said new proviso.—(Lord Templemore.)
LORD CLWYD: I thank the noble Lord in charge of the Bill for the consideration which he has given to the

69
point I raised, and wish to say that the Amendment fully meets the difficulties I had in view.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ELTISLEY LORD ELTISLEY moved to insert at the end of subsection (1):
"Provided that this subsection shall not apply to the carrying of any sand or ballast by a drainage board or by any person on behalf of a drainage board in respect of sand or ballast which is removed or carried for the purposes of disposal only and not for sale."
The noble Lord said: Since I tabled this Amendment an Amendment has been put down by the Minister in charge of the Bill which goes some way, and perhaps the whole way, that I desire to go. My Amendment has beets tabled on behalf of the Catchment Boards Association, who are apprehensive to some extent as to whether they will get full exemption in cases where sand or ballast is being carried, not by themselves necessarily, but by someone whom they employ and by, perhaps, someone whom they actually pay to move that sand or ballast. I think the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, goes a long way to meet that case, and if he could give me an assurance on the point I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 18, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Eltisley.)
LORD TEMPLEMORE: As my noble friend has justly surmised, I am in a most reasonable mood this afternoon. The Government accept the principle of this Amendment, which is to exclude from the Bill contracts for the removal of refuse, and a Government Amendment to add a new subsection (4) has been put down to deal with it. The only difference in substance between the two Amendments is that, whereas Lord Eltisley's deals only with cases of removal on behalf of drainage boards, the Government Amendment deals with all cases. As regards the question my noble friend has asked, whether catchment boards would have full exemption in the case of other people disposing of their sand or gravel whom they have to pay to remove it, I understand they would have exemption in that case. In these circumstances I hope my noble friend will not press his Amendment.
LORD ELTISLEY: In view of that assurance I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD PHILLIMORE: May I ask one question: Does the noble Lord's new Amendment cover the case where a catchment board is moving sand or ballast on to somebody else's property, the consideration being really only that the board was glad to get the leave of the person concerned to have the ballast dumped on his property?
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I am glad to answer my noble friend. I understand that my Amendment is so thorough that it covers that and every other case that could arise.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, after subsection (3), to insert:
"(4) An agreement which, in a case where the owner of any sand or ballast undertakes to transfer the property therein to another person in consideration only of an undertaking by that person to remove the sand or ballast from the place at which the property therein passes to him, is made for the purpose of removing the sand or ballast as aforesaid, shall be deemed for the purposes of till; Part of this Act not to be an agreement for the carriage of that sand or ballast."
The noble Lord said: I now move the Amendment which is to meet the case of my noble friend. I should like to explain it in a few words. It is intended to meet a point which has been raised on behalf of certain dock authorities and catchment boards. It may happen that material such as sand or ashes, which falls within the definition of sand or ballast contained in this Bill, is forming an obstruction on land and someone has to be paid to take it away. It is clearly unnecessary that in such a case the material should be weighed or measured before it is carted away. This Amendment accordingly provides that where the only consideration which the contractor gives, in return for his obtaining possession of the material, is an undertaking to remove it, the contract shall not be deemed to be art agreement for the carriage of the material for the purposes of this Part of the Act. This has the effect of placing such transactions outside the scope of the Bill except in so far as the contractor, if he takes the material along a public highway, will have to provide the carter with a. conveyance note stating that the material is not

71
being conveyed in pursuance of a sale or of an agreement to sell or to carry.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 14, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Receptacles for measuring sand or ballast by the cubic yard]:
LORD TEMPLEMORE: The object of my Amendment to this clause is merely to make good an omission from the original text of the Bill. It is really drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 36, after ("re-verified") insert ("and re-stamped").—(Lord Temple-more.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Restrictions on use of vehicles for conveying sand or ballast.
(2) If any person conveys any sand or ballast in contravention of this section, or causes any sand or ballast to be conveyed in contravention of this section, he shall be guilty of an offence; and if any person, with intent to defraud or deceive

(a) forges any tare weight mark approved for the purposes of this section by the Board of Trade, or

(b) alters or defaces any such tare weight mark placed on a vehicle, or

he shall be guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and such fine.
In this subsection the expression "forges" has the same meaning as in the Forgery Act, 1913.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: The Amendments in my name on this clause are drafting. I beg to move them.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 11, leave out ("in any") and insert ("by means of a").
Page 4, line 12, leave out ("is accurately") and insert ("ascertained in such manner as may be prescribed, is").
Page 4, line 18, leave out ("in any receptacle forming part") and insert ("by means").
Page 4, line 19, after ("receptacle") insert ("in which the sand or ballast it so conveyed").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN THE EARL OF COURTOWN moved, in subsection (1), to leave eat "with intent to defraud or deceive." The noble Earl said: I do not think this is much more than a drafting Amendment. It is to delete the words "with intent to defraud or deceive." I submit that it is really impossible in a weights and measures case to prove intent to deceive, and therefore I hope the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 35, leave out ("with intent to defraud or deceive").—(Earl Courtown.)
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My noble friend says his Amendment is little more than drafting. I am afraid it is a great deal more than that; in fact I am told that if I accepted it I should infringe the Common Law of England. I am afraid, therefore, I cannot accept the Amendment for the reasons I will give. The clause as it stands imposes a fairly heavy penalty on a person who forges, alters or counterfeits a tare weight mark with intent to defraud or deceive. It should be explained that the words "defraud" and "deceive" have different applications: if the forgery or the counterfeit is made in order to mislead a purchaser it may be a case of defrauding, but if it is done in order to mislead an inspector, it can only be a case of deceiving. If these words were omitted a person who quite innocently placed on a vehicle a mark resembling the tare weight mark would be liable to a heavy penalty, even though the vehicle might never be used for carrying sand or ballast. Even if someone else painted the mark on the vehicle without the owner's knowledge, the owner would be liable to a penalty unless he removed the mark immediately. The Amendment would also have the effect that the alteration of a tare weight mark on a vehicle could be punished if it were done to defraud a purchaser, but not if it were done to deceive an inspector.
The clause as drafted follows the wording of the Forgery Act, 1913, and of other Acts which provide for offences of this kind, such as the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and the Improvement of Live Stock (Licensing of Bulls) Act, 1931. Forgery, that is, the imitation of a document or mark, is not a punishable offence under these Acts unless it is done with intent to defraud or deceive. It is an essential element of the offences created by these

73
Acts that there should be an intent to defraud or deceive, and I am informed it would be so serious a departure from the principles of the criminal law relating to this class of offence to omit these elements that it cannot be imagined that this is really the intention of the noble Earl. I hope my noble friend will not press the Amendment.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: I am afraid I cannot follow all the legalities which my noble friend has mentioned, if I may so call them, because I am not a lawyer. If this Amendment is entirely against the Common Law of England I would certainly not press it, but I am not sure that I am perfectly satisfied with the noble Lord's statement. I am advised that the working of the Weights and Measures Act would be made much more difficult by the retention of the words which my Amendment proposed to delete. In view, however, of what the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has said I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Conveyance notes in respect of sand or ballast.
4.—(1) The person in charge of any vehicle which is being used for conveying any sand or ballast—
(a) shall carry with him a note relating to that sand or ballast (hereafter in this Part of this Act referred to as a "conveyance note") in such form as may be prescribed, signed by or on behalf of the appropriate person and stating such matters as are required by this section to be stated in the note,
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "which is." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is intended to meet a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clwyd, and the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen, in the debate on Second Reading. Clause 4 requires that the person in charge of arty vehicle which is being used for conveying any sand or ballast must, except in the case of small quantities, carry a conveyance note. Such a requirement is clearly unnecessary where the material is being carted about a private estate. This Amendment accordingly is proposed with the object of limiting the operation of the clause to cases in which the material is carried on a highway, which
74
I am advised means a public highway. I know that my noble friend Lord Aberdeen objects to a conveyance note having to be carried about in these cases, but I would point out that this Bill interferes less than a great many Bills with people's private arrangements. I think this is practically the only obligation in such cases under the Bill, and it is really inevitable that this safeguard should be included in order to get the proper working of the Bill. I hope that this provision will go some way at all events to meet my noble friend's requirements.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 11, leave out ("which is").—(Lord Templemore.)
LORD CLWYD: I thank the noble Lord for again considering the point that I raised. What he has done is quite satisfactory to me.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: I think this goes some way to meet my views, bob it does not go all the way. Perhaps the noble Lord would say when he moves his later Amendment about the conveyance note whether a more or less formal printed document, which should be of stock pattern, would be sufficient to produce should an owner be carrying his own sand or ballast on the highway, or whether he must have a special conveyance note on each occasion.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: As I am informed, my noble friend need not be afraid. He will not have to have anything like so formal a document as a printed document. I think a mere written note signed by the owner or his agent would be sufficient.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, in subsection (1), immediately preceding paragraph (a), to insert "on a journey any part of which is along a highway." The noble Lord said: This and the following Amendments of mine are intended to deal with the point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Eltisley, and the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen. Where an owner is carting his own material along a public highway it will be necessary for the carter to carry a conveyance note showing that the material is not being conveyed in pursuance of a sale or agreement. This makes it possible for regulations to be made to authorise the use of

75
a single general note in such a case and thus avoid unnecessary trouble. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 12, after ("ballast") insert ("on a journey any part of which is along a highway").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I have already explained the next Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 13 and 14, leave out ("relating to that sand or ballast").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ELTISLEY LORD ELTISLEY moved to insert at the end of subsection (1):
"Provided that where any vehicle is being used for conveying sand or ballast by or en behalf of a drainage board for the purpose of disposal only and not for sale the conveyance note shall be sufficient if it shall state that the vehicle is so employed and shall remain effective until such vehicle shall cease to be so employed."
The noble Lord said: The two Amendments which I have put down are designed to simplify procedure as far as possible. Since they were placed on the Paper the reasonableness of the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, has been again shown by the fact that he has himself put down an Amendment that different forms of conveyance notes may be prescribed in relation to different circumstances. I shall be grateful if the noble Lord could tell us what form the conveyance notes will take, because they might be fairly simple or they might be in a form that would be irritating. If we could have a statement from the noble Lord, it might be that I should not have to press my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 35, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Eltisley.)
LORD TEMPLEMORE: As I have already said, the Government accept this Amendment in principle, and I have put down Amendments, as my noble friend has said. I cannot tell him at the moment exactly what will be the form of the conveyance notes to be used, but I cannot see why they should be particularly irritating.
LORD ELTISLEY: Might the form be settled in consultation with the organisations concerned?
LORD TEMPLEMORE: Most certainly. I will give that undertaking.
LORD ELTISLEY: In that case I will not press my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I have already referred to the next two Amendments on the Paper and I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 5, lines 36 and 37, leave out ("relating to any sand or ballast conveyed in a vehicle").
Page 5, line 38, after ("ballast") insert ("to which the note relates").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: The next Amendment is in connection with the matter of which I spoke just now. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 20, at end insert ("(4) Different forms of conveyance notes may be prescribed in relation to different circumstances").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Inspection, weighing and measuring of sand or ballast and vehicles conveying it.
5.—(1) Any inspector, and any officer of a local authority authorised in that behalf by them in writing, may inspect any vehicle which is being used for conveying any sand or ballast, and may, for the purpose of ascertaining the weight of the sand or ballast and of the vehicle, or the volume of the sand or ballast—

(a) cause the vehicle, as loaded, to be weighed by means of a weighing instrument stamped by an inspector, or cause the vehicle to be unloaded and the vehicle or the sand or ballast or both to be weighed by means of such a weighing instrument as aforesaid, or (as the case may be)

(b) cause the sand or ballast to be levelled in the vehicle, or to be unloaded and measured:

Provided that neither the vehicle nor the sand or ballast shall be required to be moved for a distance of more than one mile for the purpose of being weighed or measured under this subsection.
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "inspect any vehicle which is being used for conveying any sand or ballast, and may, for the purpose of ascertaining the weight of the

77
sand or ballast and of the vehicle, or the volume of the sand or ballast" and insert "so far as it is reasonable so to do for the purpose of giving effect to this Part of this Act, inspect any vehicle which is being used for conveying any sand or ballast, and either." The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the next one on the Paper is designed to meet a point raised in the debate on Second Reading. Clause 5 empowers an inspector of weights and measures to inspect a vehicle used for conveying sand or ballast and check its contents. There is no need for an inspector to exercise this power in a case where the owner is moving his own material since in that case there is no sale or agreement for the sale or carriage of the material. At the same time he must possess a general power which he is able to exercise if he has reasonable grounds for believing that there may be infractions of the Act. Accordingly the Amendment is proposed in order to limit the operation of Clause 5 to cases in which the use of the power of inspection is reasonably required for giving effect to this Part of the Act.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 23, leave out from ("may") to the end of line 26 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 32, leave out ("(as the case may be)"),—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN THE EARL OF COURTOWN moved to leave out the proviso in subsection (1) and insert:
"Provided that if the vehicle or the sand or ballast is required to be moved more than one mile for the purpose of being weighed or measured under this subsection and the weight or measure is found to be in accordance with the weight or measure stated in that behalf by the seller or consignor, the local authority, or the purchaser or consignee, as the case may be, at whose request the requirement is made shall be liable to the payment of all reasonable costs actually incurred in and incidental to the weighing or measuring and such amount in default of agreement may be determined by a single arbitrator agreed upon by the parties."
The noble Earl said: In rural counties the limitation of one mile would render the provisions of the Bill inoperative. The proposed wording will place the matter on a similar footing to the
78
weighing of vehicles under Section 27 of the Road Traffic Act and is, I submit, I reasonable. That section gives the limit of one mile, but gives the authority power to take a vehicle beyond one mile for the purpose of weighing, providing that if no offence is disclosed the owner of the vehicle is compensated for loss of time and inconvenience caused. It is not likely therefore that an inspector will exercise this power and have a. vehicle moved a considerable distance away unless he has very good reason for suspecting that an offence is being committed and has hope of getting a conviction. It would also afford more protection to the person who is most likely to require it, that is, the contractor who suspects that the sand or ballast being delivered to him on a job is short in weight or measure and who calls on the inspector to investigate.
In cases where the delivery is quite likely to take place several miles from the nearest suitable weighing machine it would be contrary to public policy for the inspector to have to admit that he had no power to do anything as the nearest weighing machine was more than a mile away. Where there is definite ground for suspecting that short weight or measure is being given, and the buyer appeals to the authorities for assistance in determining the question, it is detrimental to the credit of the administration when legislation is so framed as to restrict action. The section in the Weights and Measures Act, 1899, which prevents coal, carried in bulk, being taken more than half a mile for the purpose of reweighing operates distinctly to the disadvantage of buyers who live on housing estates in suburban areas or in rural districts. This disability has been manifest in recent years because of the removal of people to the outskirts of towns, and because of the wider distribution of the population it should not be retained in this proposed legislation. Unreasonable use of the facility for securing reweighing or re-measuring will be prevented by the provision that the person requiring the operation of the clause will have to take the risk of a charge for the service and only the fraudulent or careless seller will be penalised thereby. I submit that this is a matter of importance to people living on the outskirts of towns and in rural districts, and I hope to find the noble Lord

79
in a reasonable mood in regard to the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, leave out lines 35 to 38 and insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Courtown.)
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I think I have shown that I am in very reasonable mood, and I am sorry to disappoint the noble Earl. I cannot accept this Amendment, although I should have liked to do so. I will state my reasons for not accepting the Amendment fairly fully, if the noble Lord will allow me. Under Clause 5 as it stands an inspector has power to require a vehicle or its contents to be weighed, but he is not authorised to take the vehicle more than a mile out of its way for this purpose. The noble Earl's Amendment proposes that an inspector should be able to take a vehicle any distance, and if the load were then found to be in order, the local authority, or the person at whose request the vehicle is weighed, would be liable to pay the costs. The loss to the owner of the vehicle, however, might be very much larger than the actual costs incurred, since not only would there be a considerable loss of time, but he might also lose business and good will by reason of the delay. I am informed that the Road Haulage Association, representing the trade interests concerned, is strongly opposed to the Amendment on these grounds. It is true that provision somewhat on the lines of the Amendment already appears in Section 27 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. That section, however, deals with cases of overloading which may be a very serious matter: questions of public interest may be at issue. Any weighing to be done under Clause 5 of the Bill, on the other hand, would be merely to detect cases of underloading; that is, cases in which the amount of material carried was less than the amount shown in the conveyance note. It is, of course, in the interests of the purchaser that short weight should be detected, but a purchaser might not appreciate a safeguard which involved several hours' delay in the delivery of his material. For these reasons I cannot accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR had given Notice of an Amendment after Clause 6, to insert the following new clause:
Saving for conveyance of sand and ballast by owners thereof.
". Nothing in this Act shall apply to the conveyance of sand and ballast by or on behalf of the owner thereof for use for his own purposes and not for the purpose of trade."
The noble Marquess said: I said all I had to say on this Amendment on the first clause. I understand that the noble Lord is not willing to accept it. I still feel that to leave the clause as it is will cause real trouble, but in the circumstance, as he has met several points I raised, I will not move it.
Clause 7:
Commencement and extent of Part I.
7.—(1) This Part of this Act shall come into operation on such day as the Board of Trade may by order appoint.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR moved, in subsection (1), after "day," to insert "not earlier than the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-six." The noble Marquess said: This is a very simple Amendment and I understand that the noble Lord is willing to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 18, after ("day") insert ("not earlier than the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-six").—(The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
Marking of bottles for use as measures.
8. A bottle of the prescribed form and material which is marked in the prescribed manner with—

(a) such marks indicating its capacity when filled to a certain point as may be prescribed, and

(b) such licence mark of uniform design, and such other marks, as may be prescribed,

shall, if the bottle is so marked by the manufacturer thereof under a licence granted to him in pursuance of this Part of this Act, be deemed for the purposes of the Weights and Measures Acts, 1878 to 1926, to be a measure duly verified and stamped under Section twenty-nine of the principal Act, and accordingly those Acts shall apply to the bottle as if the marks placed thereon as aforesaid were a stamp of verification duly affixed under that section.
LORD COZENS-HARDY LORD COZENS-HARDY moved, in paragraph (b), to leave out "licence". The noble Lord said: This is a minor Amendment consequent on the Amendment standing in my name on Clause 15. I thought it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I addressed to the Committee at this stage the very few remarks which I propose to make on the series of Amendments aimed at preventing the Board of Trade from having unrestricted powers to impose conditions on arty subject they please in the licence. For instance, as the Bill now stands they could impose the condition on a licence that It manufacturer should not work more than five days a week, or should not work more than so many hours a day. In fact, if the Government of the clay were in favour of anything of that kind, they could, as the Bill now stands, make it a condition of the licence and there would be no appeal at all against any condition imposed on the licence.
Since putting down the Amendments which stand in my name I have had the advantage of a conversation with the Government's advisers and they agree that the point raised by me is a real one, and that it might not be unreasonable to put some limit on the matters which could be dealt with by the Board of Trade in the conditions of the licence. If the noble Lord can give an assurance that the Government will consider the point and will put down any resulting Amendments at an early moment to give time for consideration before the later stages of the Bill, I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 28, leave out ("licence").—(Lord Cozens-Hardy.)
LORD TEMPLEMORE: As my noble friend has said, he has had the opportunity of consulting with the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade and the officials, and I have had the pleasure of a conversation whir him before we came to the sitting this afternoon. If I may say so at the outset, the noble Lord's premises are perhaps a little far fetched. Like many other people, he always imagines that Government Departments are going to do frightful things. I dare say that some of us have done them at some time of our lives, but on the other hand it is generally found that people are fairly reasonable. The
82
noble Lord's Amendment, however, is one of great substance to which I must give a full answer, and perhaps I may be allowed to consider the Amendments put down by the noble Lord on Clauses 9, 10 and 12, since all these Amendments have a single purpose: that is, to remove from the Bill all provisions relating to the licensing of manufacturers by the Board of Trade.
This licensing is an essential part of the scheme. This scheme will not work unless the manufacturer possesses machinery capable of turning out bottles to such a high degree of accuracy that, if a small percentage of the bottles in each batch are found on testing to be accurate, it is safe to assume that the whole of the bottles in that batch are accurate. Before a manufacturer can properly be allowed to mark bottles under the scheme, the Board of Trade must be satisfied that he actually possesses and is able to operate this kind of machinery. The only practicable way of ensuring this is to provide that the marking of bottles under the scheme shall be subject to a licence which will be renewable from time to time. The noble Lord wanted to know if I would undertake to put down any Amendment at a later stage. With the best will in the world I am afraid I cannot give him that undertaking, but I can tell him that the conditions governing the issue of licences will be set out in the Regulations to be made, and the Regulations will be published in draft and discussed with the manufacturers before they are made. In view of what I have said I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN THE EARL OF COURTOWN moved to leave out all words after "measure," and insert "and may be used or be in possession for use for trade for the purpose of gauging the quantity to be sold therein notwithstanding that it has not been verified and stamped in accordance with the provisions of Section twenty-nine of the principal Act." The noble Earl said: In moving this Amendment I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the position of local authorities under Part II of the Bill; that is the part relating to bottles. It is only of recent years that the practice of selling milk in bottles has been adopted, but it is very largely done at the present

83
time. The present law requires all measures used in the trade to be stamped by an inspector of weights and measures. As was stated in the debate on the Second Reading, during the past seven years or so it has become a trade custom to use receptacles, such as milk bottles, to determine the amount of milk or liquid which is sold in them. At the request of the Board of Trade I understand, no action has been taken by local authorities to enforce the law despite the enormous number of milk bottles so used.
This state of suspension was suggested in order that the parties concerned—namely, the trade, the bottle manufacturers and the Government—could find a satisfactory solution which would be fair all round. Obviously neither the trade nor the bottle manufacturers desire the law as it stands to be put into operation and every bottle used as a measure to be legally stamped. The cost would be enormous and would only lead to an increase in the price of milk, which we all wish to avoid. On the other hand, it is very unsatisfactory from the point of view of local authorities to leave the question as it is, because they are asked to connive at something which in law is wrong and there is no adequate protection of the public as to the quantity of milk which is sold in the bottles.
The solution, I suggest, lies in a sort of halfway house, and suggestions were put up to the Board of Trade some time ago by the Society of Inspectors of Weights and Measures which, to my mind, were fair and reasonable and offered a good way out of the difficulty. The manufacturers have stated over and over again that they can make bottles of greater accuracy than the Board require. Let them, therefore, make their bottles under the suggested licence, but a bottle bearing a licence mark must not be deemed to be a properly-stamped legal measure within the meaning of the principal Act. The proposed Amendment is therefore designed to meet this objection and to provide that a bottle so marked shall only be regarded as a measure for gauging the quantity of milk sold in that bottle, and not used as a measure for measuring anything else to be sold in some other receptacle. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will consider this matter very carefully. If he is not able to accept the Amend
84
ment at this stage, perhaps he will consider it with his advisers with a view to bringing up an Amendment at a later stage, because this is a question which those with whom I have been acting consider very important, and on which they lay great stress.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, leave out lines 34 to 38 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Cozens-Hardy.)
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment, because it is an essential part of the scheme that a dairyman should be able to take a bottle duly marked, fill it up to the mark, and sell it without bothering further about it. So long as there is a provision that the bottle is deemed to be a measure duly verified and stamped he can do this safely; since he will be protected from any possible prosecution for giving short measure by Section 12 (2) of the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, 1926, assuming, of course, that he has acted innocently. On the other hand, a provision that the retailer is to be allowed to use the bottle as a measure although unstamped would do no more than absolve him from a penalty for using an unstamped measure. He would still be responsible for giving accurate measure and could not, for the purpose of pleading in his favour the protection afforded by Section 12 (2), rely upon the fact that he had used a stamped measure or a measure deemed to be such. The risk of inaccurate bottles getting into circulation will be very small indeed, but the protection given by the Statute will be necessary to maintain confidence in the trade.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: I do not quite take it in. My point was that it was all right for a bottle that had been used for measuring milk, for instance, to be used again for milk, but the desire is not to allow a bottle, said to contain a pint of something, to be used as a measure for something else. For instance, a bottle which has contained milk may be filled again with milk, but it should not be used for measuring beer or whisky.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I am afraid I do not quite see the point, but if the noble Earl will allow me I will look into it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Licences to mark bottles.
(4) The Board of Trade may at any time revoke a licence if it is shown to their satisfaction that the holder thereof has contravened or failed to comply with any of the restrictions or conditions prescribed by virtue of this section, or has been convicted of an offence under this Part of this Act.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I am prepared to accept the first three Amendments in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie.
Amendments moved—
Page 9, line 1, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall")
Page 9, line 10, after ("revoked") insert ("or suspended")
Page 9, line 15, after ("revoke") insert ("or suspend").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "it is shown to their satisfaction that the holder thereof has contravened or failed to comply with any of the restrictions or conditions prescribed by virtue of this section, or, "and insert" the holder." The noble Viscount said: Before I come to this Amendment I would like to thank my noble friend for having been so reasonable. With regard to this Amendment, the tendency of Government Departments is to be too bureaucratic. Under this Bill there is no form of appeal whatever from the arbitrary decision of a Minister. I do not think any licence should be revoked except on conviction by a Court, especially where there is no power of appeal. If my noble friend will consider putting in something on Report to provide for an appeal from a Minister I shall be much obliged. Meanwhile, I will move my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 16, leave out from ("if") to ("has") in line 19, and insert;("the holder").—(Viscount Bertie of Theme.)
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment as it stands, but I think I can meet my noble friend. In order to obtain a licence a manufacturer will have to comply with the prescribed conditions. For instance, he must have suitable machinery which will turn out bottles of a high degree of accuracy. If the Amendment were
86
accepted he could cease to comply with the conditions as soon as he got his licence and the Board of Trade would have no power to take the licence away. It will not be sufficient to provide simply for revocation or suspension of the licence on conviction of an offence, because in some cases failure to comply with the conditions will not be an offence for which the manufacturer could be prosecuted; for instance, he could sell his accurate machinery and instal unsuitable machinery instead. If he did that he would not have committed any offence, but clearly he ought not to keep his licence. The Government are, however, prepared to accept the omission of the words "it is shown to their satisfaction that," and if my noble friend will move his Amendment in that form we shall be pleased to accept it.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Even in that case there is no appeal, and I think there ought to be an appeal from a Minister. I will consider the matter between now and Report, and perhaps I may be able to come to terms with my noble friend. Perhaps he will move an Amendment in the form he suggests.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I will move the suggested Amendment myself.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 16, leave out ("it is shown to their satisfaction that").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD COZENS-HARDY LORD COZENS-HARDY had on the Paper an Amendment to leave out Clause 9. The noble Lord said: I do not propose to argue the Amendment in my name, because the noble Lord says he cannot accept my Amendments; but if he can find a way of dealing with the matter perhaps he will be good enough to do so.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: Any Amendments or suggestions put forward by my noble friend or any other member of your Lordships' House will always receive my best consideration.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10.
Inspection of bottles marked under a licence.
10. A bottle marked under a licence shall not be removed from the premises at which

87
it was marked until authority for its removal therefrom has been given by an inspector, and the local authority for an area in which any premises occupied by the holder of a licence are situate shall arrange for an inspector to attend at those premises so often as is reasonably necessary for the purpose of examining and verifying bottles marked thereat and giving, or withholding, such authority as aforesaid.
LORD ELTISLEY LORD ELTISLEY moved to omit all words preceding "the local authority for an area." The noble Lord said: This Amendment, and also my other Amendments to this clause and to Clause 12, more or less hang together. In Part II, which contains "Provisions as to Bottles," the Bill provides that a bottle marked under a licence shall not be removed from the premises at which it was marked until an inspector has authorised its removal. It also provides that the local authority shall arrange for an inspector to attend at those premises as often as is reasonably necessary for the purpose of examining and verifying bottles marked thereat. The Amendments which have been tabled provide for an inspector to visit the premises on which bottles are being made for the purpose of inspecting bottles which have been marked there.
My Amendments do not remove the onus on the manfacturer of ensuring that the bottles contain proper measure. The attitude of the Association of Municipal Corporations, acting in conjunction with the County Councils Association, is that the attendance of the weights and measures inspectors cannot in fact be taken as verifying all the bottles, and that the licensee, that is to say, the manufacturer, who marks the bottles must shoulder the responsibility if the bottles turn out to be wrongly marked and become liable to a fine. He can provide against that contingency by means of insurance. We take the view that the casual inspection and verification of a small percentage of bottles must not be held to exonerate the supplier from giving fair legal measure. We understand that the Board of Trade propose to make regulations to the effect that a small percentage, about two per cent., of the bottles in every batch shall be verified. It is then assumed that the rest of the bottles are correct and have the same capacity and size as those which have been verified. We think that absolution should not be given in this way, but that if a man purchases a
88
bottle of milk or beer the liability for giving full and fair measure should be upon the seller. That is the purpose of these Amendments—to see that the onus of responsibility remains on the manufacturer of the bottles.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 21, leave out from the beginning to ("the") in line 24.—(Lord Eltisley.)
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: Before the Government replies, I should like to support the Amendments standing in the names of Lord Eltisley and myself, because these Amendments are supported by the Association of Municipal Corporations, as well as by the County Councils Association and the Society of Inspectors of Weights and Measures. Tinder the Bill as it stands, it will mean that about six authorities will be charged with the duty of examining and verifying the whole of the output of the glass bottles of this country, which I believe runs into something like thirty-six millions. That would mean also a very considerable increase in the number of inspectors which those particular local authorities would have to appoint, and it would also add very much to the cost; whereas if they were only charged with the duty of going in to inspect—which I suggest might also include testing—they would be able to see whether the conditions of the licence under which the bottles were being manufactured were being carried out, and it could be left to the large body of inspectors to test any particular bottle that they might suspect as having been inaccurately made, or not made under the licence and in accordance with the terms of the licence. I hape therefore that the Government will accept this Amendment.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: It will be convenient to consider the proposed Amendments to Clauses 10, 11 and 12 together, as they appear to be part of a single plan for altering the basis of the scheme provided in the Bill for the marking of bottles. That scheme depends essentially upon the fact that, if a manufacturer is provided with suitable modern machinery and also takes proper precautions in the operation of the machinery, he is able to turn out bottles to a very high degree of accuracy, so that if an inspector can ascertain by a sampling test that a certain percentage of the bottles in a particular batch are, in fact, accurate it

89
is safe to assume that all the bottles in that batch will be accurate. Accordingly, it is contemplated that after a sampling test, for which provision is made in Clause 11, the inspector should have power under Clause 10 to authorise the release of a complete batch of bottles. The effect of the proposed Amendments to Clause 10 is to delete the requirement that the removal of bottles from the manufacturer's works shall be authorised by an inspector. If this precaution is taken out of the scheme the responsibility for ensuring that proper safeguards are applied in all cases will rest solely with the manufacturer; and if, through any failure in these safeguards, some thousands of inaccurate bottles get into circulation, months may elapse before the error is detected and, even then, it will not be possible for the inaccurate bottles to be recalled.
The proposed Amendments to Clause 11 take away the power of the Board of Trade to make regulations as to a sampling test and to fix the fees, and would have the effect that it would rest solely with local authorities to decide how often an inspector should visit works where bottles were being made, and how many bottles he should test. It is possible that in one district an inspector might insist on testing every bottle made, while in another district thousands or millions of milk bottles might be put into circulation without ever being seen by an inspector. Such lack of uniformity in practice would have most unsatisfactory results from every point of view, and particularly from the point of view of the manufacturers. The proposed Amendments to Clause 12 (2) would have the effect of rendering every licensed manufacturer liable to a penalty if any bottle which he issued were found to be inaccurate. It is of course true that, by the use of proper machinery and by taking proper precautions, a manufacturer can be reasonably certain that all the bottles he issues will be accurate and can make the risk of an inaccurate bottle being sent out a very small risk. He cannot, however, eliminate this risk entirely, except by testing every bottle separately. I am informed that the glass manufacturers are strongly opposed to these Amendments and that the manufacturers would find great difficulty in working the scheme if the Amendments were
90
adopted. I cannot accept this Amendment, and I hope my noble friend will not press it.
LORD PHILLIMORE: This seems to me a point of very considerable importance. May I ask on whom the onus will lie if a bottle is found being used in retail sale so constructed as to contain short measure? Will there be no redress for the consumer against anybody at all? Or will there merely be blame attached to the inspector who passed the bottle inadvertently at the factory? Is that the correct picture, because, if so, it seems to me to be quite contrary to the usual practice of commerce and to be giving away a very valuable safeguard for the common people.
LORD ADDINGTON: May I ask how large the batches of bottles will be before an inspector passes them? Will it be every day, or every week, or every fortnight that the manufacturer will be able to send them out?
LORD TEMPLEMORE: That is obviously a question I cannot answer at the moment. It presumably will depend fin his activity and upon the other duties that the inspector has to perform.
LORD ELTISLEY: I hope the noble Lord will see his way to accept the Amendment. He has told us that the machines which make these bottles work with extraordinary accuracy, and there is very little chance of the bottles being wrongly made. At the same time there may be some temptation to make the bottles a wrong size. But be that as it may, I feel that the consumer's interest is the major interest rather than the interest of the manufacturer.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: Might I add one word to urge this very strongly. I do not think it is fair either to the local authority or to the inspectors. I believe the Board of Trade suggest making regulations under which 2 per cent. of the output of these factories will be examined and verified. Even though 2 per cent. may run into very large figures, I suggest that an individual inspector who has examined so small a proportion should not be made responsible for the output of the whole factory. We have heard that these factories can turn out these bottles so accurately that

91
if one batch is practically correct all the rest will be the same. But, even so, it will be possible for slips to be made, and it would be absolutely impossible for any inspector to inspect so small a quantity as 2 per cent. and be thoroughly satisfied that the output of that factory is as it should be.
LORD MARLEY: I think this is a very difficult point, and I cannot help thinking that the guiding principle in these Amendments should be the interests of the consumer, and the consumer ought somehow to have a remedy when he buys milk in a marked bottle which has by any chance been wrongly marked. It might be wrongly marked through a certain local authority appointing too few inspectors and bottles being emitted from a machine either fraudulently or of too small a size, and those bottles could never be traced. They would be measured bottles in circulation among millions of people, and constantly giving a wrong measure. On the other hand, you might equally have the case of a fraudulent inspector, a bribed inspector, who, by reason of a bribe, would pass millions of bottles which should not be passed and that would be equally damaging to the consumer. The point I want to ask the noble Lord to consider is this: whichever decision is reached—and I can see difficulties in both—can it be arranged that, to protect the consumer, every bottle should be marked, not only with a mark showing the size and the contents of the bottle, but with the manufacturer's mark, so that it could be traced back either to the manufacturer, to the machine, to the local authority, or to the inspector of the particular bottle?
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord opposite for his suggestion, and in view of the general sense of the Committee I will undertake to consider this matter before the next stage.
LORD ELTISLEY: I should like to thank the noble Lord, and I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 28, leave out ("verifying") and insert ("testing").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Offences
12.—(1) If any person—
(d) knowingly uses, sells, utters, disposes of or exposes for sale—
(iii) any bottle or other vessel which is marked in a manner so closely resembling the prescribed manner as to be calculated to deceive,
that person shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, and the bottle or other vessel, as the case may be, shall be liable to be forfeited:
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, in paragraph (d), to leave out "or." The noble Lord said: This clause makes it an offence to use, sell, etc., certain bottles which are improperly marked. For the efficient administration of such a provision it is desirable to include the case in which a person has such a bottle in his possession for sale. There is precedent for this in the Merchandise Marks Acts, and my Amendments cover this.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 14, leave out ("or").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 15, after ("sale") insert ("or has in his possession for sale").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My next Amendments are drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 10, line 33, leave out ("or") after ("sale") insert ("or possession for sale").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13:
Commencement and extent of Part II.
13.—(1) This Part of this Act shall come into operation on such day as the Board of Trade may by order appoint.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR moved, in subsection (1), after

93
"day," to insert "not earlier than the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-six." The noble Marquess said: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 2, after ("day") insert the said new words.—(The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair.)
LORD TEMPLEMOBE: I accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Laying of regulations before Parliament.
15. Any regulations made under this Act by the Board of Trade shall, as soon as may be after they are made, be laid before Parliament.
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved to add to the clause: "and if either House of Parliament, within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such regulations are laid before it, resolves that the regulations be annulled, they shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder or to the making of new regulations." The noble Lord said: This is to meet the point raised by the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen. It ensures that the regulations to be made under the Act shall be subject to the control of either House of Parliament. It is in the usual form.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 16, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 [Legal proceedings]:
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: I have not put down an Amendment to this clause, but, I may, I should like to detain your Lordships for a moment or two in order to draw the attention of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to a very important matter, and to suggest to him how the law could be clarified where at present there is confusion. I regret that the Board of Trade have not taken the opportunity of removing the anomalies caused by the words "construed as one" in Section 15 of the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, 1926, which arose after the decision in the well-known
94
case of Hart versus Hudson in 1928. In that case it was held that the many safeguarding and other provisions (such as time limits and serving of notices, etc.), easily carried out in cases relating to short weight or measure in sales of food, were equally applicable to all other offences under the Weights and Measures Act by virtue of the words "to be construed as one" contained in Section 15 of the Sale of Food Act, a point unforeseen by the Board of Trade when the Act was drafted.
This is becoming a serious handicap, and, indeed, may have far-reaching effects which will cripple local authorities in their administration of the whole of the Weights and Measures Acts. Already inspectors are finding grave difficulties in the way, not only in cases of legal proceedings, but in the application of statutory duties which have been disturbed by the effect of the phrase quoted. The Lord Chief Justice, indeed, said in the case of hart versus Hudson:
"This case is a striking example of the difficulties and obscurity which arise from legislation by reference to and incorporation of other Statutes."
And in another case, Phillips versus Parnaby, 1934, which had the effect of applying an Act regulating the sale of food to coal, the Lord Chief Justice said:
"One is tempted to wonder whether, in Section 15 of the Act of 1926, the Legislature was consciously applying the provisions of that Statute to a sale such as at, present."
Definitely the Board of Trade did not intend to narrow the scope and operation of the whole weights and measures administration. The effect of the words "to be construed as one" were not contemplated when the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act was passed. The present Bill affords an opportunity to remove the many anomalies that have arisen already and will prevent others cropping up, the contemplation of which is a cause for grave alarm to the local authorities and their inspectors. I am not a lawyer, and therefore I have hesitated to put down any Amendment, but I suggest to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that he should consider the matter with his advisers with a view to seeing whether it is not possible to bring forward an Amendment at a later stage to clear up the position.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I had no notice that my noble friend was going to raise this very technical matter, but I shall consider it before the next stage.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Duties of inspectors]:
LORD TEMPLEMORE: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 30, after ("Act") insert ("or any regulations made under this Act").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Interpretation]:
LORD TEMPLEMORE: These Amendments are all drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 12, line 15, leave out from the second "authority") to the end of line 18 and insert ("for the purposes of the principal Act")
Page 12, line 23, leave out ("stamped")
Page 12, line 25, after ("Act") insert ("and 'stamped' and 're-stamped' shall be construed accordingly").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
LORD GAINFORD: On the Second Reading I ventured to bring to the notice of your Lordships that the Board of Trade had omitted to consult with the various parties concerned. As the result of my protest, the various parties have now been consulted, and they desire to thank the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, and the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade for the way in which they have met them. The delays which have occurred in your Lordships' House to-day entirely arose because the parties were not consulted before the Bill was introduced.

FINANCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I think I shall be
96
probably meeting the convenience of your Lordships if I reduce my remarks on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill to the shortest possible measure. Last year I stated that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had decided to use his surplus in a reduction of the standard rate of Income Tax, believing that in that way he would best stimulate trade. Has he been justified? I think your Lordships will all agree that railway traffics, bank clearings, and retail trade have all shown a steady rise, so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right in the action that he took.
My noble friend Lord Arnold, who always positively revels in becoming a Jeremiah on these occasions, read us a whole chapter of the Book of Lamentations on the effect of the Budget of last year, how it was going to benefit only the large taxpayer, and would not help the small taxpayer at all. I do not know what is the level above which Lord Arnold considers a man to be a rich taxpayer. I suppose that a man with an income of £500 is not rich, but there are only one million taxpayers with £500 income and upwards, and something like 90,000 taxpayers pay 60 per cent. of the direct taxes which are raised by the whole community. That being the case, I think Lord Arnold must be given some figures to digest. Eighty thousand tons more sugar were consumed in 1934 than in 1933—a very large consumption for 90,000 rich taxpayers; 6,500,000 lbs. more of tobacco was smoked, 270,000,000 more pints of beer were drunk, and 700,000,000 more cups of tea were consumed—a very large consumption for the rich taxpayer. In other directions, too, it is obvious that the prosperity of the country of all classes, and not of the rich taxpayers only, has been going up during the past twelve months.
This year, I suppose, my noble friend will complain that the small taxpayer alone has been selected for the benefits of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he will see when he looks at the Budget, as I know he has done, that the proposals of my right honourable friend bring relief principally to the small taxpayer. Once again the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been following the rule of restoring the cuts which were imposed in 1931, and so reliefs have gone to places where they did not go last year. These

97
alterations, contained in Clauses 19 to 22, are four in number. First, there is a reduction from one-half to one-third in the standard rate of tax on taxable incomes below £135; and this relief affects some two and a quarter million taxpayers, or seventy per tent. of the whole body of Income Tax payers. Secondly, there is an increase in the personal allowance for married men. Thirdly, there is an increase in allowance for the second and additional children. Fourthly, there is an exemption limit of £125 for all incomes and not only a limit of £125 for earned income. The cost of these concessions is £4,500,000 this year and £10,000,000 in a full year. I do not suggest that these proposals put the taxpayer back into exactly the same position that he occupied prior to the second Budget in 1931. That Budget of 1931 increased the earned income allowance from one-sixth to one-fifth, and that concession is retained. While, therefore, perhaps my noble friend may attack me for the fact that the personal allowances for single and married men under these proposals are not as good as they were in 1930, he must also take into consideration that the earned income allowance is now higher than it was at that Gate, and that the charge on the first Mice of a taxpayer's income is now to be lower.
Another considerable benefit to a very large number of people occurs in the Budget, and that is the restoration of the remainder of the cuts imposed in 1931. That will affect no less than 1,200,000 persons. Then there is the removal of the Entertainment Tax on cheaper seats, which will also benefit perhaps the less prosperous individual. On the other side, there is an increased tax on heavy oils, and that was attacked in a good many directions in another place. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, pointed out that the efficiency of the Diesel engine is such that if he had intended to place an equal tax on Diesel engines to that which existed on petrol engines, the tax, instead of being 8d. to the gallon should have been 1s. 2d., so that the Diesel engine still gets a considerable benefit, and that will encourage inventors to go on improving the Diesel engines as they have been doing during the past few years. One other point was raised in criticism, and that
98
was what was called the raid on the Road Fund, by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes over £4,470,000 from the Road Fund, and uses it for the purposes of general revenue. That, of course, was merely the balance of a payment of £7,210,000, which was advanced by the Treasury in the years 1931 and 1932.
I am not going to claim that the country has completely emerged from its difficulties. I can, however, claim that the Government have restored a feeling of security to this country which was sadly lacking four years ago, and which is still, indeed, the state in too many countries in the world. Until those other countries also succeed in balancing their Budgets, and in achieving stability, we cannot hope for a. full return of prosperity in the United Kingdom. But, at any rate, that we are on the right road is proved by the numerous signs of prosperity to which I referred a few moments ago. As trade increases—and the Chancellor of the Exchequer remarked last week that our exports for the first five months of this year are up by no less than £10,000,000 over the same period of last year—we may hope that more of our people may be restored to industry and the numbers of the unemployed be still further reduced. We only regret that we are not to-day just below the two million mark instead of just above it, and we hope, whatever Party we may belong to, that we may make a very big hole in that far too high figure. This Budget has been described as an Election Budget, I suppose because it is popular. It is not an Election Budget; but it is the fruits of sound finance and of good government, backed, as it has been, by the patience, the wisdom and the sound common sense of the people. That being so, I believe that your Lordships will welcome the Finance Bill, and I beg to move that it be given a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, the noble Earl in moving the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, has made, as he always does, a speech of commendable brevity, and I will endeavour to emulate his example, because I know your Lordships are wishful to proceed with the discussion on the Government of India Bill. And indeed, my task this afternoon is

99
rendered comparatively easy in that direction, because I will say this to the noble Earl. Having had some experience of Budgets, I do not think I can recall one which, on the whole, was less controversial than the present one. I do not propose to go into the very interesting, though comparatively minute, points about remissions of Income Tax and so forth. The Budget, though it is not controversial, is not, however, as the noble Earl might seem to suggest, a perfect one. There are certain things that can be said about it. In the course of his con-chiding observations he referred to the fact that we, in this country, had balanced our Budget, and that many other countries had not balanced their Budgets. I feel obliged, in the interests of financial truth, to point out that, strictly speaking, this Budget is not balanced. The reason for that is that there is no Sinking Fund. The Sinking Fund has been suspended. I am not saying there ought to be a Sinking Fund; at this particular moment I think there is a great deal to be said for there being no Sinking Fund, but the fact remains that there is no Sinking Fund. When there is no Sinking Fund it is not in accordance with the most meticulous fiscal truth to regard the Budget as balanced. That is the first point I make. I do not say it is one of the most important, but I think attention should be called to it.
The noble Earl dealt with the question of remissions of taxation and suggested that last year I was full of woeful foreboding in regard to the reduction of the Income Tax. I do not remember that I indulged in any very lugubrious prognostications about that. Having looked at the Report of my speech while the noble Earl was making his observations I cannot see that I said anything of the kind. What I did say was that in their remissions the Government had given back to the wealthier classes—by those I mean people with incomes beginning at £800 and including all Super-Tax payers—more than they had given back to those with incomes below £800. As a matter of fact on incomes over that figure of £800 relief has been 38 per cent. of the burden, while in regard to incomes below £800 the relief has been somewhere about 16 per cent.
100
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the Third Reading of this Bill in another place, said he had very nearly accomplished his ambition and that he had very nearly removed the burdens which were imposed in 1931. I do not think that that statement will bear very close examination. The remissions of taxes made by the Government, to which the Prime Minister, Mr. Stanley Baldwin, quite naturally called attention, amount to £60,000,000, but in 1931 the taxes imposed amounted to £81,000,000 and next year they were brought up to £85,000,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Baldwin did not, however, in any way refer to the fact that the Government had imposed tariff duties amounting to about £35,000,000, and they bring up the total to roughly £120,000,000. I am not going into the controversy about tariffs, although it is a very tempting theme, but I do not think it will be argued by any one that tariffs are not a burden on anybody. Taking the total at £120,000,000 it means that roughly half the taxation has been removed. I leave it there.
The next point to which I want to refer is that of the Death Duties. I have frequently called attention to the fact that the Death Duties are underestimated year by year, and the same thing happened last year. In the last Budget they were under-estimated by no less than £5,356,000. I have dealt with that before and I have given one reason why I think it happens, but unfortunately no change is made in the estimate. We are very proud of the way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his advisers estimate the yield of the Income Tax but unfortunately they are not equally successful when they are dealing with the yield of the Death Duties.
Before I leave this subject I should like to refer to a. controversy which was waged in The Times newspaper about two months ago. This is not a matter in which I blame the Government. It is even conceivable that what I say may have some modest usefulness for the Government. If that is so, it will make me very happy because I always like to be of assistance. The Times raised the old idea that the country was living on its capital. I think an analysis of the position will show that that statement cannot be sustained. When people say

101
that because of the Death Duties this country is living on capital and because of the Death Duties the capital of the country is on balance being reduced, that is not true. The fact is that the capital of the country is being increased almost every year because annual savings, after all taxes and Death Duties have been paid, amount to a considerable sum practically every year. Seven or eight years ago the Colwyn Committee estimated them, at between £400,000,000 and £500,000,000, and I should think that in 1928–29 the figure was more than that. Probably in 1932, in the middle of the economic crisis, there may have been no savings at all, but last year it was estimated that there were about £200,000,000. I dare say that really they were rather more. In any case they amount to something substantial after all Death Duties have been paid. Therefore it is not true to suggest that on account of the Death Duties this country is living on its capital, because year by year the capital of the country is increasing on balance.
There is one further point I should like to make in this connection, and that is to call attention to the fact that unfortunately in this country there is a great dearth of official statistics. I have said that it is believed that savings last year were about £200,000,000, but I do not know, and nobody knows, because there is no official estimate. Neither is there any official estimate of the national income, though we have sometimes got some help in that matter from the census of production. There is no official estimate either of the national capital. I should like to suggest to the noble Earl that he should take this matter into consideration and put before his colleagues the desirability of setting up a Committee to consider the whole question of official statistics. In most big countries they have official statistics—I do not say they are always reliable—and if we could have more statistics in this country they would be very useful.
When I was in office, I was asking for statistics from time to time and my requests were received with blank amazement. I might have been asking for information about the indivisibility of the atom or something like that. What happened was that I had to go to my old friend Sir Josiah Stamp and ask him what was the reply to my conundrum.
102
The good nature of Sir Josiah Stamp and his statistical knowledge are almost unlimited, but I think the Government Departments ought to have statistics of their own and that if a Committee could be set up to look into the matter a great service would be rendered. I should have liked to deal with the question of expenditure now in relation to expenditure in pre-War years, because I think there is a large amount of misconception abroad when it is suggested that expenditure has increased three or four times. I feel sure that a true analysis of the position would show that no such statement as that can possibly be sustained. However, I do not wish to detain your Lordships longer, because, as I sense the House, your Lordships are anxious to get on with the Government of India Bill.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I shall be very brief in answering the points raised by the noble Lord. I am grateful to him for saying that it is a much less controversial Budget than some which have preceded it. I thought that probably lie would find it difficult to criticise it severely. He did refer to one point with regard to the Sinking Fund. The Chancellor of the Exchequer justified making no express provision for the Sinking Fund on the ground that there was in fact a redemption of debt last year of £20,000,000 and if, as is in fact proving to be the case, interest an Treasury Bills remained at anything like its then level, there would be something available for dent redemption out of revenue this year. At the present moment the rate for Treasury Bills is in fact much the same as last year, so that there would seem to be ample ground for thinking that we shall be able to repay debt out of revenue without actually having a Sinking Fund. The noble Lord said again that we had underestimated Death Duties. I was prepared for that charge because he has made it before. I would point out to him that in 1931–32 there was a deficit in Death Duty revenue of £18,000,000. In 1932 there was a surplus of over £1,000,000; in 1933 a surplus, and in 1934–35 a surplus.
LORD ARNOLD: The noble Earl is always very courteous and perhaps he will allow me to make myself quite clear. Everyone knows that in 1932 there was a deficit, but in practically every year since

103
the War, with that one exception, there has been an underestimate.
EARL STANHOPE: That is true, but I think it should be pointed out that this year there is an estimate of a further £4,000,000. The noble Lord will recognise, of course, that provision for Death Duties must inevitably be a gamble because, while it is comparatively easy to make an estimate of Income Tax, that is not so with Death Duties, which not only depend on mortality statistics but, on whether people who die are those with large estates instead of those with small ones. There is also this point to be borne in mind, that if there is an underestimate things turn out more satisfactorily for the revenue, while if there is an over estimate there might be a deficit which is so serious for the country as a whole. He remarked that Death Duties did not reduce the capital of the country. It is quite true that the capital of the country appears to be increasing, but I think he will agree that if Death Duties were not levied on the scale that they are savings would be thereby increased and the capital of the country would increase more rapidly than it does with Death Duties at their present level.
As to the cuts not having been entirely restored, it is true that the amount raised by direct taxation is higher than that raised prior to 1931, but that is being raised on Surtax payers and large estates by Death Duties. I was glad to hear that the noble Lord relies for statistics on Sir Josiah Stamp. It would appear that the capitalist is still of considerable value, and that, even when we come to the Socialistic State, we shall have to keep people like Sir Josiah Stamp, with all their knowledge, all their experience and all their value to the country, if we are to get the statistics that we want. I will certainly consider suggesting to my right honourable friend that he should set up a Committee to go into the question of statistics. Whether it would be a popular move is another matter, because most of us find that we fill in returns more often than we care to, and if we are going to be asked to send in returns on Heaven knows how many other questions, I think we shall feel that we are being overwhelmed with statistics and shall be glad to be without them.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: My Lords, before the Lord Chancellor puts the Question, might I ask the Leader of the House one question? I should like to ask him what principle the Government follow in putting down business in your Lordships' House. We have before us a very important Indian Bill in the Committee stage, and it seems to some of us that it is difficult to follow the continuity of that Bill when contentious business is put down in the House in advance of it. I should like to ask the noble Marquess what principles have been followed in putting down business before the consideration of the India Bill in Committee, and what it is proposed to do in the future.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I think that the proper time for the noble Lord to ask me this question is on the adjournment of the House at some time, when I have the opportunity of informing your Lordships of the business of the House. We are now in process of negativing the Committee stage of the Finance Bill and I do not know, but I think that even within our wide terms of Order it may not be proper for me to reply to the noble Lord now. I shall be very happy to give him an answer to his question on some other occasion; probably on going into Committee on the India Bill, or on the adjournment of the House.
On Question, Committee negatived.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.
Order of the Day for the House again to be put into Committee read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): My Lords, in moving this Motion I should like to say one word with regard to the Amendment which appears in my name in connection with the First Schedule of the Bill. I hope that noble Lords who have now read the Amendment will realise that, important though the proposed change is, it is really quite simple. It involves merely this: that we pass from indirect election to direct election in the case of the Council of State; and that in itself involves only one other alteration

105
of any importance: the consequent alteration that, instead of relying upon the system of proportional representation to secure the proper representation of the different communities, which was the proposal in the Bill, the proportions will now have to be laid down as they have been in other cases. Those are really the only two changes which this Amendment involves. I appreciate, however, the fact that the Notice which I have been able to give of the Amendment has necessarily been very short. That being so, I should like to ask noble Lords and my noble friend the Marquess of Salisbury whether it would suit their convenience if, when we come to the First Schedule, I were to propose that the consideration of the First Schedule be postponed until the conclusion of the consideration of the other Schedules to the Bill. If that met with their convenience we should then, I think, deal with the First Schedule to-morrow instead of to-day. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, as my noble friend has been good enough to mention my name in this connection, all I can say is that, as far as I am concerned, I think his proposal is a very reasonable one. It will be very difficult to enter upon a discussion of the new First Schdule to-day, because it raises very difficult points. I do not desire, of course, to lave the appearance of being very much opposed to this new proposal. That depends upon the tenour of the debate. I have to choose between alternatives none of which seems to me extremely admirable. But I do not of course intend now to discuss the merits of the case. As my noble friend has been good enough to refer to me, I understand his proposal to be a very reasonable one—namely, that we should dispose of the other parts of the Bill and that then we should revert to the new First Schedule. Personally, I am very sanguine as to the amount of time which it will take to finish this Bill. There are one or two important Amendments on fiscal matters which may perhaps be taken to-day; I thought that they might be taken before dinner, but perhaps it is a little difficult to take them then. Afterwards, however, there will be very little left in the Bill except, what is important, the question of direct or indirect election.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I think the noble Marquess will find it difficult, for technical reasons, to take the Sixth Schedule before the First. The two Schedules are to a certain extent interlaced, and if we were to pass the Sixth Schedule before the First, he would find himself landed with certain inconsistencies.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I should like to look into that and let the noble Lord have my opinion before we reach it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 357 agreed to.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD THE EARL OF MANSFIELD moved, after Clause 357, to insert the following new clause:
Provision as to Bills imposing or increasing duties an Imports.
".—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section the Governor-General in the exercise of his functions under the section of this Act of which the marginal note is 'Special provisions as to financial Bills' shall not recommend the introduction or moving of any Bill or amendment making provision for the imposing or increasing of any duty of customs, tax, or import on goods imported into the Federation unless in his discretion he is satisfied that such Bill or amendment makes provision for securing that the duty of customs, tax, or impost for the time being levied on British goods is substantially lower than the duty of customs, tax, or impost for the time being levied on other like goods:
Provided that notwithstanding anything in this section, the Governor-General may recommend the introduction or moving of any such Bill or amendment as aforesaid if in his discretion he is satisfied that such Bill or amendment, if enacted and brought into operation, will not subject British goods in the Federation to less favourable terms generally than the terms to which Indian goods in the United Kingdom are for the time being subject.
(2) In this section the expression 'British goods' means any goods consigned from and in whole or in part produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom; and the expression 'Indian goods' means any goods consigned from and in whole or in part produced or manufactured in the Federation."
The noble Earl said: In rising to move the new clause which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Rankeillour and myself, I respectfully suggest to your Lordships that it would be for your convenience if we considered this proposed new clause and the one that immediately follows it in the name of ray noble friend

107
Lord Islington together, because both deal with the same subject although they approach it from slightly different aspects. Lord Islington has been good enough to inform me that he has no objection to this course. I must apologise to your Lordships for the fact that these proposed new clauses appear in what is not really their proper place in the Bill. That is not the fault of those who put them down; they somewhow seemed to have got mixed up somewhere, but I hope your Lordships will overlook this because, in the event of either of them finding their way into the Bill as a result of our deliberations, it will be easy enough at a later stage to put them in their proper place. There is one other point, and that is that in each of the clauses the term "British" at the present moment is taken only to refer to goods coining from the United Kingdom. Again, should either of these clauses be accepted or passed, we will ask your Lordships at the Report stage to sanction certain Amendments whereby the advantages accruing would be extended to all products produced within the British Empire. It would, of course, be unthinkable that the United Kingdom itself should seek to gain advantages not shared by the rest of our Empire.
The question raised by these two proposed clauses is, I submit, one of the greatest importance. We are told that there are no safeguards with regard to trade which are of very great value, and that we have to trust to the good will of the Indian people. But if no safeguards in regard to trade are any use, neither are safeguards with regard to anything else, and of these safeguards—or so-called safeguards—there are a great many in the Bill. The difference between the two clauses proposed is briefly this, that one would confer a right of Imperial preference, and the other merely the advantages of the most-favoured-nation clause. For myself, I should have thought that as we are giving this new Constitution to India of our own free will, and it is not being extorted from us by force, it would be only reasonable that we should have as a result some form of Imperial preference in India. Of course, we would naturally be prepared to accord a similar favour to India in return, and if such a suggestion does not appeal to your Lordships, I think you would all approve of the prin
108
ciple that it should not be possible for India to put the manufacturers of this country in a worse position, with regard to the entry of goods into India, than the manufacturers of, say, Czechoslovakia or, still more, of Japan.
The Secretary of State, in introducing this measure on the Second Reading, made an almost impassioned appeal to us not to say anything which would hint that we did not trust the Indian people or the Indian political classes. I do not think anybody would say that he distrusted the Indian people, but I am afraid the noble Marquess is asking a little too much when he expects us to have unlimited trust in the Indian political classes, because I cannot feel, and I think few of your Lordships would feel, that the actions of these gentlemen in the past have been of such a character as to make us feel that their actions in the future towards this country are likely to be tinged with gratitude such as we have a right to expect. I do not distrust them because they are Indians, but because they are professional politicians, and I distrust professional politicians wherever I find them, whether among the Communist classes in India, or the trade union circles in this country, or among the occupants of the Front Bench in another place. I look upon them wherever I find them with the most jaundiced suspicion.
All I suggest is that it would be utterly improper for your Lordships to pass this Bill without ensuring that we shall not run the risk of losing more of our trade than we have done already through hostile action, directed from political motives on the part of Indian politicians. It is quite true that they may represent only a minute portion of the Indian people, but it is that minute portion which is likely to have control in India for years to come. It is with this that we have to reckon. There is only one more point to which I would like to refer, and that is to direct your attention to the word "substantially" in the third line from the bottom of this proposed new clause. The reason we do not ask for any fixed preference to be given to British goods is that it would be quite impossible to lay down that any one percentage would be suitable in all cases. Twenty per cent. would be much too low in some cases, and ridiculously high in others. Therefore, it is proposed to leave the exact figure to the discretion

109
of the Governor-General. It is true that that superman has already cast on his shoulders a greater burden than any one man can assume without going insane, but this extra task is so small that I trust it will not be the last straw which will break the camel's back.
Amendment moved—
Page 224, line 20, at end insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
LORD LLOYD: I desire to support this Amendment, and to ask your Lordships, before we go any further with this Bill, to reflect upon how dramatic has been the decline of our trade position in India it a very short time, and to reflect further how urgent is the need of some sort of Amendment such as is proposed. Before the reforms in India, some fifteen years ago, India was our greatest market—some £200,000,000 worth of trade annually with India. We exported, as your Lordships know, mostly Lancashire piece goods and steel goods to India, and we bought an immense volume of India's raw materials in return, and over this vast volume of transactions profitable to both countries the protection of the British Navy was extended, solely at the expense of the British taxpayers. Since the reforms, whereas in 1924 we exported some 1,640,000,000 square yards of piece goods to India, in 1934 that figure had shrunk to about 582,000,000 square yards. In 1924 our total exports were £90,000,000, and in ten years they have fallen to £30,500,000. Such is the terrible and tragic story of the decline of our trade in India, which had been, up to the reforms, constantly and steadily in the ascendant ever since William Leedes mounted the twisted steps of Akbar's throne at Fahtepur Sikri and obtained that permit which was to have such unforeseen and yet colossal results for the benefit of both countries.
Then, as to the causes of the decline. They have been obviously very varied—partly world causes, partly due to Japanese competition, partly clue to the competition of the Bombay and Ahmedabad mills, but very largely due to discriminatory action on the part of political India against our trade. There is plenty of room both for the Lancashire and Indian mills, provided the consumers' interests are consulted, and provided—a very large proviso in this
110
case—not only the interests of the consumer are safeguarded but that the Indian buyer is allowed to buy what he wants, and given due protection against intimidation and boycotting. How significantly in 1923 Sir Charles Innes spoke, in words to this effect: "If the Indian ryot had a vote, he (Sir Charles) would not be proposing to increase the tariff duties."It is essential, if the standards of living in this country are to be maintained—and the standards have been based on East Indian trade—that we should secure, in this Bill, some security for fair trade for British goods in the Indian market. Our claims for this fair play are solid and good. Surely they are these: first, and foremost, that it is due solely to the protection we are affording on the sea routes of the world that Indian exports are able to travel, that it is on our naval protection that they depend; secondly, that we give access to Indian trade, on exactly equal terms to our own, in the vast Crown Colony markets, which we protect and which our energy and our money have developed; and thirdly there is the actual right of partnership which has been laid down by Sir Samuel Hoare when he was Secretary of State as an essential condition of this Bill. There is no partnership if economics are to be excluded and if there is to be discrimination again our trade. Those, to mention only three, are ample reasons for claiming that our trade in India should be secured under this Bill and given, not only equal, but preferential treatment; we have a right to be treated better than foreign countries who discharge none of these duties and give none of these benefits to Indian trade. That case is unanswerable.
Yet right through the process of this Bill the Government have steadily refused to take the steps necessary to give any virtual security, as we think it—or anyhow sufficient security—for fair treatment for our trade. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State's predecessor always justified his refusal either by misquoting the Fiscal Convention, which he always has entirely improperly described as fiscal autonomy—he has always used the argument of the Fiscal Convention of 1919 in support of his view that he is debarred from taking effective

111
steps to protect British traders from the hostile attacks of Indian politicians—or by relying upon the argument that any steps such as we propose would do something to damage the good will which he very strangely believes is going to result from this Bill. I am going to ask the Secretary of State to give us, if he will be so good, a much clearer reply to our question on the Fiscal Convention than that which we have been fortunate enough to obtain so far from the Secretary of State in another place.
May I remind your Lordships what the Fiscal Convention was? It originated, after all, in the India Bill of 1919 and the Simon Commission described it in these words:
"The Secretary of State does not interfere with the enactment of any tariff measure upon which the Government of India and the Indian Legislature are agreed"—
here is the operative part—
"but as a member of His Majesty's Government he cannot divest himself of responsibility for ensuring that no such measure cuts across general Empire policy or is so unfair to any constituent part of the Empire as to bring India into conflict with it."
That would obviously, without any question at all, include the Ottawa policy, which is a preferential policy. Therefore the Secretary of State has the right to interfere: indeed it is his duty according to the Simon Commission's view, if this policy, the present India Bill, should possibly cut across the Ottawa policy.
It goes on to say:
"This responsibility he can, in the last resort, fulfil by exercising his right of advising the Crown to disallow the measure if passed. But in order to avoid such a conflict if possible, he is kept informed … before the Legislature is consulted, and therefore before the Convention operates."
I only read that last passage to show that it is not only apparently his duty to intervene under the Convention where any policy runs athwart of an Empire policy, but it is made very simple without friction for him to do it. It is therefore to be seen that there are three limitations on the grant of fiscal autonomy. The first one is when the Government of India and the Indian Assembly are not in agreement; the second is, if a tariff proposed by them cuts across the general lines of Imperial policy—and I speak with special reference to Ottawa—and the third if any proposal were so unfair to any constituent part of the Empire as to bring India into conflict with it.
112
Over and over again in another place and in the country we have put questions to the Secretary of State, and he has merely ignored our questions, or he has repeated entirely fallaciously that India has been given fiscal autonomy. When the late Secretary of State moved the Second Reading of the Government of India Bill on February 6 he said:
"Our intention is substantially to continue the same fiscal autonomy that has existed in India for the last fourteen years …"
And he was corrected. The Simon Commission's Report was put before him. My right honourable friend Mr. Churchill, on the Second Reading in another place, made a very clear statement about it in the following very important passage. Referring to another member of Parliament he said:
"He asked me whether we who constitute the Conservative Opposition adhere to the so-called Fiscal Convention of 1919. I do. But"—
Mr. Churchill said, and said for all of us—
"I place a very different interpretation on it from that of the Government spokesmen. The Fiscal Convention of 1919 is not a Convention in the sense of being a treaty. It is a unilateral declaration of policy. It does not confer fiscal autonomy upon India or upon the Government of India. It does not transfer British sovereignty to an independent external body. The Government of India is not an independent body, it is a projection, to a very large extent, of the Government of Great Britain. It is open to the Secretary of State to address, and if necessary, to instruct the Viceroy and through him the Government … To say that we have transferred fiscal sovereignty, that India has complete fiscal autonomy, is not warranted either by the letter or by the spirit of the so-called Convention."
The only Minister, Mr. Baldwin, who immediately followed Mr. Churchill, made no reference to, and no denial of that doctrine. I want to ask the Secretary of State whether he supports or does not support Sir Samuel Hoare's contention that India has been given fiscal autonomy, and I hope he will make his position quite clear on that point. It is enormously important, because if fiscal autonomy has been given to India, then we have lost all power in the future of giving any protection to British trade, and we have been grossly misled all these years upon the matter.
At the Ottawa Conference India became a party to the principle of Imperial preference. We are told by

113
the Government to rely upon the good will of political India in the future for security to our trade. At Ottawa Indian politicians who took part pledged India to the principle of Imperial preference, and the Legislative Assembly only on January 30 last passed a Resolution by a large majority denouncing it. Where is the security for our trade there, or the good will that is supposed to flow? On April 28, the Punjab Trades Association passed a resolution not only to promote Swadeshi industries—it would be perfectly natural that they should try to do all they could for their own industry—but they went on to urge that trade should preferentially be done, when dealing in foreign goods, in non-British goods! Is there no reason for us to ask your Lordships to see, in the interests of the distressed areas up North, with two million people still out of employment, that some definite security should be given that our trade be treated a trifle better than foreign trade? Again, the Bombay Merchants Chamber—that is a very important Chamber. It contains merchants and traders of the highest standing in India, and certainly of the greatest stability. They are not just a noisy crowd of unimportant people; they are responsible people. Over and over again they have passed resolutions aid made statements of great hostility to British trade.
In these circumstances I beg your Lordships to consider whether it is not of vital importance that we should do something to secure fair play for our own traders. Just think of the vast markets which we give for nothing to Indian trade. Every Crown Colony—free entry into these markets. They do not pay a penny; we pay; and yet in the Bill there is nothing whatever to secure for our people better treatment than foreign countries receive. We are told that we have to rely on political good will; that good will is the first essential of mutual trading between two countries. I ask forgiveness for repeating myself, for I have said the same thing in the House before, but good is not the first essential of mutual trading. Purchasing power is the first essential of mutual trading. Therefore we need to look into this Bill to see whether the purchasing power of the people of India is likely to be increased or decreased.
114
I have a quotation which I should like to read from Mr. H. P. Mody, author of the recent agreement between Lancashire and India. Speaking on April 20 Mr. Mody said:
"It is true that India's credit stands high and her budgetary position is better than that of most countries in the world. But the limit of taxation in this country has been reached, and it is almost impossible to find additional sources of revenue for financing the numerous developments which require to be undertaken if India is to find a worthy place among the nations of the world. This does not take into any account the seriousness of the agricultural situation in the country and the difficulties in which Indian trade and industries are finding themselves as a result of the numerous restrictions on international trade. It would be foolish—"
Mr. Mody concluded—
"to sound a note of alarm; but the situation is developing in such a manner that there is every likelihood of the Socialist element in the country sweeping aside Right Wing Congressmen and acquiring dominance everywhere. The Indian arena will be occupied in the next few years with a conflict between the town and the countryside, between the forces of Socialism and of Capitalism. A substantial world-recovery may avert such a catastrophic development, but the future at best is very uncertain."
That is one of the leading industrialists and traders in India. There is not a member of your Lordships' House who would not agree—I am sure my noble friend the Secretary of State would be the first to agree—that the proposals for which he is making himself responsible are more than likely, for many years to come, to reduce administrative efficiency and probably the purchasing power of India. If that be true we have to think very carefully as to what we should put into this Bill to secure our trade. Sir Austen Chamberlain fifteen years ago was using just the same arguments as are put forward to us now. My noble friend Lord Derby will remember perfectly well that Lancashire was bidden by Sir Austen Chamberlain, then Secretary of State, not to protest against a 4 per cent. tariff because, he was told, if they did not they would earn Indian good will and all that flowed from it in the interests of trade. What has been the result? Four per cent has gone up to 14 per cent. and 25 per cent. in some cases, and on some goods to 10 per cent.
I cannot see what possible objection can be raised by the Government to the principles of Ottawa, all principles

115
announced by the Government, to giving some measure of protection for fair trading between this country and India. Least of all people in this House do I desire anything which will destroy the welfare of the Bombay mills, in whose growth and industry I have taken a personal interest for many years past. There is plenty of room for both. What I am asking your Lordships to agree to is that we should have some measure of protection against the Nationalist bitterness that is likely to be found in Congress politics for some years to come if this Bill is passed into law. We hope that time will assuage it, but it is more than likely that British trade will suffer so grievously in the first ten or twenty years of the reforms that it is absolutely imperative to do something to protect our people.
LORD STRABOLGI: This is a very large subject, and a few words are called for from this side of the House on behalf of my noble friends. Your Lordships have listened to a very powerful plea both from the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat and from the noble Earl who moved this Amendment. I will, if I may, sum up our point of view in a very few sentences. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, spoke of the two requisites of trade. He left out a third. As he was speaking I put down what I think your Lordships will agree are the three conditions on which we can trade with India or any other country. No number of Amendments, no amount of safeguards or Government checks or vetos will enable us to trade unless these three conditions are fulfilled. Two of them have been mentioned by the noble Lord. In the first place the goods that we offer must be suitable and cheap; and by cheap I mean cheap in respect of quality, not necessarily that they should be shoddy: and that, as regards textiles, depends on Lancashire herself. The second necessity of trade in any country is good will. The boycott weapon to-day has been so developed in various countries that it will defeat any political or artificial preference that is given. The third condition is ability to purchase.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, doubts whether this Bill will produce good will. We on this side have our doubts too, but whereas he goes rather further than doubt—he is sure it will not—we on this side hope that it will. We feel that any
116
artificial restriction as proposed by the noble Earl in his Amendment will weaken still further the chances of that good will which is so precious for the future. With regard to ability to purchase, that we hope will in future be allowed to be a matter for Indians and Indian economists to bring about themselves. The whole economic system in India needs reorganising. I might remind your Lordships of one remark made by the late Lord Ampthill, in the very powerful speech which he made on the Second Reading of this Bill, when he said that the problem in India is more economic than political. When we talk of Indian boycotts and Indian ill will and artificial restrictions, we must look to our own example. We have not set a very good example in the Empire recently. I ask the noble Lord and others who support him to reflect on what we have done with regard to Ireland. We have put on trade barriers against Ireland. We have tried for political reasons to ruin her principal industry, her stock-raising industry, in a way that has not escaped notice in India. I only mention that in passing. We cannot blame the Indians for regarding our action against Ireland although I admit that they began the discrimination against our goods during the boycott period. We cannot blame the Indians in the future if we ourselves do not behave with the most perfect propriety with regard to Empire trade. These are the views of my noble friends, and in a controversy of this great and vital importance I feel that they should be expressed.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I would like, first of all, to express my gratitude to the noble Earl who moved this Amendment for clearing up what I admit was to me a great puzzle—namely, why in the midst of clauses dealing exclusively with Burma I should suddenly stumble across a most important Amendment not referring to Burma at all but referring to the Federation of India. The noble Earl has explained how that point arose. He said that the Amendments got somehow mixed up, and that this one got into its wrong place. I can quite understand that in a Bill of this kind, with the large number of Amendments with which noble Lords have been dealing, that might easily happen. I would also like to express my

117
gratitude to the noble Lord for excluding me, if I understood him rightly, by a process of elimination, from that class of person which excites the noble Earl's particular animosity—namely, the professional politician, and my noble friends behind me also. I am duly grateful to the noble Lord for that.
The Amendment which the noble Lord has moved, at first sight, is one of great attraction. It seems to be a very attractive thing to do to lay down in a Statute governing the Constitution of India that India shall provide a preference in her markets for British goods, but, though that is a very attractive proposition at first sight, I am quite sure that it would be an extraordinarily unwise proposition if it was actually acted upon. Let me first of all say a word about the Indian Customs tariffs. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, unless I misunderstood him, talked as though the Indian Customs tariffs were imposing upon British goods Customs duties at least as high as those imposed upon the goods from other countries. That is by no deans the case. At present the preferences granted by the Indian Customs tariffs to the goods of this country are considerable, and I think in the very case of cotton goods, which naturally are uppermost in the minds of noble Lords, because we all regret so much that period of economic depression through which the industries of Lancashire have been passing—even in the case of cotton goods I believe it is broadly true to say—I have not verified the figures—that whereas the import duties imposed upon British cotton goods going into India are at the rate of twenty-five per cent.—a high duty certainly—the rates of Customs duties imposed upon cotton goods coming from other countries is at least fifty per cent., so that under the Indian tariff at the present time British cotton goods are enjoying a very substantial preference in the Indian market. Let me also point out that the height of the Indian Customs duties is not really mainly due to a protective policy on the part of the Indian Government. It is perfectly well known that these Customs duties have had to be raised steadily year by year during the past few years, not for the purpose of granting protection in India but for the purpose of raising the necessary revenue to enable the Indian Government to balance the Indian Budget, and
118
that should also be borne in mind when you are considering these matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, asked me a question with regard to what is known as the Fiscal Convention. The noble Lord reminded us that this Fiscal Convention had its origin in the 1919 Act. That, of course, is true. But let me remind your Lordships that under this Convention, when the Government of India and the Indian Legislature are in agreement on tariff questions, the Secretary of State does not interfere. Let me also remind your Lordships that that Convention had its origin from a British Parliamentary Committee itself. It was a proposal by the British Parliament. Let me refer the noble Lord to the actual origin of the Fiscal Convention. It was put forward by the Joint Select Committee, not the Joint Select Committee over which my noble friend Lord Linlithgow presided so ably last year, but the Joint Select Committee which dealt with the India Bill of 1919. Let me read to the noble Lord a few words of what that Parliamentary Committee said. They said that they had been giving careful consideration to the whole question of what should be the future relations between the Secretary of State in this country and the Government of India under the Constitution which they were then proposing to set up.
They went on to say this:
"This examination"—
the examination of the question to which I have referred—
"of the general proposition leads inevitably to the consideration of one special case of non-intervention."
Non-intervention, that is to say, by the Secretary of State.
"Nothing is more likely to endanger the good relations between India and Great Britain than a belief that India's fiscal policy is dictated from Whitehall in the interests of the trade of Great Britain. That such a belief exists at the moment there can be no doubt."
That was in 1919.
"That there ought to be no room for it in the future is equally clear. India's position in the Imperial Conference opened the door to negotiation between India and the rest of the Empire, but negotiation without power to legislate is likely to remain ineffective. A satisfactory solution of the question can only be guaranteed by the grant of liberty to the Government of India to devise those tariff arrangements which seem best fitted to India's needs as an integral portion of the British Empire."

119
I should have thought that those words were pretty clear.
LORD ISLINGTON: May I intervene for a moment? That was not in the Act. That was a Report of the Joint Committee. It had no validity nor legality.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: Quite so. I do not quarrel with the noble Lord. All I was saying was that the origin of the Fiscal Convention came from a Parliamentary Committee in this country. That was the recommendation made by a Parliamentary Committee. And not only was that recommendation made, but it was accepted, and that has been the policy with regard to India ever since. And I can tell the noble Lord this, that there is not a single occasion on which the Secretary of State has ever intervened since the Report of that Committee to overrule the Government of India on a question of this kind.
LORD ISLINGTON: I do not want to interrupt my noble friend again, but it was the Report of a Commission which had no more validity than the Report of the Simon Commission or any other Commission. It is not an Act of Parliament. Therefore the Secretaries of State who have worked on that have worked really ultra vires.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I really think the noble Lord must have missed my point, but I will not weary your Lordships by repeating it. I have said it twice and I do not think it is necessary that I should say it a third time. Let me say, however, that it has been the policy of this country for the last sixteen years, or whatever number of years it is, and it is the policy of this Bill to continue, not by means of a Convention because a Convention will no longer be necessary, but to continue under the Constitution which this Bill proposes to confer upon India the policy embodied in the Convention—namely, that India shall be free to arrange her tariff policy to suit her own needs.
It is quite true that as a result of the Report of the more recent Joint Select Committee which sat in connection with the Bill now before your Lordships one case was put forward in which it was recommended that the Governor-General should have a special responsibility in the matter of Indian fiscal policy. That one case was the case in which a tariff
120
measure was being enacted by the Indian Legislature which was clearly designed to have a penal effect upon British trade. The safeguard under that head was included in the Bill and your Lordships will find it in Clause 12 (1) (f). In that case the Governor-General will be called upon to exercise the special powers which are conferred upon him. That, broadly and briefly, is the present position. What would be the effect of inserting in this Bill the Amendment which my noble friend has proposed? I do not suppose that even the noble Earl himself would suggest that it would be viewed with enthusiasm in India.
A NOBLE LORD: Nor is the whole Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The noble Lord thinks that neither is the whole Bill, but certainly he would not suggest that this particular proposal would be viewed with enthusiasm in India. My considered and sincere opinion is that nothing is more likely to be damaging to future British trade in India than to give the impression which this Amendment would give that you are dictating a fiscal policy, not in the interests of India herself, but of this country.
Let me in conclusion remind your Lordships that it is not only tariffs which prevent the importation of goods from outside into a country. There is an even more effective weapon than tariffs, and we have had experience of it in India itself. That is the boycott of the goods of a particular country. If noble Lords will cast their minds back to 1930—my noble friend who sits beside me can speak with great authority on the point—they will realise, I think, that the boycott against British goods which was the result of the fear on the part of Indians that we were not going to carry out our promise did a great deal more harm to British goods than any tariff is likely to do. While I recognise the sincerity of noble Lords who have supported this Amendment, and recognise the fears which they entertain with regard to the possible future of British trade in India, I do say that in my opinion this Amendment would be far more damaging to British trade in India than any fiscal freedom which you can give to the Indian people.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope the Government will not think that we are anxious to take an extreme view upon this question. We want to take a most moderate view upon it, as I venture to think we have taken upon almost every part of this Bill. We were, of course, opposed to the Second Reading—that is to say we wished to have a limiting Amendment on Second Reading—but in all the Amendments subsequently moved by any of those who are acting with me I think I may say that we have never challenged in Committee the fundamental principles of the Bill. I will not make an absolute statement, but broadly speaking we have tried to work upon the foundation of the Bill.
Now we come to the fiscal question which is so vitally important to this country, and I hope your Lordships will allow me to say that every commercial interest, especially in the County of Lancashire, is regarding to-day's proceedings in your Lordships' House with great anxiety. The question is how far in granting self-government to India we are to go in the matter of fiscal freedom. Let me consider for a moment whether the argument which the noble Marquess the Secretary of State has just delivered to your Lordships is really well founded. I am not going to repeat what was so well said by my noble friend that the so-called Fiscal Convention was a limiting Convention. There was always an ultimate power in the Secretary of State to override the fiscal autonomy of India.
I do not need to dwell upon that, but I must recall to your Lordships the fact that the Fiscal Convention turned upon the fact that the Government of India agreed with the Indian Legislature upon a particular fiscal policy which the Secretary of State was very reluctant to override and, as my noble friend said, was in point of fact not overridden. But you are now going to have a wholly different Government of India. Is it reasonable to argue that every attribute that belongs to the old Government of India ought to apply to the new Government of India? They are wholly different. The old Government of India was a Government under British influence with a British Governor-General instructed by a British Secretary of State, who was all powerful. Now we are going to have a responsible Government. The situation is quite different.
122
The noble Marquess, the Secretary of State, said it is very dangerous to override the fiscal autonomy of India. To hear him speak one would have thought that no limitation on fiscal autonomy was contained in the Bill. But the whole Bill is full of what the Government call safeguards which are really limitations. There is the penal clause, which the noble Marquess himself recited, to prevent anything like penal use against the Mother Country of fiscal autonomy. Then there are all the clauses dealing with discrimination. We do not allow India under this Bill to do what it likes about policy. All these clauses which are designed to prevent discrimination are all limitations. My noble friend does not use menacing language about the indignation which will be felt in India if they are not allowed to discriminate in their policy against commercial interests in this country. He does not say that it will result in a boycott. Why not? If one kind of discrimination is so formidable, why not the other kind of discrimination? Really, the whole thing rests upon a complete misunderstanding of the actual policy of the Bill. I need not mention to your Lordships that in respect of Burma, as the Bill stands, the fiscal policy of India towards Burma is to be limited. I cannot understand, therefore, why this very menacing language should be used.
In what I may call the peroration to the Secretary of State's speech just now, he said how dangerous it would be if it were thought in India that we were going to use this Bill in order to further the interests of this country at the expense of India. You would think that he suggests that we are to reserve, under this clause which my noble friend has proposed, a power of raising unlimited taxation—of unlimited limitation of Indian fiscal freedom. Of course, all that we are trying to enforce is what is known as the Ottawa policy—namely, that this country shall be better treated than any foreign country. That is the Ottawa policy: not an unlimited power of interfering with Indian finance, but merely saying that when it comes to that critical moment, then there must be just a preference for this country. It is impossible to represent that as fiscal oppression of India.
But if my noble friend will be good enough to allow me to press him, I will

123
go a step further. There are two Amendments on the Paper. One of them prescribes—the one which my noble friend Lord Mansfield has moved—that preference should be given to British trade. We do not say how much preference, but some kind of preference. Then there is another Amendment which merely says that most-favoured-nation treatment should be accorded to British trade: not that we should be treated better than other countries, but that we should be treated not worse than any foreign country. Now I make this offer to the Government. If they will accept it, I will in that case very respectfully suggest to my noble friend who sits behind me that he should withdraw his Amendment and allow us to put in the second Amendment, the more moderate Amendment; that is to say, that we shall take a step forward to meet the Government. They say preference is dangerous—preference for this country; that the Ottawa policy would excite the antagonism of India. To think that such a thing should be said by this Government, who have made it their greatest boast that they have promoted the Ottawa policy, which has been greeted all over the Empire with enthusiasm! However, he thinks that India would be offended by the Ottawa policy—
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: No, no; the noble Marquess has rather missed the point. The Ottawa policy is already in force as far as India is concerned.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then what objection has the noble Marquess to the Amendment?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: Because at Ottawa India negotiated as a free negotiating party. The noble Lord says, "No, they must not do that; they must do what we are stating here."
LORD LLOYD: And we are to take no account of the fact that the Congress Party repudiated it afterwards.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Secretary of State thinks that he can rely upon Indian public opinion in the future to carry out the Ottawa policy. Will he rise at that Box and say that he can rely upon it? I am quite certain he will not! He knows far too well that there is no such reliance to be placed upon the Indian policy. But he is again back to the question of allowing them to be free
124
in this country. My Lords, the Bill crawls with limitations and fetters, as I have shown in the earlier part of my remarks. There is no reason why they should suddenly find that they think that in this one respect they should be so free. I suggest that the noble Marquess is forgetting that the British Government exist, not only to defend the interests of India, but also to defend the interests of Great Britain, and the attitude that the Government take to-night on this matter will resound right through the North of England. I warn them how dangerous the ground is on which they are treading.
I make once more this offer to them, that if they will allow us to put in the most-favoured-nation clause, then I will ask my noble friend to withdraw this Amendment. The most-favoured-nation clause is almost universal between this country and foreign countries—or at least it has been up till quite recently. All we should ask would be that, when we are making this vast change in the Indian Constitution, at any rate one additional limitation shall be made: that they shall not be able to treat this country worse than they treat any other foreign country. I make that offer to the noble Marquess and ask him to rise in his place and say whether he will accept it.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I am afraid I cannot accept the noble Marquess's offer, for the same reason; that you are once more imposing upon India instead of allowing India: to negotiate freely.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I hardly expected to find myself in opposition to my noble friend who has just sat down on a subject of this kind; but I seem to remember, in years gone by, advocating in your Lordships' House Imperial preference and other measures of that kind when my noble friend was not quite so persistent in his advocacy of it as he has been to-night.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I beg my noble friend's pardon. He will never find a single word that I have ever said in my public life which was not advocating preference.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: He was advocating it, but not with the same persistence as to-night in connection with this Bill. I have given this question very serious and anxious consideration.

125
Naturally, I agree with my noble friends who have moved this Amendment that trade is a. most important and fundamental question in connection with any new Constitution which we may give to India. But I have to address to myself the practical question as to how we can best achieve good trade conditions under this Bill. I have consulted many friends in commercial circles; I have consulted many friends who have been connected and who still are connected with Indian affairs and Indian commerce, and I have come to the conclusion that it would not be wise, nor would it be prudent, to incorporate either one or the other of these two Amendments which have been suggested in this Committee to-night.
What are we seeking to impose upon India by the first Amendment? We are seeking to impose upon India in the new Constitution a limitation which we have not even incorporated in the Constitution which was given to Ceylon last year. How then can we, in this Constitution to be granted to 460,000,000 people, not give the same fiscal freedom as we are giving to a neighbouring Colony which consists of only about four million people? My experience of the Colonies and elsewhere is that this country has never attempted to impose Imperial preference upon people without their consent, and here we are endeavouring to do this, through this Amendment, to a country which I agree has had fiscal autonomy for ever fifteen years. The question of Ottawa has been referred to. I attended the Ottawa Conference, not in an official capacity, but I was there throughout the whole proceedings, and I am aware that the Indian delegates entered into the arrangements with this Government, and other Governments represented there, voluntarily of their own free will, and without any compulsion whatever. Supposing we incorporate this Amendment, or either of these Amendments, in the Bill to-day, we are suggesting to India that we cannot rely upon them in the future in order to carry out these arrangements, or any future arrangements, or that we cannot even rely upon their good will at all. So far as India is concerned, good will does count for a very great deal.
My noble friend who moved this Amendment knows just as well as I do what were the effects of the boycott in
126
Bombay two or three years ago. We know that the effects of that boycott have hardly disappeared to-day, and probably the alarming figures given by Lord Lloyd are due, in great measure, to that boycott, or the aftermath of that boycott, in Bombay two or three years ago. I suggest that we cannot afford, in the future, to risk boycotts of that nature in India. Boycotts have now been worked out, if I may put it in that way, on such a basis, and so scientifically framed, that they would be extremely difficult, especially after a. Constitution of this kind had been passed, to contend with, and to find a solution. I believe, from all I can learn, that our best method under this Constitution, so far as trade is concerned, is for this country to rely upon the future good will of the people of India. Unless we do that, I fear there may be very disastrous results. I agree entirely with what the noble Marquess, the Secretary of State for India, said on this subject, and I, for one, will go into the Lobby, if a Division is taken, against both Amendments.
THE EARL OF DERBY: It is twelve years since I last inflicted myself on your Lordships, and therefore feel a certain amount of nervousness in addressing you now. I am practically out of all political life, but that does not mean that I am out of what is, after all, the chief life of the country, the industrial life of the North, and although I speak more or less in favour of the Amendment, rather than against it, I do not do so in any way as an opponent of the Government. I think the noble Marquess and those associated with him know that I have been throughout an ardent supporter of the Bill. Therefore, he may rest assured that if I support any particular Amendment it is not with any intention of injuring the Bill, but simply because I think an improvement can be made, and that the Amendment proposed would not be injurious to the general construction of the Bill. Two Amendments are on the Paper, and they are being taken together, and it is a little difficult to speak on them when you entirely disagree with one and agree, in the main, with the other.
The difference between the two is, to my mind, a very vital one. In the first Amendment you are dictating to India and definitely telling India that she is to give preference to this country. With

127
that I entirely disagree. I do not think you have got the right, and I think India would resent that. The other is entirely a different matter. It says to India: "You shall not discriminate against the Mother Country." For that I feel there is a great deal to be said. I ask myself the question which I know I shall be asked in my own industrial district: Is there anything wrong, when you give a new Constitution, in saying to those to whom the Constitution is given: "You have got to put the Mother Country on the same footing as other countries" We ask for no favour whatsoever, but we do ask and we put it in as an order, let us say, that no favour shall be given to other countries as against the Mother Country. I confess that it seems to me that an answer to that is very difficult to find.
The Ottawa Convention has been alluded to. I am one of those who believe that from the Ottawa Convention, although it is of slow growth, there is an enormous amount of good to come in the future to the industries of this country, and I am therefore very reluctant to see anything done which could in any way interfere with the growth of that Convention. It seems to me that if, in your new Constitution, you empower the country to which it is given to make a preference for other countries as against this country, you are cutting at the very root of that Convention. You are destroying, to ray mind, for all time, if they do such a thing, that which is the dream of many of your Lordships, myself included—namely, free trade within the Empire. The noble Marquess the other day, in speaking on Clause 296, said the clause was intended, as far as possible, to establish free trade within British India. May I not go a little further, and say that I can only support the second Amendment because I think that by doing so I am doing something which will help on, or at all events prevent the stoppage of, free trade between the Mother Country and India. For that reason, and for that reason alone, I should support it.
But I think there are other points that have to be considered. First of all, do not your Lordships think that it must be an advantage to the Viceroy in the future to let it be known that this House has decided against any question of discrimination against the Mother Country? That superman, as he must be, has any
128
number of obligations put upon him in which he has to act on his own discretion. Do not your Lordships think it would be advisable to give him one in which his discretion would not be called into play, when he would not find himself in conflict perhaps with his Legislature, but it would be put in definitely in the Act that there was to be no discrimination against the Mother Country?
There are other points which others have made and which others will make, but I should like to allude to one thing and that is the question of good will. I entirely agree with the last speaker that good will is essential. We cannot continue trade to the advantage of this country unless there is good will. You must have not only a willing seller but a willing buyer, and if I thought that this was going to the extent of destroying good will I should be very reluctant to support the Amendment. But I cannot believe that this is so. I cannot believe that by asking India, to whom you are giving this new Constitution, simply to put the Mother Country on the same footing with other countries, you are going to destroy their good will. I had the opportunity of talking with many Indians who were here on the Joint Select Committee and with many who came over during the sittings of that Committee. All of them assured me of the same thing, that there was no real ill will against England and that if this Constitution were granted then good will would most certainly come. I may have been simple to believe them, but I did believe them, and I do still believe them. I believe that they have got good will for this country, and I do not believe that this restriction—which, after all, is in a way a very minor restriction, the prevention of discrimination against this country—will in any way impair their good will.
I hope that the noble Marquess, with whom one has worked for so long, will see his way to put in something in the Bill which would allow one to answer one's friends in the industrial North and say: "There is something in that Bill which is going to prevent discrimination against you. I believe there is no discrimination against you. With the good will of the Indian people, which I believe will come, you will see in future years that this Bill has been of benefit, not only to India but to this country, and

129
your trade will prosper in the future as it has in the past."
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, made clear to the House that he was intending to invite the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, to withdraw the first Amendment on the Paper and to ask the Committee to rely upon the second Amendment which stands in the name of Lord Islington and Lord Darcy (de Knayth). He argued that surely it would be right and essential that the most-favoured-nation clause should be inserted in the Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Derby, has very strongly emphasised the same point. The Secretary of State when he spoke drew attention to Clause 12 of the Bill. May I invite the attention of the Committee very closely to that clause? Clause 12 (1), which has already been passed by your Lordships without amendment, says:
"In the exercise of his functions the Governor-General shall have the following special responsibilities, that is to say:
(f) the prevention of action which would subject goods of United Kingdom or Burmese origin imported into India to discriminatory or penal treatment."
Is it not possible for noble Lords interested in the industrial North to make it clear to those who place reliance upon the defence of their interests that already those interests are defended? The Bill contains the words which I gather are so much desired. It is already not legal for discrimination to be exercised against the importation of British goods into India. If that were not already so I fancy that many of your Lordships would be determined to insist that they should be so inserted. But if it is a fact that they are already there, and indeed they are, surely the case so amply made by noble Lords has already been met. I suggest that it is so, and that being so, I am inclined to think that noble Lords who are pressing for its reiteration now are surely asking for that which is unnecessary.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Why will the Government not accept this?
LORD HASTINGS: I am not competent to speak for the Secretary of State, still less for the Government, but I take it that, as it is already there, they think it is not necessary to put it there again.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord evidently did not listen to the Secretary of State's speech.
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Marquess may be assured that I did listen with great care to the Secretary of State's speech, and I was rather struck by the fact that he did not rely entirely upon this clause and subsection. At that moment the Secretary of State was endeavouring to show that the first Amendment which stands on the Paper was one which it was impossible for the Government to accept. It was not until after the Secretary of State had spoken that the noble Marquess suggested to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, that the first Amendment should be withdrawn and that the second should take its place, and it was only on that account that I rose to point out that already the conditions desired are provided.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I of course respond at once to the appeal of my noble friends, Lord Salisbury and Lord Derby, but before asking leave to withdraw the first Amendment, I wish to ask your Lordships to divide on the second. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, that it is in any way superfluous. I beg leave to withdraw.
LORD ISLINGTON: I assume from the fact that no member of the Government has risen that they intend to continue to resist this most reasonable Amendment for most-favoured-nation treatment. It is clear to everyone. It prevents the efforts of those who are vindictively raising a tariff against British goods, and surely it is worth while putting it in the very forefront of the Bill. I still hope—although it is very difficult for me to hope—that the Government will accept it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH)LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH) moved, after Clause 357, to insert the following new clause:
Higher duties not to be imposed on United Kingdom imports than on other imports.
". Nothing in this Act shall be taken to empower the Federal Legislature to impose or increase ally duty of customs upon goods imported into the Federation winch are consigned from or in whole or in part manufactured in the United Kingdom if such imposition or increase would impose on such goods a higher duty of customs than the duty for the time being imposed on like goods

131
imported into the Federation which are consigned from any country other than the United Kingdom."
The noble Lord said: After the observations which have fallen from the noble Earl, Lord Derby, I feel it is wholly unnecessary to say anything further in support of this new clause, and I should like to pray in aid every word he has said. I think I have never known an occasion in the whole time I have sat in this Chamber, about eight years, in which such a speech has been made containing not one superfluous word. It was certainly one designed for the benefit of the country as a whole. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 357 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Darcy (de Knayth).)
THE EARL OF DERBY: After that, I can assure the noble Lord he will never hear me speak again! May I say in answer to my noble friend Lord Hastings that I was perfectly aware of that paragraph in the Bill which he mentioned? I quite agree that that does in a way cover this question, but it places the sole responsibility on the Governor-General. I do not want to put more on the shoulders of the Governor-General than T can possibly help. I feel that in this Amendment you are removing this responsibility from the shoulders of the Governor-General and putting it on this House by putting it into the Bill itself.
On Question, Whether the proposed new clause shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 47; Not-Contents, 64.

CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Exmouth, V.

Kilmaine, L.

Wellington, D.

Falmouth, V.

Lawrence, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Lloyd, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Salisbury, M.

Aberconway, L.

Middleton, L.

Addington, L.

Monkswell, L.

Albemarle, E.

Boston, L.

Palmer, L.

Derby, E.

Carrington, L.

Phillimore, L.

Effingham, E.

Conway of Allington, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Lindsay, E.

Cranworth, L.

Redesdale, L.

Mansfield, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), L. [Teller.]

Remnant, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Rochdale, L.

Midleton, E.

Daryngton, L.

Rushcliffe, L.

Morton, E.

Greville, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Onslow, E.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Strachie, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Strickland, L.

Islington, L.

Wolverton, L.

Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Radnor, E.

Digby, L.

Rothes, E.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Hailsham, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Sandwich, E.

Spencer, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) (L. Privy Seal.)

Stanhope, E.

Gage, L. (F. Gage.) [Teller.]

Strafford, E.

Hampton, L.

Hastings, L.

Northumberland, D.

Elibank, V.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Somerset, D.

Goschen, V,

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Halifax, V.

Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

Bath, M.

Hambleden, V.

Lamington, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Luke, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Abinger, L.

Marks, L.

Reading, M.

Annaly, L.

Marley, L.

Zetland, M.

Arnold, L.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Ashton of Hyde, L.

St. Levan, L.

Airlie, K

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Sanderson, L.

Bathurst, E.

Biddulph, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Feversham, E.

Bingley, L.

Stafford, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Chesham, L.

Stanmore, L.

Iveagh, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Strabolgi, L.

Lichfield, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Clinton, L.

Lutton, E.

Chwyd, L.

Templemore, L.

Peel, E.

Cornwallis, L.

Woodbridge, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clauses 358 to 364 agreed to.
Clause 365 [Medical qualifications]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The Amendment to this clause is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 233, line 7, leave out ("of") and insert ("in force in").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 365, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 366 to 368 agreed to.
Clause 369 [Expenditure defrayable out of revenues of Burma]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: This Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 236, line 11, leave out ("the government of Burma"; and insert ("Burma or some part of Burma").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 369, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 370 agreed to.
Clause 371 [Duty of the Government of Burma to keep Secretary of State supplied with funds]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: Both these Amendments are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 236, line 35, leave out ("or such person as lie may appoint") and insert ("and any High Commissioner representing the Government of Burma in the United Kingdom")
Page 236, line 37, leave out ("in the United Kingdom out, of the revenues of Burma") and insert ("out of the revenues of Burma in the United Kingdom or through officers accounting to the Secretary of State, or to any such High Commissioner as aforesaid").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 371, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 372 to 381 agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: It will probably meet your Lordships' convenience if we adjourn these proceedings now and resume them at half-past nine.
[The sitting was suspended at ten minutes before eight o'clock and resumed at half-past nine.]
Clause 382:
Executive authority in respect of railways to be exercised by Railway Board.
382.—(1) The executive authority of Burma in respect of the construction, maintenance and operation of railways in Burma shall be exercised by a Railway Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board").
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved in subsection (1), before "construction," to insert "regulation and the." The noble Marquess said: The first Amendment in my name on this clause is to regularise the position with regard to a private railway in Burma, the existence of which was a little overlooked when the Bill was drafted. It so happens there is a railway which is available to the public belonging to the Burma Corporation, and it was never intended that a private railway of that kind should actually be run by the Railway Authority, though it may be intended that it should be under the general control of the Railway Authority. My first Amendment is to regularise that position.
Amendment moved—
Page 243, line 25, after ("the") insert ("regulation and the").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved, at the end of subsection (1) to insert the following new subsection:
"(2) The said executive authority extends to the carrying on in connection with any railways operated by the Board of such other undertakings as either were being carried on in connection therewith by or on behalf of the Governor-General in Council immediately before the commencement of this Part of this Act or as the Board may be authorised to carry on after the commencement of this Part of this Act by or under any Act of the Legislature."
The noble Marquess said: This Amendment is similar to an Amendment which I moved on the Indian clause of the Bill to enable the Railway Authority to embark upon operations which are ancillary to the actual running of trains, making agreements with regard to road transport and so on. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 243, line 27, at end insert the said subsection (2).—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 382, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 383 [Composition &c. of Railway Board]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 243, line 39, after ("railways") insert ("operated by the Board").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 383, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 384 to 387 agreed to.
Clause 388 [Provisions as to certain obligations of the Railway Board]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The Amendment in my name on this clause is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 248, line 18, leave out ("railway premises") and insert ("the premises of railways operated by the Board").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 388, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 389 to 391 agreed to.
Clause 392 [Audit and annual reports]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The Amendment in my name on this clause is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 249, line 16, leave out ("persons using or desiring to use the railways and the Board"), and insert ("the Board, and persons using or desiring to use the railways operated by the Board").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 392, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 393 to 399 agreed to.
Clause 400 [Additional appeal to His Majesty as respects interpretation of this Act]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The Amendment in my name on this clause is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 253, line 22, leave out ("criminal").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 400, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 401 to 406 agreed to.
Clause 407 [Saving of rights of appeal]:
LORD RANKEILLOUR: May I ask whether the Governor of Burma is in precisely the same position as regards
136
defence as the Governor-General of India and has he the same powers?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: Yes he is in the same position.
Clause 407 agreed to.
Clauses 408 to 417 agreed to.
Clause 418 [Conditions of service, pensions, etc., of persons recruited by Secretary of State]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: These Amendments are consequential. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 261, line 7, after ("service") insert ("or civil post")
Page 261, line 10, at end insert ("or was appointed to his post").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 418, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 419 and 420 agreed to.
Clause 421 [Application of four last preceding sections to persons appointed by Secretary of State in Council, and certain other persons]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The Amendments in my name on this clause are consequential. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 263, line 21, after ("service") insert ("or civil post")
Page 264, line 2, after ("service") insert ("or was appointed to his post")
line 13, leave out ("subsection (4)") and insert ("subsections (2), (3) and (6)").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 421, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 422 to 426 agreed to.
Clause 427 [Provision for protection of existing officers of certain Services]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: There are two consequential Amendments to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 267, line 22, leave out (" to ")
Page 267, line 27, after (" of ") insert (" or civil post under ").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 427, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 428 to 439 agreed to.
Clause 440 [Persons not to be disqualified by sex for holding certain offices in Burma]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: This is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 274, line 13, after (" service ") insert (" of ").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 440, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 441 [Transitional provisions]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: These are consequential Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 274, line 22, leave out (" service of ") and insert (" services of or civil posts under ")
Page 274, line 26, leave out (" then ")—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 441, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 442 [Interpretation, etc.]
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: There are two consequential Amendments to t his clause. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 275, line 5, after (" to ") insert (" and to the dependants of persons who are or have been ")
Page 275, line 6, after (" provided ") insert (" or preserved ").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 442, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 443 to 447 agreed to.
Clause 448:
Provisions as to Customs duties on. India-Burma Trade.
448. With a view to preventing undue disturbance of trade between India and Burma in the period immediately following the separation of India and Burma and with a view to safeguarding the economic interests of Burma during that period, His Majesty in Council may give such directions as he thinks fit for those purposes with respect to the duties which are, while the Order is in force, to be levied on goods imported into or exported from India or Burma, and with respect to ancillary and related matters.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved to leave out "in Council may" and insert "may by Order in Council." The noble Marquess said: This Amendment is to a large extent of a drafting character, but I should like to say that it is put down to meet a point which my noble friend Lord Rankeillour has brought before
138
your Lordships on more than one occasion in the course of these debates. I do not think I need say anything more about the Amendment which explains itself.
Amendment moved—
Page 278, line 25, leave, out (" in Council may ") and insert (" may by Order in Council ").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I am extremely grateful to the noble Marquess for having met me. It would be ungenerous to observe that I have been met only at the fifth time of asking. I have been met, and I thank him. I think it is quite clear now that simply to say His Majesty may do something in Council does not necessarily mean that he does it by Order in Council, the effect of which would be to bring that action under Clause 305 so that it would come before the notice of Parliament. That is the whole point and it is rather an important one. It arises again, if I may say so, on Clause 471, and on the strength of this Amendment I. think a similar Amendment will be necessary there. Otherwise the pledge that there should be a review by Parliament, especially a review of finance before Provincial Autonomy comes in, would not necessarily be fulfilled. However, I do not want to pursue the matter any further. I thank the noble Marquess for having met me and I hope that he will repeat it, as I think logically he must, on Clause 471.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DERBY THE EARL OF DERBY moved to insert:
"Provided that no Order in Council shall be made which shall authorise for a. longer period than two years the imposition of duties in India on Burmese, goods or duties in Burma on Indian goods at levels lower than the duties applicable at the same time to like goods of United Kingdom origin."
The noble Earl said: Two hours ago I said I would not inflict myself again on your Lordships, but I hope you will allow me to go back On my word for a very few minutes. I had put down this Amendment to Clause 261, but I was told that it was there out of place. Therefore I have put it down on this clause and I would ask your Lordships to consider it at this juncture. It is a little difficult for me to move the Amendment without giving a slight sketch of the history which led me to make this proposal. Let me say at once that I agree that an interim agreement between India and Burma is essential I have not the least objection to urge against any agreement

139
to which they may come, provided that it does not last too long, and provided also that this country has a say in that agreement before it becomes too much a settled purpose.
Now, when it was contemplated—as it always has been from the very beginning, and in the Joint Select Committee—that there should be such an interim agreement, my friends in my own part of the world, in Manchester, asked that they should be allowed to make certain representations. They were told that certainly they could, and when they asked if they could send up a deputation they were told that it was a little too early to send it up. Nothing more did they hear until, by quite a different channel, they heard that negotiations were not only in progress but had practically come to completion. They then asked whether they might not be heard, and they were told that it was too late to be heard. They now very naturally feel that they were not very well treated. I want to say at once that I am perfectly certain that there was no question of sharp practice on the part of the noble Marquess's predecessor. It was a misunderstanding; but because of that misunderstanding I hope that I may be allowed to-night to put the case as briefly as I can for a short period in which that interim agree-merit shall last.
If I remember correctly, on the Select Committee we discussed this question and, although no time was definitely stated, my impression is that it was always spoken of as one year. Now if I had wanted any other incentive to put forward this Amendment to get justice—I will not say "justice"; to get opportunity for British traders to have their case put before the two Governments of India and Burma, I could have found it in the speech of the noble Marquess's predecessor. If I may quote at some length what Sir Samuel Hoare said in another place:
"I agree with my honourable friends from Lancashire that that agreement ought not to be of undue length. It should be of sufficient length to enable the new Governments to settle down and to enable the Indian Government and the British Government to enter into negotiations with the Burma Government and to make what agreements are possible. I hope then that the British Government and the Burma Government will come together, and we shall see that we have much in common
140
between us in the future. For the moment there must be this interim agreement—"
as I have said, I entirely agree with that—
"and it can only be on the lines I have suggested. How long that agreement should last is a matter for argument. The negotiators in India have suggested five years."
And this is the remark which gives me, if I may say so, the reason why I should bring the matter before your Lordships' House:
"If my honourable friends from Lancashire or honourable friends representing any other substantial section of British trade think that the period should be a shorter period, and they will discuss the question with me or the Board of Trade, let us by all means have a discussion on those lines. We are not to-night taking a final decision. The agreement has not been placed before me yet in detail."
Now it seems to me that that must be my justification for bringing this matter at this moment before the Committee. I have, as I have said, absolutely nothing to say against an interim agreement being arrived at, but what I do want to protest against is that it should be of such a lengthy duration as to give an undoubted preference to India as opposed to this country. At the present moment India and Burma are one; the tariffs of one are the tariffs of the other, and the consequence is that there is a tariff against Great Britain which does not exist between Burma and India; in other words, the traders in this country are paying a heavy tariff while traders in similar goods in India are going in free into Burma.
That may be all right for a short period, and a status quo which it may be necessary to maintain for a period while matters are settling down, but I do say that five years is too long, and I hope His Majesty's Government will see their way to reduce that period to two years. There is a great difference in some matters between two and five, and in the extra three years, which I ask shall be taken out of the agreement, there is time for the competitors with British trade to dig themselves in, so to speak, in Burma; and everybody who is connected with trade knows that once a clientele is established it is extremely difficult for other competitors to get in. Therefore you will find that when the time comes for the agreement to lapse, those who are our competitors in certain trades in India will have established such a hold

141
as will make it very difficult indeed for our people to get any footing whatsoever. Please understand that I do not, for one moment, challenge tae time for which this interim agreement shall stand if Burma and India enter into separate negotiations. They are perfectly at liberty to do what they like, and I do not want to interfere with their discretion, but I want to limit the time during which we have not got a say in the matter, and to allow free discussion between ourselves and Burma and ourselves and India to conic at the earliest possible moment. I suppose it is almost out of order in this House to give a racing illustration—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No! No! Go ahead.
THE EARL OF DERBY:—but still, at the same time, it is one that I think the noble Marquess and other noble Lords will understand. If you have two equal horses, and it is a "toss-up" which is likely to be the winner, if you give one a. flying start has the other got much chance of beating him? In this particular case I hold that by this agreement, if you extend it to the length of five years, you are giving to one of our great competitors, in one particular trade, a flying start, and that is what I ask the noble Marquess, if he possibly can, to see is obviated, so that we are put on an equal footing. For that reason, without wishing in any way whatsoever to hamper the ultimate arrangements which Burma and India may come to with each other, or with this country, I ask the noble Marquess whether he does not see that it is possible to limit the five years—which was never mentioned in the Select Committee—to a much shorter period, and I suggest, for his consideration, that the period should be two years.
Amendment moved—
Page 278, line 30, at end, insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Derby.)
Loan HARDINGE OF PENSHURST: I should like to add just a few words in support of the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Derby. I have had the pleasure of meeting, in company with the noble Earl, some of the gentlemen interested in questions affecting their commerce with India and Burma, and I was impressed by their moderation and desire to fortify by good will their commercial relations with both India and Burma. The period of five years appears
142
to me to be much too long and at the same time quite an arbitrary period, for which so far there does not seem to be much justification. If this period is maintained, the existing tariffs will have become so fixed and definite as to make it difficult for new arrangements to be made which would place British trade on a fair and equitable basis with Indian and Burmese trade.
When I was in India there was a cotton Excise duty which had been imposed on India as a protective measure for the cotton industry of this country. This Excise duty was regarded as a. great injustice in India and exposed the British Government to the charge that India was being governed in the interests of Lancashire, rather than of India. As a result of many representations a definite assurance was given by the Home Government to reconsider the economic position of India with a view to the abolition of this cotton Excise duty. Finally, the Excise duty was abolished a short time after the end of the War. It seems to me that this proposed delay of five years is almost an analogous case, but of course the other way round, and Indian and Burmese trade are to be protected to the detriment of British trade for the space of five years. This seems to me hardly right or fair. The demands of the British traders appear to be extremely moderate, and I trust that it may be possible to adjust this matter in a manner that would be equitable in the interests of British trade. I hope therefore that my noble friend will be able to accept the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I can assure your Lordships that nothing would give me greater pleasure than to feel that I could accept the Amendment. But there is, as a matter of fact, a great deal more at stake in this matter than the actual trade between Lancashire and Burma. First of all let me point out, adopting the metaphor of the noble Earl, that the horse which he was thinking of has had a flying start for the last fifty years, because for the last fifty years free trade has existed between India and Burma, and it would not appear therefore that it would make really a vast difference if the flying start were to go on for a few years longer. Let me put it another way. If two horses are running a race and one has a start of fifty yards out of 100 or 200 yards, it.

143
would probably win just as easily as if it had a start of fifty-five yards. It would not really make very much difference.
What I want to make quite clear to your Lordships is that this Amendment really involves a great deal more than Lancashire trade. It involves the whole of British trade with India, and for this reason. The noble Earl, in speaking to his Amendment, rather overlooked the last part of it. The noble Earl suggested that the result of his Amendment would be to curtail the interim agreement between India and Burma from five years to two years; but if noble Lords will look at the Amendment they will see that at the end of these two years a condition is laid down in the noble Earl's Amendment, and that condition is this. At the end of the two years there shall be duties—this is what it amounts to—on Indian goods going into Burma and on Burmese goods going into India at the same rates as the Customs duties charged on British goods. That is to say, at the end of the two years free trade between India and Burma is to come to an end. Not only that, but Burma is not to be a free agent at the end of the two years to negotiate for herself. It would be laid down by the Amendment that the Customs duties that Burma is entitled to levy on Indian goods must in any case be as high as the Customs duties levied on British goods. That is a very important addition to the Amendment.
The arrangement which has been negotiated between India and Burma is not a final, signed agreement. I have not seen the final text of it; it has not yet reached this country, and as far as I know it is not signed. But it is general information that the effect of the agreement will be to maintain the status quo so far as Indo-Burmese trade is concerned. That is a great advantage to Burma, and not only to Burma but to vast British interests which have grown up in Burma. If noble Lords will consider the character of Burmese trade they will see that by far the greater part of the exports of Burma find a free market in India. Rice, oil and teak are among the chief exports from Burma, and so much is that the case that last year 62½ per cent. of Burmese exports found a free market in India. Two-thirds of her rice, varying from 1,500,000 to 2,000,000 tons a year, was sold in the free
144
market of India. The whole of her oil products found a free market in India, and 80 per cent. of her teak exports found a market in India. I recall these facts because it roust be clear from them that India is in a very strong position to retaliate against Burma if Burma adopts a policy which is contrary to the interests of India.
Let me ask your Lordships to bear this in mind, that the amount of British capital invested in these great interests in Burma is estimated at from £40,000,000 to £50,000,000 sterling. That capital is spread over a very large number of shareholders, and I have got to consider, not only the shareholders in Lancashire businesses—I agree they must be considered, too—but also the shareholders in other large enterprises. I have got to think of the owners of this £40,000,000 or £50,000,000 sterling invested in Burma if India retaliated on Burma. If Burma excited her to do so by adopting a policy of taxing Indian goods entering Burma, that would be the result, and it is unhappily the case that in this country we have not got an alternative market we can offer to Burma for her products. We do not eat rice to any extent in this country. Though we use a certain amount of teak, we do not use anything like the amount that Burma exports to India.
That is the position with regard to Burma. India likewise desires to retain free trade with Burma, certainly for the sake of her cotton products. She sells a very large part of her cotton goods in the Burmese market. That is not all. I have, since the Amendment of the noble Earl appeared on the Paper, received representations from the Chambers of Commerce in India, representing British trade in India and representing those who import goods from this country to India, protesting strongly against the Amendment which stands in the name of the noble Earl. I think the reason why they protest is pretty obvious. At the present time the imports from this country into Burma are enjoying the advantage of the preferences granted under the Ottawa Agreement. The Ottawa Agreement, in the case of India, does not last for a specified number of years, as it does in the case of the other Dominions. It was only agreed to in India on these terms, that it, might be reconsidered at the end of any period of six

145
months. In point of fact the Government of India did give an undertaking to the Indian Legislature that at the end of three years, in any case—that is to say, in December next—they would re-submit the matter to the Indian Legislature for their consideration.
The point I want to make is this, that if you are going, once again, to attempt to impose, whether upon Burma or upon India, conditions with regard to her tariffs, as would be done by the last part of the noble Earl's Amendment, you are going to produce in India a very unfavourable atmosphere for the reconsideration of the preferences which are at present granted by India to the trade of the United Kingdom under the Ottawa Agreement. I have figures which will give your Lordships an idea of the advantage of these preferences. Under the Ottawa Agreement, so far as it affects India and the United Kingdom, goods amounting to 28 per cent. of the total exports from this country to India are at present receiving preferential treatment. More than that, as a result of the policy adopted by the Indian Legislature some few years ago of discriminating protection, the cotton imports and the iron and steel imports from the United Kingdom to India even before Ottawa, were receiving preferential treatment as compared with similar goods which came into India from other countries. In that respect, therefore, India has been treating the trade of this country, may I say, very reasonably. I ask your Lordships to consider this point. The export of cotton goods from Lancashire to Burma in any case amounts to less than 10 per cent. of the total amount of cotton goods exported from Lancashire to India and Burma combined. I think it is appreciably less than 10 per cent., something between 7 and 9 per cent. What I would venture to submit for the consideration of the noble Earl is whether it is worth while creating in India an atmosphere hostile to Lancashire by making this arrangement with regard to the 9 per cent. of her goods which she sends to Burma and overlooking altogether the 90 per cent. which Lancashire sends to India. That, I submit, is a very material consideration.
There is one further point which I think your Lordships would do well to bear in mind. As a result, of the agreement
146
which was recently contracted between India and Japan an arrangement was made which limited the imports of cotton goods from Japan into India and Burma to specified quotas. Anybody who is familiar with the circumstances of the cotton trade in India in recent years will realise that the really dangerous rival of Lancashire in that market is Japan, and I would ask your Lordships to consider, if, as a result of an Amendment of this kind, Indians who have not yet signed the Indo-Burmese Trade Agreement said, "Very well, we will not have any agreement at all," what would be the result so far as Japanese quotas are concerned. They would no longer apply in the case of Burma. I am bound to say I think Japanese competition would be a very serious item in the case of the cotton trade of the United Kingdom.
I have devoted the greater part of my remarks to the second part of the noble Earl's Amendment to which, if I may say so, he really did not refer at all in the course of his speech. The noble Earl was talking only of the question of the period of the validity of the Indo-Burmese Trade Agreement. I think the question of period is a matter to which India and Burma would very likely be quite prepared to give further consideration. The question of the actual period of the interim agreement has, as a matter of fact, been referred to—as I think the noble Earl reminded us—by my predecessor in another place. He stated that the provisional agreement effected by the Government of India and the Government of Burma contained a provision preserving the status quo for five years. He said that he had formed no decided opinion himself as to the actual period. On the one hand, the period must not be so short as to fail to achieve the purpose in view—namely, the prevention of the undue disturbance of the existing trade between India and Burma. On the other hand, he laid it down that if it was for too long a period it would involve an unnecessary and an undesirable encroachment by Parliament on the fiscal autonomy which India has and which Burma after separation will enjoy.
In the past few weeks I have myself been in consultation with the Government of India with regard to this matter, and I can at least inform the noble Earl of this, that I have some reason—indeed I think I may say I have good reason—to

147
hope that the two Governments, before they finally sign their agreement, may themselves come to the conclusion that the period of five years which was originally proposed for this agreement might be unnecessarily long. I understand from the consultation which I have had with them that they both hold the opinion that a period of three years is the minimum which would be of any value for the purpose for which it is required; that is to say, maintaining the status quo during the interim period. But I have every hope that they may come to the conclusion that a period of five years may prove to be unnecessarily long, for the reasons which I have given, and that when we eventually receive the agreement which they have been negotiating we shall find that it is proposed that it should extend for a period of only three years.
There is only one other observation that I need make and that is this. When the agreement reaches this country it will have to be dealt with by an Order in Council, and it will therefore be open to noble Lords on that Order, when they have the full terms of the agreement before them and when they know precisely how long it is intended that the agreement shall last, to come to their decision as to what action, if any, they should take.
THE EARL of MANSFIELD: At an earlier stage in your Lordships' deliberations the noble Marquess, the Secretary of State for India, I think, plumed himself that I had given him a certificate of exemption from the ranks of professional politicians. But the noble Marquess is learning very rapidly, and I am afraid that before long I may have to endorse, or even suspend, his licence! The noble Marquess—I hope unintentionally—has not dealt at all with the real point which I am sure lies at the back of the proposal of the noble Earl, Lord Derby. The people about whom the noble Marquess is apparently most concerned Are that very sensitive body the Indian politician, the importers in Burma, and the shareholders in various countries. The people to whose fate I should like to direct attention are the scores of thousands of workers in Lancashire who have already lost their livelihood, and the other scores of thousands of workers who may lose their livelihood. I have not heard from the Front Bench any allusion to that.
148
I submit that in the rather cavalier way in which the noble Marquess is turning down every suggestion which may possibly help to minimise the blows which Indian politicians are likely to strike at British trade, the Government are vitally neglecting the interests of British workers, which it ought to be their chief object to protect and foster.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I must point out that the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, was not entirely accurate when he suggested that there are some thousands of Lancashire workers who may lose their livelihood by this proposal. I would remind him that, after all, Lancashire will be no worse off under the proposed clause than it is now. Lancashire is not now enjoying the preference that it desires to secure. When £50,000,000 of British capital is involved in this matter and the whole of the Burmese commercial people are very anxious to have this agreement ratified, it is a little hard that Lancashire should press its claim once more, as it has pressed it so very often during the last three years, for preferential treatment over the rest of British capital and British industry. We have heard a great deal about Lancashire trade, and no one is more anxious than I am that Lancashire should have a very fair deal in this matter and in the matter of Indian trade. But the whole of Lancashire trade is only a quarter of our exports to India. We have metal and machinery trade; we have soap and woollen trade; which all amounts to three times as much as our total exports from Lancashire. Therefore I think that in pressing the claim of Lancashire, of one particular county and industry in that way, the noble Earl is doing grave injustice to all those other British interests which are vitally concerned in keeping the Burmese export trade to India.
LORD LLOYD: I really think the Government may very well pray to be protected from their friends. If the best thing that the noble Marquess can say for the Government's Bill is that it is not going to make the plight of Lancashire's distressed areas worse than it is now, then I am even more sorry for the Bill. Surely, it is the duty of the Goernment to take into account, not shareholders, but the distressed areas in

149
the North, to which their Indian policy has already done so much damage.
THE EARL OF DERBY: May I say one word in answer to what the noble Marquess has said? Nothing disturbs me more when any question of this kind arises than that it should be looked upon as a question of Lancashire versus India. That is the last thing that I wish. I think it is the one thing which might ensure bad will, and. it is good will that I am asking for all I can. There are, however, certain things which are not really Lancashire versus India which I think, and I thought in this case, it right to bring forward. It does not apply only to Lancashire trade, but to all trades, and here, if I may say so, I think the noble Marquess a little misunderstood me. I do not, for one moment, question the validity of any arrangements that Burma and India may arrive at together for the interim period. They are at perfect liberty to come to any arrangement they like. All I want to do is to limit that arrangement to a comparatively short period, and that then there should be a free discussion and a free entry by Burma, which is now part of India, into any relationship she likes with this country, or any other country. The noble Marquess said that I did not allude to the last part of my Amendment. My Amendment is this. There is an Order it. Council which will have to come before both Houses, which will make valid the interim arrangement arrived at between Burma and India. I want that interim arrangement confined to two years, and that is why, in that part of my Amendment, I say that the duties in India on Burmese goods, or the duties in Burma on Indian goods, shall not be at levels lower than the duties applicable at the same time to like goods of United Kingdom origin. In other words, I only want it to be for the same time as the interim arrangement is arrived at.
With regard to the answer of the noble Marquess to my Amendment, I want to thank him for the courteous way in which he dealt with it, as he deals with all Amendments. I am not going to enter into discussion of the question as to whether a horse which would win at fifty yards would also win at fifty-live yards. I will only say I would sometimes like those five yards to my credit. Although I am naturally disappointed by the
150
answer, and his not being able to accept my Amendment, I do thank the noble Marquess for the ray of hope he has given—that he will consult with the Indian Government and the Burmese Government in the hope that at all events a portion of my Amendment can be accepted. If he does so and succeeds, I can assure him he will confer a great benefit on the industrial part of the world in which I live. I have such confidence in the noble Marquess and the way in which he has always tried to help us in various matters that came before the Select Committee that, rather than divide the Committee, I would leave it to the noble Marquess to endeavour, as he has promised, to secure some revision of the terms in which the Order in Council is framed and to get that revision accepted by the Burmese and the Indian Governments. With the permission of the Committee I will withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 448, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 449 agreed to.
Clause 450 [Provisions as to monetary system]:
LORD STRABOLGI: I gave what I am afraid was rather short notice to the Government that I wanted to raise a matter on this clause. The clause is very widely drawn indeed. It gives His Majesty in Council powers to make provision with respect to the monetary system of Burma and matters connected therewith or ancillary thereto, and then it goes on to say that the Governor of Burma, with the approval of the Secretary of State, may also make certain arrangements. May I ask the Secretary of State if he will be so good in the first place as to explain why Clause 448 has been altered with regard to the way in which Orders may be made. Instead of saying that His Majesty in Council may do so and so, in that clause, we have just passed a drafting Amendment by the Secretary of State laying it down that His Majesty may by Order in Council do certain things.
On Clause 451 there is another Amendment down in his name proposing to alter the powers of His Majesty in the same way; that is, altering them from "His Majesty in Council" to "by Order in Council", and as your Lordships will

151
appreciate there is a slight difference. With regard to this clause now under discussion it is proposed to leave the original wording in and my noble friends would like to know why it is not proposed to alter that also. By Clause 469 of the Bill it is laid down that Orders in Council should be laid before Parliament, but I believe I am right in saying that "His Majesty in Council" means "His Majesty in the Privy Council" and the Order does not come before Parliament; but the matter is a little obscure, and I have sought guidance in various expert directions but so far without complete success.
May I also ask for an explanation from the Secretary of State as to the intention of this clause? We understand that if you are separating Burma you must presumably separate the Burmese currency, which is at present the rupee linked to sterling. What is intended to be put in its place? This is a matter of very great importance to all business men and to the future trade of Burma. Secondly, is it intended that these powers shall be permanent or not, or is it only for the transitional period? The position is this. We are separating Burma from India, and that means, apparently, a separation of the monetary system, though I do not know that that should have been quite necessary. Very wide powers are accordingly given under this clause to His Majesty in Council and to the Governor of Burma in Council, with the approval of the Secretary of State. Are these powers going to be permanent?
I would point out that these tremendous powers are not given to the Governor-General in the Part of the Bill dealing with India. I have searched the Bill, but I have not been able to find that similar powers are given to the Governor-General of India. Both Governors-General have financial advisers; both Governors-General have certain responsibilities placed upon them to see that nothing is done to imperil the financial stability of their respective charges; but these particular powers under this clause I have not yet found are being conferred on the Governor-General of India. I therefore make so bold as to take up the time of your Lordships to ask for enlightenment on what I think your Lordships will agree is a matter of some importance.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE, FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): The noble Lord has asked two questions with regard to this clause, the first of a drafting nature and the second in the nature of a more general inquiry. With regard to his first question, if I understood it correctly, he suggests that a drafting Amendment is required in regard to these words, "His Majesty in Council may," similar to that which my noble friend introduced a few moments ago. I have not had an opportunity of a full consultation with the draftsman on the point since the noble Lord raised it, but in the few moments at my disposal I have taken such opportunity as I could, and I am advised that, having regard to words that occur later in the Bill, a change at this point is not necessary. If I find on fuller examination that I have unwittingly misled the noble Lord in that regard, I will give him an undertaking that it shall be put right at a later stage, but I believe I am not misleading him.
With regard to the second point, as to what is the meaning of these wide words in the clause, I think I can in a very few words tell the noble Lord what the position is. At the present moment, as he knows, Burma and India enjoy the same rupee currency. It may very well be that that arrangement will continue indefinitely. At all events it is clearly necessary to make some interim arrangement to ensure that it does continue for a period of time until the Governments of India and Burma have had an opportunity, if they so desire, of making an agreement with regard to it. At the present moment, I am informed, an agreement is under consideration between the two Governments for the continuance of the same currency, which is clearly in the interests of both; and if, and when, that agreement is made, I am advised that it will be necessary for it to be brought before Parliament in order to be ratified by an Order in Council which will come before both Houses. I think, therefore, the noble Lord will recognise that the object of this clause is to give powers, in words, indeed, somewhat wide, the object of which is, as I have stated, to ensure that there should be no rude disturbance of an arrangement which is to the interest of both parties until they have been able to come to an agreement.
One other word I may add. I hope that as part of that agreement, and as

153
part of the genera system that will be established, the same system of rupee currency will be maintained, and that, connected with it, Burma will both bring strength to, and draw strength from, the Indian Reserve Bank. I am quite sure that., having regard to all these considerations to which the noble Earl, Lord Derby, drew attention, your Lordships will feel that the more close this arrangement can be made the better it will be.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount. If he is looking into this drafting question, perhaps he will, at the same time, look into Clause 449 which is in the same position. I am delighted to hear, if he will allow me to say so, what has just fallen from him with regard to the currencies. I was afraid it was proposed to set up a brand new currency in Burma, whereas throughout the world it is the different currencies and the different exchanges that are causing so much difficulty to trade. I am more delighted than I can say to find that the Bill is less reactionary than I feared.
Clause 450 agreed to.
Clause 451 [Provisions as to immigration from India]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The Amendment in my name on this clause is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 279, line 6, leave out ("in Council may") and insert ("may by Order in Council").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 451, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 452 [Power of Governor to issue Proclamations]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The Amendments in my name on this clause are consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 280, line 24, leave out ("six") and insert ("twelve").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved to insert after subsection (3):
"(4) if the Governor, by a Proclamation under this section, assumes to himself any power of the Legislature to make laws, any law made by him in the exercise of that power shall continue to have effect notwithstanding the revocation or expiration of the Proclamation, and any reference in this
154
Act to Acts of the Legislature shall be constructed as including a reference to such a law".
The noble Marquess said: This amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 280, line 27, at end insert the said subsection (4).—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 452, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 453 to 456 agreed to.
Clause 457 [Persons not to be subjected to disability by reason of race, religion, etc.]:
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN moved to insert the following new subsection:
"(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as derogating from the special responsibility of the Governor for the safeguarding of the legitimate interests of minorities."
The noble Marquess said: This Amendment is really con sequential on an Amendment agreed to in Clause 297. It is giving the same power in the case of Burma. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 283, line 8, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I accept this.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 457, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 458 [Compulsory Acquisition of land, &c]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The Amendments in my name on this clause are consequential. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 283, line 9, leave out ("in Burma").
Page 283, Line 10 after ("property") insert ("in Burma").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 458, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 459 agreed to.
Clause 460 [Courts of Appeal in revenue matters]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The Amendment in my name on this clause is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 284, line 12, leave out ("in revenue matters") and insert ("or revise decisions

155
in revenue cases.")—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 460, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 461 to 464 agreed to.
Clause 465 [No proceedings to lie against Governor or Secretary of State]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The Amendments in my name on this clause are consequential. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 285, line 16, after (" in ") insert (" and no process whatsoever shall issue from ")
Page 285, line 17, leave out (" subject to the provisions of Chapter X of this Part of this Act ")
Page 285, line 20, after (" otherwise ") insert (" and, except with the sanction of His Majesty in Council, no proceedings whatsoever shall lie in any Court in Burma against any person who has been the Governor or the Secretary of State ")
Page 285, line 21, at end insert (" in performance or purported performance of the duties thereof ")
Page 285, line 21, at end insert:
("Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as restricting the right of any person to bring against the Government of Burma or the Secretary of State such proceedings as are mentioned in Chapter X of this Part of this Act.")—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 465, as amended, agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved, after Clause 465, to insert the following new clause:
Removal of certain disqualifications of the occasion of the first elections to Legislature.
".For the purposes of the first elections of persons to serve as members of the Legislature, no person shall be subject to any disqualification by reason only of the fact that he holds—

(a) an office of profit as a non-official member of the Executive Council of the Governor of Burma or as a Minister in the Province of Burma;

(b) an office which is not a whole time office remunerated either by salary or by fees."

The noble Marquess said: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 465 insert the said new clause.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 466 to 468 agreed to.
Clause 469 [Orders in Council]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The Amendments in my name in this clause are consequential upon the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Rankeillour. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 287, line 34, leave out ("which expressly authorises the making of such an Order")
Page 288, line 12, at end insert:
("(3) Nothing in this section applies to any Order of His Majesty in Council made in connection with any appeal to His Majesty in Council").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 469, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 470 [Interpretation]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved to insert:
"'Burma' includes (subject to the exercise by His Majesty of any powers vested in him with respect to the alteration of the boundaries thereof) all territories which were immediately before the commencement of this Part of this Act comprised in India, being territories lying to the east of Bengal, the State of Manipur, Assam, and any tribal areas connected with Assam;
"'British Burma' means so much of Burma as belongs to His Majesty."
The noble Marquess said: This is only an Amendment to insert a definition of Burma in the Burma part of the Bill. I think it would be rather invidious if Burma had to go after separation to the Indian Act to find out a definition of Burma.
Amendment moved—
Page 288, line 16, at end insert the said words.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 289, line 4, at end insert ("railway' includes a tramway not wholly within a municipal area;").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 470, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 471:
Commencement.
(2) The remainder of this Act shall, subject to any express provision to the contrary, come into force on such date as His

157
Majesty in Council may appoint and the said date is the date referred to in this Act as the commencement of Part III of this Act and referred to in Part XIV of this Act as the commencement of that Part.
Loan MIDDLETON Loan MIDDLETON moved, in subsection (2), after "may," to insert "by Order." The noble Lord said: I hope I may share the pleasure experienced by my noble friend Lord Rankeillour, when he was met the whole way over a similar Amendment in Clause 448. I do not think I need say anything further about this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 290, line 3, after (" may ") insert (" by Order ").—(Lord Middleton.)
THE MARQUESS OE ZETLAND: I have attempted frequently to meet my noble friend Lord Rankeillour's point, and I am afraid I have succeeded in the end rather clumsily. I have put Order in Council in place of other words in a number of clauses, yet, on searching through the Bill, I find these are a large number of other clauses in which, in the interests of grammatical accuracy, it would be desirable to make this alteration; but I think I can do it in a different way and really a much more comprehensive way. If the noble Lord, Lord Middleton is prepared to withdraw his Amendment now I will be prepared on the Report stage to move to insert new words at the beginning of Clause 305 and also at the beginning of the corresponding Burma clause, Clause 469. The new words I would propose to insert at the beginning of the clause are:
"Any power conferred by tins Act on His Majesty in Council shall be exercisable only by Order in Cc tuned and "—
and then the rest of the clause will follow. I hope my noble friend will feel that this time I really have met him. Indeed, I feel almost astonished at my own generosity.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: May I say that I most heartily appreciate what has been said by the noble Marquess? I have pursued this matter of King Charles's head from clause to clause, and I now feel that it has been given me on a charger with all the grace of the daughter Herodias.
LARD MIDDLETON: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 471 agreed to.
Clause 472:
Charge of expenses on revenues raised in India or Burma.
472. Where under the provisions of this Act any expenditure is charged on, or is to be defrayed out of, the revenues of any of the Governments constituted by this Act or of the Governor-General in Council, that expenditure, whether expenditure heretofore charged on or defrayable out of the revenues of India or not, shall be charged and defrayed in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved to leave out Clause 472. The noble Marquess said: This really ought to have been done in another place. Those of your Lordships who have served in another place will remember that in Bills submitted in another place, all clauses and lines of clauses which deal with finance have to be printed in italics. By an arrangement, which I will not characterise by any adjective, between the officers of another place and the draftsmen of this Bill the trouble and expense of printing lines in italics all over the Bill was got over by inserting Clause 472, which then appeared in italics. By introducing Clause 472 they achieved the object which it was desired to achieve but, that object having been achieved, the clause of course is no longer required. Indeed it is entirely superfluous and in those circumstances I beg to move that it be omitted.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 472.—(Th e Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment, agreed to.
Clause 473:
Repeals.
473. The Government of India Act shall be repealed and the other Acts mentioned in the Sixteenth Schedule to this Act shall also be repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that Sehedule:
Provided that—

(a) nothing in this section shall affect the preamble to the Government of India Act, 1919;

(b) without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act and to the provisions of the Interpretation Act, 1889, relating to the effect of repeals, this repeal shall not affect any appointment made under any enactment so repealed to any office, and any such appointment shall have effect as if it were an appointment to the corresponding office under this Act.

LORD RANKEILLOUR: On this clause I must really ask the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor

159
what is the position of the preamble to the Act of 1919. A preamble usually implies that something follows. Will this preamble be really embodied as a preamble to this Act by the fact of its being kept alive? If not, what validity or effect will it have? Will it be simply suspended in space, or will it have any effective force at all? Or will it be left—that might be very valuable—as a signpost for the further activities of Parliament?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): I hesitate a little to embark upon a discussion of an obscure constitutional point, which occupied a great deal of attention in another place and which was the subject, I gather, of some substantial differences of opinion; especially as my noble friend Lord Rankeillour did not have the opportunity of calling my attention to the fact that he was going to raise the point, so that it is sprung upon me without any previous notice.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: May I say that it was an inspiration?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I wonder where the inspiration came from. I think I can, provisionally and subject to second thoughts, give an answer to my-noble friend. There is a considerable body of authoritative opinion which supports the view that the repeal of an Act of Parliament does not repeal the preamble, the reason being that the preamble has no operative effect at all. My noble friend asked me whether the effect of preserving the preamble would give it any operative effect. The answer is "No"; it never had any operative or executive effect. That is why it is a preamble and not an enacting part of the 1919 Act. But doubts were expressed in certain quarters as to whether that was so, and it was suggested that if the complete Act were repealed, some persons who know no better would imagine that that involved the repeal of the preamble and the cancellation of the assertion contained in the preamble as to the objects of the legislation which the 1919 Act embodied and in pursuance of which this Act has taken another step. That was obviously undesirable, because Parliament did not intend, and Parliament does not intend, by the enactment of this Bill, in any way to depart from the
160
statement of intention contained in the preamble to the 1919 Act.
In order to prevent any misconception, it has been thought desirable expressly to retain the preamble in existence, so as to show quite plainly, to anyone who otherwise might draw a false inference, that there has been no change in the policy and no departure from the principles which the preamble contains. Therefore, when the preamble remains, it will not be suspended in space. It will remain as it was, a statement of the intention of Parliament, and it will remain as it was, without any enacting force, because that is never the function of a preamble. I hope that that answer will make the position clear to my noble friend.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I thank the Lord Chancellor. He has made a most valuable declaration riveting attention on the preamble to the Act of 1919, which is the only thing to which Parliament has hitherto been pledged. I am sorry that I did not give him further notice, but I am bound to say that I admire the process whereby his intellectual agility overcomes the want of preparation.
LORD STRICKLAND: May I add that it is quite in accordance with constitutional practice that before a Bill arrives at the Third Reading stage, if the Bill is not congruous with the preamble, the preamble has to be altered accordingly, and therefore the difficulty should not arise.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Would your Lordships give consideration to one point? It is of the utmost importance that this preamble should be preserved. I do not want to go into the particulars of it, but if my noble and learned friend would look at the Schedule of Enactments repealed he would find that there is no exception made: the whole of the Act is repealed. I should have thought that, when you get a Schedule completely repealing the Act, then, whether the preamble is operative or not, the whole Act goes. Although there are these words in the clause, I suggest to my noble and learned friend that it would be worth while considering, possibly on the Report stage, whether, when you come to the Sixteenth Schedule on page 416, there should not be some words in the repeal of the Act saving the preamble.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: There are.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: You have done it in the Act of 1919, and it is not necessary in the Act of 1935.
Clause 473 agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I propose now that the consideration of the First Schedule be postponed until after the other Schedules.
LORD STRABOLGI: Before we postpone it, I would point out that there is a misprint in the sixth line on page 11 of the Marshalled List of Amendments.
Moved, That consideration of the First Schedule be postponed.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Second Schedule [Provisions of this Act which may be amended without affecting the accession of a State]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved, to add to the reference to Part II, Chapter III, "and the protection of Judges of the Federal Court and State High Courts from discussion in the Legislature of their conduct." The noble Marquess said: Perhaps I might just remind your Lordships what is the object of the Second Schedule to this Act. This Schedule is the one referred to in Section 6, subsection (5). Its, object is the following: Since the Princes enter the Federation, as set out in the Act, of their own volition and in accordance with their Instrument of Accession, it would, of course, have been quite unfair to them, and indeed their adherence could never be obtained, if there was an unlimited power for subsequent Parliamentary legislation to alter the. Federal Constitution, leaving the States completely bound by the amended Act, which might constitute a Federation of a totally different type to that which the Princes had agreed to accede to. On the other hand there are, of course, provisions in the Bill, and in particular nearly all those relating to the purely British India side, to the subsequent amendment of which the States cannot possibly offer any objection.
The solution of this difficulty which has been adopted is the following: Those provisions of the Act which it was proposed should be amendable without the States being able to object, are set out in Schedule 2, and under Clause 6 (5) Amendment may be made of these pro
162
visions of the Act "without affecting the accession of the State" with the addition that no such amendment (unless agreed to by the State) should extend the powers of the Federal authority in relation to the State itself. These provisions are set out, as I have said, in Schedule 2. They may be amended without affecting the accession of the States, and may be conveniently referred to as "unprotected" provisions of the Act. Those provisions in the Act which are riot mentioned in the Second Schedule may be called the "protected" provisions of the. Act. These are, of course, the provisions which deal with the fundamental parts of the Federal Constitution, and with other parts which directly affect the States. It will be noticed that Clause 6 (5) does not say positively what is to happen if a "protected" section is amended by Parliament, but by implication such an Amendment would be one which "affects the accession of the States," that is to say if the "protected" provisions are amended by Parliament the State has the right to reconsider its position, or in more technical language it may be said that if "protected" portions are amended, the State's Instrument of Accession is voidable, though not void.
I have on the Order Paper a number of Amendments to the Schedule, the object of which is to make a few additions to the list of "protected" clauses of the Bill. None of the additions is of any very substantial importance, and one or two of them are put down to cover undertakings given in another place. The time was so short, I understand, that it was not possible in the time available to insert these in the Schedule, or to remove them from the Schedule as the case might be. The others concern relatively small points, on which we have been doing our best to meet the legal advisers of the Princes, who are interested in this particular matter. With that preliminary explanation, I may now move the different alterations to the Second Schedule which I propose.
Amendment moved—
Page 313, line 36, at end insert ("and the protection of Judges of the Federal Court and State High Courts from discussion in the Legislature of their conduct").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I presume all these are extensions of the "protective clauses?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: Yes, that is so.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 313, line 43, leave out from (" special ") to the end of line 48 and insert (" responsibilities of the Governor relating to the rights of Indian States and the rights and dignity of the Rulers thereof and to the execution of orders or directions of the Governor-General and the superintendence of the Governor-General in relation to those responsibilities.")
Page 314, line 4, at end insert (" and the protection of Judges of the Federal Court and State High Courts from discussion in the Legislature of their conduct")
Page 314, line 16, after (" Act ") insert (" any power of a State to repeal a Federal law, and")
Page 314, line 32, at end insert ('or empower the Governor-General to issue orders to the Governor of a Province for preventing any grave menace to the peace or tranquillity of India or any part thereof")
Page 314, line 35, at end insert ("and the appointment, removal and conditions of service of the Auditor-General")
Page 314, line 36, leave out (" The whole Chapter ") and insert (" Save in so far as it affects suits against the Federation by a Federated State.")
Page 314, line 46, leave out (" the power of the Governor-General to refer questions of law to the Federal Court ")
Page 315, line 16, after (" relations ") insert (" the limitation in relation to Federated States of His Majesty's power to adapt and modify existing Indian laws; His Majesty's powers and jurisdiction in Federated States;")
Page 314, line 20, at end insert (" and save also the provisions relating to the interpretation of this Act so far as they apply to provisions of this Act which may not be amended without affecting the accession of a State ").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third and Fourth Schedules agreed to.
Fifth Schedule:

FIFTH SCHEDULE. COMPOSITION OF PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES.
Legislative Assemblies.
4. In the Legislative Assembly of each Province specified in the first column of the
164
Table of Seats there shall be the number of seats specified in the second column opposite to that Province, and of those seats—

(i) the number specified in the third column shall be general seats of which the number specified in the fourth column shall be reserved for members of the Scheduled Castes and, in time case of Bombay, seven shall be reserved for Marathas;

(ii) the numbers specified in the next ten columns shall be the numbers of seats to be filled by persons chosen to represent respectively—(a) backward areas and backward tribes; (b) the Sikh community; (c) the Mahomedan community; (d) the Anglo-Indian community; (e) the European community; (f) the Indian-Christian community; (g) the interests of commerce, industry, mining and planting; (h) landholders; (i) universities; and (j) the interests of labour; and

5. A Province, exclusive of any portion thereof which His Majesty in Council may deem unsuitable for inclusion in any constituency or in any constituency of any particular class, shall be divided into territorial constituencies—

(i) for the election of persons to fill the general seats;

(ii) for the election of persons to fill the Sikh seats, if any;

(iii) for the election of persons to fill the Mahomedan seats;

(iv) for the election of persons to fill the Anglo-Indian seats, if any;

(v) for the election of persons to fill the European seats, if any; and

(vi) except in the case of Bihar, for the election of persons to fill the Indian-Christian seats, if any; or, if as respects any class of constituency it is so prescribed, may form one territorial constituency.

In the case of each such class of constituency as aforesaid the total number of seats available shall lie distributed between the constituencies by the assignment of one or more of those seats to each constituency.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved, in paragraph 4 (ii), to leave out "(b) the Sikh community; (c) the Mahomedan community." The noble Lord said: This Amendment raises the question of the communal system of elections. I do not want to argue the case for the Amendment at length at this time of night, but I must take the opportunity of making one protest in Committee—as I did indeed on the Second Reading, but the Secretary of State was unable to reply (about which I make no complaint at all)—against this whole system of the Communal Award. The first observation I would submit to your Lordships is to ask you to notice, with regard to the intricate provisions for representation of the Indian States in the

165
Council and in the Assembly—and the same principle, of course, applies to the Provinces we now have under discussion—that there is no mention of communal representatives. Where British India is concerned there are provisions reserving so many seats for Moslems, so many for Sikhs, so many for Hindus, etc., but with regard to the Indian States, which form one-third of the total area of India and contain about one-quarter of the population, if you leave out Burma, there is not one word about communal representation.
Observe that in the case of the largest State, Hyderabad, that State will have five members of the Council and sixteen members of the Assembly. There you have a State, with a predominantly Hindu population, governed by a Mahomedan dynasty. One would have thought, if this Communal Award was so necessary to get this Bill through, or indeed to have any kind of assent in India—we were told it was necessary for the then Prime Minister in August, 1932, to meddle in this hell's kitchen, which is what it is—that there would have been some provision made for communal representation from the States. But here you have Hyderabad, and as far as the Bill is concerned every one of these twenty-one representatives may be Moslems. In practice the matter does not arise, because only in recent years has there been any communal disturbance in the State at all. Similarly with regard to Kashmir, which is a predominantly Moslem State ruled by a Hindu ruling house. Kashmir is entitled to send three representatives to the Council and four to the Assembly. As regards the Bill all these seven representatives of the State of Kashmir may be Hindus, to represent an overwhelming Moslem population. But, in practice, we know perfectly well that the representatives sent from Hyderabad, Kashmir, Mysore, and the other States, with multiple representation will represent the population of the States as a whole. That should have been the case with British India.
I speak with int.ch diffidence in the presence of so many great experts in your Lordships' House on recent Indian history, but I believe I am right in saying that the communal differences, about which we hear so much now, were not very noticeable before the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, and that, as has
166
been described to me and to other noble Lords many times, when we were seeking to find an explanation, they have been made more acute by the scramble for loaves and fishes—in other words, by the competition for offices and places and jobs and posts, whether for the principals themselves or for their nephews and cousins and other relations; and that that is the real explanation beneath the communal troubles. If that is the case—and it seems to be generally accepted—what becomes of this intense religious feeling? The intense religious feeling may be felt by the masses, but it is exploited and taken advantage of by self-seeking politicians. We have surrendered to this, we have given way to it, and this alone condemns the Bill in my eyes.
If my casting vote could destroy this Bill, I would vote against it for that reason, because you are perpetuating this terrible rift in the democratic life of India, which I believe will be permanent. We were told it was necessary to make this Award by the former Prime Minister, now Lord President of the Council, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, in August, 1932, because the different communities could not agree among themselves as to the fractional proportion of seats they were to have in these Provincial Legislatures we are now discussing. Was there any reason at all why we should give way to that kind of pressure? If they could not agree, was it for us to impose this division upon them, this which I am afraid will be a permanent division? I am speaking with the greatest seriousness. Could we not have told them to come back to us when they had agreed? Could we not, above all, have insisted on the common electoral roll?
On the Second Reading I took it upon myself to question a remark of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State—I question any remark of his on India with the greatest reluctance and hesitation—when he said this was the only protection for minorities. I ventured to show then that, as your Lordships well know, in the case of countries where there is a common electoral roll, minorities are taken care of by the majority because of their voting power and because of the general decency of public life. Jewish and Catholic minorities are well looked after in this country, not because they have separate representation as Catholics

167
or Jews in the House of Commons, but because Members naturally look after their own constituents once they are elected. The same thing, we believe, would happen in India. I do not want to dwell on this matter at great length at this time of night. I would only point out that there is a most welcome movement in India amongst the younger men against this exploitation of communal feeling for political ends. Young Moslems, young Parsees and young Hindus are beginning to come together in the ranks of Congress and other political bodies. There is, I am informed, not much communal difference or feeling in the trades unions.
Where Labour has began to be organised in India—organised, I am sorry to say, against much opposition from Government—where trades unionism has made headway, there is no communal feeling. They act together as workmen seeking to improve their material lot. I am afraid that the explanation in years to come of why this crime was committed—I am not using hasty language, I am using language most deliberately—why we have given way to this claim of the Sikhs and the Moslems and others who demand separate representation is that we have harked back to the old system of "Divide and rule." You have been weak in this matter because you thought to base future Government on a minority of Moslems and, in one Province, of Sikhs. I think it will be proved in years to come a very great blunder. I have made my protest against this, and I have done it in the way open to me by putting an amendment on the Paper. I have made my protest with a very great feeling of sincerity in the matter. I think a very short-sighted view of the future of India has been taken in this whole system of communal representation as embodied in the Bill, both with regard to Provincial Legislatures and in the arrangements for electing the Councils. It is against the best interests of India, and therefore of this country, and for that reason I protest.
Amendment moved—
Page 319, line 13, leave out from ("tribes") to ("d") in line, 14.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I could wish that the noble Lord who has just sat down had contented himself with the earlier part of his speech, and had
168
refrained from using the language that fell from him towards the end of it. I can imagine nothing more mischievous and more dangerous than that there should be transmitted to India that in his judgment it is the considered policy of Parliament and Government in this country that Government in India should pursue the policy of "Divide and rule." He used those words at a moment when he ought to know of the most tense and anxious position in the capital of the Punjab Provinces, and when he ought also to know that every district officer up and down India who is ever faced with communal anxieties would give anything he possessed to be able to allay the communal tension and so get rid of his greatest anxiety. I am certain the noble Marquess opposite, and anyone who has had the honour of serving in India, will regret profoundly that the noble Lord should have thought it wise to give his authority to a statement to which one is not unaccustomed from irresponsible quarters in India, but, luckily, unaccustomed from responsible quarters in this House.
The noble Lord spoke of communal electorates with a great warmth of condemnation, in regard to which he is, of course, quite entitled to hold any opinion that he likes. He has said a great deal about them. There would be, if I wished to detain your Lordships, a great deal more that might be said on the other side which would, I think, put the whole question in more true perspective, but I am bound to make plain, what, indeed, no doubt is plain to all your Lordships, that it is no new proposal of this Bill to establish communal electorates. They have been in existence for a great many years past, and all your Lordships are perfectly well aware, I doubt not, of the reasons that were held first by Lord Minto and ever since, to compel their recognition. It is significant, surely, that any bodies that have examined this problem over the whole of the last seven years—the Simon Commission, the Government of India of that day, the Round-Table Conferences, the Joint Select Committee—have all recognised that, whatever might be their personal opinions, and many members of them shared the opinion that is held by the noble Lord, communal electorates must only and can only go by the consent of the communities affected.

169
I am not concerned here to argue whether or not the present Lord President of the Council and the Government of that day was justified or compelled to assume the responsibility of issuing the Communal Award. I think, if he will allow me to say so, the noble Lord was a little ungenerous in not recognising that, without such an assumption of responsibility, further constitutional progress would in fact have proved impossible. But that is a matter of history that both he and I at this stage are quite powerless to change, and those of us who were in the House yesterday and who heard the concern with which many of my noble friends contemplated what they wrongly, as I think, conceived to be a possible violation of the sanctity of the Communal Award, will be with me and with His Majesty's Government, in asserting, if it needs asserting, that there can at this stage be no question. of altering the Communal Award and—this is fundamental—since that is what the noble Lord would contemplate, we may regret it or we may not but as practical politicians we have to face the facts, and for that reason and refraining from entering into those wider powers of controversy upon which the noble Lord would perhaps think it so important to embark, I must ask the Committee not to accept his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: May I add one word to what the noble Lord has said in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has said about the Communal Award? I was a member of the Round-Table Conference from the beginning, and I know by experience the supreme efforts which were made by the then Prime Minister, who was then the Leader of his Party, and by other members of his Party, to try to avoid the perpetuation of the system of the common electorate. I remember very well the endless sessions of the Committee appointed to deal with the matter, sessions which took place during the Second Round-Table Conference under the presidency of Mr. Gandhi himself, when it proved impossible to reach any agreement. Therefore the Government was faced either with suspending all constitutional advance or continuing a system which it found to be the basis of the existing Constitution. I think, therefore, that there is no foundation whatever for the view that the appearance of the communal system, the separate electorate,
170
in this Bill is due to any ulterior motive on the part of any of the Governments of this country who have had anything to do with it. It is inherent in the situation, admittedly regrettable, in India itself, which has been in existence for the last twenty years.
LORD STRABOLGI: I do not want to press the point. I think that both the noble Marquess, the Secretary of State for War, and the noble Marquess on the Liberal Benches have given my words a rather stronger emphasis than I meant. What I meant was that perhaps that memory of our old policy in the past suggests that we are not quite strong enough in forcing a common electoral roll on to those delegates. I can quite bear out what the noble Marquess has said about the First Round-Table Conference. I remember then the tremendous fight about two Sikh seats in the Punjab; it held things up for weeks. I should have liked to support the broad-minded Hindus and the handful of broad-minded Moslems who wanted to have a common electoral roll. I should have liked to hold the thing up for two or three years more until we got the common electoral roll. I entirely accept what the noble Viscount said, that we ought not to cling to this remnant of the past, which colours our policy.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN moved, in paragraph 5, at the end, to insert: "In any territorial constituency to which more than one seat is assigned each voter shall exercise one vote only." The noble Marquess said: This is an Amendment which I hesitate to bring before your Lordships at this late hour, because it brings up what has been a matter of endless discussion; the technical method of election. On the other hand, it goes very deep into the possibilities of election in India itself. We have all had experience in this country and in other countries—I need not go into details—of the effect of the single vote in a single constituency producing a. Legislature which is quite unrepresentative of the main elements of public opinion in the country. I am not suggesting for one moment that it is possible or desirable at this stage to introduce proportional representation into the ordinary elections in India to-day. But you have under the Bill proposals whereby in a certain number of constituencies there will be

171
multi-member constituencies; that is to say, the constituencies will elect anything from one to four members. I venture to think that it is highly desirable that the Government should give consideration whether it is possible to prescribe in this Bill that a system should be adopted to secure the representation of large minorities, or the possibility of their receiving representation, in multimember constituencies.
Under the more usual practice of the block vote—that is to say, that each voter casts as many votes as there are candidates for election—it means that if there is a majority party they carry all the seats, even though they may have only a small majority in the constituency. Perhaps for that reason it was arranged in the Poona Pact that in the primary election in which the candidates of the Depressed Classes were standing, the method by which they would be selected is by the effect of the single vote and the effect of the single vote is to make it possible for a constituency in which there is a very considerable minority—say 2,000 out of 6,000—to return one member. I do not know whether the Government will agree to put this into the Bill, but if they feel some difficulty I venture to suggest that they should put this as a definite instruction to the Delimitation Committee to consider very seriously the advantages of this system.
Amendment moved—
Page 319, line 45, at end insert:
("In any territorial constituency to which more than one seat is assigned, each voter shall exercise one vote only").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I confess I have always been a good deal attracted by this method of voting. It would of course involve, as the noble Marquess has said, plural constituencies, and on that ground there are some objections to it in the case of India.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I am not suggesting that this Bill should make any more plural constituencies than are in existence.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I am sorry I misunderstood the noble Marquess. As I have said, I have been much attracted to this system of voting, but at this stage I should be rather
172
unwilling, I think, actually to insert these words in the Bill itself. I quite agree with the noble Marquess that it is a matter which might very suitably be submitted to the Delimitation Committee as one of the matters which they might investigate under their terms of reference. If that was done the noble Marquess and indeed your Lordships generally would have an opportunity of considering the matter at greater leisure when the recommendations of the Delimitation Committee were brought up, as they must be brought up, by Order in Council, for the consent of Parliament. If the noble Marquess would be satisfied with that I would ask him to withdraw his Amendment on that condition.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Then it would be an instruction to the Committee from the India Office to consider this proposal?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: Yes.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: On that understanding I am glad to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN moved, in the Table of Seats for Provincial Legislative Assemblies, to substitute "77" for "78" as the total of general seats for Bengal. The noble Marquess said: This, and subsequent Amendments, are quite simply a further attempt to give a little more representation to women. If your Lordships turn to page 324 of the Bill, which sets forth the exact representation of various classes of the communities in the Provincial Assemblies, you find a curious discrepancy. In the case of Madras, which has a total of 215 seats, eight seats are reserved for women. In Bombay, with only 175 seats, six seats are reserved for women. In Bengal, with 250 members, only five seats are reserved for women. If there is one Province in India in which I think it is important that women should be directly represented in the Legislature it is in the Province of Bengal; where social conditions are exceedingly difficult it is more important that you should have a certain number of women in the Legislature than anywhere else. Therefore the effect of my first Amendment is that there should be one seat added for a Hindu and one for a Moslem, so that out of 250 seats

173
there should be seven women where there are only five. In view of the sympathy expressed by the noble Viscount yesterday in response to the appeal of the most reverend Primate, I hope that the noble Marquess will give favourable consideration to this proposal.
The second Amendment really affects Assam, where in a Legislature of 180 it is proposed only to reserve one seat for a woman. I remember well the pathetic evidence of the Assam Provincial Committee in which one member somewhat exaggeratedly alleged that there was only one woman in Assam suitable for representing it in the Legislature. That was an exaggeration, but I think your Lordships will realise that it is an extremely difficult position to put a single woman to sit alone in a Legislature of 180 men.
Amendment moved—
Page 324, line 324, column 3, leave out ("78") and insert ("77").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I desire on behalf of the Opposition to support the Amendment. The noble Marquess in charge of the Bill may not find this particular method of increasing the representation of women one that he would approve of, but I hope, in view of the sympathy shown on this question by the Government the other day, that they will be prepared to make some concession. My noble friend Lord Snell would certainly have supported it had he been here, and I can only endorse what he said the other day on this question, which I think is not one of detail but really of fundamental importance.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The noble Marquess is a most gallant and persistent supporter of the ladies, and I admire greatly the consistency with which he has constantly urged their further representation. With regard to Bengal, it would, I am afraid, meet with very considerable opposition from the community in that Province which happens to be in the majority, and which does not always take the same view of the advantages of women in public life as the noble Marquess does. But all these figures which are delicately balanced have been worked out very carefully and in constant consultation with the local Governments, and I should really be rather averse at this stage from accept
174
ing an Amendment of this kind. So far as Bengal is concerned, I am afraid I should be very unwilling, but if the noble Marquess wishes to press me very hard with regard to Assam, I would enter into further consultation with the Government of Assam, where I think perhaps popular feeling would not be quite so strong as in Bengal, with a view to seeing whether they would be willing to agree to the alteration proposed by the noble Marquess. I am afraid that he will not regard that answer as very satisfactory, but I have done my best.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I am very glad to accept the noble Marquess's suggestion. If he will press, with that fervour which I believe he really feels, the position of the single woman on the Assam Legislature, I think they would give way. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
LORD CHARNWOOD LORD CHARNWOOD had given Notice that he would move to reduce from "30" to "10" the number of seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes in the Bengal Legislative Assembly.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: If it were not for the sight of the clock, I would gladly move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend, because this raises the whole question of the Poona Pact, and it is really far too important to embark on at this time of night. I think it only fair to say, however, to the noble Marquess, with a slight adaptation of the usual caution that is given, that anything he has said may be used against him on Report.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: May I retort to the noble Lord that that might apply to him also? I understood that the noble Lord yesterday would have been horrified at any suggestion being made that the pledge contained in the Communal Award might be altered. Now the noble Lord comes down and actually proposes an alteration of this solemn pledge!
LORD RANKEILLOUR: May I say to the noble Marquess that if he will study this Amendment he will find that it seeks to restore the Communal Award as it was.
Fifth Schedule agreed to.
Sixth Schedule [Provisions as to franchise]
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I assure noble Lords that this will be my last utterance to-night. I suggest that the Schedule be postponed merely in order to elicit some information from the Government. It may be awkward to take this Schedule before the First Schedule is discussed. It is quite true that this refers to Provincial constituencies, but the first words talk about territorial constituencies and so on, and I suggest it may run counter to something that may be done under the First Schedule. This is a very strange Schedule, because as far as I have been able to discover, there are no words in any of the main clauses of the Bill setting up this Schedule at all. I have looked through the Bill, and cannot find any such words. In the case of the other Schedules, there are clauses setting them up in so many words, and I would ask the noble Marquess to say what words set up this Schedule.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I would ask the noble Lord whether it is really necessary that there should be a parent or god-parent for a Schedule?
LORD RANKEILLOUR: So I have always understood.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The noble Lord is a much greater authority on these matters than I am, but I certainly was not aware myself that it was necessary that a Schedule should be set up by a particular clause. Perhaps I might shorten discussion if I were to give a brief explanation of the object of these various Amendments to the Sixth Schedule. Apart from two Amendments relating to matters of local detail in Oudh and Bihar, the remainder of the Amendments relate to the following points. First of all, the removal of the necessity for application by a woman for inclusion in an electoral roll in virtue of her husband's qualification after the first election. Secondly, the omission in a number of places of the references to the franchise qualification and the police. It is not necessary, in view of the terms of paragraph 12, which will be found upon page 328, of Part I of the Schedule, where the definition of "military" covers police, and a drafting change is proposed in a number of places to make clearer what is intended by the meaning of the words "preparation of the first electoral
176
rolls under this Act." These are not Amendments, I imagine, which will give rise to much, if any, discussion. I have explained the object of the Amendments, and I will move them seriatim if that is desired.
Amendment moved—
Page 326, line 11, after the second ("time") insert ("in whole or in part").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved to add to paragraph 12 of Part I:
"and a reference to an officer, non-commissioned officer or soldier of the Auxiliary Force (India) or the Indian Territorial Force, not being an officer, non-commissioned officer or soldier who has been dismissed or discharged from the force for disciplinary reasons, or has served in the force for less than four years".
The noble Marquess said: I may point out that this Amendment is moved to carry out an undertaking given in another place.
Amendment moved—
Page 328, line 13, at end insert the said words.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I have already explained the next two Amendmerits. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 330, line 30, after ("Act") insert ("1908").
Page 332, line 1, leave out from ("forces") to the end of line 3.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved, in paragraph 10 of Part II after "five," to insert "or"; after "six" leave out "or paragraph eight" The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Snell I beg to move the Amendment standing in his name. As the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill will realise, the purpose of this Amendment is to exempt women where qualified for the vote from having to make a special application in the prescribed manner. I am not quite sure if in the Amendments moved by the noble Marquess just now he referred to certain women who would be exempted and this Amendment really is an attempt to exempt all women from the need of having to make special application. I

177
am not quite sure whether the noble Marquess on a previous occasion did not express himself favourably towards this and I hope he may now accept the Amendment that I move.
Amendment moved—
Page 333, line 4, after ("five") insert ("or"); after ("six") leave out ("or paragraph eight").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I think the Amendment which I have already moved substantially meets the point of the noble Lord. I do not say that it does so altogether, but it does provide that in those Provinces where there is no social difficulty in connection with the registration of women the wishes of the noble Lord will be met after the first election, and if the noble Lord is satisfied with that I would be very glad if he would withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The rest of the Amendments on pages 20, 21, 22 and 23 to the Sixth Schedule, all in the name of the noble Marquess, Lord Zetland, if he has already dealt with them in his speech, I will, if your Lordships will allow me, put them en bloc.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
Amendments moved—
Page 333, line 8, at end insert:
("Provided that except in relation to the original preparation of electoral rolls and revisions thereof within three years from the commencement of Part III of this Act, this paragraph shall, as respects women qualified by virtue of their husbands' qualifications, have effect only where the husband's qualification is that mentioned in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph nine of this Part of this Schedule.")
Page 336, line 14, leave out from ("forces") to the end of line 16.
Page. 338, line 15, at end insert:
("Provided that except in relation to the original preparation electoral rolls and revisions thereof within three years from the commencement of Part III of this Act, this paragraph shall, in relation to women qualified by virtue of their husbands' qualifications, have effect only where the husband's qualification is that mentioned in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph seven of this Part of this Schedule.")
Page 341, line 20, leave out ("preparation of the first electoral rolls under this Act") and insert ("original preparation of electoral rolls and revisions thereof within three years from the commencement of Part III of this Act")
178
Page 344, line 37, at end insert:
("(d) is an under-proprietor in Oudh of land in the constituency in respect of which under-proprietary rent of not less than five rupees per annum is payable; or")
Page 345, line 11, leave out from ("forces") to the end of line 13.
Page 346, leave out lines 29 to 44 and insert:
("10.—(1) No person shall by virtue of paragraph five of sub-paragraph (a) or subparagraph (b) of paragraph eight of this Part of this Schedule, or by virtue of her husband being a retired, pensioned or discharged officer, non-commissioned officer or soldier, be included in. the electoral roll for any territorial constituency unless application is made in the prescribed manner by, or if it is so prescribed, on behalf of, that person, that that person should be so included.
(2) On the preparation of the original electoral roll for any rural constituency or on any revision of the electoral roll for a rural constituency within three years from the commencement of Part III of this Act, no person shall by virtue of her husband possessing any of the other qualifications requisite for the purposes of the said paragraph eight be included in the electoral roll unless application is made in the prescribed manner by her, or if it is so prescribed, on her behalf, that she should be so included.")
Page 347, line 8, at end insert ("under-proprietor' means an under-proprietor as defined in the Oudh Rent Act, 1886.")
Page 349, line 10, leave out from ("forces") to the end of line 12.
Page 353, line 1, leave out ("preparation of the first electoral rolls under this Act") and insert ("original preparation of electoral rolls and revisions hereof within three years from the commencement of Part III of this Act ")
Page 353, line 19, leave out ("preparation of the first electoral rolls under this Act") and insert ("original preparation of electoral rolls and revisions thereof within three years from the commencement of Part III of this Act ")
Page 353, line 34, leave out from ("forces") to the end of line 36.
Page 354, line 4, leave out ("preparation of the first electoral rolls under this Act") and insert ("original preparation of electoral rolls and revisions thereof within three years from the commencement of Part III of this Act ")
Page 356, line 38, leave out ("shown") and insert ("proved")
Page 357, line 1, leave out ("accepted by the Provincial Government") and insert ("prescribed")
Page 357, leave out lines 10 and 11.
Page 357, line 16, after ("Hyderabad") insert ("or a retired, pensioned or discharged officer or man of the Hyderabad State Police")
Page 357, line 27, at end insert:

179
(" (2) Subject as aforesaid, a person who is a woman shall also be qualified to be included in the electoral roll for any territorial constituency in Berar if she is the pensioned widow or pensioned mother of a person who was an officer, non-commissioned officer or soldier of the regular forces of His Exalted Highness the Nizam of Hyderabad or an officer or man of the Hyderabad State Police.")
Page 358, line 16, at end insert ("or a retired pensioned or discharged officer or man of the Hyderabad State Police ")
Page 358, line 23, leave out from ("four") to ("be") in line 27 and insert ("of this Part of this Schedule or by virtue of being a pensioned widow or mother, or of being literate or the holder of a primary school certificate, or of being the wife of an officer, non-commissioned officer, soldier or man of any force,")
Page 360, line 2, leave out ("cantonment or railway settlement") and insert ("or cantonment")
Page 360, line 4, at end insert ("and any prescribed railway settlements")
Page 360, line 29, at end insert:
(" (5) Any reference in this Part of this Schedule to a retired, pensioned or discharged officer or man of the Hyderabad State Police shall be deemed not to include a reference to any person who has been dismissed or discharged from the police for disciplinary reasons.")
Page 362, line 3, leave out from ("Rifles") to the end of line 4.
Page 363, line 6, at end insert:
("Provided that except in relation to the original preparation of electoral rolls and revisions thereof within three years from the commencement of Part III of this Act, this paragraph shall, in relation to women qualified by virtue of their husbands' qualifications have effect only where the husband's qualification is that mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph seven of this Part of this Schedule.")
Page 366, line 5, leave out from ("forces") to the end of line 7,
Page 366, line 17, leave out ("preparation of the first electoral rolls under this Act") and insert ("original preparation of electoral rolls and revisions thereof within three years from the commencement of Part III of this Act")
Page 369, line 21, leave out from ("forces") to the end of line 23.
Page 369, line 37, leave out ("preparation of the first electoral rolls under this Act") and insert ("original preparation of electoral rolls and revisions thereof within three years from the commencement of Part III of this Act")
Page 370, line 10, leave out ("preparation of the first electoral rolls under this Act") and insert ("original preparation of electoral rolls and revisions thereof within three years from the commencement of Part III of this Act")
180
Page 371, line 19, at end insert:
("Provided that, in relation to the original preparation of electoral rolls and revisions thereof within three years from the commencement of Part III of this Act, this paragraph shall have effect as if for the references in sub-paragraph (a) thereof to one rupee and one anna there were substituted respectively references to two rupees and two annas")
Page 374, line 27, leave out from ("forces") to the end of line 28.
Page, 376, line 24, leave out ("In this Part of this Schedule") and insert ("In this Schedule, in relation to Sind").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Sixth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Seventh Schedule [Legislative Lists]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved, in paragraph 1 of List I after "Governments", to insert "any armed forces which are not forces of His Majesty but are attached to or operating with any of His Majesty's naval, military or air forces borne on the Indian establishment." The noble Marquess said: Item 1 of List I, which is descriptive of part of the content of the subject compendiously known as Defence, as at present drafted relates only to His Majesty's forces and other armed forces raised in India by the Crown. It is, however, necessary to include in the forces over which the Federation is to have control any contingents which, by arrangement with neighbouring countries, for example, Nepal, may be lent to the Federation for the purposes of defence, as was the case in the War.
Amendment moved—
Page 377, line 9, after ("Governments") insert ("any armed forces which are not forces of His Majesty but are attached to or operating with any of His Majesty's naval, military or air forces borne on the Indian establishment ").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The next four Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 377, line 32, after ("Federation") insert (" (not being naval, military or air force works) ")
Page 377, line 34, at end insert ("and as regards property in a Federated State held by virtue of any lease or agreement with that State, subject to the terms of that lease or agreement")
Page 378, line 23, leave out ("terminals") and insert ("terminal charges")

181
Page 379, line 18, after ("corporations") insert ("whether trading or not").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved, in paragraph 35 of List 1, which reads "Regulation of labour in mines; safety in mines and oilfields," to leave out all words after "regulation of labour" to the end of the paragraph and insert "and safety in mines, quarries and oilfields." The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Marley I beg to move this Amendment, which is to include quarries with mines and oilfields as Federal subjects. In another place this was debated on May 30 and in column 1398 of the OFFICIAL REPORT it is recorded that the learned Solicitor-General said: "I will certainly have that point looked into." Again, at column 1400, the Solicitor-General is reported as saying: "I have already said that we will look into what is really the drafting point, and, on the general question, we will certainly reconsider quarries." He went on to make some reservations about the number of small quarries and then said:
"The coal mines in this country are disposed together in districts, whereas ordinary quarries are scattered up and down every field in the country. We will certainly look into the matter but that is the difficulty which led us to omit quarries."
There the matter rested.
Apparently there was a congestion of business at the end of the consideration of the Bill and no final decision was taken. Therefore my noble friend put down this Amendment to give the Government the opportunity of carrying out the Solicitor-General's obvious intention. The case does not need arguing. Coal in India is quarried in some cases, I understand, and I think it will be generally agreed if mines and oilfields are Federal subjects as regard labour regulations that should apply also to quarries. To the objection that some Provinces, if left to themselves, might be more progressive than the Federation, the answer is that local opinion in any Province, if strong enough, can insist on more advanced local regulations.
Amendment moved.—
Page 379, line 22, leave out from ("labour") to the end of the paragraph and insert ("and safety in mines, quarries and oilfields").—(Lord Strabolgi.)
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My noble friend is much obliged to the noble Lord for bringing forward this matter. He will see that if the next Amendment in the name of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State is accepted item 35 of List I would read:
"Regulation of labour and safety in mines and oilfields."
If the Amendment moved by the noble Lord is accepted it would read:
"Regulation of labour and safety in mines, quarries and oilfields."
I think substantially the point made in another place by members of the Party to which the noble Lord belongs is met by the Amendment in the name of the noble Marquess. If, as the noble Lord says, coal is in fact extracted from quarries, then those quarries come within the operation of the Indian Mines Act and rank as mines. Therefore it only leaves in dispute small quarries which may be found in every field which it would be practically impossible I am assured to bring under Federal authority. Therefore I hope the noble Lord opposite will feel that we have done our best to secure and safeguard the main point about which I think his friends are concerned, and will be content to allow his Amendment to be withdrawn and to accept the Amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend.
LORD STRABOLGI: Yes, certainly.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 379, line 22, leave out ("in mines") and insert ("and").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved, in paragraph 37, after "insurance," to insert "except as respects insurance undertaken by a Federated State." The noble Marquess said: These two Amendments to paragraph 37 go together. They make it plain that the entry has no application at all to any insurance carried on by a State Government itself. There seems to be very strong reason for enabling the Federal Legislature to regulate this kind of activity, which will obviously have no effect outside the State and which is not, and probably never will be, very widespread. Probably if the entry were left at it stands, many States would desire to make reservations when they were acceding to the Federation.
Amendment moved—
. Page 379, line 28, after ("insurance") insert ("except as respects insurance undertaken by a Federated State").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 379, line 29, after ("business") insert ("except as respects business undertaken by a Federated State").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX VISCOUNT HALIFAX moved to insert the following new paragraph:
"41. The salaries of the Federal Ministers, of the President and Vice-President of the Council of State and of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Federal Assembly; the salaries, allowances and privileges of the members of the Federal Legislature; and, to such extent as is expressly authorised by Part II of this Act, the punishment of persons who refuse to give evidence or produce documents before Committees of the Legislature."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment and the next three go together. The first three supplement the entries in List 1 and the third adds an entry in List 2. The only purpose of all these additions to these two lists of legislative powers is to include in them a description of certain powers that have been conferred by specific sections of the Bill, with which perhaps it is unnecessary to trouble your Lordships as they are technical. So far as that goes, these Amendments may be termed partly consequential, but the insertion of these entries in the lists has on the whole been thought desirable; partly in case it might be contended that, as the lists purport to be a complete enumeration of the legislative powers of the Federal and Provincial Legislatures respectively, there would be a conflict between the lists and the sections referred to if there were no corresponding entry in the lists to fit the sections; and partly because difficulties might arise in relation to the States if they were not enabled to accept alterations made in these classes as applying to themselves.
Amendment moved—
Page 380, line 3, at end, insert the said paragraph.—(Viscount Halifax.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved, to leave out paragraph 51 of List 1: "Regulation of the working of mines, but not
184
including mineral development." The noble Marquess said: This is an Amendment to omit item 51 in List 1. It has been pointed out to us that, as the result of entries 35 and 36 as amended in another place, entry 51 has now become in one sense inconsistent with these entries, and in another sense redundant. In those circumstances it seems to me very desirable to get rid of it.
Amendment moved—
Page 380, leave out lines 24 and 25.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 380, line 28, at end insert ("and, to such extent as is expressly authorised by Part IX of this Act, the enlargement of the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court, and the conferring thereon of supplemental powers")
Page 381, line 31, at end insert:
("12. The salaries of the Provincial Ministers, of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, and, if there is a Legislative Council, of the President and Deputy President thereof; the salaries, allowances and privileges of the members of the Provincial Legislature; and, to such extent as is expressly authorised by Part III of this Act, the punishment of persons who refuse to give evidence or produce documents before Committees of the Provincial Legislature.")—(Viscount Halifax.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: This is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 385, line 22, after ("labour") insert ("conditions of labour").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Seventh Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Eighth Schedule agreed to.
Ninth Schedule [Provisions of Government of India Act continued in force with Amendments until the establishment of the Federation]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: This Amendment is really consequential upon an Amendment made to Clause 309.
Amendment moved—
Page 394, line 29, at end insert:
(" (vii) Expenditure of the Governor-General in discharging his functions as respects matters with respect to which he is required by the provisions of the Govern

185
ment of India Act, 1935, for the time being in force to act in his discretion;").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Ninth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Tenth Schedule [Provisions as to Governor of Burma:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: Consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 402, line 19 after ("shall") insert ("during, and in respect of, the peroid")
Page 402, line 20, after ("powers") insert ("privileges and immunities").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Tenth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Eleventh Schedule [Areas in Burma to which special provisions apply]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved to insert:
" (3) The Kyain township, the Myawaddy Circle of the Kawkareik township, and so much of the Karen Hill tracts situate in the eastern half of the Toungoo District and in the Thaton District as may be prescribed by His Majesty in Council."
The noble Marquess said: This Amendment is consequential upon correspondence with the Government of Burma in the course of which it has been agreed that the Karen hill tracts here specified should be partially excluded areas. The areas in question are all close to if not actually contiguous to the Salween district which also is populated by Hill Karens. They are very primitive folk, and the obviously correct course in the case of Salween where they form almost the entirety of the population is to make the whole district totally "excluded" It is not practicable to do more than exclude partially the comparatively small areas in the three neighbouring districts of Amherst, Toungoo and Thaton, the inhabitants of which are predominantly Hill Karens. The Hill Karen areas in the Amherst district coincide with the administrative areas mentioned by name at the beginning of the Amendment: in Toungoo and Thaton they do not and it will be necessary to specify nomination by Order in Council the villages which are to be "partially excluded.'
Amendment moved—
Page 403, line 23, at end, insert the said paragraph.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Eleventh Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Twelfth Schedule [Composition, of the Burma Legislature]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: These are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 405, line 3, leave out from ("in") to the end of line 5 and insert ("the two last preceding paragraphs")
Page 405, line 32, leave out (" (who shall not be persons holding office under the Crown) ").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The other Amendments are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 406, leave out lines 16 to 18 and insert:
(" (2) For the purposes of this paragraph:
(a)where a firm has been assessed to Income Tax in Burma in any year, every partner in that firm shall be deemed to have been assessed to that tax in that year to an amount, to be certified in the prescribed manner, equal to his share in the firm's income on which the tax was so assessed;
(b)where water rate is levied in addition to land revenue, payment thereof shall be treated as payment of land revenue.")
Page 406, line 24, after ("is") insert ("or was")
Page 406, line 28, after ("whose") insert ("other")
Page 406, line 28, after ("is") insert ("or was").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Twelfth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Thirteenth Schedule [Provisions as to franchise in Burma.]
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The first and third Amendments are consequential and the second and fourth drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 408, line 25, after the second ("time") insert ("in whole or in part")
Page 409, line 34, leave out ("if he") line 37, at end insert:
(" (c) is a retired, pensioned or discharged officer, non-commissioned officer or soldier of the Auxiliary Force (India), the Indian Territorial Force, or any prescribed Burman auxiliary or territorial force, not being a

187
person who has been dismissed or discharged from the force for disciplinary reasons or has served in the force for less than four years; or")
Page 412, line 39, leave out ("constituencies other than general") and insert ("labour").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Thirteenth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: That concludes the Bill and Schedules, except the First Schedule, which should now be taken, unless—
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: It is proposed that the First Schedule should be postponed and taken to-morrow.
House resumed.

LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT (AGREEMENT) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Second Report from the Select Committee.
The Committee reported as follows:
1 CIVIL SERVICE PAY AND SUPERANNUATION (CONSOLIDATION SCHEME)
The Committee sanctioned the adoption, in relation to the staff of the House of Lords, of the Full Consolidation scale of pay and pensions authorised by the Treasury as from 1st July, 1935.
2 HOUSE ALLOWANCE TO RESIDENT SUPERINTENDENT.
The Committee sanctioned the payment of an annual sum of £45 14s. as from 1st April, 1935, for services in connection with the flat occupied by the Resident Superintendent during the temporary vacation of his official quarters.
3 CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENTS' MESSENGERS.
A report from the sub-committee appointed to consider the rate of pay of messengers in the Parliament Office was laid before the Committee, and a new scale, as recommended by them, was agreed to as follows:—
The scale to be £90 rising by£5 to£150 with extension to£170 for four posts, and to operate as from 1st April, 1935; certain extra payments in connection with the Victoria Tower allowed under the existing scale to be abolished.
4. DOORKEEPERS.
The Committee sanctioned the extra payment of£20 each to two doorkeepers in connection with the reallocation of duties for the Judicial work of the House; this payment to commence on 1st October, 1935.
5 GRATUITY TO A CUSTODIAN.
The Committee sanctioned a compassionate gratuity, in accordance with Section 4 of the Superannuation Act, 1887, amounting to£46 to Mr. J. J. Searle, who retired, owing to ill health, from the Custodian staff on 3rd March last.
6 SUN-BLINDS.
The Lord Chairman was invited to convey to the Office of Works the necessity for sun-blinds for certain offices on the west front of the building.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I have to move that the Report of the House of Lords Offices Committee be considered and agreed to. I think there is only one point to which I need draw attention, and that is the last item, which deals with sunblinds. The sunblinds in your Lordships' House are becoming somewhat the worse for wear, and it is hoped that your Lordships will consent to the Office of Works being moved to renew them.
Moved, That the Report of the House of Lords Offices Committee be now considered and agreed to.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: May I ask whether the House will meet at three o'clock to-morrow, and whether the First Schedule of the Government of India Bill will be the first Order?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I am proposing to put down a Motion to suspend Standing Order No. XXI for to-morrow's sitting in order to enable the House to take the various Motions on the Paper in an order which is necessitated by the fact that certain Bills on the Order Paper require to be dealt with before the Royal Commission sits at five o'clock, and to give the Committee stage of the Government of India Bill precedence over the remaining Orders of the Day. The House will meet to-morrow at three o'clock I think that will meet the convenience of your Lordships.
House adjourned at seven minutes before twelve o'clock.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:

Ipswich Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order.

And also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:

London County Council (Money).

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

DERWENT VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL.
The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
BECKENHAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
ASCOT DISTRICT GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL.
LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL.
Reported with Amendments.

BOGNOR GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL.
Reported without amendment.
METROPOLITAN COMMON SCHEME (PALEWELL) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.
SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (BOROUGH OF WIMBLEDON ORDER).
Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the Borough of Wimbledon:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.