Sitting of 8 April 1936

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Gas Light and Coke Company (No. 1) Bill,
North Wales Electric Power Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Traction Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Bristol) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Falmouth) Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  DIPLOMATIC VISAS.
  Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of diplomatic visas that have been granted by the Foreign Office to members of foreign Embassies and Legations in London for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount Cranborne): During the period 1st April, 1935, to 31st March, 1936, the number of diplomatic visas granted to members of foreign Embassies and Legations in London was 114.
  Mr. DAY: Do those figures include visas granted to staffs and their families?
  Viscount CRANBORNE: I should like notice of that question.
  Mr. DAY: Can the Minister say to which Embassy the most visas were granted?
  Viscount CRANBORNE: Not without notice.

  COSTA RICA.
  Mr. THORNEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received from the British consul at Costa Rica a report relative to the gift of 175 sub-machine guns from the Italian Government to the Costa Rica Government?
  Viscount CRANBORNE: The Costa Rican Minister for Foreign Affairs assured His Majesty's Minister on 20th March that no gift of arms had been offered to Costa Rica by the Italian Government and that none would be accepted.

  TRIPOLI (BRITISH SUBJECTS, SENTENCES).
  Commander BOWERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he is aware that Robert Ghirlando, a British subject, has recently been sentenced in Tripoli to three and a-half years' imprisonment by a special tribunal for vilification of the Italian Government and armed forces; that the alleged vilification of the Italian Government consisted in a remark that the Italian customs were mean, and that the alleged vilification of the Italian armed forces consisted in a statement that the Italian bombing of the Swedish Red Cross was a cowardly action; and whether His Majesty's Government are taking steps to secure the mitigation of this sentence;
  (2) whether he is aware that Carmelo Psaila, a British subject, has recently been 'sentenced in Tripoli to three years and eight months' imprisonment by a special tribunal for vilification of the Italian nation, making use of insulting expressions followed by acts of scorn; that the evidence offered against Psaila was of a trivial character; and whether His Majesty's Government are taking steps to secure the mitigation of this sentence?
  Mr. GALLACHERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether representations have been made to the Italian Government concerning the sentence of three and a-half years' imprisonment on the Maltese-born British subject, Robert Ghirlando, by the Fascist special

  2747
  tribunal in Tripoli, for the crime of denouncing Italian bombing of the Red Cross in Abyssinia; and whether he has any information as to the fate of another British Maltese citizen, Carmelo Psaila, who was brought before the same tribunal on 24th March?
  Viscount CRANBORNE: The facts of the two cases are as follow. Mr. Ghirlando and Mr. Psaila, Maltese British subjects who have been resident for some time in Tripoli, were arrested on 13th January and 9th December respectively, and were brought to trial on 23rd March last. Both were charged under Article 290 of the Italian Penal Code with public vilification of the Italian Government, for which the maximum penalty is six years' penal servitude, and under Article 291 with vilification of the Italian nation, for which the maximum penalty is three years' penal servitude. Mr. Psaila was further charged under Article 265 with spreading reports of news calculated to depress the public spirit in time of war, the maximum penalty for which is five years' penal servitude. These charges being in respect of political offences, the accused were tried before a Special Tribunal for the Defence of the State. The points mentioned in the hon. Members' questions were, I understand, included in the evidence brought against these gentlemen. Mr. Ghirlando was found guilty and sentenced to three and a-half years' penal servitude, to be followed by expulsion. Mr. Psaila was also found guilty and sentenced to three years' penal servitude to be followed by expulsion. My right hon. Friend is advised that in both cases the trial was conducted in a regular manner according to Italian law. His Majesty's Ambassador at Rome has kept in touch with these cases throughout and will watch developments with the closest attention. My right hon. Friend is not satisfied that the sentences in these cases can be commensurate with the offences with which these two gentlemen were charged. He understands, however, that a right of appeal against the sentences is still open to the accused. I do not, therefore, think it would be desirable in their own interests for me to make any further statement at the present time.
  Commander BOWER: Can the Minister give an assurance that every possible
  2748
  assistance in the putting forward of their appeals will be granted to these unfortunate Maltese people, whose only offence seems to have been a somewhat excessive loyalty to this country; and should their appeals not be successful, can he take some such steps as were taken not so very long ago in the case of certain British engineers who were accused in Russia of a somewhat similar offence?
  Viscount CRANBORNE: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that everything that can be done will be done, and that if the appeals are not successful His Majesty's Government will take any steps that are possible to obtain a mitigition of the sentences.
  Mr. GALLACHER: May I ask that immediate steps be taken in view of the fact that so much exertion was directed towards releasing the engineers in Russia, who were charged with wrecking, and not with a mere expression of opinion?
  Viscount CRANBORNE: I have said in my original answer that the cases are still subject to appeal, and it would be undesirable in the interests of these gentlemen themselves to take any action until the appeals have been heard.
  Mr. GALLACHER: Is it not the case that in a matter of this kind you demand the right to be heard along with the prisoners in any appeal? Did you not do that in the case of the engineers?
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is not one of the steps which could be taken the withdrawal of our Ambassador from Rome?
  Mr. RADFORD: Is not this case rather different from that of the engineers, because in that case there was imminent danger of their being sentenced to death?

  ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.
  Lieut. - Colonel Sir ARNOLD WILSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the League of Nations has yet completed its examination of the allegations made of the misuse of Red Cross emblems in Ethiopia and the discovery of 20,000 rounds of ammunition in a Swedish Red Cross lorry; and what conclusions, if any, have been reached?
  Viscount CRANBORNE: The League of Nations have circulated to members of the League a variety of complaints made by both belligerents concerning the alleged misuse or neglect of the Red Cross. On 23rd March the chairman of the Committee of Thirteen, in giving effect to a decision reached by the committee on that date, referred certain complaints made by the Ethiopian Government concerning the bombing of Red Cross units to the Italian Government. So far as I am aware no reply has yet been received from the Italian Government to the chairman's communication. As regards that part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question which relates to the alleged discovery of ammunition in a Swedish Red Cross lorry, I understand that the Swedish Red Cross Society announced in February that it had been ascertained definitely that the lorries of their ambulance unit in Ethiopia carried no ammunition whatsoever up to the time they were abandoned on the virtual destruction of the unit as a result of being bombed by Italian aircraft.
  Mr. RILEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any negotiations are now taking place between the Governments of Italy and Abyssinia or through the Council of the League of Nations with a view to the cessation of hostilities?
  Viscount CRANBORNE: So far as I am aware, no such negotiations have taken place. The hon. Member will, however, be aware that the Committee of Thirteen are meeting to-day in Geneva for the. purpose of reviewing the situation in the light of the report to be made by their chairman on the results of the action taken by him since the Committee met in London on 23rd March, in order to carry out the Committee's mandate to him to take such steps as may be called in order that the Committee may be able, as soon as possible, to bring the two parties together and, within the framework of the League of Nations and in the spirit of the Covenant, to bring about the prompt cessation of hostilities and the final restoration of peace.

  COLONIES AND MANDATED TERRITORIES.
  Mr. THORNEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what addi-
  2750
  tional territory was added to the British Empire under the Treaty of Versailles at the termination of the Great War; from what countries the territory was taken; and whether he can give the square miles in each case?
  Viscount CRANBORNE: I think the hon. Gentleman is under some misapprehension. While Germany renounced under the Treaty of Versailles in favour of the principal Allied and Associated Powers all her rights and titles over her overseas possessions, the only territories transferred from the German Empire in which the British Empire are concerned are administered under mandate by the United Kingdom and certain of the Dominions. I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate with the OFFICIAL REPORT a tabular statement giving the individual territories in question, together with the mileage in each case.
  Following is the statement:

  Territory.

  Square Mileage.

  Mandatory Power.

  Togoland (that part of it under British mandate).

  13,041

  Great Britain.

  Cameroon (that part of it under British mandate).

  34,081

  Great Britain.

  Tanganyika

  366,632

  Great Britain.

  New Guinea, etc.

  93,000

  Australia

  West Samoa

  1,133

  New Zealand.

  Nauru

  8

  British Empire.

  German South West Africa.

  322,393

  Union of South Africa.

  The figures regarding square mileage are as given in the "Board of Trade Statistical Abstract for the British Empire" (Cmd. 4819, 1935).
  Mr. SANDYSasked the Prime Minister whether he can give an assurance that in no circumstances will His Majestys' Government consent to the transfer of British colonies, protectorates, or mandated territories into any other hands?
  Mr. LENNOX-BOYDasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government in future to adhere strictly to its present policy in regard to the cession of the mandated territory held by Great Britain?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): I would refer my hon. Friends to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Monday last, to which there is nothing to add.
  Mr. SANDYS: In regard to mandated territories, is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer carefully avoided making any definite statement as to the future, and does my right hon. Friend consider that this policy of the open mind is really compatible with our great Imperial responsibilities and traditions?
  Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a definite assurance that no application by Germany for the return of Tanganyika will be considered, at any rate, during the lifetime of the present Parliament?
  Sir J. SIMON: The statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a considered one, and I could not undertake to elaborate it at Question Time.
  Sir PERCY HARRIS: Are not mandated territories in a special character, and do we not hold them as trustees for the League of Nations? Is it not right to differentiate between them and colonies and possessions?
  Sir J. SIMON: My hon. Friend's statement is not complete. The best plan would be to refer carefully to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Are we to take it, then, that the Home Secretary, speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister, is unable to give the direct assurance that is asked for?
  Sir J. SIMON: No, there is no reason for my right hon. Friend to say that. What I have said is that the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a considered one, and I am not going to undertake to embroider or amplify it in answer to a question.
  Mr. SANDYS: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I will raise the question at an early opportunity.
  Mr. SHINWELL: Does this indicate confidence in His Majesty's Government?

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (MINORITIES SECTION).
  Mr. RILEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how long has the post of Director of the Minorities Section of the League of Nations been vacant; and whether and when it is going to be filled again?
  Viscount CRANBORNE: The Director of the Minorities Section of the League of Nations resigned at the end of 1935, and his replacement is a matter for the Secretary - General. Monsieur Avenol informed the Council at its last ordinary session in January that he fully expected to be able during the May session of the Council to make proposals for the filling of the post.
  Mr. RILEY: Is the work still going forward?
  Viscount CRANBORNE: I understand the section is temporarily in charge of another member of the secretariat.
  Mr. J. J. DAVIDSON: Can the Minister say whether any further powers will be given to the individual who accepts this post?

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    FOREIGN OFFICE (STAFF).
    Mr. POTTSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of persons now employed at the Foreign Office and the number so employed in 1914?
    Viscount CRANBORNE: The staff of the Foreign Office and Passport Office, including the staff of messengers, cleaners, etc., amounts to 794, as compared with 189 in 1914.

    ADMIRALTY (LANSDOWNE HOUSE).
    Mr. RANKINasked the First Commissioner of Works whether negotiations have been completed for taking over a portion of the new block of flats of Lansdowne House, Berkeley Square, in order to accommodate some departments of the Admiralty; and whether alternative accommodation could have been obtained at less cost?
    Major GEORGE DAVIES (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): Arrangements have been completed to lease a portion of Lansdowne House for the Admiralty, at a rent which compares

    2753
    favourably with rents paid elsewhere for office accommodation in Central London. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
    Sir P. HARRIS: Is it necessary for the Government to choose for their offices the most expensive sites in the centre of the West End, and would it not be more economical to go to a less expensive part of London?

    CHINA (OPIUM TRAFFIC).
    Mr. MOREINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any recent reports from His Majesty's Ambassador or His Majesty's Consuls in China as to the measures which are being taken by the Chinese Government to give effect to the recommendations of the Anti-Opium Committee of the League of Nations?
    Viscount CRANBORNE: I presume my hon. Friend has in mind the Opium Advisory Committee of the League of Nations, which, so far as my right hon. Friend is aware, has made no formal recommendations to the Chinese Government. His Majesty's Government receive from time to time reports from His Majesty's Ambassador in China on the situation in regard to narcotics in that country and the measures taken by the Chinese Government in respect of it.
    Mr. MOREING: Will my noble friend consider the question of placing in the Library the reports from the Ambassador?
    Viscount CRANBORNE: I will certainly consider that point.

    GERMANY AND LOCARNO TREATY.
    Commander LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Germany has modified her claim to repudiate treaties; and whether, in the forthcoming negotiations, he will invite the German Government to suggest a tribunal before which disputes can be brought and the decisions of which will be respected?
    Viscount CRANBORNE: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the terms of the German Government's memoranda dated 24th March and 31st March, which have been published in the Press.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    SUPERHEATED STEAM.
    Lieut. - Commander FLETCHERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will make a statement concerning the use of superheated steam in His Majesty's ships; and whether the system has been a success or whether it was in any way responsible for the failure of His Majesty's ship "Amphion" to complete her trials?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lord Stanley): In accordance with modern practice, superheated steam has been used in His Majesty's ships since 1927. It has contributed in no small degree to the economy and efficiency of the machinery installations. Its adoption has been entirely successful and was in no way responsible for the defects that have occurred in His Majesty's ship "Amphion."

    FUEL.
    Lieut. - Commander FLETCHERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether any experiments are in progress regarding the use of pulverised coal, in conjunction with oil fuel, for firing the boilers of His Majesty's ships?
    The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): Experiments in the use of pulverised coal and oil mixtures have been carried out. They have, however, been discontinued for His Majesty's ships, since this method of firing is at present unsuitable for highly forced naval boilers; difficulties also arise as regards supply, transport and storage which make the method impracticable in the case of naval vessels.
    Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: Is that the reason why there are 14,000 more miners out of work this month that there were last month?

    ROYAL NAVAL VOLUNTEER RESERVE (MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE AND BOUNTY).
    Lieut.-Commander AGNEWasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has considered granting marriage allowance to young married men of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve and increasing the annual bounties granted to men of that Reserve, having regard to the concessions which are to be made to the Territorial Army?
    Lord STANLEY: I am glad to be able to announce that, as from 1st April, marriage allowance is payable to all married men of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve of the age of 21 or over. The bounty has also been increased on the lines recently approved for the Territorial Army.
    Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Is my hon. Friend aware that this concession is likely to be very greatly appreciated by the men of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve?

    DOCKYARD EMPLOYÉS (ESTABLISHMENT).
    Captain PLUGGEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will consider the desirability of extending establishment to all dockyard employés after 10 years' service?
    Mr. LINDSAY: It is important to maintain a proper proportion between the numbers of hired and established work-people in the Royal Dockyards, and to select men for establishment on grounds of merit and not merely length of service. For these reasons the Admiralty are not prepared to adopt the course suggested in the question. As the hon. and gallant Member is aware, approval has recently been given to relax certain restrictions in the filling of vacancies for establishment.
    Captain PLUGGE: Does my hon. Friend not consider that if the men were established it would tend towards greater contentment among them and better control by those who look after them?

    RETIRED OFFICERS (RE-ENGAGEMENT).
    Captain PLUGGEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many officers under the age of 35 have retired from His Majesty's Navy during the past three years under the various schemes to encourage early retirement in order to reduce excess numbers; and whether he will consider the desirability of arranging to re-engage some of these officers who are willing to rejoin, in view of the decision to increase the personnel?
    Lord STANLEY: 102 officers under the age of 35 at the date of retirement have retired from the Royal Navy since 1st April, 1933, under the various special retirement schemes. There is no present intention of re-entering any of these officers on the active list.
    Captain PLUGGE: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of these retired naval officers take their retirement somewhat to heart, and could he not consider offering facilities for these men to rejoin if they so desire?
    Lord STANLEY: The majority of the officers in question retired voluntarily.

    LONDON NAVAL TREATY, 1936.
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether any estimate has been made of the annual saving which will result from the provisions of the London Naval Treaty of 1936?
    Lord STANLEY: I regret that it is impossible to make any statement of saving such as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests. In order to make such an estimate, it would be necessary to take into account not only the building programmes to be undertaken during the whole period of the Treaty but also the possible large increase in the sizes of the ships which would have been built if the Treaty had not been made.

    WARSHIP ORDERS (CLYDE AND TYNE).
    Mr. DAVID ADAMSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what was the tonnage of Government orders allocated to the Clyde and Tyne, respectively, during the last three years, giving figures for each year?
    Lord STANLEY: During the calendar years 1933, 1934, and 1935, warship orders allocated to the Clyde district amounted to approximately 20,200 tons, 31,800 tons and 19,650 tons respectively, and to the Tyne district 8,200 tons, 23,400 tons and 11,700 tons respectively.
    Mr. ADAMS: In view of the very unsatisfactory comparison between the Clyde and the Tyne, can we have an assurance that the Government will endeavour to rectify the position by using their best influences to ensure that the second Cunarder shall come to the Tyne?
    Miss WARD: In view of the answer to a supplementary question the other day, would the Noble Lord consider calling a conference of shipbuilders of the Tyne and the Clyde, in order to ascertain why there is this difference of tenders, and

    2757
    to get an equal allocation between the two, as in pre-war days?
    Lord STANLEY: It is possible that in answer to a supplementary question I laid too much stress upon the price of the tenders, but there are other reasons besides price which affect the allocation of orders. I would like to point out that the Clyde, with six shipbuilding firms, has 45 slips, whereas the Tyne, with three firms, has 28 slips.
    Miss WARD: Can the Noble Lord tell us the relative position of the shipyards on the two rivers in pre-war days?
    Mr. MAGNAY: Is it not because the Clyde is obviously suffering from an inferiority complex that the Government give it preferential treatment?
    Mr. LOGAN: Will the hon. Gentleman take the Mersey into consideration?

    ADMIRALTY CONTRACTORS (WAGES RATES).
    Marquess of CLYDESDALEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has satisfied himself by inquiry that Messrs. Jamieson and Company, sheet metal workers, 55–57, Rimsdale Street, Bridgeton, Glasgow, S.E., not only pay wages in accordance with the trades union rate but that the employés receive wages in excess of those generally paid in the trade; and whether he accepts this firm as in every way eligible to receive Admiralty contracts?
    Mr. LINDSAY: The Admiralty have no reason to doubt that Messrs. Jamieson and Company are fulfilling the undertaking, which they gave before being noted on the Admiralty List, that they would strictly observe the Fair Wages Resolution of the House of Commons. As stated in reply to questions on 12th and 16th March, Messrs. Jamieson and Company have no Admiralty orders, and no need for investigating the wages paid by them has therefore arisen, but, in view of the exceptional publicity which has been given to the matter, an opportunity to do so will be taken when the Admiralty inspector visits Scotland in a few weeks time.
    Marquess of CLYDESDALE: In view of the visit just referred to, and after further inquiry has been made, will the hon. Gentleman be in a position to make a more definite statement to the House,
    2758
    that this firm have always complied with Admiraltly requirements, and that the statement made on 12th March is entirely without foundation?
    Mr. STEPHEN: Before he replies, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the question of 12th March was put on information supplied by a friend of mine in Glasgow whom I have always found reliable, and will the hon. Gentleman expedite inquiry into this matter so that the position may be cleared up and the true position be fully stated?
    Mr. LINDSAY: I am glad to see that the two hon. Gentlemen are in agreement.

    SUBMARINES.
    Mr. RANKINasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can make any statement with regard to the subsidiary naval treaty which is to be drafted to cover the use of submarines in war; which nations will be invited to discuss, as potential signatories, this subsidiary treaty; and whether, in view of the recent increase in the number of submarines by Russia, he can undertake that Russia will be invited to participate in this matter?
    Lord STANLEY: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut. - Commander Fletcher) on 31st March. Russia is, of course, among the Powers which will be invited.

    KENYA.
    Mr. BANFIELDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will inform the House of any modifications which are contemplated in the measures recommended by the Morris Carter report as regards the land question in Kenya Colony?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. J. H. Thomas): No modifications in principle are contemplated.

    GOLD COAST (MINING LEASES).
    Mr. PALINGasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will

    2759
    take steps to secure that some of the proceeds of the leasing of land for mines in the Gold Coast Colony shall be placed in native treasuries for local purposes, subject to Government audit and proper control?
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I can assure the hon. Member that it is the policy of the local Government to encourage the institution of native treasuries for the purposes to which he refers. Progress in this direction depends largely, however, on the education of native opinion.
    Mr. PALING: Can we be assured that some of these treasuries may be used for the benefit of the natives rather than for the benefit of individuals?
    Mr. THOMAS: That is what I have already said.
    Mr. PALINGasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the development of mining in the Gold Coast and of the frequent granting by chiefs of 99-year leases of land for mining without exaction of royalties, he will have the whole question of the granting of such leases put under the control, whether of the commissioner of lands or of some other official, with a view to protecting the natives' rights?
    Mr. THOMAS: Under the Concessions Ordinance, no concession in the Gold Coast Colony may be certified as valid if, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, it was made without adequate valuable consideration. I am satisfied that the rights of natives of the Gold Coast, in the matter to which the hon. Member refers, are sufficiently safeguarded by existing legislation.

    HONG KONG AND MALAYA (MUI-TSAI).
    Mr. VIANTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the commission which has been appointed to investigate the question of the mui-tsai in Hong Kong and Malaya will make use of the information on the subject which has been collected by the International Labour Office?
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: All relevant information, from whatever source, will be placed at the disposal of the Commission.

  PALESTINE.

    CONSTITUTION.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, having regard to the present conditions, His Majesty's Government have now decided not to proceed with their plans for the proposed new Constitution for Palestine?
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Since the recent Debate in this House I have had reason to believe that the representatives of the Arabs in Palestine would welcome an opportunity of stating their case to His Majesty's Government. Having regard to the fact that I received a few weeks ago a formal deputation representative of Jewish interests, it is natural therefore that the Arabs should have an equal opportunity of stating their case. I have accordingly instructed the High Commissioner to invite officially the Arab leaders to send a deputation to this country. This he has now done, and the invitation has been accepted. In the interval no further steps towards the establishment of a Legislative Council are being taken.

    JEWISH PRISONERS, ACRE.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any Jews in Acre gaol are on hunger strike; if so, how many; and guilty of what offence and for how long sentenced?
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I am asking the High Commissioner for the information desired.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
    Mr. DAVID ADAMSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the backward state of local administration in Palestine, any Department exists I here responsible for supervising the administration of existing local bodies, including municipalities, and specially charged with the duty of promoting schemes for the extension of local government in the mandated territory?
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: There is at present no such special Department of the Palestine Government, but I understand that the High Commissioner has under consideration the question of obtaining expert advice on local government matters.

    WORKERS' CONDITIONS, JAFFA.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any information from Palestine concerning the wages and conditions of workpeople at the port of Jaffa; and whether he can now make a statement to the House?
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I am not yet in a position to add anything to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on 23rd March.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman let me have a copy of the statement when it is made?
    Mr. THOMAS: Certainly.

    MALTA.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government in Malta are prepared to repeal the Pari Passu Act and to remodel the university statutes so as to give a better chance to English education in Malta?
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Changes have recently been made providing for a more extensive use of English in the university. The repeal of the Act would raise difficulties having regard to the provisions of the Constitution on the subject of language.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that no alteration will be made in the university statutes, and that the teaching of Italian will be continued?
    Mr. THOMAS: That does not necessarily follow, but the whole question of Malta will arise in another form after the Recess.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask what the statutes of the university have to do with the Malta Constitution?
    Mr. THOMAS: The difficulty is that the Act to which my right hon. and gallant Friend refers provided for the teaching of both languages, and, as far as I am informed, that has not been violated.
    Commander BOWER: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that during the last few months there has been a marked change in
    2762
    opinion in Malta as to the desirability of retaining the Italian language at all, and that many of those who were previously very much attached to the Italian culture are now beginning to wonder whether "culture" is the right word?
    Mr. THOMAS: I am glad to receive that information, and when, after the Recess, I shall be dealing with Malta in another form, I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will keep that in mind.

    TIN RESTRICTION SCHEME.
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government has yet reached any decision with regard to the prolongation of the international tin restriction scheme which was originally supposed to continue for three years from 1st January, 1934, subject to extension according to the decision of the signatory Governments?
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I understand from the Chairman of the International Tin Committee that negotiations are proceeding between the parties interested. These negotiations have not yet reached the stage where the question of renewing the agreement on behalf of the British Dependencies concerned requires the consideration of His Majesty's Government.
    Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the continuance of the international tin restriction scheme is absolutely vital to British producers of tin?
    HON. MEMBERS: Why?
    Mr. THOMAS: I am aware that anything that tends to increase the value to the producer must of necessity be of benefit.

    BRITISH SOMALILAND (DEATH SENTENCES).
    Sir A. WILSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many sentences of death have been passed in British Somaliland during the past 10 years; and in how many cases these have been reversed or commuted on appeal?
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I regret that such information is not available, but I will ask the Governor to send a report.
    Sir A. WILSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what, if any, legal qualifications are possessed by judges in British Somaliland who have power, respectively, to pass and to hear appeals against death sentences on defendants who are not permitted to be heard by counsel?
    Mr. THOMAS: No court in British Somaliland is at present constituted by officers with legal qualifications; but I have the question of judicial arrangements in the Protectorate under review.
    Sir A. WILSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure that persons who are British-protected subjects lying under sentence of death are given the same facilities for defence as are proposed for British subjects in foreign territory?
    Mr. THOMAS: The hon. and gallant Member knows that in the particular case under review, immediately my attention was called to the question, I took the necessary steps to ensure that that should be done. That is why I said in my answer that I have in mind the whole question.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    TRINIDAD (CONDENSED MILK IMPORTS).
    Mr. C. S. TAYLORasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered the representations sent from prominent Trinidad citizens, including elected members of the legislative council, in regard to the subject of a quota for foreign condensed milk imported into Trinidad and for a further increase in duties on this product; and what steps he proposes to take in this matter?
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: No representations have been addressed to me from Trinidad on the subject. The matter is, however, receiving consideration, and I understand that the Board of Trade are in communication with trade interests concerned in this country.

    BOOTS AND SHOES (PRICES).
    Mr. R. C. MORRISONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the prices of boots and shoes have been advanced by 6 per cent. as a result of the increase in the import duty on dressed leather; and whether he will therefore reconsider the matter with a view to the reduction of the duty?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I understand that some increase in prices of boots and shoes is taking place but my information is that this increase is due to a variety of causes of which the cost of the leather on which the duty has recently been raised is not one of the most important.
    Mr. MORRISON: Will the hon. Member keep a close watch and investigate further, and if he is satisfied that the increase is due to the duty, which we discussed in the House the other evening, will he reconsider the matter?
    Dr. BURGIN: Reconsideration of the duty is a matter for the Advisory Committee. I will keep a watch on the movement of prices, and perhaps the hon. Member will communicate to me any facts that he has.
    Sir P. HARRIS: Will the Minister call the attention of the Advisory Committee to the rise in prices?

    NICKEL (EXPORTS TO GERMANY).
    Mr. E. J. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to ensure that no further supplies of nickel are exported from this country to Germany, in order to prevent its use by Germany for making munitions?
    Captain EUAN WALLACE (Secretary, Department of Overseas Trade): No, Sir. Nickel has important uses in many industries, and the action suggested would be an unjustifiable interference with trade.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Does not the Minister appreciate that this is a very serious matter, and may I ask him to look into it again, because it may have very serious repercussions for this country?

  AVIATION.

    STORNOWAY.
    Mr. MALCOLM MacMILLANasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will take immediate steps to have granted to Stornoway Trust the private licence which has already been paid for, especially in view of the fact that aeroplanes have been landing from time to time on their ground, which is

    2765
    much superior to the landing grounds in North and South Uist where there are now regular services?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I am advised that the landing area at Steinish, Stornoway, is at present unsuitable for use by aircraft operating public transport services. The aerodromes at North and South Uist, on the other hand, afford adequate safety in operation. As I said in my reply of 2nd March, the Air Ministry has advised as to the work necessary at Stornoway.
    Mr. MacMILLAN: Could we have an assurance that the Stornoway Trust will not be involved in costs if they are not to have the advantages of a local air service?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The fee is £2 2s. for inspection and £1 5s. for the licence. If the licence is not granted, the fee is returned, as it will be in this case.

    CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES, TYNESIDE.
    Mr. DENVILLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the Government's desire to assist the special areas, he will take advantage of the possibilities available on Tyneside for the erection of factories for Government work?
    Sir P. SASSOON: Tyneside will be borne in mind in this connection, together with other industrial areas.
    Mr. DENVILLE: Is the Under-Secretary aware that Messrs. Wood and Skinner's yard, one of the yards which could be speeded up specially for Government work, after having been derelict almost ever since the War, is specially suitable for making seaplanes; and will he take that fact into consideration?

    CONTRACTS (ALLOCATION).
    Mr. LOFTUSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the severe unemployment in Lowestoft, particularly in the fishing industry, he will give consideration to Lowestoft industries in the allocation of contracts?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The claims of Lowestoft will be borne in mind in this connection, along with the claims of the many other areas in respect of which the Air Ministry has received representations.

    GERMAN AIRSHIP "HINDENBURG."
    Mr. DAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether any assurances were asked for and received from the controllers of the flight of the German Zeppelin "Hindenburg" to the effect that no photographs should be taken during this flight on its approach to, or passing over, the English coast; and whether any condition was imposed that cameras belonging to all the passengers of this airship should be sealed up while in proximity of British territory?
    Sir P. SASSOON: No need for such an assurance arose. The flight came under the Anglo-German Air Navigation Agreement, which provides, in relation to flights by German and United Kingdom aircraft over this country and Germany respectively, that no cameras shall be carried by any aircraft or by its crew or passengers, except by permission; and no permission to carry cameras was requested.
    Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how far off the airship was from the coast at Dover?
    Sir P. SASSOON: My information is that it passed over no land.
    Mr. DAY: Were there any British observers on board?

    PILOTS, SCOTLAND (MEDICAL EXAMINATION).
    Marquess of CLYDESDALEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the rapidly increasing number of professional pilots in Scotland and their growing grievance at having to attend examinations in London, he is prepared to state the minimum number of "B" licence pilots which would be required in Scotland before the appointment of a medical board for Scotland would be considered?
    Sir P. SASSOON: There were only three applications from Scotland for initial issue of a "B" licence during the last six months of 1935, and this figure would clearly have to be increased very considerably before a special medical board could be justified. I should prefer not to prescribe a hard and fast minimum.
    Marquess of CLYDESDALE: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there are in Scotland some 50 pilots who have "B" licences or are under instruction for

    2767
    obtaining "B" licences, and that this number is steadily increasing; and, in view of the fact that they have a grave grievance in having to travel to London to pass their medical examination, will the Minister reconsider the question of setting up a medical board in Scotland?
    Sir P. SASSOON: There is no special board in England; these examinations are carried out by a Royal Air Force central medical board.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: If there are 50 of these young men who are practised in aviation and anxious to be examined by a doctor, surely the resources of the Northern Kingdom should be equal to meeting this need?
    Sir P. SASSOON: There are technical and flying tests as well.
    Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: Pending reconsideration of the matter by the Department, will my right hon. Friend consider giving rebates to these young men in respect of their medical examination, at any rate as regards the travelling expenses to which they are put?
    Sir P. SASSOON indicated assent

    AIR-MAIL SERVICE (SHANGHAI).
    Mr. MOREINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he intends to extend the British air-mail service from Hong Kong to Shanghai?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I hope that such an extension will be practicable later, but it depends, as my hon. Friend will realise, on facilities being granted by the Chinese authorities.
    Mr. MOREINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he has any information as to the arrangement between the China National Aviation Corporation and Air France whereby airmail is carried from Shanghai to Hanoi by the China National Aviation Corporation and thence brought to France by Air France; and whether it is possible to make a, similar arrangement between the China National Aviation Corporation and Imperial Airways for the carriage of British mails to and from Shanghai?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I would prefer for the moment not to say
    2768
    more than that the possibility is not being overlooked.

    "CITY OF KHARTOUM."
    Captain BALFOURasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what new orders, if any, have been, or will be, issued as a result of the inquest findings on the "City of Khartoum" accident?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The question whether any new regulations are called for must await the report of the Inspector of Accidents, which should be available very shortly.
    Mr. BOSSOM: Would the Government publish a detailed and complete report based on their official findings?
    Sir P. SASSOON indicated assent.

    ROYAL AIR FORCE (CADETS, CRANWELL).
    Captain. BALFOURasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number of Royal Air Force cadets at the Cadet College Cranwell, and the number which the college can normally accommodate?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The numbers are 132 and 150 respectively.

    STAFF CONVERSATIONS.
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Prime Minister whether the proposed staff conversations between this country and France and Belgium will commence before the House reassembles on 21st April; what precise arrangements have been made for the supervision of these talks by the Cabinet; whether they will be of an entirely private nature; and, if so, what steps will be taken to ensure that there is no leakage of information either to the British or foreign Press?
    Sir J. SIMON: Staff conversations within the scope laid down in paragraph III of the proposals of 19th March will begin in London on Wednesday, 15th April. As regards the remainder of the question, I can only repeat the assurance which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already given, that His Majesty's Government will take all precautions which seem necessary to them, and that the Cabinet will keep careful watch on this matter.
    Captain MACDONALD: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the usual practice is not observed when arrangements with regard to the Press are entered into and strict observance of the arrangements is kept in London whereas all the information is given away to Continental newspapers next day?
    Sir J. SIMON: My original answer shows that everybody has that in mind.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is it not extremely important that the country should be informed how far it is being committed if the House is not sitting?
    Sir J. SIMON: I can scarcely imagine that these conversations would actually take place in public. The House will be resuming its sittings within a few days.

  DEFENCE.

    CAPITAL SHIPS.
    Lieut. - Commander FLETCHERasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he will consider the advisability of setting up a committee, other than a sub-committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence, to inquire whether the capital ship is still a necessary unit of the Fleet before the construction of such ships at a cost of some £8,000,000 each is embarked upon?
    The MINISTER for the CO-ORDINATION of DEFENCE (Sir Thomas Inskip): No, Sir. The Committee of Imperial Defence is the proper machinery to use for any investigations of this nature which His Majesty's Government think necessary to undertake.
    Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: Is it the case that the construction of these ships will be proceeded with solely on the advice of Naval officers which will naturally be somewhat prejudiced?
    Sir T. INSKIP: Any decision that is made is taken by His Majesty's Government on their responsibility.

    METALLIFEROUS MINING INDUSTRY.
    Lieut.-Commander AGNEWasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether, in view of the difficulty during times of national emergency in maintaining sufficient importations, he is having regard to the importance of the continuance of the metalliferous mining industry in Great Britain?
    Sir T. INSKIP: My hon. and gallant Friend may be sure that the importance of this industry will not be overlooked.
    Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Will the right hon. Gentleman support the Secretary of State for the Colonies in working for the continuity of enterprise and employment which only the tin restriction scheme can give in that industry?
    Mr. SHINWELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the importance of the development of our mineral resources other than coal?
    Sir T. INSKIP: My answer shows that that is already, and will be, under my consideration.

    GRANARIES.
    Mr. DONNERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the small reserve of wheat stored in this country at the present time of international uncertainty, due to the lack of premium in forward wheat, he will investigate the desirability of taking steps to lay before the Canadian Wheat Board the proposal that the board should transfer part of its stored supplies to this country, with the assistance of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom in meeting the small extra cost of storage?
    Dr. BURGIN: I have taken note of my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. DONNER: Will the Minister be so good as to make arrangements to be present to-morrow, when it is hoped to raise the whole question?
    Dr. BURGIN: I think that is very possible.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: Is it not the case that the normal supplies of wheat in this country will be raised by natural reasons as soon as navigation on the St. Lawrence is open for traffic, as is always the case at this time of the year?

  TRANSPORT.

    ISLAND OF LEWIS (ROAD WORKERS' WAGES).
    Mr. M. MacMILLANasked the Minister of Transport whether, when allocating grants from the Road Fund to Highland counties, he will take action to ensure that workmen are paid a full reasonable living wage instead of 2½d. an hour and less, as they have been paid during the past few years in the Island of Lewis?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): No free labour has been or will be employed on the roads which are being reconstructed in the north of Scotland with the aid of 100 per cent. grants from the Road Fund. In the case of certain other roads in the Island of Lewis I have given grants of 50 per cent. based on estimates in which the labour cost is calculated on the basis of the Fair Wages Resolution. I understand that a voluntary agreement has been made between the county council and the men engaged upon the work; and the question whether free labour, voluntarily offered to secure the early execution of works in a particular locality should be accepted by the highway authority is one for the discretion of the authority.
    Mr. MacMILLAN: Can I read that answer as a promise that no free labour will be employed in 100 per cent. grant contracts?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have answered the question on the Paper. The inhabitants of the Island of Lewis have voluntarily undertaken to do certain work in the provision of roads for their own benefit, in agreement with the county council. I have no locus standi in that matter. I have made a 50 per cent. grant to the county council.
    Mr. MacMILLAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these people have to give free labour lest their chances of getting unemployment benefit are damaged and is that not coercion?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think the hon. Member is under a complete misapprehension. The people of the Island of Lewis applied to the county council for a grant for the making of roads, which the county council was unable to give, or not desirous of giving. The county council applied to me for a grant and, in order to help the population of the Island of Lewis to carry out the scheme, I made a. grant of 50 per cent. The only effect of the hon. Member's agitation would be that Lewis would be without its roads.
    Mr. LAWSON: Does not the fact that he has given a grant give him some control over wages, as there is a scale of wages for that purpose?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have based my grant upon the Fair Wages Clause. I have given a 50 per cent. grant to
    2772
    the responsible highway authority. That authority has entered into an agreement with the population of the Island of Lewis for the benefit of that Island.
    Mr. MacMILLAN: Is it not the case that these roads ate under the supervision of the Ministry of Tranport?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, Sir, these roads are the responsibility of the county council, and if the hon. Gentleman desires me to intervene, I am quite ready to consider withdrawing the grant altogether, in which case they would not get the roads.

    ROAD ACCIDENTS.
    Mr. PARKINSONasked the Minister of Transport the number of accidents on the roads of Lancashire during the years 1930, 1932, and 1935, giving separate figures for fatal and non-fatal cases; and also the same information for Wigan, Preston, Bolton, and Oldham, giving separate figures for each?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the figures required.
    Following is the information:
    The number of fatal and non-fatal accidents on the roads in the police districts of Wigan, Preston, Bolton and Oldham and in all police districts in Lancashire, respectively, in the years 1930, 1932 and 1935, were as follow:

    Fatal Accidents.

    Non-fatal Accidents.

    Wigan.

    1930

    11

    151

    1932

    6

    215

    1935

    6

    262

    Preston.

    1930

    17

    369

    1932

    11

    499

    1935

    7

    450

    Bolton.

    1930

    32

    445

    1932

    21

    614

    1935

    21

    677

    Oldham.

    1930

    13

    237

    1932

    12

    267

    1935

    18

    285

    Lancashire.

    1930

    679

    14,788

    1932

    593

    18,435

    1935

    577

    18,346

    Mr. GRANVILLEasked the Minister of Transport whether he is now in a position to state when the reports of the Inter-Departmental Committees on road safety among school children will be published?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 24th April is the proposed date.
    Mr. KEELINGasked the Minister of Transport whether he has issued or will issue any instructions or formula for the guidance of road surveyors in design-Sing the super-elevation of road curves, the provision of which is recommended to highway authorities in his memorandum on public safety dated 6th February, 1934, or what other provision is made to ensure that roads are suitably banked at corners and bends?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir, the memorandum to which my hon. Friend refers is being revised and will shortly be re-issued.
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER GRAYasked the Minister of Transport (1) whether he can state from statistics of the last two years which are the three most dangerous spots in London and the number of accidents that have occurred at each during that period;
    (2) whether he can state from statistics of the last two years which are the three most dangerous spots in rural Scotland and the number of accidents that have occurred at each during that period;
    (3) whether he can state from statistics of the last two years which are the three most dangerous spots in Glasgow and the number of accidents that have occurred at each during that period?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate the information desired in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Can my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that in each of these cases steps have been taken to make the places less dangerous?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir, and in most instances with good results.
    Following is the information:
    The following statement shows certain streets in London and Glasgow in which
    2774
    road accidents involving personal injury have been particularly numerous. Information regarding accidents in the rural areas of Scotland cannot readily be given in this form:

    Six months ended 30th September.

    London.

    Sections of—

    1934.

    1935.

    Commercial Road and East India Dock Road.

    236

    251

    Lewisham High Road and Eltham Road.

    158

    155

    Chiswick High Road and King Street.

    194

    121

    Glasgow.

    1934.

    1935.

    Dumbarton Road, from Church Street to Balshagray Avenue.

    121

    128

    Paisley Road and Paisley Road West, from Morrison Street to Lorne Street.

    92

    97

    Garscube Road, from Burnside Street to Possil Road.

    47

    61

    Sir PATRICK HANNONasked the Minister of Transport whether he has under consideration the extension of the use of the invisible ray in the regulation of traffic upon the highways of the country; whether the experiment which he has commended in the installation of this device at Morden is to be introduced in other localities; and whether he is calling the attention of highway authorities to the possibilities of the use of the invisible ray in the reduction of casualties upon the road?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The application of the photo-electric ray to traffic light signals at Morden is an experiment, and the advisability of extending it will depend on its results.
    Sir P. HANNON: Will my right hon. Friend consider having a, similar experiment in the neighbourhood of Birmingham?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Most willingly, if the city council will make an application.
    Sir ALFRED BEITasked the Minister of Transport whether he will arrange for fuller publicity to be given regarding the ages and physical defects, if 'any, of the victims of road accidents?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir. The ages of persons killed and any physical defects from which they suffered, so far as they were considered to have been a cause of the accidents, will be shown in the Report on Fatal Accidents on the roads during 1935, which will be issued shortly. Similar particulars will be available in the reports on road accidents involving personal injury which are being obtained from the beginning of this month.
    Captain STRICKLANDasked the Minister of Transport whether he has observed the reports of accidents to children cycling in the streets; and whether, when legislation is being introduced, he will consider fixing a minimum age for persons using bicycles, as is the case with motor cyclists?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir. The figures before me are alarming and show that nearly 40 per cent. of the cyclists killed in road accidents are under 21 years of age.
    Mr. ELLIS SMITH: In view of the large number of accidents among children, will the Minister consider revising the speed limit in special industrial areas?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I can only consider what it is within my power to consider. The speed limit is imposed under the Statute.
    Mr. MAXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make further investigations into deaths among young cyclists to see how many were caused by messenger boys riding bicycles, with attachments, fore and aft, to carry parcels?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir, the Highway Code lays down an instruction upon that point.
    Mr. LEVY: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the majority of these accidents are not caused by the contributory negligence on the part of the cyclists themselves?
    Mr. BROAD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these young people have to travel to work by cycle because railway fares are so high in the suburbs, and wages are so low?

    SOUTHERN RAILWAY (BOAT EXPRESS TRAIN FARES).
    Mr. G. GRIFFITHSasked the Minister of Transport from what statute the
    2776
    Southern Railway Company derives its powers to charge special rates of. fares to passengers traveling on its Continental trains?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The special scale of fares for passengers by boat express trains to Folkestone and Dover was settled by the Railway Rates Tribunal under Section 31 of the Railways Act, 1921.

    RAILWAY PASSENGERS (LIMITATION OF COMPANIES' LIABILITY).
    Mr. GALLACHERasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the complaints by associations of commercial travellers concerning the conditions under which week-end tickets, daily voucher tickets, bull travelling tickets, and other special tern tickets are issued without any responsibility being accepted by the railway companies for injury, loss, damage, or delay; and whether it is his intention to take up this question with the four main railway companies?
    Mr. KENNEDYasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that passengers using British railways are in certain cases assumed to have entered into a contract under which they have no legal right to claim compensation for loss, injury, damage, or delay, however caused; and if, as road passenger transport companies are by Statute prevented from contracting out of their liabilities in this way, he will take any steps to remove this anomaly and injustice to the travelling public?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: While I have no legal powers in this matter, I am drawing the attention of the railway companies to the many representations I received. In the meantime, the main line railway companies have informed me that, excluding workmen, they have decided to apply this limitation in future only to passengers holding cheap day, half-day or evening tickets.
    Mr. GARRO-JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to take another look at the Railways Act, 1921, and ascertain whether he has the power to apply to the Tribunal to rectify these grievances?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I will, certainly.
    Mr. MACLAY: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether this does not apply in the same way to hon. Members of this House?
    Mr. STEPHENS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult with his Government and ask them to give facilities for the passage of the Bill which I introduced in a previous Session?

    ROADS (CUMBERLAND).
    Mr. W. ROBERTSasked the Minister of Transport what is the standard width which the Ministry desires to see prescribed for classified and unclassified roads, respectively, which pass through the lakeland districts of Cumberland?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It is the highway authority who are empowered by the Statute to adopt standard widths for their roads, subject to my approval of their resolutions. The appropriate standard width on any particular road is, of course, to be determined by traffic, requirements.

    HULL DOCKS (ACCOMMODATION).
    Captain STRICKLANDasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the timber importers of Hull have complained of insufficient accommodation at the Hull docks and have asked the London and North Eastern Railway Company to provide improved wharfage, unloading and storage for the timber trade, and that the company have suggested, as a condition of their making the improvements, the requirements that all imported timber forwarded from the docks shall be conveyed exclusively by railway; and whether he will make representations regarding this condition to the company?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have no jurisdiction in this matter.
    Captain STRICKLAND: Is it not within the knowledge of my right hon. Friend that when the monopoly was originally granted to the railways it was presupposed that they would have this control over road transport?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I can only answer as to the legal position, and that I have, no jurisdiction.
    Mr. SHINWELL: If facilities of this kind have been inadequate in the opinion of those who use these wharves, is it not
    2778
    desirable for the Government co make representation for an improvement?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Certainly, Sir, if any official representations are made to me I will, of course, take any action I can to deal with any complaint, but no official complaint has been made.

    ROAD WORK GRANTS (HIGHLAND COUNTIES).
    Mr. M. MacMILLANasked the Minister of Transport whether he intends to allocate the special grants promised to the Highland counties during the Ross-shire by-election by unclassified roads; what amount he intends to grant from the Road Fund; and when these grants will be made?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The special 160 per cent. grants, for some £4,250,000 worth of road work in the Highland counties, are for Class I roads. The Road Fund will pay the whole cost of the works as the work proceeds. No undertaking outside this was made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs.

    ASSIZES, LEEDS.
    Mr. MARSHALLasked the Attorney-General whether he will recommend inquiry into the inconvenience and expense to litigants from the City of Sheffield who are having to visit the present assizes at Leeds, and particularly the cases of Rex v. George Henry Cook arid Rex v. Finlay which were in the list on five different days without being reached, although cases from Leeds and the vicinity have taken precedence of them?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): The Lord Chancellor has appointed a committee, of which Mr. Justice Finlay is Chairman, to review the present distribution of Assize facilities, and report whether, due regard being paid to the recommendation of the Peel Commission that the county should be retained as the judicial unit, any further town should be added to those which are already visited, or any town at present visited should be omitted. I understand that a petition from the City Council of Sheffield for the establishment of Sheffield as an Assize town has been laid before, and will receive the consideration of, that

    2779
    committee. In answer to the second part of the question I have had inquiries made, but am not at present in a position to explain the delay in these cases. I will communicate with the hon. Gentleman as soon as my inquiries are concluded.

    EMPIRE SHIPPING.
    Sir PERCY HURDasked the President of the Board of Trade when the Governments of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand will hold the proposed conference on the menace to British Empire shipping in the Pacific by reason of United States Government subsidies; and what is the proposed basis of intra-Empire co-operation to which he recently invited the Dominions?
    Dr. BURGIN: A preliminary discussion of this subject took place yesterday between representatives of the four Governments mentioned in the question. I am not at present in a position to make any further statement on the subject.
    Sir P. HURD: Can the hon. Member say what was intended by the President of the Board of Trade last week when he spoke of the basis of co-operation?
    Dr. BURGIN: Exactly what he said.
    Sir P. HURD: Is the hon. Member aware that he did not say anything in the way of declaration?

    CHILDREN LEAVING SCHOOL (EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Education the number of school children who are due to leave London schools next week; the number for the whole of the country; and whether his Department have any information, through school employment committees, of the prospects of employment for these children?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I regret that I have no figures available regarding the number of school children due to leave the schools next week either in London or the country as
    2780
    a whole. I understand that, generally speaking, the prospects of employment in London are good, bat if the hon. Member wishes to have detailed information on this subject, perhaps he would address a question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.
    Mr. THORNE: Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman has no information on the matter, and is he not aware that this year 15,000 children will leave the schools in London?
    Mr. STANLEY: We get exact figures when they leave school, and not before.

  SCOTLAND.

    RATES (REBATE, GREENOCK).
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether hs is aware that a factor of a house occupied by a widow in Greenock has retained money rebate on rates granted on account of the widow's poverty by the local authority; and whether he can take steps to prevent this practice, as there are many similar cases?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): The case referred to has not been brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend. He is making inquiries and will communicate with the hon. Member.

    CONDEMNED HOUSES, GREENOCK.
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that in Greenock rent is being charged for uninhabitable houses; that decrees for eviction have been granted to house owners who did not disclose the fact that the houses were condemned by the local authority on 27th June, 1835, and that at that time no objection was made to having the houses condemned; and whether he will take steps to have this matter remedied?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: As stated by my right hon. Friend on 17th March in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) there are a number of "condemned" houses in Greenock for which rent is being claimed. The town clerk is not aware of any cases

    2781
    in which decrees for eviction were granted in the circumstances referred to.
    Mr. HARDIE: If I send the details, will the hon. and gallant Member look into the matter?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I will look into the details, but I would remind the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend has no power to interfere with the decision of the court. I shall be glad to receive any details which the hon. Member may send to me.

    BROADCASTING.
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Postmaster-General what is the present annual expenditure by his Department on the prevention of interference with wireless broadcasting reception in Great Britain; and whether he has considered the possibility of reducing this expenditure by introducing legislation or obtaining a legal decision to the effect that such interference can be compulsorily prevented?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Walter Womersley): The annual expenditure by the Post Office in assisting owners of wireless sets to obtain broadcast reception free from interference is at present about £80,000. The whole subject is at present under consideration by a committee appointed by the Institution of Electrical Engineers, on which the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Post Office are represented, in addition to the electrical and wireless interests concerned. The question whether there is need for legislation will be considered when the committee's report is received.
    Mr. LEVYasked the Postmaster-General how many complaints he has received in respect of wireless relay services in this country?
    Sir W. WOMERSLEY: Any complaints in respect of wireless relay services would normally be addressed to the operating companies concerned and not to the Post Office. A few complaints have however been received by my Department, mainly relating either to interference caused by relay wires or to the inclusion in, or omission from, the programme of broadcasts from foreign stations.

    ACETIC VINEGAR.
    Mr. RADFORDasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to a recent case at Skegness where a man died as a result of drinking strong acetic acid which was labelled table vinegar; that in November last an SOS was broadcast by the British Broadcasting Corporation dealing with the same danger in Sheffield; and will he take steps to prohibit the sale of acetic acid in any form as pure vinegar or table vinegar or, alternatively, will he implement the findings of the Departmental Committee of two years ago in so far as they relate to a definition of vinegar?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): Yes, Sir. I would call my hon. Friend's attention to the reply to a question on this subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Denville) on 26th March, of which I am sending him a copy.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Leader of the House what business will be taken in the first week after the Recess?
Sir J. SIMON: When the House reassembles after the Recess, on Tuesday, 21st April, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget.
Wednesday, Thursday: There will be a general discussion of the Budget Resolutions.
Friday: Private Members' Bills will be taken.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders may be taken.
Mr. ATTLEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the House will be given an opportunity of discussing the Naval Treaty before ratification?
Sir J. SIMON: The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that on 23rd March the Prime Minister gave an assurance to the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) that if there is a general desire for a Debate the Government will give careful consideration to such representations. That promise holds.
Mr. ATTLEE: I give notice that we should like a Debate on that subject.
Mr. MAXTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is proposed to conclude the Debate on the Budget on the Thursday evening, after only two days' Debate, or whether the general discussion on the Budget will continue on the Monday and the Division be taken on the Monday evening?
Sir J. SIMON: I cannot now fix the subsequent time table, but the announcement that I made was not intended to convey the idea that there would be a Division on the Thursday night. It was intended to convey the intimation that there would be a general discussion on the Budget Resolutions on the Wednesday and the Thursday of that week.
Ordered,
"That the Proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Unemployment Insurance (Agriculture) Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Sir J. Simon.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
Resolved,
"That this House do meet To-morrow, at Eleven of the Clock; that no Questions shall be taken after Twelve of the Clock; and that at Five of the Clock Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House Without Question put."—[Sir J. Simon.]

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT, 1985.
3.49 p.m.
The Minister of LABOUR (Mr. Ernest Brown): I beg to move,
"That the draft of the Unemployment Insurance (Reduction in Weekly Rates of Contributions) Order, 1936, laid before Parliament on the eighteenth day of March in pursuance of the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 59 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, be approved."
In the discussion to-day some light will be thrown on the success that has attended the working of Part I of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1934. The House will remember that the problem which has confronted successive Governments since the War has been how to make and keep solvent the Unemployment Insurance Fund and, on the other hand, how to care for the able-bodied unemployed who have lapsed from benefit. Under the administration of the Ministry of Labour, and with the assistance and advice of Sir William Beveridge's Committee, Part I of the Act has been working so successfully that I can report to the House in moving this Motion that the fund is not only solvent but has been able to achieve the following ends, namely, to modify the regulations affecting seasonal workers under the Anomalies Act and to increase children's allowances by 1s. In addition, we have been paying off, and shall continue to do so, interest and redemption on the loan debt at the rate of £5,000,000 a year, and we have accumulated a capital reserve against any bad times which may come of £21,500,000. The Motion I am moving involves an average disposable surplus of nearly £6,500,000 a year. That is a very satisfactory statement for any Minister of Labour to be able to make, and is a proof that the foundations of Part I of the Act of 1934 were well and truly laid, and that in association with Sir William Beveridge's admirable committee the administration is working with satisfactory results.
There may, of course, be differences, and probably will be, among reasonable people as to how we should dispose of the surplus, but whether differences arise on that issue or not, the whole House will agree that the results I have summarised are a very considerable achievement for which the House will be grateful, and which the country will be glad
2804
to know. In order that hon. Members' minds may be refreshed as to procedure, I should like to remind them of the duties of the Statutory Committee. Under the law the Committee are required to make a report by the end of February in each year on the financial position of the Fund. They may make a report at such other times as the Committee think fit. They must make a report whenever they consider the Fund is likely to be insufficient to meet its liabilities. If there is at the time of the report a disposable surplus, or if the fund is insufficient to discharge its liabilities, they ate required to recommend such changes in the scheme as are necessary to bring the fund into equilibrium. They have complete responsibility for determining the extent to which there may be a disposable surplus in the fund or the extent of the deficit, and their conclusions on that point cannot be challenged. The Government and Parliament are, of course, not bound by the recommendations of the Committee as to the way in which the surplus should be used, but if the Government of the day differ from the conclusions of the Committee they must tell the House the reasons.
The report which is the basis of the draft Order I am moving was signed by all seven members. That is important when we are considering some of the issues involved, issues such as the probable trend of unemployment, the basis on which the calculations are made, and whether members of the fund desire to have their contributions reduced or to have increased benefits, or whether they prefer a compromise solution, part of one and part of the other. But the basis on which their own views were formed was agreed to by all members of the Committee. They all agreed as to the trend of unemployment and as to the calculations, but they differed as to how it should be done. It is important, however, for the House to realise that they all concurred as to the basis upon which the calculations were made. That concurrence meant that the Committee laid down general principles which underlie every consideration of the matters with which they are charged. One general principle is that they must have regard not to the immediate situation but to income and expenditure over a period of years. In other words, they must do their best to look ahead and take the long view before coming to a decision.

2805
Two practical conclusions arise from that decision. The first is that they will be bound to make an assumption as to the amount of unemployment for a future period of years not less than that of a normal trade cycle and, secondly, that it was necessary from the outset to set aside from the surplus in good times a reserve which can be expended in making up the deficiency which will occur inevitably in times of trade depression. Following from these conclusions the procedure which the Committee adopted before presenting me with their report on the state of the fund was to ask for the advice of the Economic Advisory Committee of the Government as to the probable trend of unemployment over a period of years. Let me summarise that advice in this way. It was based on the following considerations: First, that the most reasonable hypothesis to adopt was that the average percentage of unemployment among insured persons between the ages of 16 and 64 years in Great Britain for the next 10 years will be in the neighbourhood of 151 per cent. or 16 per cent. Secondly, on the basis of this hypothesis, the average percentage of unemployment for a shorter period, such as eight years, will be materially higher and for a period of a complete trade cycle it might be placed at 16¼ or 16¾ per cent.
Mr. CHURCHILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the actual figures which would result—the number per week?
Mr. BROWN: I will deal with that a little later. At the moment, with an insured unemployment figure of 1,800,000 the percentage of unemployment is just about 14 per cent., or a little over. That will give the House some idea of the figures.
Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: But this estimate was made when unemployment was 2,000,000.
Mr. BROWN: The estimate is made in the light of these considerations, and taking into consideration the period of a normal trade cycle. The advice of the Committee was couched in these terms. They offered this opinion subject to various reservations:
"We have no confidence that the averages may not diverge by a substantial amount in one direction or another from the above levels, though it seems to us as likely that their estimate will err in the
2806
one direction as in the other. It is to be regarded not as an attempt to prophesy but as a contribution, so far as the knowledge now available permits, to the formation of a working hypothesis upon which policy in regard to the contributions and benefits of the Unemployment Insurance Fund may reasonably be based."
The Committee point out that these prophecies, these suggestions, and this advice, are to be subject to revision in the light of future events. They point out that if there is a major war or a financial collapse of magnitude or an unexpected improvement in international trade, then, of course, their advice' will need to be revised in the light of those facts. I put that in this form for this reason: I have noticed that in talking about the report some Members of the House and other critics outside have treated this advice of the Economic Advisory Committee as if it was a prophecy. It is not a prophecy. It is to say, in effect, after an examination of the material available and at their disposal at this time, that as prudent men if we retain finance sufficient to cover unemployment which does not rise above this on the average we shall be acting reasonably. That is the basis of their advice, and I mention the fact so that the House may be quite clear that these figures are not to be quoted as a definite prophecy of what is likely to occur.
Now let me come to the actual views of the Committee. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) asks what is the figure on which the Committee based their figures. Their views and the course that they recommend may be summarised thus: 1, they hold the view that in principle the Fund should balance over a trade cycle; 2, they have taken a period of eight years, beginning with 1936, as the length of the next cycle; 3, they assume that beyond this the general trend of unemployment is likely to be downward; 4, they have prepared estimates of the prospects of the Unemployment Fund, based on applying the experience of 1935 to assumed percentages of unemployment of both 16¾ and 16¼ per cent. respectively for the next trade cycle of eight years, and in connection with both these percentages they have assumed that under the conditions of the Unemployment Insurance scheme oil the average 48 per cent. of unemployment will rank for benefit.
Let us consider the basis on which the recommendations rest, with those points

2807
in mind. On the assumption of an average of 16¾ per cent. of unemployment the committee conclude that with the present rates of contributions and benefits, and with the present conditions for receipt of benefit, the contributions will exceed the payments by £3,588,000 a year, while on the basis of 16¼ per cent. of unemployment the excess will be £5,538,000. If no accumulated reserve had existed the estimate would have been based on a higher figure than 16¾ per cent., particularly as the borrowing powers of the fund under the Act of 1934 are now strictly limited. But two facts led the committee to the conclusion, in which they all concurred, that the disposable surplus should be put at a slightly higher level. These are the two facts: 1, that the year 1936 began with an accumulated reserve of 221,500,000; 2, it is their view that unemployment in the depressed staple industries should decrease gradually, so that the rate should be less than 161 per cent., after the next eight years. On that basis they come to the conclusion, with those two factors in mind, that they can recommend to the Government that there is a disposable surplus of £6,500,000 per annum here. If the surplus is disposed of, on the basis of 16¾ per cent. nearly the whole of the accumulated reserve will be used up, but the fund will continue to balance if unemployment thereafter is 16 per cent. or less.
The committee call attention to the various conditions upon which their estimates of the present disposable surplus rest, and they say that if any of these conditions fail to be satisfied and there is no compensation in some other direction, it will be necessary to retract in whole or in part any steps taken for the disposal of the surplus. The three conditions to which they call attention and which I wish to emphasise are these: 1, that the mean average is not above 16:1 per cent. for the next eight years and that after that period it is 16 per cent. or less; 2, that the recovery of trade and the decline of unemployment will continue at least until the latter part of 1937; 3, that the estimate of not more than 48 per cent. unemployment ranking for benefit under the scheme is not exceeded.
Let me call attention to the estimates as to what might be done with the disposable surplus of £6,500,000. If the House will turn to page 14 of the Statu-
2808
tory Committee's report they will find spread out for the consideration of the Government and of the House what could be done with this surplus in various ways. First of all there is the reduction of contributions. The committee point out that if contributions were reduced by one penny per week from each party, in the case of men, aged 21 to 64, the cost would be £4,218 000; young men, 18 to 20, £479,000; women, 21 to 64, £1,391,000; young women, 18 to 20, £380,000. That makes a total of £6,468,000. If a halfpenny per week was the reduction for each party the cost would be: For boys and girls, 16 to 17—boys, £139,500; girls, £111,000; or a total of £250,000.
With regard to benefits, if benefits were increased by a shilling a week for men of 21 to 64 the cost would be £1,728,000; young men, 18 to 20, £133,500; women, 21 to 64, 2430,000; young women, 18 to 20, £71,000; a total of £2,362,500. If boys and girls 16 to 17 also had an increase of 1s. per week the cost would be £34,000 in respect of boys and £21,500 in respect of girls. There are one or two other things I should mention. If the increased benefit for dependent children was made a shilling for the first child, it would cost £645,000; if a shilling for each child, it would cost £1,345,000. If there was an increase of benefit for an adult dependant by a shilling, the cost would be £930,000. If it was desired to abolish the waiting week the cost would be £3,000,000. If the waiting week was reduced to three days the cost would be £1,250,000.
I have ventured to detain the House with these figures so that they can be put on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT for the convenience of Members who will discuss the matter in the country. The committee turned down two suggestions after considering them at length. The first was that we should use this surplus to add to the rate at which we are paying off the debt. They dismissed that suggestion on the ground that the arrangement now made for paying off the debt was a sufficient load for this generation to bear. They also turned down the suggestion that the benefit period should be extended, on a, series of complicated arguments with regard to the relation of the fund to the general taxpayer, and the undesirability of doing that in these particular circumstances.

2809
So in the end the Committee narrowed down the issue to three propositions: Either that we should use the £6,500,000 to reduce contributions, or that we should use it to increase benefits, or a compromise on both. After having discussed all the arguments for and against each of these the Committee—there were seven members—a woman member and four others came to the conclusion, as stated in paragraph 68, that they ought to recommend to the Government, and the Government agreed, to dispose of the surplus by reducing the contributions all round by £6,500,000. There were two dissentient reports. Mr. Arthur Shaw, as the House knows, recommended that the whole of the surplus should be used for increase in benefits, and that of course will find support among hon. Members opposite. But that course did not commend itself to any other member of the Committee. Mr. Shaw stated his case fully and fairly, and, more than that, the Committee gave the arguments which had weighed with them and made them decide that they did not agree with him.
Let me summarise what they said. They said that the three points to be urged for the course of increasing benefits were these: 1, that industry and individuals had adapted themselves to the heavy contributions and the advantages of increased benefits would be more felt in the country; 2, if contributions were now reduced it would not be possible in future to raise them except to meet deficits, whether an improvement of benefit was found to be desirable or not later; 3, that the income should not be surrendered until the policy with regard to Part II of the Act was declared. All those factors weighed with Sir William Beveridge and the majority of the Committee.
The other report was made by a very able woman member of the Committee. There were two women members and they did not agree on this matter. Mrs. Stocks in her dissentient report argued that while she agreed with the majority of the Committee that the men's contributions should be reduced all round, yet she thought there ought to be no reduction in the cost of the women's contributions but an increase in women's benefits. She argued very subtly, not in form but in fact, that this should be done in order to achieve equality between the rates of benefit for males and females under the
2810
Unemployment Insurance Fund. The majority of the Committee, however, did not agree either with Mr. Shaw or with Mrs. Stocks. I would like to put before the House the four main arguments which weighed with the Committee and with the Government, and which I am sure will have weight with the House, in favour of the course recommended by the Committee, namely, the reduction of contributions by 1d. all round.
In the first place, the rates of contribution now in force were established by the National Economy Act, 1931, one of the few emergency measures which has so far been neither removed nor mitigated. This particular rate of contribution was fixed because of a heavy increase in unemployment rates in the emergency in 1931, and when the Bill was going through the House, before it became an Act, my predecessor made it clear that when the Statutory Committee undertook its duties, it would have to have regard to the fact that the increase of 2d. or 3d. in contributions was one of the emergency measures to he considered when there was any disposable surplus.
The second consideration which was urged was that the employers' and workers' contributions under social insurance are now on such a level as to make them a very sensible burden on industry. I do not think that can be denied. It must be borne in mind that when the House of Commons is surveying the field of social insurance, regard must be had to all concerned, not merely those who are insured but the three parties in the tripartite system of insurance; and in dealing with the position of the workers concerned, consideration must be had not only for those who are at a given moment unemployed, but those who are in work. The committee had these considerations in mind, and in their conclusion they point out clearly, forcibly and at length that the contributions are on such a level that they are a very sensible burden on industry. The present contribution for men is 10d. for unemployment insurance for each of the parties.
I think the third argument used will carry great weight with all hon. Members who have paid regard to the analysis I made concerning the possibilities of the next trade cycle. The argument

2811
is that the reduction of contributions in a period of uncertainty is a much wiser way in which to dispose of a prospective surplus than is the raising of rates of benefit, for contributions can more easily be redressed than benefits can be taken away if a bad period of unemployment comes. Hon. Members who have the emergency of 1931 in mind will know that it is possible at a time of emergency to add id., 2d. or 3d. to the contributions, but if there were a grave emergency and if the calculations now made on the hypothesis put forward on the advice of the Economic Advisory Committee should by any means prove wrong, it would be very difficult for any Government to reduce the level of benefits if they had been increased in order to dispose of a surplus.
Mr. TINKER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that the Government say there will never be an increase in unemployment again?
Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that no such claim has been or is likely to be made on behalf of the Government. That which we are trying to do is to take a reasonably long and sober view of the future. It would have been much wiser for the unemployed of this country during the last 20 years if successive Ministers of Labour had had the advantage of advice of this kind and had taken a more sober view of the future. If that had been the case there would not have been the many changes in unemployment insurance which we have had during the last 15 or 20 years. In any case, hon. Members will find it very hard to refute the argument that it would be much easier at a time of unexpected, heavy unemployment to meet the emergency, if ever it should unfortunately occur, by increasing contributions.
Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in determining the figures the Advisory Committee took into consideration the effects of the Government's Defence programme on the trade cycle?
Mr. BROWN: The advice given was in the light of the circumstances known to the Economic Advisory Committee, and it is on the basis of that advice that Sir William Beveridge's Committee
2812
tendered their report. All the factors that could be foreseen at the time were taken into consideration.
Mr. MARKLEW: The right hon. Gentleman said that it would be much more difficult to lower benefits than to increase contributions at a time of crisis. Would he be good enough to say how that argument was reasoned out?
Mr. BROWN: I should have thought that no reason was required except the bare facts as to what has happened in this country during the past six years. If there is any party which ought to know that, it is the party to which the hon. Member belongs. This problem is one of the most difficult that any party would have to meet in a time of difficulty, and if there were an established level of benefit it would be much harder to attack that benefit. [Interruption.] I am very glad that hon. Members make these interruptions. In doing so they show that the argument is having great weight with them, and they know how tremendous is the force behind it.
The fourth argument which the committee advanced in support of the recommendation for a reduction of the contribution all round by ld. was that, taking into account any increase in benefit that is likely to be permanent, it is wise to survey the whole field and to consider the interests of all concerned. The committee took the view that if there was to be any increase in unemployment benefit rates in general, that could only be done, after full consideration by Parliament, as an act of deliberate social policy, and not merely because a reduction of unemployment on the one hand and a sound insurance Act on the other hand has produced a surplus.
Mr. LAWSON: For the information of the House, would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to give the figures asked for as to how the percentage of unemployment works out over the next trade cycle?
Mr. BROWN: In reply to the hon. Member, on the basis of the present number of workers insured, 16.25 per cent. unemployment means approximately 2,100,000 unemployed and 16.75 per cent. unemployment means approximately 2,160,000. Those are the figures for which the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) asks. I would like

2813
now to say a few words concerning the minority report of Mrs. Stocks. I had the advantage on this matter of receiving a deputation composed of certain lady Members of the House and women representing various organisations. This advice is not based on the assumption that the benefit rates of the Unemployment Insurance Acts are based on needs. That has never been the view of any Government promoting an Unemployment Insurance Act in the past. The basis has been quite clearly that payments are not put forward as representing an estimate of what is actually required as complete cover against loss of income through unemployment. If schemes of unemployment insurance are not based on needs, but upon this practical consideration, how large a contribution is feasibly required on roughly equal terms for all employés and employers, and what is the best use that can be made of such resources in contributing to the maintenance of those out of employment? It is on this basis that the Acts are framed, and not on the basis of saying that the benefits proposed are not in all cases adequate for the full maintenance of those who receive them.
Miss RATHBONE: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the case that Mrs. Stocks' argument was based upon needs? If he takes as a basis the actuarial considerations, does he deny that women contributors are paying enormously in excess of the value which they receive?
Mr. BROWN: The hon. Lady will know that Mrs. Stocks in her report laid stress upon this very argument. She put forward three arguments. In the first place, she said that it was anomalous to apply undifferentiated rates, which means an argument for equality. Secondly, she did not agree with the argument that lower rates of wages demand lower benefits. Thirdly, she emphasised the argument concerning needs. I would say to the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) that surely it is unfair to argue on the basis of the relation between the amounts of benefit drawn by men and women, and to talk in terms of the women merely as insured contributors at a given time. Surely it is unfair to take as a basis of argument what a woman pays when she is an insured contributor and
2814
what she receives, and what a man pays when he is an insured contributor and what he receives. To do that is to overlook the fact that in dealing with men contributors, one is dealing not with what they receive for themselves, but with what they receive for dependants, among whom there are included vast numbers of women.
I would like to point out what I consider would be a much fairer basis of comparison. It would be to take the proportion of men and women in receipt of benefit at the present time, namely, 8.2 per cent. of men and 6.9 per cent. of women. It must not be forgotten that in the case of the men unemployed there are certain trades which carry the heaviest burden of long continued unemployment. These trades, of course, include a number of unemployed women in the cotton industry. Surveying the whole field of unemployment, it is remarkable that those who argue as to the unfairness merely in terms of the total sums paid out should overlook this important factor. As a matter of fact, the percentage of women drawing benefit nearly approaches the percentage of men drawing benefit. Moreover, there is no reason to suppose that the present lower rate of unemployment among women will be a permanent factor of our industrial life. I will go further and tell the House that there was a; period in 1931 when the rate of unemployment among women was greater than the rate among men. There are other factors which have to be considered when we are judging this matter.
On the main issue the committee, by a majority of five, including the Chairman, concluded in favour of a reduction of contributions by such party, in respect of all insured workpeople of 18 years and upwards by a penny a week. Mr. Shaw made his dissent known. Mrs. Stocks, while agreeing with the proposed reduction in the rate for men, proposed also a reduction of a half-penny per head for boys and an increase of 2s. in the benefit for women 'over 18, of 1s. 6d. for women between 17 and 18, and of 1s. for girls between 16 and 17. I would like to add, for the consideration of the House, that although this report of Mrs. Stocks is argued with great subtlety, she did not convince the other woman member of the committee, and I would say to the hon. Member for the English Universities

2815
that that seems to be a very good argument for putting two women on committees of this kind.
I am therefore in the happy position of asking the House to dispose of an aggregate surplus of nearly £6,500,000, as to £2,150,000 for the workers. At one penny per week, that is equivalent to an increase in wages of £40,000 per week. Those hon. Members who recall the time when wages once more began to rise, about two years ago, will know that in the period 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933 a rise of £40,000 a week in wages would have been regarded as a very happy sign and a very welcome fact. I have no doubt that, whatever hon. Members may say in opposing this Motion, the workers of the country will welcome this reduction of a penny in their contributions. Of the same surplus, £2,150,000 is for the employers, and I would like to add one point which is not made by the committee with regard to the effect of a penny per head less contribution on a large number of firms. There has been a large number of firms working in recent years with no or very little profit, and it will be of great advantage to them to have a reduction of a penny per head on their insured persons. It will mean for them a very considerable help.
Mr. POTTS: As between a penny off the contributions and the payment, for argument's sake, of 1s. in increased benefits, is there not more sense in the shilling going to the people who are unemployed than in taking a penny off which is debited to the costs of production and charged to the industry? Which is the best for the people of the country?
Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member evidently did not rise to put a question but to make a speech, and I will, therefore, proceed with my remarks. There is quite a considerable number of firms, in difficult industries, which have had hard times, employing large numbers of men, who will welcome, and indeed do welcome, this prospective reduction in July of a penny in the contributions.
Now I come to the last point. The Treasury will benefit to the tune of £2,150,000. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I expected that cheer, though I do not understand it. I know it is not a usual charge against a Minister of Labour that he pleases the Treasury, but
2816
I have never understood why it should be an occasion for contumely when money is saved for the Treasury. After all, the Treasury is not some abstraction. It is a great institution, and it is an institution which in no small degree is charged with community interests. Public finance is not a matter of arithmetic, but a matter of sound public policy, and I would say that it was not the least of the pleasurable moments which I had when I saw, on getting this report, that I might be able to go down to the House of Commons to move a Motion of this kind which would bring that rare thing, a smile to the face of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
4.36 p.m.
Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: I think all of us on this side are profoundly disappointed with the speech of the Minister of Labour. I remember him in his unregenerate days when he sat at the end of the third bench below the Gangway on this side and appeared in this Chamber as the great champion of the unemployed. Now he speaks to us in mournful numbers of percentages and pence. Where is the old evangelical fervour which we used to get from the right hon. Gentleman when I happened to sit where he sits now? That unfortunately has evaporated. He talks now in the most mercenary terms. He is one who, before he had tasted the sweets of office, always held the highest ideals and was moved by noble sentiments, and to-day he wound up his speech, which I am bound to say, from a Parliamentary point of view, was a ghastly failure, with a paean of praise because he had saved the Treasury £2,000,000. The surplus, he said, was a considerable achievement, and he said the country would be glad to learn of this surplus. The unemployed are not glad to learn of it. The right hon. Gentleman appears to have left the unemployed out of his calculations. He has now become a hack for the Treasury, and he takes pride in the fact, and winds up the peroration of his speech on a note of pride that he at last, of all the Ministers of Labour, has done something to aid the sore beset Chancellor of the Exchequer.
He has given us not merely a paraphrase but the actual words of the Statutory Committee's report, which most of us have read. He might have saved the

2817
time of this House by defending a little more enthusiastically his slavish acceptance of the report of Sir William Beveridge's Committee, which he calls an admirable committee. I make no criticism of its personnel. It is limited because of action taken in 1931, in the first place, and then under the Unemployment Act of 1934. That committee is not concerned, as the Minister of Labour ought to be, with the position of the unemployed; it is concerned primarily with the solvency of the fund. That is its first consideration. It had its motto given to it by the Government, and its motto was, "Solvency, not service"; and the big thing that the committee has to do is to keep the fund solvent. It has made it solvent, but at what a price. It has done it by taking more money out of every insured worker in this country, by penalising for three years those who fell out of work, and now, as a result of a callous administration, it has a surplus to dispose of.
The committee examine—and I pay my tribute to the report—the various ways in which the surplus could be disposed of, and they give the arguments for and against each course, and their own arguments against a reduction of contributions, in my view, simply overwhelm the arguments which they themselves advance in favour of a reduction of contributions. The committee was divided. The Minister made the point that at least the committee all concurred with the basis of calculation. That is obvious. We all know there is a surplus on the fund, and those of us oil these benches agree that there is a surplus on the fund. But after that agreement ceased, and two out of the seven members did not agree. Agreement ceased on what was the fundamental problem, and that was how to dispose of the surplus.
The committee took evidence, and all the evidence except that received from the National Confederation of Employers' Organisations was in favour of assisting the unemployed by improved conditions or improved benefits and was against a reduction of contributions. I am not surprised that the National Confederation of Employers' Organisations pressed for a reduction. They naturally would. It means £2,000,000 in their pockets. Therefore the whole weight of the real evidence was against the conclusion reached by the committee in its report,
2818
and I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, with his history behind him, should have succumbed to all the specious arguments which were used by the committee in favour of a reduction of contributions.
The position is that there is a surplus of £6,500,000 of which the committee has to dispose. It is proposed that the employers and the workers should have their contributions reduced by a ld. per week, and that the State should itself, of course, enjoy the same advantage. What will be the effect on the employers? The right hon. Gentleman, almost with tears in his voice, told us about firms which were trembling on the very verge of collapse, to whom these pennies would mean salvation—those hard-pressed firms which had not been making profits and which were apparently really to be saved at the expense of the big mass of the unemployed workpeople of this country. But what are the facts? Some of them were given in the report of Mr. Shaw. If the right hon. Gentleman can quote his bits of the report, I will quote mine. On page 30 towards the end of paragraph 2 the point is being made that the relief to the employers would be so small as to be negligible in its effect, and Mr. Shaw says:
"This was illustrated by showing that on the contract price of a £90,000 cargo vessel of which the shipbuilders' direct costs would be £33,300 the saving effected would be only £43."
The shipping people could pay that out of their £2,000,000 subsidy. The report goes on to say:
"Particulars taken from the report on the Import Duties Act Inquiry (1933) were submitted in relation to the cotton and woollen industries and it was shown that the reduction of the contributions by ld. per week for each party would benefit the employers to the extent of about £63,000 in the cotton industry, and £41,000 in the woollen industry. In the same report the figures relating to the gross output in 1933 were as follows—Cotton, £132,701,000; woollen, £101,897,000."
Mr. Shaw draws the obvious conclusion that the saving thus affected could not materially help trade and industry. I think that is clear, because in the cooperative movement we know that in the cost of the retail distribution of groceries and bread the employers contribution now, apart from this reduction, amounts to.27 of a penny per £1 of sales. In the case of the retail distribution of meat it

2819
is.34 or one-third of a penny per £1 of sales. So one could go through the whole range of the distributive trades showing how small is the burden at the present rate. In the case of manufacturing the figures show that the existing burden is negligible. In the case of the manufacture of flour it amounts to.12 of a penny per £1 of output, rising in the case of pottery manufacture to 2d. per of output. The reduction now proposed means cutting that by one-tenth. That is what one penny off the present rate means. Is British industry to be saved by the right hon. Gentleman following this policy of saving one-tenth of one-tenth of a penny on output? The thing is fantastic, and the right hon. Gentleman's argument is completely fallacious.
Mr. CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman has not yet dealt with the workmen's contribution.
Mr. GREENWOOD: I leave that to the last because it is the most important. The State is to save a little over £2,000,000 which would enable it to get next year the same Budget surplus as it had this year. A sum of £2,000,000 saved out of a Budget approaching £800,000,000 is clearly negligible. It may be that it will help to finance the Government's rearmament programme. We may get some bomber aeroplanes out of it, but I submit that £2,000,000 put directly into the pockets of the unemployed would have far more economic and social value. As for the workers, the employed worker is to have his contribution reduced by one penny per week. The right hon. Gentleman, quoting the report, referred to what this meant as a proportion of wages. I say that, however low wages are, one penny per week to the employed man is nothing. To the unemployed man it is something. That one penny per week is just going to be frittered away. There will be no advantage to the workers of the country in it. It will merely be squandered, if one can squander a penny.
Mr. McCORQUODALE: If the right hon. Gentleman refers to Mr. Arthur Shaw's report he will see in paragraph 5 the statement that there would be a, great deal of opposition to any attempt to raise the rates of contribution, presumably by one penny a week.
Mr. GREENWOOD: Certainly, and we shall always, in this House, oppose an increase in the rates of contribution. My point is that this £2,000,000 will be frittered away, that indeed the whole of the.£6,500,000 now at the disposal of the Statutory Committee will be dissipated and will have no permanent social value. We, on these benches, believe that the maintenance of the unemployed should ultimately become a complete national responsibility. We do not believe that unemployment insurance is the way to deal with a grave problem of this kind but we accept the unemployment insurance schemes as they are now. We must do so as realists and I say, with a full sense of responsibility, that the employed workers of this country would prefer to continue to pay that one penny and to see the surplus going into the homes of the unemployed, first, because they think that that would be right and also because they realise that if they themselves were unemployed they would welcome increased benefits. I want the House to understand that as far as organised labour is concerned, and, I might add, the Co-operative movement as well, much as we dislike the contributory system we would rather see our people continuing to pay this penny if £6,500,000 more could go into the homes of the unemployed as a result.
What were the ways available of disposing of this surplus? The Committee toyed with the idea of paying off the debt. That was a, scandalous suggestion. It is a monstrous thing that workers of the future, those who are not yet in industry, will have to pay off a debt incurred because of the unemployment of their fathers through no fault of their own. If anything could ever have been justifiably added to the National Debt it was this debt on the Unemployment Fund and nobody who had not a 100 per cent. Treasury mind would ever agree to the disposal of this surplus in the repayment of that debt. The surplus might have been used for lengthening the period of benefit. It might have been used for the extension of the 26 weeks statutory period. That would have been of value to the unemployed workers. I should have thought that the Treasury, whose myrmidon the right hon. Gentleman confesses himself to be, would have welcomed that because, clearly, there would be advantages to the State in keeping people

2821
off Part II of the Unemployment Act of 1934 and away from the Unemployment Assistance Board as long as possible. The State makes a good bargain if it keeps people in unemployment insurance, because it only pays one-third of the cost but once they go to the Unemployment Assistance Board, the State pays the whole cost. The Government are now stealing, with the right hon. Gentleman aiding and abetting them in this crime of petty larceny, a sum of £2,000,000 and they will not gain by it, because they could have got £6,000,000 worth of assistance under Part II of the Act or the equivalent of it, if they had agreed to lengthening the period of benefit. I quote again from the report:
"It would therefore be possible for us now to recommend such a lengthening of the period for benefit or such changes in the conditions as would raise the proportion of unemployment ranking for benefit from the 48 per cent. assumed in our calculation to 54 or 553 per cent. In effect, on the present figures, this would transfer nearly 140,000 workpeople from receipt of assistance to drawing of benefit."
If the right hon. Gentleman wanted to add a laurel to his crown there was his opportunity. To have extended the period of benefit and brought 140,000 unemployed away from the humiliation of the Unemployment Assistance Board and back into honourable unemployment insurance benefit, would have been worth this £6,000,000 which has accrued to the Fund very largely because of the Government's callous treatment of the unemployed. They might have shortened the waiting period. The Committee considered that proposition and turned it down. When our system of unemployment insurance started three days was regarded as a reasonable waiting period. The present system does not mean that people merely wait six days. It means that they wait ten days of unemployment before one penny comes into the home, and in these times when men are constantly in and out of work, and when the resources of the home have been dissipated, waiting for nine or ten days means agony to many. It would have been well worth while, at such a trifling cost, to have reduced the waiting period from six days to three days. They might indeed have increased the monetary benefits to the unemployed. There is a striking phrase in the report which seems to blow to smithereens the case of the statutory
2822
committee for the reduction of contributions. At the end of paragraph 48 on page 23 the report says:
"To take ld. off the contribution would cost practically the same as adding 3s. a week to all adult benefits; can it be doubted that the latter use would give more general satisfaction?"
They did doubt it, because in spite of visualising an additional 3s. per week for adult persons in the homes of the unemployed the Committee came down finally on the side of one penny per week off the contribution. Mr. Shaw worked out how this £6,500,000 might have been disposed of to what I regard as considerable social advantage. The weekly rate of benefit of unemployed men over 21 could have been raised by 1s. per week. Young men between 18 and 20, who are a problem under Part II of the Act, could have been raised 2s. a week. Boys of 17 and boys of 16 might have had their rates raised by 1s. per week. Women over 21 could have enjoyed an additional 1s. 6d. per week. Young women between 18 and 20, who are also a problem under Part II of the Unemployment Act, could have had their benefit raised by 2s. a week. Girls of 16 and 17 could have enjoyed an additional 1s. In addition to all that, the waiting period could have been reduced to three days. Each adult dependant of an unemployed person could have received an increase of 1s. per week, and there could have been an additional 1s. for each dependent child. Even that would not have swallowed up the £6,500,000. Instead of that, the right hon. Gentleman agrees to pour his £6,500,000 into the sands of the desert and no good will accrue to anybody. Hundreds of thousands of working-class homes would have benefited if the right hon. Gentleman had had one spark of the humanity which oozed out of him from every pore when he sat in another part of the House.
Unemployment insurance exists for the benefit of the unemployed. It does not exist for the purpose of accountants and other people balancing the budget of the Statutory Committee and the Unemployed Fund. Unemployment insurance was established before the War because unemployment had become a social problem, and a considerable and important permanent problem. When there is a disposable surplus in a fund contributed to by the very people who might need it and who

2823
might become the victims of unemployment, the right hon. Gentleman chooses the worst possible way of disposing of it. Our view is, and will always be, that any surplus of this kind to which employed people have contributed one-third, ought to be devoted to the unemployed who are the victims, the casualties of our economic struggle. This Parliament has a very heavy responsibility for the unemployed. There is not a Member of the House who has not made promises with regard to the unemployed, except the fortunate few who represent constituencies where unemployment is unknown. In the last Parliament Members on that side of the House walked about with grim faces because of the Government's failure to deal with the unemployed. It was not this side of the House that created the revolt 14 months ago; it was hon. Members opposite, who said that the unemployed were not having a square deal. Minister of Labour No. 2 then disappeared from the political scene for the time being.
The effect of the Government's action is to deprive unemployed people of £6,500,000 per year which is sorely needed in homes which might have had it given to them. While the Government keep their eyes on those who get work and brag every month about the increasing number of people who are at work, they cannot afford to neglect the people for whom they cannot get work. These people are really the Government's major responsibility. There is a large army of people who, in existing circumstances, are permanently unemployed. I proved last year that that core of unemployment is enlarging. What is their prospect? Everything they ever had in the co-operative society or the Savings Bank has gone, and they have to live on unemployment benefit, or on the largesse of the Unemployment Assistance Board. There is a larger army of people in and out of employment whose domestic situation, while not so bad as that of the permanent core of unemployed, is still pretty serious. Blankets are wearing out, crockery has been broken, everything is getting down to the very margin—and we get a penny off the contribution!
It is our moral duty in this House, to whatever party we belong, to care for those who fall by the wayside through
2824
no fault of their own. It is our duty to bring them the succour that they need. They are not unemployed through circumstances that they can control, but because of forces outside the control not merely of industry, but of this Government, because they are world-wide economic forces which nobody has yet thought to bring under control. They are victims who ought to be cared for as carefully and as tenderly as those who suffer in a great war. I hope the House will raise its voice against this sort of pinchbeck method of dealing with a very grave problem. Six-and-a-half million pounds squandered in the way suggested means nothing; used in the way suggested in the report of my friend Mr. Shaw, it would bring comfort to hundreds of thousands of working-class homes. I am asking Members on all sides of the House who realise what this or problem means in working-class homes to raise their voices in protest against the meanness of the Government in throwing away money which might bring good to many of our deserving fellow citizens.
5.9 p.m.
Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: I hope that in the midst of the heavy, and, I believe, unanswerable criticism that has been directed against the terms of this Order, the House will not lose sight of the fact that there are at least two important matters on which the House is entitled to be congratulated. It is a matter of no small importance and significance that we are here concerned with the possibility of disposing of a sum of £6,500,000 following upon the distribution of other surpluses—which, it is true, were small—which have been made in the course of the last two years. If, when we were engaged in those grim transactions which led to the cutting down of the unemployment benefit and the restriction of our social services, we had been able to look forward and see that in a comparatively short space of time we should have this substantial sum at our disposal, we should have been able to face the future in a much more pleasant frame of mind than we had in those days. The second matter which ought to be the subject of congratulation is that, thanks to the activities of the Statutory Committee and its admirable report, following upon other reports we have had from it, Parliament is to-day better able to come to a decision

2825
upon these matters than it has ever been before.
In the course of our discussion on the Second Reading of the Unemployment Measure, I stated that this seemed to be a satisfactory and expeditious way of getting the business done. Whether it will prove so, experience will only show, but I would like to put it on record that I believe the appointment of the Statutory Committee has been a great success and is a powerful adjunct to the deliberations of Parliament, which, in the last 20 years, has shown itself singularly unfitted to deal with the details of unemployment insurance as bearing on the intimate lives of the people. The Statutory Committee and also the House do, however, labour under a serious difficulty, which is inherent in the whole scheme and structure of our methods of helping the unemployed. The committee draws attention to it in paragraph 50 of the report, where it says:
"The present moment is particularly inopportune for surrendering income from the Unemployment Fund, because the committee have no information as to the probable policy of the Unemployment Assistance Board."
The committee, commenting upon that, goes on to say:
"If contributions have been reduced, the committee will not be in a position to make any change of benefits."
That is indeed an important and fundamental fact in surveying the whole field of Unemployment Insurance. It is obvious that the recommendations of the Statutory Committee, whatever they may be, have a profound effect upon the policy and finances of the Unemployment Assistance Board. This difficulty is inherent in the whole scheme. I do not know why the Statutory Committee should not have access to the knowledge of the policy of the Unemployment Assistance Board. It is certainly impossible for it to carry out its functions in a completely satisfactory way without it. The House is also at a great disadvantage in considering this question without having knowledge of the forthcoming regulations. The Minister is in a privileged position. We had hoped that in the spring, when the first swallows flitter across the horizon and the joyous note of the cuckoo is heard, my right hon. Friend would come down to the House and disclose his plans to an expectant country. It may be that we shall, in what-
2826
ever decision we come to to-day, be wrong. The Statutory Committee says that in effect in its report. The committee says that it hopes that opportunity may be left for the reconsideration of whatever may be done to-day in the light of the recommendations that may come from the Unemployment Assistance Board.
We on these benches have given very careful consideration to this report, and have come to the conclusion that we cannot support the Government in recommending that the whole of the £6,500,000 should be devoted to a reduction of contributions. My right hon. Friend said that there were powerful, indeed, unanswerable reasons why we should help industry by giving it the relief that a reduction of contributions by id. per week provides, but I think the arguments of Mr. Shaw in his minority report, emphasised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) are a complete answer to that suggestion. We believe not that the relief to industry is negligible—we know exactly what it amounts to in pounds, shillings and pence—but that, as stated in the report, the actual effect upon any particular manufacturing industry would be of such a negligible character that the benefit cannot be handed on to the employ?és in terms of wages or to consumers in a reduction in prices.
On the other hand, an increase in the benefits to insured people would have the maximum amount of economic advantage for the country. It is true that every hon. Member must be anxious to support any project which will lighten the drab existence of the unemployed, but we are not animated solely by that sentimental conclusion. Sentiment is not always a reliable guide in formulating a practical policy, but we think that in this case sentiment, humanity and a practical policy follow the same course. By devoting this surplus to an increase of the benefits we should be increasing the consuming power of those whose necessities are greatest and who would use that consuming power in a way which would make itself felt most immediately and most certainly in the industrial life of the country.
There is much room for difference of opinion as to what form an increase of benefit should take if the proposal to dissipate this surplus by reducing the

2827
weekly contributions were rejected. There are one or two ways of doing it to which we on these benches attach very great importance. In the first place, we think it is a matter of some urgency that the waiting period of six days should either be done away with altogether or reduced. We are, of course, familiar with the arguments employed by those who maintain that a waiting period should be retained. It has always been the custom, they say; it was started by trade unions; and those who have been in employment for a considerable time will, no doubt, have money in hand with which to carry on during the waiting period. It is said also that the operation of the continuity rule has smoothed out most of the difficulties and hardships which arise from the waiting period. Those, however, who are familiar with conditions in the depressed areas, or in areas where there is much under-employment, know that the hardship arising from the waiting period is very great indeed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield pointed out that in practice it was not a waiting period of a week only but very often 10 days, and it is a very real difficulty, because in many districts where the family resources have been reduced to a minimum—and in those districts, by some strange misfortune, it is most difficult to get temporary relief from public assistance committees—the family reserves have to be reduced still further by parting with some article of furniture or clothing from an already very much attenuated home. Therefore, we should attach very great importance to the abolition, or at all events the reduction, of the waiting period.
We also think the argument put forward by Mrs. Stocks for maintaining the contributions of women at their present rate and at the same time increasing the standard allowance for women by 2s., is one which has not yet been answered. It has certainly not been answered on the basis of needs. The Minister, in his opening speech, said the case was not to be judged entirely by needs, but he went on to point out that a man had dependants and there were allowances for dependants, thereby refuting his own argument that the matter was not dependent upon needs, because in making allowance for dependants in the case of a married man that is, of course, the foundation of the
2828
whole case for the allowance. We cannot agree that the needs of a woman are less than those of a man to the extent of 2s. a week. I do not think that can be substantiated and, indeed, I should be prepared to argue that they are greater by 2s. a week. It is generally the case that women who are unemployed, if they are to get back into work, must be in a position to spend more liberally on their personal appearance than is necessary in the case of men.
In making an allocation of the £6,500,000 available we should also wish to see standard benefit continued for a longer period. Those who have many friends among the unemployed must know of the haunting dread which possesses them as the weeks go by and they get nearer to the time when they will become subject to the means test. Nothing would be of greater benefit from a humane point of view, arid also, I believe, from a practical point of view, than that the period during which standard benefit is payable should be extended. There is the further point that it would relieve the finances of the Unemployment Assistance Board. Under present conditions we cannot consider the two schemes together. When the question was before the House we criticised the division of unemployment assistance into tripartite and independent schemes. Whatever may be the future of unemployment assistance and unemployment insurance, sooner or later we must come back to one scheme. Whatever the form of the scheme may be it is impossible to work things satisfactorily on the basis of three schemes operated independently.
Here, again, we suffer through our ignorance, not knowing what is in the mind of the Minister or the Unemployment Assistance Board. I had hoped the Minister might assist us in this Debate by giving us at least a sketch of the new Regulations which are to be brought before the House in the fulness of time—lifting the curtain a little, even if he could not give us the actual terms. It would have been of considerable assistance to us in coming to a decision today if he had been able to do so. It may be that he has decided to dispense with the Unemployment Assistance Board in future, and will ask the House to allow him to take these matters again into his own control, within the Ministry of Labour, and that would be a step in the

2829
right direction, but at the moment we are in the dark and not in a position to discuss these matters fully and in the most intelligent way. During the long discussions on the Unemployment Bill we did not fail to point out the great disadvantage that would arise when Regulations and Orders of this kind came up for confirmation and had to be either accepted or rejected without any possibility of our amending them. If ever there was an occasion on which this House might have decided on full evidence—limited, as I have said, by ignorance of the Unemployment Assistance Board proposals, but having all the evidence of the various proposals presented to us by this committee—it would have been now. I feel the House could have reached a decision which would have satisfied the majority of hon. Members, but I am sure the present Order will not be regarded as satisfactory. By some combination of our own wishes and the proposals put forward by the Statutory Committee a plan might have been produced which would have brought great benefit to the country, great solace to the unemployed, and have left the whole scheme in such a way that it would be capable of greater flexibility for adjustment to the needs of the people.
5.28 p.m.
Mr. HAROLD MACMILLAN: I think the House is indebted to the Minister for the very clear way in which he explained to us the main problem we have to discuss. It will be agreed, I feel, that this matter can be regarded either from the narrower point of view of the immediate problem as it was put before the Statutory Committee or from the rather wider implications which follow. On the narrow question of what is the best way of using this £6,500,000 I am bound to say that I find the arguments fairly evenly weighed. They are admirably set out in the report of the committee, and my right hon. Friend devoted a very large part of his speech to presenting them to us once more. On the one hand there is the solid argument that the increase in contributions which came into effect at the time of the Economy Act is one of the very few of those emergency Measures which have not been removed. There is also the argument that there is a burden upon industry, which is, if you adopt the policy of the Government, pro tanto removed. I am bound to say that is not an
2830
argument that weighs very heavily with me, because it is in effect an argument against the whole scheme of unemployment insurance. That burden is inherent in the scheme, under which one-third of the cost of the unemployed is a direct charge upon industry. I do not regard that part of the argument as a very powerful one.
There is also the argument that it is difficult to have regard to the rates of benefit in this particular part of our social services without having regard to other parts—that there is there a very large problem which ought to be considered by the Government in preference to tinkering in this fashion with this particular aspect of our social services. Against that there is—and on balance in my mind I come down against the Government—the undoubted fact, which was put forward by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Official Opposition, that this contribution has become accepted by the men in employment, and that if you were to take, in any industrial area, a plebiscite of the men in or out of work, you would get a majority of men in work who would be prepared to continue to pay their penny, and to see a shilling, or whatever may be the additional benefit, go to their comrades who are out of work. There is the serious argument that if the hypothesis, on which the whole report of the committee and the policy of the Government are based, is correct, and if the rate of unemployment is likely to be over the next ten years, what the Economic Advisory Committee informed the Government, the decision we are taking to-day is very important. If the rate of unemployment does not sub stantially decrease, and we now reduce the rates of contribution, we shall be absolutely precluding ourselves from seeing benefits raised at all.
The committee, as I understand the position—and the Minister, will no doubt correct me if I am wrong—have only the right to recommend an increased contribution in some future year in order to meet a deficit, but for no other purpose, and therefore, if the calculation is correct that the fund will be in equilibrium for the next period, and if the proposals are carried, we are saying to-day that the rates of benefit now in existence are to remain in existence for the next 10 years. That is a very serious decision, and hon.

2831
Members ought to wait before they come to that decision.
Then there is the argument, which has finally brought me to the conclusion which I have reached, and which, I hope, other hon. Members will follow, to ask the Government to delay before they press forward with this Order. It is that the Minister is not being straight with the House in coming to-day, a few days before the Easter Recess, to deal with this Draft Order, which is not necessary. In a week or 10 days after the Recess he is to give up his whole scheme for the relief of the unemployed under Part II. I have always had a very soft spot in my heart, as I think have other Members of the House, for successive Ministers of Labour. They have each held one of the most difficult of all positions in any Administration, although it is not one of the most dignified. It is not given the ancient status of some of the other great offices of the State, but it is one which, we know, throws a tremendous burden upon whomsoever carried it.
In my experience, in the 11 years since I first entered the House of Commons, I have seen a fair number of Ministers of Labour. They come and go with startling rapidity. Those who have been the most successful have been those who have taken the House into their confidence and who have treated the Members of the House of Commons as their friends and colleagues in trying to formulate their policy. We have only to wait a week or two for the Minister to bring forward this Draft Order at a time when we shall know, as he now knows, what are the draft regulations under Part II which he and the Cabinet have approved, and it is not fair to ask the House to make this decision to-day without that information at our disposal. To that I particularly wish to call attention.
There are other and rather wider problems than the mere allocation of this £6,500,000 surplus that now accrues, and I very much regret that my right hon. Friend did not think fit to give the House any of his views upon those other questions. Everything to-day is so departmentalised. It would seem that Cabinet government has come to an end. We have before us a great question of public policy, and no representative of the Cabinet even thinks fit to come into the
2832
House. We deal day by day with different departmental problems, and the Government seem to have abandoned the task of advising the Rouse. Even after the Debate has been in existence for a couple of hours, there is not one representative of the Cabinet present, not even the Minister in charge of the Draft itself. I regret this tendency, which seems to be creeping over, to destroy the influence and continually to degrade the importance of the House of Commons, and to regard it as a body whose mere duty it is to register an automatic vote in favour of the proposals which the Ministers bring forward. The assumptions and the hypothesis, which my right hon. Friend quite truly put forward as part of the Committee's report, are passed over as though they were axiomatic, and as though they were a kind of assumed condition of the social and economic life of this country for 10 years to come.
I do not know who is trying to destroy the capitalist system and who is trying to support it. Are you going seriously to say that the system of society which it is our duty on these benches to preserve and develop, involves, during the period of the next 10 years, on the advice of the greatest economists we can find, a permanent rate of unemployment of nearly 2,000,000 people? I sat in this House in 1925, when 16 per cent.—it is easier to deal in percentages—
Mr. LAWSON: It was 16.75 per cent.
Mr. MACMILLAN: I do not remember what was stated, but I remember that my much lamented friend, Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland, who was one of the ablest Ministers who ever held the position now held by the right hon. Gentleman, introduced a Bill in 1926. I see my hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions in his place. He will remember the position well. The Bill was founded upon the Blanesburgh Committee. What was the Blanesburgh Committee's estimate of the probable rate of unemployment? Eight per cent. I remember the Liberal benches, and I remember my right hon. Friend the Minister himself, when, in every part of the House it was said, "What a pessimistic view. Are we doomed to have 1,000,000 unemployed" I remember Votes of Censure, and debates week after week, all through that Parliament, when the problem of unemployment, as we

2833
used to call it, was a problem of 1,000,000 men out of work, and not 2,000,000 men, and when a great committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Blanesburgh, estimated that the probable future rate of unemployment, upon which they based the finances of the Bill of 1926, would be a figure of 8 per cent. Now we are told, and I dare say it is right, that if there are no changes, no new policies, no fresh attack and given existing conditions—given, indeed, the problem which the Economic Advisory Committee was asked to solve—the probable rate of unemployment will be 16.5 per cent., or 16.75 per cent., for the next eight years.
I observed, and I am sure that all hon. Members will have observed when they read the report, that the members of the Economic Advisory Committee were very careful to guard themselves as to the character of their promise. Being very distinguished economists, they were not very easily going to be led into a trap, and they put in a great number of qualifications in taking that view of the probable future. They said:
"It is possible that a radical change in the outlook may be brought about by developments which it is now impossible to foresee,"
and,
"among the factors by which the course of trade is influenced is the economic policy pursued by the governments of this and of other countries."
They guarded themselves in doing what very properly they did, answered exactly the question they were asked in the form in which it was asked. They did no more.
Each of them individually is making his contribution, as best he can, to remove the existing basic and permanent factor in our economic system. Among the members of this committee was, for example, Mr. J. M. Keynes. The whole effort of his economic thought is not to accept as a permanent condition of our affairs that one-eighth of our total man power should be unable to find work, and he uses every effort, and what power he and his friends have, to find some solution to this problem. What shocked me and bitterly disappointed me was the attitude of the Minister, who accepts those hypotheses. They are reasonable enough if they are put forward merely as the basis of a particular decision on the narrow question of what
2834
should be done in these immediate circumstances, but to accept them, and put them forward to pass this House without comment, as a kind of assumed condition of our affairs, is to be hopelessly defeatist, and is a quite unwarrantable attitude.
Let us look at the other axiom. Not only are we told that this Measure will bring equilibrium, and that it is the right thing to do on the basis of the 16 per cent. unemployed and of the inevitability of the trade cycle—surely problems that one would have thought the Government would try to mitigate or solve—but we are told, and it is also assumed, that only half, or rather less than half, only 48 per cent., of the people for whom this provision is made, are drawing benefit when they are out of work. It is one of the hypotheses that not more than 48 per cent. of the unemployed should be drawing benefit at any given moment, which means that not only will you have over 2,000,000 unemployed, and you look forward with apparent equanimity to that prospect for the next 10 years, but your finance is to be based upon always having 1,000,000 people on the means test.
Is that the decision of the Government? Is that what they say to this House at the beginning of a new Parliament? Is that the message of a great, combined, strong, powerful Government? It is a defeatist message. It is the message of a Government who are fading away. Whether we are dealing with the matters which we have been dealing with in recent weeks, whether we are dealing with external or internal matters, there is no hope or promise given to the Members of this House; there is expectance, apparently, of bad conditions, and the hope that, at any rate, they will not become too horribly worse. I shall vote against this Order on all those main grounds, and I hope that many hon. Members will do the same. I would much prefer that the Government should see their way to withdraw the Order now and postpone its consideration.
On the narrow question of whether this is the best use of this great surplus a much more powerful argument could be presented; at any rate, the weight of argument comes down upon the other methods, increase of benefit or the removal of certain conditions. In the conditions in which this proposal is presented

2835
to the House I think it is wrong, and I protest, in the name of many humble back-bench Members, against our being asked to make a decision when we have not the information about the future policy of the Minister which he himself has. We are asked to come to what would would be a very important and binding decision as to the conditions of Part I when we have no information as to what is to be the policy on Part II.
Lastly, I ask the Government to postpone the Order because, to come before this House and accept this frightful accusation against the existing order of society, is to say that that must go on and that we have no policy, no hope, no method to deal with it; it is to say that this 16 per cent., 2,000,000, will be unemployed over the next 10 years; that is the message to the English people. I repudiate that. I could understand it if it came from the Opposition benches, and if it were a Socialist statement; if one of my hon. Friends were addressing a mob and saying that this is an inherent condition of capitalist society, but I do not understand it coming from the right hon. Gentleman who, like us, is engaged in an effort to improve, ameliorate, and make continual growth in, the social and economic organism, which we believe to be capable of development and growth, and to be the best means of promoting the health and happiness of our people. On all these grounds I would ask the Government, if it is not too late, to reconsider pressing this Order to a vote to-day, and to come before the House with a comprehensive statement of their policy both under Part I and under Part II, combined, I should hope, with a statement, which we have not yet had, of their policy on the wider aspects of the economic recovery of this country.
5.45 p.m.
Mr. SPENS: I had no intention of intervening in this Debate, but the way in which the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. H. Macmillan) used a report submitted, by a body of economists, to persons who have to make up their minds what to do with a surplus from an insurance fund, compelled me to rise to my feet. I wonder what hon. Members would have thought if a body of economists, asked to make a report to this House on the manner in which a surplus from an
2836
insurance fund ought to be dealt with, had come forward and said, "Everything looks so perfect that you may assume you are not going to have 16 per cent., or 10 per cent., or 8 per cent., but you can assume you are going to have 2 per cent. unemployed over the next 10 years, because everything is going so well," and if the persons responsible for dealing with that insurance fund took that outrageous attitude and acted accordingly.
Surely everyone who has had any connection with insurance knows that insurance must be based on the most conservative estimate than can possibly be got out, and that is all that the suggestion of the committee amounts to. It has nothing whatever to do with what the Government think is going to be the future of this country. Therefore, I would beg hon. Members to have nothing to do with suggestions that this report contains anything which the Government think is going to happen in the future as regards unemployment in this country. I have listened to the speeches of three hon. Members opposite, and not one of them has dealt with what appears to me to be the first question that this House ought to ask itself when it is considering the recommendations of a committee in regard to dealing with this surplus: Where did the surplus come from, and to whom does it belong? Hon. Members opposite all seem to think that this is a fund of money which we in this House can vote shall be used as we think best for the future of unemployment and the insurance scheme. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because it comes from certain sources, and surely the persons who have subscribed it, and find that they have over-subscribed, have some right to be considered.
During the War a number of voluntary associations were formed by those interested in shipping, to insure themselves against losses at sea, and at the end of the War it was found that in innumerable cases the contributions which those people had paid had been overestimated, so that large surpluses were left in the hands of the committees concerned. Those surpluses had to be disposed of, and the first question that the committees asked themselves was, where did this money come from and to whom did it belong? In such cases the money

2837
belongs to those persons who have subscribed it, and whose contributions have turned out, thanks to the improvement, in this case under the National Government, to have been unnecessarily large. Therefore, with great respect to hon. Members opposite, it appears to me, and, I suggest, to other Members of the House, that the first persons who have a claim on this surplus are the three parties who have subscribed it, namely, the workmen, the State and the employers. If the committee had suggested that this surplus should be disposed of as we think fit for the general benefit of the country, I, for one, should have strongly disagreed, on the ground that any such suggestion was fundamentally opposed to the principle that we have no right to deal with other people's property in any way except to try to give it back to them if we find that it has been taken from them unnecessarily. For these reasons I shall support the Order which the Government are putting before the House.
5.51 p.m.
Mr. BUCHANAN: At least we ought to be thankful to the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) for introducing, as I think, a note of reality into the Debate. Before he spoke, I was afraid that the Debate was going to peter out, but he has at any rate introduced some kind of feeling and thought into the Debate. It would be all very well to argue in that way if we were dealing with insurance. If we were dealing with an insurance company, there would be a great deal in the hon. and learned Member's argument. But we are not dealing here with insurance. Nobody who has the slightest knowledge of the problem can say that we are dealing with the question of the maintenance and upkeep of the unemployed on an insurance basis.
If the percentage of unemployment were to rise, as one might well conceive that it might, to 30 per cent., is the hon. and learned Member going to say that the contributions would have to be determined by that percentage? If so, they must go sky-high. Obviously, in dealing with this problem, you have other considerations entering in, and they are not insurance considerations, but considerations of how the people who are to be regarded as unemployed have to be treated from day to day. Even, how-
2838
ever, on an insurance basis there is an answer to the hon. and learned Member. Even insurance companies make improvements in their policies; they do not always return the contributions; they make the conditions easier and better. In the present case, all that those who speak for the official Opposition are arguing is that those who receive the policy ought to have their conditions under that policy considerably improved.
I want to reinforce what was said by the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Macmillan), because the point he made is possibly the most important point of all. I differ considerably from the view of the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) with regard to the committee. He paid a great tribute to this committee, as though it were doing excellent work. It is easy for this committee to do its work. It enters upon its job at a time when trade is improving. But there have been other committees equally reputable and equally good, and unemployment insurance has been the graveyard of every one of them. To-day this committee, presided over by Sir William Beveridge, happens to meet with favourable conditions. But the question upon which I challenge the committee most is a question which Parliament ought to face up to much more seriously than it has done, and that is that this committee can decide what shall be the conditions of the unemployed. The committee can say what shall be the length of the waiting period, or what a child is to get. It can determine those conditions, and, when it has determined them, the determination of Parliament has to be the same as that of the committee.
Sir William Beveridge may be smart, but my opinion of him differs entirely from that of the hon. Member for East Birkenhead. I have appeared before him. I see nothing of the genius in him; I do not see that he is smart, and I do not accept the view that he is capable on this issue. He may be a first-class director in the School of Economics, but on this issue I do not take him at all as being a capable man. That does not mean to say that he is not capable; it means that I do not take him as capable on this issue, just as I did not take Sir Walter Citrine when he came down to tell us what the Anomalies Act was, and I do not take

2839
his advice. He may be able to run a trade union, but he is not capable of instructing the House of Commons on this issue, nor is Sir William Beveridge capable of doing so. His committee can sit round a board, they can amend the scales of benefit, they can alter, they can adjust; and Members of the House of Commons, who have been elected by the people, who have given pledges, who have said what can be done, are the one set of people who can do nothing in regard to it at all. A member of this committee, sitting round a board, could move, I understand, that the waiting period be reduced, or that half the surplus should be allocated to contributions and half to benefits. He could have done those things in that committee, but we in the House of Commons, who are elected for the purpose, cannot do it. What a position ! Moreover, you are not even being governed by a committee who are the best people for it. I do not accept the view that they are.
The point raised by the hon. Member for Stockton is a terribly serious one, namely, that, if we accept what this committee say, we are not determining the conditions of the unemployed for next year, but are determining their conditions for years to come. Everything in the report of the Advisory Committee goes to show that, except in case of war, the figures are almost bound to increase, and that, therefore, the contributions, if they are to be increased in the future, will never be increased for the purposes of benefit or of improving the conditions of the unemployed, but will only be increased for the purpose of balancing the fund. Surely that is a terrible position. To-day the House of Commons is not going to determine those conditions ahead, but the seven people who have signed the Majority Report are the people who will determine it. As a matter of fact, we have not the evidence upon which they have determined their findings. All that we have are these figures. We do not know their evidence. It is not here or, in so far as it is here, it is of the most sketchy type. Whatever evidence has been submitted has been against it. We are told that these are the conditions and they are not likely to get any better. The Government have not accepted
2840
their own committee's report because even this committee has not recommended that this should be put into operation until Part II comes. The right hon. Gentleman is playing about for time.
There is another point on which I should like to challenge the right hon. Gentleman, because I do not think he was quite fair. He led the House to believe that this was practically the only cut, because he dealt with no other cut concerning the unemployed. It was not the only cut. The unemployed that we are dealing with to-day have had the most savage cut applied to them, and it has never yet been restored. It is incorrect to say that we restored the cuts to the unemployed. The average man with 30 stamps could draw roughly speaking, 70 weeks standard benefit. To-day he can only draw 26 weeks in a given year. Before, he got back on to standard benefit provided he had 30 stamps in two years. Now he has 10 stamps to get as a further qualification. That is the most serious cut. The hon. Member talks about policy holders. The first thing that should be done is to see that the policy holders are paid their policy. They are not being paid their policy to-day. You can multiply the employers' difficulties tenfold but not one of them has the difficulties of these unemployed whose cuts have not been restored. This Government's display is becoming more and more contemptible. Millions of pounds are handed out to beet sugar, wheat and shipping. You go from one industry to another but, when it comes to the unemployed, there is nothing, and you take £2,000,000 from the Fund and hand it back to the Treasury so that the Treasury may subsidise some other vested interest. The unemployed man's right of appeal to the Court of Referees has been taken from him.
My hon. Friend talked about the waiting period being 10 days. It is longer than 10 days. A man who is paid off on Saturday signs for the next two weeks and on the Friday Light he is handed three days. If he has a wife without children, he has 13s. for the fortnight, or 39s. for three weeks. I leave out the children or we shall be accused of using sob stuff. Is there a man in the House who will say that that man's difficulty is

2841
not greater than that of any employer? If a man who is living with his sister is out of work there is nothing for her. If he brought a woman in from the streets and had children there would be something for them. If he was a widower with a daughter to keep house there would be something for her. Why should not a sister get a few miserable shillings? The Treasury is devoting its money either to subsidising its friends or preparing for war. If we were in danger, the first people we should ask to fight are those to whom we are now denying a modicum of justice. The first thing that should be done with the surplus of £6,000,000 is to improve the conditions of these people in their homes. I judge the greatness of a country not by its Government, or its King, or its colonies, or its armies. The test of a nation is the home life of the common people. I hope the House will decide that those who are unfortunate in their home life shall be made more comfortable than they have hitherto been.
6.13 p.m.
Mr. ROLAND ROBINSON': Great credit is due to the Government for its handling of the unemployment situation, which has resulted in a condition whereby the Unemployment Insurance Fund finds itself with a surplus of £6,500,000. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) said the unemployed would not be glad to see that there was a surplus in the fund. I am convinced that he is wrong, because the reason for the surplus is that over a million of the fellow-men of the unemployed have found jobs. I believe that will be appreciated. I think the situation presented to us by the hon. Member who has just spoken was in many ways a prejudiced one. He suggested that the Government wished to subsidise its friends in one way or another. Surely the answer is that the subsidy is given only because we believe it will provide work for the unemployed men. In addition to that, the Government are providing some £84,000,000 a year in unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance out of public funds. I think that meets the criticism that nothing is done.
Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: Surely that is not correct. The men pay their contributions.
Mr. ROBINSON: I did not say they did not. I said the amount provided by the Government out of public funds was £84,000,000 per year. Having said that, I feel that in dealing with this most human problem of Unemployment Benefit—after all, it is the bread and butter of the unemployed—it would be rightful to give a few helpful criticisms. Hon. Members on the other side are constantly criticising and playing the part of the sharpshooter day after day, and I feel that when criticism comes from a real friend of the Government, it has a far greater value. There is at the disposal of the committee a surplus of £6,500,0000, and in the report the committee considered whether it would not be possible to extend the principle of Unemployment Insurance beyond the statutory period of 26 weeks. They came to the somewhat remarkable conclusion that Unemploy-Insurance constituted a tax upon employment. In page 16, paragraph 36, of the report, they say:
"The question cannot, of course, be considered only from the point of view of taxation. … The social advantage of providing for unemployment on the principles of insurance, rather than of relief, must at all times be weighed against the fiscal disadvantage of providing for it by a relatively undesirable form of taxation."
That statement, I think, vitiates the whole value of the report. We have here a body of men to whom we are entrusting the future of the Unemployment Insurance scheme, and they say at the outset that, in their opinion, it is a relatively undesirable form of taxation. They prefer relief to insurance, and if their principle and their views were carried to their logical conclusion, there would indeed be no unemployment insurance in this country at all. If they have those views, and if they visualise the ultimate disappearance of the Unemployment Insurance Fund, this House would indeed be exceedingly unwise if we were to accept their advice. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) said that the committee was a success. In my submission the committee was not a success, because its members admit that they do not believe in the principle of Unemployment Insurance. Having gone so far, they then take the view that, instead of extending insurance as they might have done, a reduction of contributions would offer an easier and a safer method of absorbing the surplus than a

2843
raising of benefit would be. Surely it is wrong that they should be looking for an easy and a safe method of absorbing the surplus instead of trying to serve a great national purpose. I believe that they have failed to grasp the fundamental national importance of a highly developed social insurance scheme. I do not believe that they understand the inestimable benefit that these schemes can be to the working men whereby they enable them to receive money from the State to maintain their dignity, and, at the same time, keep them away from the stigma of pauperism.
If we had not had these schemes working during the past 10 years there might have been times when England would have been faced with revolution. The net effect is that there is a vested interest of the working classes in the security of the nation and in the maintenance of our financial stability. Socially, insurance is intended to mitigate the effects of the world economic system against those who can least afford to bear the burden and stand changes in their economic circumstances. I urge upon the House that these schemes can never possibly be complete until they cover the widest possible range of people. Then and only then can you consider reducing the rates of contribution. The hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) made a speech this afternoon wherein he referred to a shipping insurance scheme during the war and said that when it was found that too much money had been paid into the scheme, it was rightly and properly given back to those who had paid it. That may be true, but in this case surely he had completely forgotten that those who have been paying into the Unemployment Insurance Fund are the whole of the unemployed and not that portion at the moment entitled to draw the statutory rates of benefit. The whole of the unemployed have paid, and the only reason why they have not been able to achieve a full measure of benefit is that in the past the fund has not been in a solvent condition.
There are two things which ought to be done with this surplus. We can in the first place raise the standard rates of benefit, and, in the second place, remove a number of very striking anomalies. One of those anomalies, and to my mind
2844
the most important, is that of the seasonal workers, the position whereby men and women working in some particular trade find themselves covered only by insurance in the season. As soon as the season for that particular trade ends they are automatically thrown out of work and on to the means test. That situation happens in every seaside holiday resort in this country. You find people reasonably sure of jobs during the summer getting a living wage and very little more, and contributing regularly to the Insurance Fund. As soon as they are thrown out of work at the end of the season they cannot draw benefit as a right but only as a matter of relief. There is no alternative work for them, and when they most need the benefit of insurance they cannot get it.
To illustrate the position, I will mention what happens in Blackpool during the winter. There we have thousands of people who have no possible hope of jobs. They are living on a standard of relief which can give them none of the comforts of life, and in that town, under the leadership of the Council of Social Service, there are some 16 organisations trying to help these people who are out of employment. In December it was necessary, in addition to what was provided from Unemployment Assistance to give 580 families food relief. In January, 580 families had to be given food relief, and in February 620 families, and in addition we provided free meals for over 1,000 people at Christmas. That position exists in varying degrees in every seaside resort in England. We are not giving that help merely because we are kind-hearted people, but because we are firmly convinced in our hearts of a deep-rooted social injustice which deprives decent men and women of the right to maintain a fair standard of living in their homes during the sinter months. Readily we agree that the Seasonal Workers Order of lag summer did a great deal to mitigate the situation. It was welcomed throne out the country. But now is the time to complete the good work that was begun in the summer and give these people who are on seasonal work the fullest possible amount of benefit. I would say to the right hon. Gentleman, "Tear yourself away from the fascination of a penny saved," and, instead, remove the anomaly which has

2845
become so great that it amounts to a crying injustice.
The second alternative is an increase in the rates of benefit. It is clearly agreed that any addition to the rate of benefit to an unemployed man would meet his most urgent needs, whereas an extra penny to the workman who is employed and to the employer will hardly be felt at all. As the committee said in their report, those who pay these pennies have got used to it and they have adjusted their standard of living to meet it. On reading through the details of the report, the only evidence in favour of the reduction of weekly payments came from that one body representing employers. I was most interested in the paragraph where it is said that the statistics show that the savings would be so small as to make it impossible to pass on the benefits or to use it in securing contracts. Mr. Shaw well illustrated the point, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield did not point out this fact. Mr. Shaw's figures were not merely those produced by a dissenting member of the committee, but some of them were embodied in the body of the report itself, and especially the illustration about the building of a £90,000 cargo vessel where the saving through these proposals would be as small a sum as £43.
In the North of England we are particularly interested in cotton and in wool, and when we have to bring our minds to bear on those proposals, it is astonishing to think that people can consider the benefits real when in the cotton industry, out of a turnover of £132,701,000, the saving amounts to about £63,000 a year, and when, in the woollen industry, out of £101,870,000, there is a saving of about £41,000. The saving thus effected is so small that when parcelled out among individual firms it cannot possibly do anything to help trade and industry. The committee, looking at it from the point of view of workmen, said that the saving of a penny a week was negligible, and then, because they are going to give their findings the other way, they add all the pennies together, and say that they amounted to £40,000 a week, and that this is a big sum. We have to consider it in view of the fact that the money is going out at the rate of 1d. a man and in that way cannot give any real help.
The committee say that to take 1d. off the contribution would cost practically
2846
the same as adding 3s. per week to the standard rate. They add:
"Can it he doubted that the latter use would give more general satisfaction?"
I feel that Members of the House of Commons will agree with them when they utter that particular sentence.There are other alternatives. We can increase the children's benefit. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield rightly said that pressure came from the National Government supporters in the last Parliament, and that it was we who pressed for it. We can reduce the waiting period. Finally, the committee say that they regret having to come to this decision while the future of unemployment assistance is unsettled. This decision must stabilise the benefits for a number of years. It might be that my right hon. Friend, when he is dealing with unemployment assistance, might feel called upon to give some increase in benefit rates and to remove some anomalies. How unusual it would be if he were face to face with the position that the payments by way of relief were to be higher than insurance payments, which are obtained by way of right.
It was pointed out by the committee, and the House must be fully conscious of it, that the choice between a reduction of payments and an increase of benefits is a major point of social policy, and that the responsibility for the choice rests not with the committee but with the Members of the House of Commons. It is a responsibility that we should not shirk. We should not complacently accept a report which we cannot help but believe is bad. The committee have treated the matter merely from the point of view of accountancy. They have no conception of the importance, either present or potential, of the Unemployment Insurance scheme to this country. It has been their business to strike a balance in cold blood. Having a surplus, they want to dispose of it in the easiest manner possible. forgetting that in our Unemployment Insurance scheme we have the finest piece of social work ever undertaken by any community. I appeal to my right hon. Friend, before it is too late, to realise that here is an opportunity for him and for the Cabinet to prove their inherent greatness by reversing this decision and rejecting the

2847
shortsighted, anti-social policy of the committee. Let them show courage and imagination. Let them have the vision of statesmen and bring forward a new scheme of extended benefit which will prove a blessing to the people of England.
6.32 p.m.
Mr. ELLIS SMITH: During the past few weeks we have had debates on many subjects such as subsidies to tramp shipping, when the benches opposite were packed with Members. We have had debates dealing with the Air Force, with the subsidy to Imperial Airways, with foreign policy, with the armed forces, and on each occasion the benches have been packed with supporters of the Government. To-day we are dealing with a question which vitally affects the lives of the poorest people in the country, and we find that out of 400 supporters of the National Government not more than 30 are present to hear the discussion.
Mr. DENVILLE: Do not be unfair. How many Members of the Labour Party are present?
Mr. SMITH: The hon. Member, quite rightly, interrupts and asks how many of our Members are present. I welcome that interjection and I would ask him to count the number of our supporters and then calculate the proportionate difference there is between the representatives a the 400 Government supporters and our strength of 150.
Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 members being present—
Mr. SMITH: When the Minister of Labour was dealing with the report he claimed that the success of the scheme was mainly due to the administration of the Statutory Committee. He did not mention the great improvement in trade that has taken place not only in this country but throughout the world, which has enabled the committee to accumulate its surplus. He then dealt with the report and stated that the Statutory Committee had asked the advice of the Economic Council with regard to the future of unemployment. He said the Economic Council had stated that during the next ten years there would be an average number of unemployed of between 15 and 16 per cent, and that during a
2848
further eight years the average would be 16¼ to 16¾ per cent. May I draw attention to the Ministry of Labour Gazette for March last which show s that the percentage of unemployment at present is 15.4. With the number of unemployed decreasing, in view of the Governments' expenditure on armaments, the probability is that the figure will be less than 15.4 per cent.
The Minister did not say anything about the expense which the fund has to bear with regard to interest on its loans. We consider that the mil ole nation should bear the cost of that. We are supported in that view by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) in a speech which he made on 4th April. 1930. I wish the right hon. Gentleman had been present now, because I am convinced that he would have been inclined to support us to-day if he had heard the reasons put forward from this side why the committee report should be turned down. He said that it might well be that an increase of indirect taxation borne by the whole of the consumers would be preferable to raising the millions for the maintenance of the Unemployment Fund directly as a tax upon the regularly employed workmen in the prosperous industries.
In the report we find that £5,000,000 is set aside for debt services. The American debt can be repudiated, the National Debt can be allowed to remain and be spread over the whole population, but the debt and the Unemployment Insurance Fund must be borne by those employed in industry. On page 3 of the report we see another very serious effect on the fund. The rate of interest charged against the fund by the Exchequer is 4.5 per cent. I suggest that that is a relatively high rate of interest in these days, and ought not to be charged. On page 91 of the Ministry of Labour Gazette for March we see the serious economic consequences of the report that is being put forward to-day by the Minister. I would draw attention to the economic consequences of the policy the Government are pursuing. We find that the average number of unemployed in London is 9.1, in the south-east area 9.9, in the south-west 12.2, in tin midlands 10.7, in the north-east 18.8, in I he north-west 19.1, in Scotland 21.4 and Wales 32.2. The reason why I draw attention to these percentages is to point out the serious effect

2849
of a report of this character on those industrial centres.
During the great controversy that took place some time ago with regard to the effect of Part II of the Act, we found that in South Wales, Lancashire, North Staffordshire and the North-East Coast, the whole of the population were unanimously indignant against the introduction of the Regulations. There must be something far deeper than any agitation from our point of view which brought about that protest. It was brought about very largely because every penny that is put into the pockets of unemployed and employed men is spent in the shops of the district where they live, while pennies put into the pockets of the employers are not necessarily spent in the industrial districts. If benefits had been increased there would have been a direct effect on the purchasing power and the consuming power of the workers, and that would have reflected itself in the takings over the counters of the shops in the industrial centres.
We find that the unequal development of capitalism is having a very serious effect on employment in the North. Owing to that unequal development more and more capital is being put into the aircraft industry and the wireless industry, which are not really of basic value to the country. The result is that in the South there is thriving industry and a low percentage of unemployment, whereas in the industrial North the basic industries are being seriously affected, those who are employed are having to work harder than ever and there is a larger percentage of unemployment. This has had, and will have, very serious economic consequences, not only to the ordinary working people but to the local shopkeepers in the industrial North.
The report of the Statutory Committee shows a surplus at their disposal. They have suggested, and the Government are accepting their report, a reduction of 1d. a week in the contributions of those who are employed. My mind goes back to the years 1929, 1930, 1931 and 1932, when unemployment was going up. During that time the people in the industrial centres bore a greater responsibility for the maintenance of the unemployed than they should ever have been expected to bear. The trade unions bore a greater responsibility than is generally recognised either by this House or the
2850
country. In one trade union that I know of—and the same will apply to other unions—men were paying contributions of 1s. 9d. a week in order to assist their fellows who were unemployed through no fault of their own, and these same men levied themselves to the extent of 3s. a week in order that benefits could be maintained at as high a level as possible. Yet to-day the Minister of Labour comes forward and asks us to accept a report in order that contributions can be reduced 1d. a week. I am as much in touch with the average person in industry as anyone in the House. I recently spent 25 years in industry and came from one of the biggest factories to this House.
If the workers of this country could vote on the question whether they should go on paying 1d. per week less or have increased benefits, the majority would vote for an increase in benefits. The first to suffer in 1931 were the unemployed. I shall never forget the General Election of that year when our supporters came up to tell us that the Lord President of the Council, speaking on the wireless with tears in his eyes, called upon the unemployed to agree to the economy cuts which were being carried through. The Lord President of the Council told the unemployed that they would be the first to have their cuts restored. The promises made in 1931 are being betrayed this afternoon, if this report is agreed to. Nearly all cuts have been restored, to the civil servants and to all other people, but the unfortunate unemployed, the poorest of the poor, have not had their cuts restored. The surplus, which could have been used to improve the condition of the many, is being used to suit the needs of the National Confederation of Employers. We have heard a lot as to who was responsible for the introduction of the means test, who was the first to suggest it. It was not this party. It was the National Confederation of Employers who first suggested the introduction of a means test, and the Government agreed to it just as they are going to agree with this report. If the policy of the Government is agreed to it means that unemployment benefit will be stabilised for some time to come.
What could have been done with this surplus? Benefits could have been increased on the average by 1s. a week for

2851
every man and woman unemployed; the waiting period could have been reduced to three days; the wife's benefit could have been increased by 1s. a week; and the allowance for every child could have been increased by 1s. per week, and then something of the surplus would be left over. I have seen one or two hon. Members of this House smiling at some of the arguments which have been put forward. It is easy for people to smile who have not had to go through some of the hardships which some of our friends have had to endure. They are men who are as good as any man in this House or in the Civil Service. These are the people who are being subjected to this treatment, and I welcome the support which is to be given us to-night by some hon. Members who usually support the Government. I hope that sufficient reasons will be produced to enable many hon. Members who usually support the Government to vote with us this evening, for by so doing we shall be reflecting the feelings of the masses of the people of this country.
6.50 p.m.
Mr. ROWLANDS: I am rather surprised that the report of the Statutory Committee and the recommendations of the Government have not been better received by hon. Members opposite. Looking back over the history of unemployment insurance we can congratulate the Government on the comfortable position in which the fund is now. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) has referred to the depressing years of 1929–30. I also remember those years, and I can recall the position of the Unemployment Insurance Fund at that time when the State had to borrow £1,000,000 per week in order to pay unemployment benefit. In 1931, when the climax came, there was no difficulty in getting employers to pay an increased contribution, no difficulty in getting workers to pay an increased contribution, and, I am glad to say, no difficulty at all in getting the unemployed to accept cuts in their benefits. The patriotism and loyalty of these people was reflected in the fact that they voted in their hundreds and thousands for the very Government which had imposed these necessary cuts. To-day the position is infinitely better. What has made it better? It is the trade policy of the National Government. An improvement
2852
in trade and in employment has resulted in the Statutory Committee being able to report a surplus of £6,500,000. Some hon. Members have criticised the Statutory Committee for some of their recommendations. The committee are able to advise and recommend or these important questions, and for that reason I should hesitate before rejecting any recommendations they might make. One of the first things the Government did was to restore the cuts to the unemployed. They have even done more than that, because in October of last year they increased the children's benefit from 2s. to 3s., and that costs £1,250,000. For hon. Members to suggest that the cuts have not been restored is to suggest what they know is not true.
Mr. MESSER: The people who suffered the cuts did not get them back.
Mr. ROWLANDS: My intelligence does not appreciate the importance of that interruption.
Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: The unemployed in their 10 per cent. cut sustained a cut of nearly £14,000,000 a year, and they have not received a single farthing of that enormous amount.
Mr. ROWLANDS: The cuts of the unemployed have been restored in the same sense as they have been restored to everybody else, and hon. Members opposite are simply quibbling on the matter. Do they suggest that because we asked the teachers to submit to a 10 per cent. cut that we should now increase their-salary by 20 per cent. in order to compensate them? Everybody endured cuts, and consequently to have restored the cuts by way of unemployment benefit upon the scale which used to be paid was fulfilling the promise made that the cuts to the unemployed would be restored. I observe that the report of the Statutory Committee makes a point that it would have been better if the Unemployment Insurance regulations had been before the House, and some hon. Members have emphasised that important point. A criticism has been made that it is intended to dispose of the surplus by reducing contributions. Inasmuch as the contributions of the employer, the employed and the State were increased, and inasmuch as all the cuts have been restored, it is only fair to industry as a whole to reduce the contributions.

2853
We should all like to see the benefits increased, but inasmuch as we do not know what are to be the proposals of the Unemployment Assistance Board in their regulations, it does somewhat militate against the possibility of disposing of this surplus by way of increased benefits. While the statutory benefit can be fixed, although it may not be what we should like to see, there is nothing to prevent the Minister of Labour, if he thinks the conditions justify it, in making the Unemployment Insurance regulations a lot more generous and the benefits also more generous, because it is when an individual has drawn his full statutory benefit, after he has been six months unemployed that he needs it most. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said that this was not an insurance fund. We nearly lost it as an insurance fund in the years 1929 to 1931, but thank goodness it has been placed on an insurance basis again and I hope it is the intention of the Government to retain its insurance nature, and not put forward proposals for increased benefits which might have the result of making the fund insolvent once again. It is by far the better policy to accept the recommendations of the Statutory Committee. Taking the long view, I think that the relief given to industry will have a substantial effect upon reducing the unemployment figures, and for that reason I have pleasure in supporting the Government.
6.56 p.m.
Mr. TINKER: This is one of those occasions when we are doubtful whether we did right in placing these duties on a statutory body, but Parliament decided to do so and now we have to express our opinion as to whether we agree with the recommendations of this statutory body or not. There is not much likelihood of the recommendations being changed, but the views expressed by hon. Members this evening might have some effect later on when the committee has to deal with another surplus. If we did not criticise their action to-night it might be taken that everyone was in full agreement with what has been done. That is not the case. We think that this money could have been expended in quite a different way. I also question very much the way in which the committee propose to deal with the debt. I have always held the view that the debt on the Unemployment Insurance Fund ought to have
2854
been swept away. It was created at a time of national emergency, and there ought to be no question of it being repaid. It would be far better to sweep it away and devote this surplus in quite a different way. I also think that the rate of interest, over 4 per cent., is too high as compared with the rate of interest prevailing in the money market.
Wing-Commander JAMES: The hon. Member talks about sweeping away the debt. How would he sweep away a debt of £105,000,000?
Mr. TINKER: I should pay it out of the National Exchequer. I should put the burden on the whole of the nation, not on those in the fund.
Wing-Commander JAMES: The action of the Labour Government.
Mr. TINKER: I do not appreciate the point of the hon. and gallant Member. I would put the debt on to the whole of the country, not on those in the fund. There are two points of view in regard to the method of dealing with the surplus. I can well understand the Government arguing that as the contributions were raised last they ought now to be reduced. I objected then to their being raised, but, having been raised, I do not think we should be wise at this moment in reducing them. By the method adopted in this Motion the whole of the surplus is being given back by a lowering of the contribution. In other words, the workers will get £2,200,000, and the State and the employers will get a corresponding amount. It would have been far better if the whole of the surplus had been given in increased benefits. The whole of it would then have gone at once into circulation, and we should have had this £6,000,000 being spent by people in direct need of it, and week after week the money would have gone into the market. Every unemployed man or woman when they get their benefit spend the money as quickly as they can because it is needed. When a man falls out of work the money he has coining in becomes less than it was before. Assuming that he was spending his weekly wage before—and Heaven knows they require all they get in wages—then at once, when he gets his unemployment benefit, he must spend it. By increasing the amount of benefits that money would be put straight into use.

2855
By the method we are adopting here we are saying to the State, "You retain £2,200,000." You may argue that it will be spent in some other way. It will, but it will be by reduced taxation and that will cover the whole community, and many of those who get the benefit of reduced taxation may be men and women who have no need of the reduction. Those who pay Income Tax do not as a rule spend all their money. That £2,200,000 will not go readily into the market and be spent to improve trade. It may be hoarded by the banks, but it will be practically dead in regard to its effect in the market. I claim also that the money we are giving to the employers will not go into the spending market as quickly as it would if it were given in increased benefits. Many employers keep money by them ready to use in the expansion of their works, and there is no shortage of money at present. So we find that two-thirds of this surplus will be practically dead for a long time, and will not be spent. There is only one way to get trade reviving, and that is by giving increased spending power to the people. The more money the workers get the more quickly will industry revive. By following the proposals of the Statutory Committee we are stopping that, and that is why I think the Government have taken a wrong line in not saying that they will give it all in increased benefits.
The Minister of Labour said there was a possibility that if unemployment benefits were increased to a certain point they might catch up with the lower wages in some industries. I take that to be an argument that in his mind it is well to keep unemployment benefit at low rates so that it shall not be too close on the lower rates of wages; that there is a possibility, by increasing the rates of unemployment benefit, that it might be made better for a man to be unemployed rather than to follow some of the lower-paid industries. If that is in the mind of any hon. Member opposite, it is his duty to see that the wages in the lower-paid industries are raised. I condemn the proposals of the Statutory Committee. They are founded on wrong principles, and there would have been greater approval in the country if the committee had decided to increase the benefits. If you were to take a vote of all the workers
2856
on the question whether they were prepared to contribute this extra penny or have increased benefits, you would get 90 per cent. voting in favour of the increased benefits. The workers would decide instantly for that as the better solution.
7.7 p.m.
Mr. A. HOPKINSON: It is a pleasure to find that this Debate has been conducted in the tone adopted by the last speaker. In the past, many Debates on this subject have been characterised by an acrimonious exchange between one side of the House and the other which is pleasantly lacking to-night. There were one or two points in the speech of the hon. Member to which I would like to refer. He said that if we increased the amount paid in unemployment benefit we should thereby increase the amount spent. The only wry to increase purchasing power is to raise the aggregate of wages paid to the workers. If you pay a man for producing nothing, the only effect is to put up retail prices against his fellow-workers and fellow-unemployed, and not really to increase purchasing power.
Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: Is it not correct that one of the three laws of currency is determined by the speed of circulation?
Mr. HOPKINSON: I am not dealing with that at the moment. I am giving these facts without any technical language. It does not increase purchasing power if you do not simultaneously get for the money payment a return for the money paid. The only solution of the problem is to increase week by week the aggregate amount of wages paid. From where comes all the money that goes into the Unemployment Fund? It comes out of productive industry entirely, and it does not matter whether you call it the State or the workers' or the employers' contribution. It does not matter if you borrow the money, call it Super-tax or Income Tax. Every penny has to come sooner or later out of productive industry. I made an offer some time ago to the trade union with which I am concerned, and I suggested that it was an offer which other employers in the engineering trade should consider. The offer was to raise the wages of our workers by the amount of the unemployment insurance premiums on condition that they paid the whole of the premium.

2857
It would not have made any difference. It has to come out of their pockets in the long run.
The point really is that if you rob the Sinking Fund as suggested by hon. Members opposite, in other words, if you do not pay off the debt, you really in the long run do not benefit the workers. The object must be to reduce the wages of capital and raise correspondingly the wages of labour. That is what we all in our hearts are desirous of seeing. The way to reduce the wages of capital is to pursue policies exactly the opposite of those pursued by hon. Members opposite when they formed the Government. The only effect of having a Labour Government is to increase to an enormous extent the wages of capital, and to that extent to reduce the wages of labour. When in 1931 we were able to terminate that policy we found that the wages of capital at once began to go down—and the wages of capital are precious little nowadays—and the wages of labour went up and up in proportion, which is what we on this side want to see more and more in the future.
But to return to the point of increasing the actual aggregate of money wages paid. Every man who is employed is contributing to keep those who are unemployed. To that extent the wage he draws at the end of the week is not a full wage and the larger the number of unemployed at any given time the smaller is the real wage of the men who get the work. It is for this House to consider to what degree it is fair to put this burden on the workers for the benefit of those who are out of work. It is a very difficult problem for each of us to solve. I hope hon. Members opposite will agree with me that it is our view not to throw an intolerable burden on those who are in work, and, in the case of the industry with which the hon. Gentleman who spoke last is concerned, who are in work in many cases for a pitifully poor wage. We should be neglecting our duty if, for the sake of popularity, we were to increase the burden on the man in work until his willing back is broken by maintaining too high a standard for those who have the misfortune to be out of work.
7.15 p.m.
Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: I am sure it will be difficult for any hon. Member on this side of the House to accept the
2858
economic doctrine advanced by the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson). I am sure that if the hon. Member inquired into economics he would find that the amount of purchasing power in the country is determined by the speed of circulation. I would, however, like to put to the hon. Member one point particularly with reference to his remarks regarding the Sinking Fund. In 1931, the unemployed in this country were obliged to face a, 10 per cent. cut, which they had to sustain for three years. It is estimated that the cut yielded practically £60,000,000. In addition, the means test was applied to those who had previously come on to transitional payments, and it is estimated that this yielded more than £40,000,000. Consequently, the unemployed have already contributed a capital sum of more than £100,000,000. Does not the hon. Member agree that that amount of money should of itself meet the borrowings of about £100,000,000?
Mr. HOPKINSON: The hon. Member has asked me a question to which perhaps he would like a reply. I entirely disagree with him. The unemployed, by the regulations to which the hon. Member referred, have returned to the other workers of the country a very small percentage of the vast sums, amounting to hundreds of millions, which the other workers have paid to the unemployed in the past.
Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member has not grasped the point at all. The unemployed have made a contribution of more than £100,000,000.
Mr. HOPKINSON: No, that is not the case. If you give a man £100 and subsequently he returns to you £1, you cannot say you are indebted to him to the extent of £1 and he is indebted to you to the extent of £99.
Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member infers, of course, that the unemployed man may not be the same person, but it is to the same fund.
Mr. HOPKINSON: The unemployed have made no contribution at all.
Mr. WILLIAMS: I put forward the argument in order that the hon. Member may reflect upon it. During the last five years the National Government have

2859
made the unemployed sustain that enormous cut either by way of cuts in unemployment benefits or in transitional payments. That is the fact facing the unemployed of this country to-day. Moreover, the National Government have perpetrated a system which makes it impossible for persons who have been working for years, and who are unfortunate enough to be members of a family which may be unemployed, to receive the whole of the wages they earn in that they have to help to maintain their dependants. There is another point I would put to the hon. Member for Mossley. It would seem that when borrowing has to take place in order to maintain the unemployed, it is a vile thing, but when it is for the purpose of making preparations for the Defence Forces of the country, it is a virtuous thing. I would ask the hon. Member to reflect upon that.
It is very difficult, particularly after listening to the speech of the Minister this afternoon, to understand why the recommendations of the committee should have been so wholly accepted by the Government. In reading the two Minority Reports, and particularly the figures contained in the report by Mr. Shaw, hon. Members will find that if the sum of £6,500,000 were distributed in such a way as to reduce the waiting period and increase the benefits, it would certainly have a far more beneficial effect upon the nation in general than would the reduction of the contribution by ld. It would seem that we have reached a stage in the government of this country when even the Cabinet is losing authority in matters of policy. Boards and committees are appointed to make recommendations. They make those recommendations largely on an actuarial basis, and because they are not composed of persons elected by the people, they have no regard at all for humane considerations. They merely propound their recommendations upon what is sometimes a hypothetical basis.
For instance, this afternoon I asked the Minister whether the Government's Defence programme had been taken into consideration by the Statutory Committee, and he replied that all things had been considered. We are not yet able to understand whether that defence programme was taken into account, and naturally it largely depends on the time
2860
at which the recommendations were made. The persons on the committee were very intelligent men in their spheres. We have heard them broadcast and we have been able to appreciate some of their writings, but in this matter they were concerned merely with balancing the fund upon some hypothetical basis, and they were certainly not concerned about the plight of millions of people in this country.
A report has been published by Sir John Orr in which he indicates that there are about 4,500,000 people in this country who are suffering from malnutrition. Here is an opportunity to distribute this sum of £6,500,000 in a way which would help the people who are suffering most. All that has been ignored. I appreciate that if a committee is appointed to make recommendations to the Government, and if the Government have a policy, as have the present Government, of low wages, and if the recommendations made are largely in consonance with that policy, the Government will be prepared wholly to accept them. It is that which has happened in this case. From the very beginning the Government have not favoured the policy of increasing wages. They have no remedy at all for the unemployment problem. Even the committee admitted in all their actuarial calculations that 16 per cent. of the people are to be unemployed.
The Government make no serious attempt to tackle the problem of the distressed areas, nor do they make any serious effort to deal with the staple industries of the country, except through rearmament. There is an ever-increasing tendency to construct small industries for the production of consumption goods, and not to help to revive industry by increasing the production of capital goods, so that the distressed areas, which depend on the construction of capital goods, have to remain distressed In South Wales there are 32 per cent. of unemployed, rates are always increasing, purchasing power is always contracting, and this means that there can be no market in a distressed area, because wages are low
The reason for this distress is low purchasing power. The reason we cannot get industries into the distressed areas is that there is in those areas a low purchasing capacity. It will be impossible to have new industries in those areas unless an increased purchasing

2861
capacity can be given them. Here is the opportunity. In these areas there is an enormous number of persons unemployed, and proportionately they would receive a greater amount of the £6,500,000. To that extent we should be able to induce new industries to go into the areas, because we should be able to expand the markets by increasing the purchasing capacity of the people. It would seem that the economic policy of the Government is deliberately designed to place the distressed areas in a worse position than that in which they are. I hope the Minister will reflect upon the many things that have been said to him from all sides of the House to-night.
It is not a stroke of ingenuity on the part of the Government that they have made the Unemployment Insurance Fund solvent, when, on the one hand, there were increased contributions, and, on the other, reduced benefits. Almost an idiot could propound a solution for a problem on those lines. The contributions were increased by over 30 per cent. and the benefits were cut by 10 per cent., and there was an easy solution for what seems to have been for the Government a really difficult national problem. I do not wish to enter into a discussion regarding the statements made by hon. Members on the other side, particularly the two speeches I heard regarding the cause of the crisis. The Government have been obliged to tackle the cause of the crisis; they have been obliged to reduce the enormous interest charges on War Loans. Is there any reason for the high interest charges which still exist there?
I hope the Minister will endeavour to realise that by putting this money into the hands of the common people of the country and by removing the grievous anomalies which obtain to-day, he would expand the purchasing power of the people and help to relieve what in many areas is dire starvation. There are thousands of people in the South Wales valleys, in the Rhondda Valley and in various places in my own constituency, who are ill-clad and ill-shod, who have nowhere to turn, who are faced with penury and misery from day to day, who are ashamed to send their children to school because they are so badly clothed, and who never have a reasonably good meal. If the Minister would
2862
give to those people some hope that they would have just 1s. per week extra, it would help to lessen the gloom of their lives, it would give them a ray of hope, and would bring a little sunshine into the lives of their children.
7.29 p.m.
Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: I think the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. J. Williams), who expressed his point of view in a very positive manner, and other hon. Members, ought to be grateful to the Government in that in this year of grace 1936 we are able to debate from a Parliamentary point of view the disposal of a surplus. Had hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite and their friends been in control of the country and continued at the pace they were going between 1929 and 1931, irrespective of the causes, the effect would have been that if we were here to-day we would not be in the happy position of considering how to dispose of a surplus.
There are two observations I would like to make, the one of a general nature, and the other of a particular nature as to how I think in some ways this money could be better spent. In the first place, is the House wise at the present time not to start considering whether we are right in discussing unemployment insurance benefits in relation to contributions as a segregated item in our insurance system? Are we wise to have a Statutory Committee presenting a. report on Unemployment Insurance, when there are all these other forms of insurance, which have so entered into our national life that I do not believe we can continue indefinitely to deal with Unemployment Insurance, Health Insurance and Contributory Pensions Insurance as separate entities. Hon. Members above the Gangway think, and they are entitled to their thoughts, that this Debate is one of the signs of the decline and fall of capitalism. I suggest, however, that it is one of the signs of the rise of capitalism. It is only in the last 50 years or so that we in this country have come to a sense of social conscience and have realised that our task is to make every man a capitalist, whether he possesses money or not, if he possesses the skill and ability to perform some particular duty in our industrial life. A man's capital may not be represented by pounds, shilling and pence in the bank, but, by our system of national insurance in its various forms

2863
we are making every man a capitalist, in that the State is capitalising many hundreds of pounds in respect of every man's working life in industry.
In the not distant future we shall have to consider the possibility of a Ministry of Insurance to co-ordinate the various phases of national insurance. One finds in all the large towns of this country insurance officers investigating the particular circumstances of Unemployment Insurance. There are also officers investigating contributory insurance under the Ministry of Health and pensions insurance under the Ministry of Pensions. In each large town you will find these three officials investigating three different kinds of insurance, but all working on the same lines, inquiring into the lives and conditions of the people, and probably not one of those officials would be able to recognise either of the others if they met in the street. Certainly not one of them knows the scope of the work or the character of the investigation which the others are carrying out, and I believe that to be a weakness in our present system. Most of us accept gladly this report of the Statutory Committee, but it ought to be recognised that this is, possibly, one of a declining number of occasions on which we shall be called upon to investigate these segregated insurances. We may have to think in future of insurance on a national basis under a Ministry of Insurance.
The special observations which I desire to make refer to another way in which this money could be spent. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool (Mr. J. R. Robinson) referred to seasonal workers. A great deal has been done for the seasonal workers by amending the Regulations under the Anomalies Act. We all recognise that their position has been improved considerably. Nevertheless, with this money available, I think that some of it, at any rate, could have been spent more wisely if it had been devoted to the cases of seasonal workers and married women. I would draw attention to the Regulations concerning married women. They do not take into considerations length of employment prior to marriage, and I can best indicate the position by quoting the case of a woman who had been employed in a shop for five years. She left on 25th December, 1935, to get married. She fell out
2864
of employment, and a claim was made on 30th December, 1935, but was disallowed by the court of referees on the ground that the applicant had materially lessened her prospect, of employment by marriage. A married women, in respect of whom only 30 contributions have been paid, and who has been employed in domestic service or laundry work, can claim benefit, as her prospects of employment, it is held, have not been materially lessened by marriage, and she can continue to draw benefit for an indefinite period.
Some of this money might have been spent in arranging that married women should be allowed at least a quarter before being submitted to the statutory authorities or alternatively, like seasonal workers, that in the case of a married woman a certain number of contributions paid before marriage should entitle her to a limited period of benefit. I revert briefly to the general observation with which I commenced. When the right hon. Gentleman replies I would ask him, in the interest of hon. Members in all parts of the House, to say whether he visualises an indefinite prolongation of the segregation of insurance into different branches or whether he sees in the future some prospect of co-ordinated insurance which I feel is lacking at the present time.
7.36 p.m.
Mr. SEXTON: I want to draw the attention of the House to some interesting figures in this report. On page 3, paragraph 5, we find that the interest on the debt amounted to £4,769,000. Further on we find that the benefit paid was £44,000,000 which means that for every £1 paid in unemployment benefit 2s. was paid to the recipients of interest. Then we find that the administration costs were £4,500,000 amounting again to 2s. for every £1 which the unemployed worker got. The interest which the fund is paying on borrowed money is at the rate of 4.2 per cent., but when I turn to the end of the report I find that the interest which we are receiving on our balance is only 1¼ per cent. If we paid interest only at the same rate as the rate of interest which we receive, we would have saved for the fund nearly £3,500,000 which would be a very useful contribution towards increasing benefit or reducing the waiting period. But as usual the rentier and the. financial profiteer

2865
must have his pound of flesh, no matter what happens to the unemployed man.
I had a letter yesterday asking me to support the reduction of the waiting period to three days. I represent part of a special area and I know the abject misery which exists owing to the present waiting period. The period amounts to 12 days because, in addition to the six waiting days, there are six further days which must elapse before any payment can be received. According to Mr. Shaw's note the reduction to three waiting days could be made at a cost of £1,250,000. I think the money would have been better spent in that way than in reducing contributions. The increased benefit which could be paid with the remaining £4,250,000 would represent £2 per head, per year, to the unemployed—not a very large sum but yet enough to provide some of our unemployed men with a, suit of clothes per year or some of their wives with a dress per year. We find women to-day being compelled by economic conditions to go to jumble sales and fight one with another for cheap dresses, snatching them out of each other's hands. In the same way, women are reduced to go to jumble sales to get boots and clothes for their men folk.
It is not that our people like to wear second-hand or third-hand clothes. It is not that they deserve second-hand or third-hand clothes. They deserve the best clothes in the country because they are producers of all the wealth of the country. When I read, as I sometimes do, the advertisement columns of the capitalist Press, especially the "Observer," and when I see coats advertised at £2,000 each, I wonder in what kind of society we are living. Those coats costing £2,000 each are made to wear and somebody must buy them, but they are certainly not bought by the people who are on the Unemployment Fund. I have seen in my own district hanging in the back yards sheets and blankets so patched that one could not tell what the original material was. There used to be a saying when I was a boy:
"Patch next to patch is neighbourly but patch on patch is beggarly."
With most of these poor people to-day it is a case of "patch on patch" because of the meagre pittances which they are receiving. I beg the Government not to save this money as they are striving to
2866
save it. I ask them to spend it and to spend as much more to help these people, and if the debt does mount up, then let them do with it as they have done with the debt to America and pay by token.
7.41 p.m.
Mr. GUY: There has been a certain volume of criticism against the proposals of the Government as to how this £6,500,000 is to be distributed. I can imagine what the criticism would have been, however, if the problem before the House was that of meeting a deficit of £6,500,000, and if in 1934 there had been a miscalculation as to how the fund would work out, leading to such a deficit. As it is, owing to the very conservative estimate made in 1934 and the very considerable reduction in the total of unemployment since 1934, we are in the fortunate position of having a, surplus and not a deficit. The criticisms offered to day have narrowed down to one point, namely, that this money, instead of being used for the reduction of contributions, should be used for increasing benefit. I agree that there is a great deal to be said for that view, but having studied the report of the Statutory Committee I think that that body applied their minds in a judicial and reasonable way to the various alternatives, that they carefully balanced all the considerations involved, and that they have, rightly, come down on the side of reduction of contributions.
It is not as though there had been no concessions since 1934. It has been possible to make several concessions as a reult of the careful administration of the fund. First, we had the restoration of the 10 per cent. cut in benefit and that, it must be remembered, is coupled with the indirect concession of the fall in the cost of living. I find that hon. Members opposite, time and again, fail to take into consideration this question of the cost of living. They forget that when you have a certain amount of weekly income the purchasing power of that income is dependent upon the prevailing prices. A second concession which has not been mentioned is the concession to the seasonal workers. It is a small concession, but they may get another.
Then there was, before the General Election, the concession on the children's allowances, which cost £1,250,000. It was

2867
said at the time of the election that that was a piece of window dressing, a bribe to the electors, but I said to myself time and again that that was one of the dividends accruing as a result of the careful administration of the fund, and that I regarded it as an earnest of further good things to come; and here we have, not £1,250,000, but £6,500,000 of a surplus. It is rather surprising, I think, that the Statutory Committee should take a more optimistic view of the future of the fund and of the amount that might be distributed in one way and another in this last report as compared with their previous report, dated the 4th July last year. Hon. Members will remember that there they were very doubtful as to what would be the balancing point of the fund in the next eight or ten years. Hon. Members will recollect that in 1934 the balancing point was 18.1 per cent. of unemployment; in the report of July last year the balancing point was 17.7; and it is now 16 per cent. What is the principal factor which may have been in the mind of the Statutory Committee? I suggest that the main factor was that between the report of last summer and the report dated 31st December last there had been a General Election and that the Statutory Committee had this consideration before them, that they saw a period of some four or five years of National Government during which this fund would be carefully administered.
When an hon. Member spoke about looking forward to an average of 2,000,000 unemployed over the next eight or ten years, I think he omitted one consideration. It must be borne in mind that at present we are below 16 per cent.—I believe we are actually below 15 per cent. for the whole country at the moment—and that at the end of December last year, the date of this report, the percentage was 14.1. What I think the Statutory Committee envisaged was not a steady 2,000,000 unemployed, but that there would be a steady improvement over the next few years and that then, possibly owing to circumstances entirely beyond the control of this Government, there might be a large-scale depression and for a period of a year or two a large increase in unemployment. I believe that under the financial administration of the present Government there will be a
2868
definite tendency to set up nothing in the nature of either a boom or a depression, and that there will be less in the way of extremes in the next 10 years than there has been in the last 10 years.
I should like to say a word about a question referred to by several speakers, and that is the question of the reduction of the debt, the possible alternative, referred to by the Statutory Committee, that not only the surplus of £6,500,000, but the total accumulated reserves which now amount to £21,000,000, should be allocated for the reduction of debt, and that if the available surplus in years to come, representing the contributions as they are at present, were put to the reduction of debt, the whole of this £100,000,000 debt would be wiped out in about 12 years. I as rather attracted by that proposal, because there is no doubt that that debt is a heavy burden on the fund and upon industry in general, but when one remembers that to a very large extent this debt was built up, not out of unemployment insurance proper, but out of the old uncovenanted benefit and, later, the transitional payments, I think it would be quite unreasonable, as is stated by the Statutory Committee, that the repayment of this large sum should be put upon the contributors, those employed in insurable industries, and should be repaid during the next 10 or 12 years, and that it is far better, although it still remains a heavy burden on the fund, that it should be spread over the next 30 or 40 years.
Just a word about the point referred to in the Minority Report of Mrs. Stocks, the other alternative that there should be a variation in the amount of benefit paid to the women contributors. I believe there is a strong case to be made out for a differentiation in the present scale of benefit to the women unemployed, but it is admitted by the Statutory Committee that they had not before them sufficient evidence on which they could fully make up their minds, and that is a problem which, I think, should be further considered by the Statutory Committee. In the meantime I consider, after careful reading of this report, that the wise thing to do is to make the flat reduction in the contributions for men and women, and in this connection I think it is fair to point out that proportionately the women contributors are getting a larger

2869
benefit, because they are getting a reduction of one-ninth of their present contributions, as compared with one-tenth of the contributions of the men.
My last point is this: I have from time to time made a complaint in this House as to Scotland not getting its adequate share in any sums that are being spent in various directions, and I think it is only fair to point out in this particular connection, when one considers the position of this fund and that the average rate of unemployment in Scotland to-day is 21 per cent., as compared with some 15 per cent. for the whole of Great Britain, that Scotland is getting rather more than she is entitled to and actually has a better concession, according to this report, than she could possibly have hoped to have got if there had been one fund for Scotland. It is only right to point out that we are getting the benefit in Scotland of this being a British fund and not merely a fund for Scotland alone. I think on the whole that the Statutory Committee have arrived at the correct conclusion, and I shall have no doubt in supporting the Government on this Motion.
7.55 p.m.
Miss RATHBONE: Unlike many speakers in this Debate, some of whom have stolen into the Chamber about five minutes before having the good fortune to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I have been present throughout the whole of it, except, I think, during one speech, and it has been really pleasant to hear at last, in the last speech, the speech of one, a supporter of the Government, who is in favour of the Order. One is tempted to think that perhaps the Minister sent scouts into the Lobby imploring someone to come to his succour, in the confidence that he would have no difficulty in getting heard.
Mr. GUY: Did not the hon. Lady hear the speech of the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Rowlands) about half-an-hour ago?
Miss RATHBONE: Yes, and I was going to refer to it. That was the first speech in the course of the Debate in which a supporter of the Government supported the Government's proposal, and it was such an astonishing event that I could scarcely believe it. I thought the line of his advocacy was perhaps not always wisely chosen. For one thing,
2870
he saw nothing in the complaint which had been made, not only by Members of the Opposition, but by several Members who are supposed to be supporters of the Government, that it would have been very much wiser if the Minister had left over the consideration of this report, as he perfectly well could have done, until the Unemployment Assistance Regulations came before the House. The hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Rowlands)—I am sorry he is not here—observed that there was no relation between the two subjects that made it at all necessary that the House should know what the Unemployment Assistance Regulations were to be before they gave their opinion upon the proposals now before us. But the Statutory Committee took the opposite view. In two places in their report—they have been quoted already, so I will not trouble the House with them again—they deplored that at the time when they had to make their recommendations they were not in a position to know what the unemployment assistance rates were going to be.
I would suggest that the Minister would be wise, in view of the extraordinary testimony offered to-day, both by the nature of the speeches made by supposed supporters of the Government and by the rows of almost entirely empty benches opposite, except when an hon. Member comes in for the purpose of making a speech, to withdraw this Order. It seems to have friends in no quarter of the House, and I am obliged to come to its rescue. I think some of the comments have been very unfair, not so much on the Order, as on the nature of the report. I think it is a remarkably able report and one that delights me—(I suppose it is a feature that appeals to a University Member)—by the extraordinary fairness with which it states the arguments against its own case. This report, I suggest, will be of great service to any hon. Member who wants to make a speech in the country against this Order and does not want to go to the trouble of original composition. He could not make a better speech against the Order than to read certain pages of the report itself, where it sums up the arguments against reducing the contributions and in favour of increasing the benefits. When I read the arguments on both sides it seemed to me that the astonishing thing was that, after stating

2871
the case so admirably and fairly, the committee should have come down on what seemed to me, on their own evidence, to be clearly the wrong side.
The case for increased benefits rather than a reduction of contributions has been dealt with repeatedly and admirably by other speakers. I want to draw the attention of the House to an aspect of the question which again has been left to the very last, namely, those portions of the report which concern the position of the women contributors. That seems to me the weakest part of the committee's report, and yet, there again, we have the charming characteristic, which we might have expected of the very able man Sir William Beveridge, who is chairman of the committee, that when he is using a weak argument he is so clear-headed and so honest, that he cannot resist saying how weak it is, almost seeming to laugh at his own argument. Just listen to the reason which the report gives for not accepting the exceedingly modest proposal put forward by Mrs. Stocks. Her proposal is simply that instead of reducing contributions all round, the contributions for women should be left unchanged and the benefit for women should be raised by 2s. That would make the benefits of men and women the same. As she points out, the women themselves were prepared to pay for this by foregoing any reduction of their contribution; and she further points out that, although this proposal involved some diminution in the total relief to industry recommended by the majority of the committee, the reduction would be comparatively small and would fall mainly on those industries which employed large numbers of women, which were the least hardly hit industries and, therefore, the least in need of such relief.
What is the argument given by the committee for not accepting a proposal which would delight all women's organisations and bring a desperately needed 2s. to the contributor, which would not disturb the structure of the fund and which would reduce by very little the relief to industry The report says:
"Such a proposal cannot be ruled out without consideration. But it would mean a notable change from former policies in social insurance; having regard to the differences of wage level between men and women it would seem anomalous to many people to
2872
exact the same contributions and to give the same compensation for loss of wages."
Will the House note the Committee's argument—" It would seem anomalous to many people." Was such a reason ever given in a Government document for not making a change? The Committee does not say that there is any justification for the difference between men's and women's rates in the different needs of the two sexes. It explicitly disavows that argument. It says:
"If the question be approached from the standpoint of needs, ii might be difficult to show that the needs of single women are as much as 2s. a week below those of single men; many people would say that the needs are substantially equal."
Many people certainly would. Even if it be admitted—and scientific observers are divided on the question—that the food needs of women are greater than those of men, Mrs. Stocks well observes:
"There would be some force in the argument if men and women lived by bread alone. They do, however, live by much else, including fuel and lodging and. especially when seeking work, by, respectable appear, antes.'"
Society is running some danger when it makes it impossible for a woman to keep up respectable appearances when she is seeking work, and may conceivably in some cases drive her to seek employment in directions which are not respectable. I would beg the Minister to think again and to consider whether he cannot accept this extremely modest proposal. I want to say something which goes a little beyond the Mrs. Stocks' argument. I wonder whether hon. Members—there are very few of them to listen to me—realise how incredibly unfair the position of women is under the social insurance system. The more I study that position the more I feel that social insurance amounts to little else than a positive fraud on women.
Let us consider a few of the facts, and I would beg Members to consider those facts in relation to each other, because it is only in this way that their cumulative effect is visible. There is, first, the point under Unemployment Insurance that, because women's contributions are pooled with men's, women receive immensely less in proportion to the value of their contribution; than men. Take the figures for 1934 which were given me by the Minister. The contributions of males were roughly £47,000,000. Their

2873
benefits were £34,500,000, or nearly three-quarters of their contributions. The contributions of females were £15,000,000. Their benefits were only £6,000,000, which is a little more than one-third of their contributions. The principal reasons for that great difference are two. The first is the lesser rate of unemployment among men. The Minister said something rather misleading. He said that the women's rate was 6.9 and the men's 8.2. It would be a mistake for the House to take that as an indication of the relative balance of men's and women's unemployment, because the smallness of the difference is due to the fact that men are much longer unemployed and are therefore driven off benefit on to unemployment assistance. There is a much greater difference really between the lesser ratio of women's unemployment and the higher ratio of men's unemployment.
The other and more important reason is the greater burden of dependants on the men. In May, 1934, only 3 per cent. of the women, but 61 per cent. of the men drew dependants' allowances, and the average value of the men's dependants' allowances was much heavier because it usually includes a wife as well as children. There is a good answer to that, and it is given by the Statutory Committee. They point out that while these facts are undenied, "there appears to be no reason why women should have the benefits of the lower risk of unemployment any more than any other class of insured person." Most women would accept that argument if it were applied consistently, if women and men were treated as part of one great common body of workers throughout the insurance field. That, however, is far from being the case. What the Government have done as the social insurance system has developed is to treat men and women as part of one community when it told to the benefit of the fund. When it told against the benefit of the fund to pool men and women together, they have been treated separately. Take, for example, the position under unemployment insurance. The lower rates of contribution and benefit for women mean, of course, that for every woman who is employed, the employer contributes less and the State contributes less. There is no equality or parity there. Secondly, the one class of woman who is found to be a heavy burden on the Unemployment Fund, that is, the married
2874
woman, was segregated and subject to a special class of regulations under the Anomalies Act, which resulted from October, 1931, to April, 1935, in the disallowance of no less than 275,000 claims by married women. That is not the whole story. Let us pass to national health insurance—
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I think we had better stick to unemployment insurance.
Miss RATHBONE: Will you allow me to make my point quite shortly?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No, we must keep to the subject before the House, and the hon. Lady cannot wander into other forms of insurance.
Miss RATHBONE: May I plead this? What is before the House is the report of the Statutory Committee—
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is not. The hon. Lady can take it that what is before the House is the Order.
Miss RATHBONE: I must, then, leave that section of the subject alone. May I say this—because several Members have alluded to it, and the Member who spoke last made it the burden of nearly the whole of his speech—that you cannot deal with one section of social insurance without relation to the rest. There are two important paragraphs in this report, and if I am not allowed to allude to them, I am the only speaker who has not been allowed. The committee says, in paragraph 68:
"It appears to us that reasoned judgment as to the proper level of unemployment benefit, for men and women alike, involves a fuller study than has yet been made both of the living conditions of unemployed persons and of the relations between wages, benefit, unemployment assistance and other forms of assistance."
In another passage the committee says:
"It is appropriate to look at social insurance as a whole, and to compare the statutory provisions made for loss of earnings through unemployment with the provision made for loss of earnings through sickness."
If I am not allowed to develop that point, I would only say that under Health Insurance women are made to bear the burden of their heavier sickness claims, but in Unemployment Insurance the fact that they have lighter claims is not accepted as any reason why they should draw a rate of benefit proportionate to

2875
the value of their contributions. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to consider two points: first, whether he will not defer the whole Order until we get the rates of unemployment assistance before us; and second, in the interval, to think again whether he cannot make this little contribution towards giving a fair deal to women under Unemployment Insurance by accepting Mrs. Stocks' proposals. Will he also tell us what lie intends to do to meet that recommendation of the Statutory Committee Is he going to "set on foot inquiries which will throw further light on this problem" and enable the House really to consider the field of social insurance as a whole, all these problems in relation to one another?
8.16 p.m.
Mr. ROWSON: Like the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) I have been surprised during this Debate at the criticism which has come from all quarters of the House. The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Guy) tried to make out a case for this Order and to back up the Government's proposals, but I think that even he found something to criticise in the Order. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour), like many hon. Members opposite when dealing with unemployment and the depression through which the nations of the world have been passing, referred to the conditions which existed in 1931. Some of us who have been away since 1931 remember the conditions prevailing at that time, but we of the Labour Party have always argued and feel to-day that what we have to do is to look after the unemployed as best we can. The proposal before the House strikes me as ungenerous and uncalled-for and one which ought not to have been submitted at this time, in view of the fact that we are promised new Regulations in the near future. My view is that someone has been pressing the Government to bring in this new Order now. I am not sure about it, but I have an idea that the Confederation of Employers' Organisations have been at work. They are referred to in the report. The confederation represents employers who employ, probably, between 7,000,000 and 8,000,000 people, and they are naturally concerned in this matter. Recently, Health Insurance contributions were raised by ld. a week to employers and
2876
employed. Is it the object of the Government to give back that penny to the employers? There may be something in that, though I am not sure, and perhaps the Government representative will tell us when he speaks.
The proposal to reduce contributions ought not to be accepted by the House. There are many ways in which this £6,500,000 could be used, and one of the most useful would be in abolishing the waiting period, or at any rate reducing it by half. If we could reduce it to three days instead of six we should bring the Unemployment Insurance Acts into line with the Health Insurance Acts and with Workmen's Compensation Acts, and from that point of view it should be worthy of consideration by the Government. Another way in which some of this money could be used would be to extend the period during which standard benefit is payable. As previous speakers have said, the thought of the means test hanging over the heads of the unemployed when they have finished their 26 weeks of standard benefit is bearing them down, is causing some of them almost to worry their hearts out. I know that the Government have to some extent amended the Regulations since 1931, and that if a workman hen five years complete contributions without having taken any unemployment benefit he can get more than the 156 days' benefit, but in the mining industry, which I represent, there is always some short time in the summer months, and it is difficult to find a, case where there has been any extension of the 26 weeks.
I do not want to go too deeply into the problem of unemployment, because there will be other opportunities to discuss it, but I wish to refer to something in paragraph 41 of the report, and would point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that it shows where the Confederation of Employers' Associations come in. It says:
"In response to a request for information as to the weight of contributions in particular industries, the National Federation of Employers' Organisations submitted statements in regard to coal-mining, shipbuilding and textiles. In coal-mining, during 1934, the employers' and workers' payments for unemployment, health and pensions, workmen's compensation and miners' welfare represented 11¾d. per ton, or 8.5 per cent. of the net value of the output, given as 11s. 6d. per ton."

2877
I do not know why they selected the coal-mining industry for that comment. It is all very well for them to talk about 11¾d. per ton, but anyone who knows anything at all about the subject knows full well that between 4d. and 5d. per ton could be attributed to workmen's compensation itself, because the industry is a dangerous and hazardous one. If you deduct what it costs for miners' welfare and workmen's compensation, the whole amount for pensions, for health insurance and for unemployment insurance does not cost any more than is paid for mining royalties, and there is no comment about mining royalties being a burden on the industry. I submit that I am fully entitled to make this point: that the Government are succumbing to the pressure of employers' associations in bringing this Measure forward at this juncture. I will back up that assertion by reference to a statement by the confederation in a pamphlet which they issued in February, 1931:
"We would, however, point out that since the War the State, (a) by fixing high rates of unemployment benefit and constantly relaxing the conditions for the payment of it; (b) by paying grants to local authorities for distribution in wage rates higher than our export industries can afford; and (c) by the extension of statutory wage-fixing machinery, has not only in large measure determined the general standard of wage levels, but has also clone so in such a way as to make it difficult, if not impossible, for employers and workers to rectify the maladjustments which have grown from the State action."
I submit that in putting those proposals before the Statutory Committee they have had that particular point of view in mind, because the conditions which are wanted by the employers' organisations are low unemployment benefits and difficult conditions under which to obtain them, so that they can get the workers to accept lower wages than would be accepted if there were generous conditions of unemployment benefit.
I have heard previous speakers mention 16 per cent. of the insured workers, but I think the actual figure is between 15 per cent. and 16 per cent. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to talk about the present figure being a conservative estimate, but I would like them to take cognisance, when they are dealing with this problem, of the opinions of Sir William Beveridge and even of the
2878
hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. H. Macmillan). These gentlemen have at least shown some knowledge of the conditions with which the world might be faced. The figure may not be less than 15 per cent. or 16 per cent. in the near future, especially if war can be avoided, and it may be considerably over 20 per cent. if another crisis comes along, as it did in 1929–31. I do not wish to be a prophet or to predict in any way, but I will venture to utter the statement that neither we nor hon. Members opposite can avoid those great crises while we continue under the capitalist system. We ought to face the issue as the House of Commons and a Parliament, and make proper preparation for these things; we should see to it that those who are the unfortunate victims of our system are generously and properly provided for.
8.28 p.m.
Mr. BAXTER: This Debate has been conducted on both sides with the most admirable restraint and with the most commendable constructive thought. I am sure that hon. Members opposite will agree with us that the problem of unemployment is a disgrace that we all share, that the desire to assist the unemployed is shared as much on these benches as by themselves and that the fact that the people, whom hon. Members have described and whom we have seen in our constituency work, are suffering so much and living under such wretched conditions, is a disgrace to all of us who have any thought in this country. There I go the whole distance with hon. Members opposite. The only difference that comes between us, although we both want the same objective, is as to how that objective is to be achieved. If I may criticise those who spoke from the opposite benches, one of the great mistakes you make is to talk of and treat the unemployed as if they are a detached, independent part of the economic body. They are not. The unemployed population are a part of the problem of employment. In the Election which took place last November, my Socialist opponent never, to my knowledge, made one speech except on the unemployed, and it would appear that the millions of people who were in work were of no importance to him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I said that it would appear—
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The statement of the hon. Member is no doubt interesting, but I do not see what connection it has with the Order now before the House.
Mr. BAXTER: I wish to come at once to the point of this Debate, which is that since unemployment is so closely related with employment, the method of the Government in assisting employment is the best cure, in the long run, in assisting unemployment.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That point certainly does not arise.
Mr. BAXTER: With due respect, I wish to deal with the reduction of the contribution. My point, which is, no doubt, very badly made, is that the whole of this nation, and the economic construction of this country, are based on productive industry, and that there are three partners in productive industry, the State, the employer and the worker. I claim that the Government are taking a courageous and wise step in reducing the contribution rather than spreading the benefits, so that in the long run, and taking the long view, employment will be increased, wages will eventually be increased and the stigma will be lessened—[Laughter]. I am sorry if that arouses the humour and the risibility of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I am sure that you believe with us that the one thing that matters is to stimulate employment, and I take it that this is a constructive move towards that end. I unhesitatingly support the Government in taking this courageous step, which I think even those of you who always take the short view and who never believe that there is anything five years ahead—[Interruption]. Those of us who are also partners in the economic State have suffered enough at your hands.
Mr. D EPUTY-SPEAK ER: The remarks of the hon. Gentleman are supposed to be addressed to me.
Mr. BAXTER: I apologise; I am sorry. I will bring my remarks to an end with this one observation. While Mr. Speaker was in the Chair, there was some discussion about the cuts made in 1931. One of the hon. Members opposite spoke of them almost as though they were a loan and should be repaid later on. We are misled by hon. Members opposite, who perpetually treat the unemployed as
2880
though they were not part of the whole State. [HON MEMBERS: "Absurd!"] I will end my remarks. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!" and "Go on!"] I am not like the hon. Lady the Independent Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone), who so seldom ends her remarks, and apparently does not think that independence entitles her ever to support the Government. I will end my remarks by this one quotation from the works of Oscar Wilde:
"To cure the soul by means of the senses, and the senses by means of the soul"
Those of you who are always for unproductive expenditure will live to see the justification of our Government's sound finance and common sense facing of realities, with the most muddle-headed Opposition in the world, and their daring to take to-day a step, knowing that you will make the most of it and that you will grossly misrepresent it. The Government intends to help the economic State and its three partners, the employer, the State and the worker, to increase employment and to increase wages, so that the unfortunate partners of productive industry, the unemployed, shall be benefited and eventually cured of their troubles.
8.35 p.m.
Mr. RILEY: I do not propose to make any observations on the speech of the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter), because I confess that I found it entirely impossible to follow some of his arguments. My criticism of this Order can be stated in comparatively few words. The test that I would apply to it is whether the Order can be shown to be in the real interests of the whole community. I have no doubt that the Minister claims that it can, and presumably that is his task to-day. He finds his fund with an estimated surplus, for a few years ahead, anyhow, of something like £6,000,000 net, after meeting, of course, the annual charge of £5,000,000 for interest on the old deficit of the fund, and surely the test to be applied is, what is the best that can be done with that sum of £6,000,000? I submit to the Minister that on every ground the obvious thing was to deal with it in such a way as would give the largest measure of increased standard of living to the largest section of the community.
The Minister, however, by this Order, is dividing the £6,000,000 roughly into

2881
three. He is giving £2,000,000 per annum of the surplus to the workers in reduction of contributions, £2,000,000 to the employers in reduction of their part of the contributions, and £2,000,000 in relief to the taxpayers of the country. I think all Members of the House, in whatever quarter they sit, must agree that if, instead of spreading so large a portion of this surplus over a small number of employers in comparison with the mass of the working class, and a small number of taxpayers in comparison with the working class, the whole £6,000,000 had been devoted to raising the purchasing power of the great mass of the unemployed, it would have been far more beneficial to the country as a whole than distributing it in the way that is now proposed.
I will not go over the arguments, which have been so often stated, as to the amount of relief it will afford to the employers, but it cannot possibly be sufficient to make possible a reduction in the price of goods to the consumer, or a substantial improvement in employment. I happen to be a small employer of labour, employing about 100 people, and I find that under this distribution we shall get about £100 per annum from the Government. We do not want the £100; we cannot translate it into any reduction of price; we could do without it; but, if it were put into a general pool of 16,000,000 for the unemployed, it would be spent in primary products—food, health, clothing, furniture and so on. From whatever point of view it is tested, the method proposed is not one that is likely to benefit the community as a whole, and that is the real test. Everything in this Order points to the fact that the Minister is only meeting the demands of employers and the demands of taxpayers. They, however, are not the community, but are only a small portion of it. The people who are the real nation are the working class, to whom this relief would have been of substantial benefit. On these grounds I say that by this Order the Minister is serving, not the interests of the community, but only the interests of a small section of the community.
8.40 p.m.
Miss WILKINSON: At one time the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) held an important position as
2882
the editor of a paper which spent a good deal of time in pointing out that, if the capitalist system was to be kept going, it was necessary to get goods into the hands of the people, and that, the raising of purchasing power was an extremely important part of that process. On many occasions that paper, I think during the time that the hon. Member was its editor, took a vigorous line in advocating that course, but the hon. Member now comes down to the House and tells us something quite different.
Mr. BAXTER: I remember the campaign to which the hon. Lady refers. It went on for many years. The line taken was that we should increase the distribution of goods by the power of increasing wages and rates of wages—that it was entirely through wages that an increase in consumption was achieved.
Miss WILKINSON: That is true, and I was grateful to the hon. Member, for it helped me on one occasion to win a strike. But the hon. Member seems to have forgotten the importance of this question of purchasing power from the point of view of keeping the machine going and of absorbing what is produced. Why should the hon. Gentleman get upset and think that there is something immoral in that purchasing power being in the hands of an unemployed man? He has lectured us on muddle-headedness, but he has himself given us a striking example of it.
Mr. BAXTER: Spending power is only productive when it comes from wages paid by production. The putting up of money for no work at all is the beginning of the end.
Miss WILKINSON: I am not sure whether I should be allowed—I am afraid I should not—to indulge in a little lecture to the hon. Gentleman on the most elementary economics, but it is the gravamen of our case against the Government. From the point of view of his own capitalist system, all that really matters is getting the goods to the consumer, and the effect of unemployment is just that people have not the power to buy what is produced. If you doubled the unemployment benefit, you would to that extent increase employment.
Mr. BAXTER: Then why not quadruple it? Why put any limit?
Miss WILKINSON: There is one very simple practical limit, and that is the extent to which you can increase production. Hon. Members, finding nothing else about which to congratulate the Minister, say that at least there is a surplus, and, if these dreadful Labour people had been here, there would not have been one. Is the surplus anything to be pleased about? It is not a trading surplus. It is not a surplus such as you might have got through the operation, say, of the Post Office. It is a surplus that has been secured by niggardly administration. Mathematically you can secure any surplus. [Interruption.]
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must remind the House that we are not in Committee.
Miss WILKINSON: I am sorry to excite hon. Members opposite, but they make the most extraordinary statements, and one has really occasionally to put them right. I am aware that we are dealing with standard benefit, but throughout the administration of standard benefit there has been this attempt, whenever it has been possible, since 1931 to turn people off benefit. [Interruption.] You have only to take your own Government report and the fact that you have had to have a committee to examine the working of the Anomalies Act. You have this £6,000,000 screwed out of the purchasing power of the unemployed. I am sorry to emphasise that word "screwed" if it upsets hon. Members, but that is just what happens. The screw has come not only from the Federation of Employers' Associations but also from the Treasury. What conceivable difference is the £6,000,000 going to make, wasted in the way it is to be wasted? I advisedly say "wasted." My constituency is about as hard hit as any. In Jarrow our unemployment rate has reached, on occasion, 80 per cent., and is now well in the seventies. There is nothing like it in the country. We are not particularly proud of it, but I am just recalling it to the Minister's mind. I put this matter to a large meeting of unemployed and asked them to vote on it, and their considered opinion was that the penny meant just nothing to them. I tried to put the best face on the Government's case and I said, "It means at least a box of matches." They said, "Oh no, we pinch those off the missus." A
2884
penny to these men means nothing, but £6,000,000 spent in purchasing bare necessaries means £6,000,000 added to the internal market. If I talk in terms of internal markets instead of the spending power of the unemployed, the hon. Member opposite may agree with me. I refer him again to his own editorial. I do not say he wrote it, but at least he must have read it. The prosperity of the internal market was one of the strong lines that it took. Here is a reduction in the internal market of £6,000,000, which would make it possible for the barest necessities to be bought. I know the Minister is a bound man. His Cabinet has taken the decision, and there is not very much point in making appeals to him. One can only hope that they make him uncomfortable. I always have the deepest sympathy with the unfortunate individual who is Minister of Labour in any Cabinet at present.
There are two points to which I would draw his attention—the question of dependants' allowances and the waiting period. Here are two matters on which the £6,000,000 might well be spent, The difficulty that I am calling to the Minister's mind, which he knows so well himself, is the difficulty that there is particularly with the sort of people who are drawn by the chief cartoonist of the hon. Member opposite—the little man who is not accustomed to going to the public assistance committee. There are large numbers of the working class who, unfortunately, have had to become experts in dealing with public assistance committees, but there are a large number who simply do not know their way about. This six days waiting period, which is really 12, means 12 days without any income coming in at all. The average working-class family is living up to the limit of its income. There is no margin at all. I have known families which have literally starved rather than appeal for public assistance during that period.
The second point is in regard to dependants' allowances. If we have made the Minister specially uncomfortable, and he thinks he really ought to do something for these people, he might see whether on this question his Department could really be a little more, shall I say sympathetic, or human, or shall I leave it to him to supply an adjective. In his sermons on Sundays his adjectives come

2885
like a rippling brook. He can supply so many more and so much better than I can. You have really the most rigid definition at the moment with regard to dependants. Among women there is very great difficulty in getting elderly housekeepers, or women who are acting in the capacity of housekeeper and mother to children, recognised. There are dependants whom the workers in their generosity keep in order to prevent them from having to go to the workhouse, and the Minister knows how rigid is the dependant's benefit apart from the actual wife and children. If the £6,000,000 had been spent on that alone, it would have helped tremendously in the humanising of the Unemployment Fund, and I therefore suggest that fact to the Minister when he is pondering over the questions that have been raised.
8.56 p.m.
Mr. LAWSON: I wish to protest at the outset of my remarks against the conditions under which this Debate is being conducted to-day. During the whole of the proceedings, with the exception of one of the Whips, and the two Ministers who represent the Department, there has been no other Minister of the Government present. When we are discussing an important matter of this kind, and particularly one in which the Exchequer is interested, a first-rate Member of the Government at least ought to be present. I wonder if hon. Members opposite are really satisfied about the proceedings here to-day, and if they dare face the unemployed and tell them that during the whole of the proceedings there was not a Minister present except the two Ministers representing the Department.
Mr. QUIBELL: The Minister of Labour looks satisfied with himself.
Mr. BAXTER: What about your party?
Mr. LAWSON: Two years ago we discussed the Section which was originally laid down in the Act of 1934, when there was very grave disturbance in the minds not only of the Opposition, but of supporters of the Government, because it was considered that we were dangerously limiting the powers of the House when discussing a very important matter. The assumption to-day has been that, because the Statutory Committee is in being, you cannot better the conditions under which we are discussing this matter. It has
2886
nothing to do with the case at all. The Statutory Committee have laid down certain fundamental financial principles which they have to follow under the Acts of 1934 and 1935, but I do not think that anyone visualised that we would not be able to discuss various alternative ways of distributing any surplus of the fund.
To-day we have before us the proposals of Mr. Shaw as stated in the report. There are 11 different classes, who, he proposes, should receive some benefit from this surplus. He also suggests that there should be a, reduction from six waiting days to three waiting days. Mrs. Stocks makes two definite proposals, one affecting men and the other affecting women. We are not in a position to do anything about those proposals to-night. Complaint is not limited to hon. Members on this side of the House. There have been speeches by Government supporters desirous of making some change not in the amount to be spent, but in the manner in which it should be spent. But we cannot make a single amendment of the proposals which have been laid down. I wonder whether the Minister is quite satisfied with that state of things. I would remind the House, and particularly hon. Members who are discussing this question for the first time in a new Parliament, that this stereotyped state of things has not always been in existence. This is the first time that we are being nailed down financially and cannot make a proposal. Are supporters of the Government really going to allow this state of things to continue? Is the Minister satisfied?
Mr. QUIBELL: It suits him.
Mr. LAWSON: It may be an easy way for him, but it is certainly not a good thing for Parliament, as the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) very ably pointed out. Here are five men and two women. We know their names, but to the main body of hon. Members they are mostly unknown. They have been allowed to discuss this £21,000,000 surplus. There is a potential £6,500,000 annually to be distributed. They have been allowed to discuss this matter at length, and have not been tied down in the way that we, the elected Members of the people, are. After they discussed it, they came to a majority decision, yet we, the elected Members of this House, cannot even make the slightest change in the distribution

2887
of the amount that is at disposal. That is a state of things which is not to the credit of the Government, and which certainly does not make for intelligent Parliamentary proceedings. There is a further point which has been raised during the Debate. The committee who discussed the matter before us were in pretty much the same position as that in which we are situated. They complained that they did not know what was going to be done about dealing with one half of the unemployed.
The right hon. Gentleman told us that for the next eight years there will be a mean average of unemployed of 2,225,000. He referred to 16¼ per cent. and 16.5 per cent., but the Statutory Committee very definitely based their conclusions upon a mean average for the next cycle of eight years of 16.75 per cent. However much unemployment may have gone down, this Government apparently are to have the credit of stabilising unemployment at about two and a quarter millions. That is a very serious matter. I remember when the present Chancellor of the Exchequer stated, in a sort of half reflecting way, that the unemployed for the next 10 years would be considerable. He was credited with saying that the unemployed for the next 10 years would number 2,000,000. I know that he did not say that, but many people believed that he did. There has seldom been such a sensation in the country as that which was created by that statement, and yet to-night we have been told by the Minister of Labour that the mean average for the next eight years will be round about 2¼ millions. And we have never turned a hair; we are getting used to it; we are becoming indifferent. It is the state of things under which we are working that is leading to indifference. We are shelving our responsibilities. It is the Statutory Committee who have to do the job and bear the responsibility. It is the Unemployment Assistance Board who are responsible. Consequently, there is an apathy growing in the House and the country about unemployment, which is menacing to the social life of the country.
I read with great interest, and was staggered by, the facts in the book by Sir John Orr on malnutrition There is nothing that moves me in regard to the
2888
question of malnutrition more than the fact that men have become so hopeless that they are settling down to taking no interest in life. Let us face the facts. Great masses of men are rotting morally. They are being reduced to a state which is next door to a living death.
The committee complained that they were labouring under a very great disadvantage. They say in page 22:
"The present moment is particularly inopportune for surrendering income from the Unemployment Fund, because the Committee have no information as to the probable policy of the Unemployment Assistance Board. One of the reasons which prompted the committee to propose an increase of children's benefit last July, was the desire of reducing as much as possible any occasion for supplementing benefit to large families, either by unemployment assistance or by public assistance. When the new scales of unemployment assistance are published and applied, there may prove to be other types of claimant for whom an increase of benefit is equally desirable to avoid supplementation. But, if contributions have been reduced, the committee will not he in a position to make any change of benefits."
Mr. GUY: Will the hon. Member read the next paragraph? The paragraph which he has read is not the view of the Statutory Committee.
Mr. LAWSON: They were setting out the arguments against reduction of contributions. As the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) said, they were very fair in putting the arguments both for and against, and the one that I have quoted is one of the arguments against. What is the position to-day The Minister of Labour knows what is going to happen. He knows something about the regulations, because we understand that they are almost ready. He also knows, by investigation, exactly what is the position in the country with respect to those under the Unemployment Assistance Board. We have asked for that report. A special report was made when the regulations broke down. A sample report has been made on a very wide scale which practically covers the whole country, and the right hon. Gentleman has that in his possession. He may have brought it up to date. He knows, but the Statutory Committee did not know and we do not know, the facts, and yet he is asking the House and asking innocent Members opposite to follow him blindly into the

2889
Lobby to deal with subjects in regard to which the Statutory Committee said that it was necessary to have more information. We are working in the dark to-night.
The committee point out that the total on the fund will be less than half, and the other half, roughly, will be on public assistance. If there are to be something like 800,000 people on public assistance—
Mr. ERNEST BROWN: No, 725,000. It is less than that.
Mr. LAWSON: If nearly 2¼ millions of people are to be unemployed, as a mean average, what does that mean so far as the benefit of those people is concerned? Some of them are going to be out of work for weeks and months. Some of them will have repeated doses of unemployment. This kind of thing has gone on for years. Many of these people are not the poor types of men. They are not what were called the unemployables. They include the best craftsmen, the best type of workers, yet they have long terms of unemployment and repeated doses of unemployment, and the consequence is that they have been deprived of any little assets that they had. There really is a case for supplementing benefits. The Minister has given us one half of the report and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) has given us the other half, but no one can read the report of Mr. Shaw without coming to the conclusion that if there was a free vote in the House there would be a reconsideration of the proposals of the Statutory Committee. Mr. Shaw is very searching in the points he makes. The substance of them is that it is really not going to be of much advantage to the employers, and I am sure it will not be any advantage to the workers.
It is unchallengeable that workmen, both those unemployed and those who are at work, if they had an opportunity of expressing themselves would vote not for a reduction of the contributions but, if there was a possibility of the surplus being so used, for increasing benefits. It is the Chancellor of the Exchequer who is getting the benefit. He is the only man who is going to get what matters in respect of this surplus. He really ought to have been present this evening. The Minister's action has not been dictated by the state of the fund or by any consideration for the workers; his final words
2890
clearly showed that he has a tender regard for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Minister of Labour seems to be very sure of himself on this matter, but I tell him that a Minister who gets concerned about the Chancellor of the Exchequer is almost lost. A good Minister has plenty of trouble with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but when he begins to do the work of the Chancellor of the Exchequer his Department is in danger.
We have been considering to-day a great human problem. It has been dealt with partly in financial terms. Figure upon figure and fact upon fact have been given. I do not think there is any hope of making any impression upon the right hon. Gentleman, or upon this House. The state of the benches during the proceedings proves that, but when the country realises that the Government are so callous and so direct in their methods as to take money which ought to go towards improving the condition of the unemployed, while at the same time they openly admit that the average during the next eight years is to be 2,250,000 unemployed, the country will consider that this is not only as important as the international questions which confront us at the moment, and will ultimately wreck the Government, as it deserves to be wrecked.
9.20 p.m.
Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: I was interested in one remark made by an hon. Member opposite, who, I believe, used to hold an important position on the Press, that we should consider particularly the spending power of the people by not taking money out of the pocket of the taxpayer. There is a great deal of confusion in regard to this question of spending power. From the point of view of promoting employment, spending power is entirely the same from whatever pocket it comes. It does not matter two straws whether the money comes from people in the slums in buying acid drops, or whether it is spent in buying cigarettes by the taxpayer, as long as the money is spent. What we have to consider—and the choice does arise in the question before us—is whether the decision of this House is going to occasion more spending by one section of the people or another. If you leave the money in the pockets of the taxpayers it will probably lead to

2891
an increase of sales by spending it profitably or by investing money in machines to make hammers, as Mr. Wells once put it. In the other case people will spend it on consumable goods. That is a matter to be considered quite dispassionately. I can imagine a state of affairs in which it would be better for the country if the money were invested in machinery rather than in consumable goods, but that is not the state of affairs which faces us at the moment. We want more circulation. We are faced with a stagnation of money which cannot find an outlet. Capital as well as labour is on the dole and what we want is to get freer circulation.
This brings me to the appeal I want to make to the Minister. I quite appreciate his position. He is advised by a very able committee. He can get no advice from this House because we are not allowed to amend anything. We may make suggestions, but he cannot pay any attention to them. Any Amendment would be out of order. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman falls back on this able committee, and he says that there are so many who have reported one way and a minority of two who have reported on several points on the other side. So he decides for the big battalions. I sympathise with him to a certain extent, but does he not realise his position? He is able to revise the recommendations of the Statutory Committee. He has the power to do this, subject only to the fact that he must indicate to the House where he has made an alteration. He can alter a scheme and put before us something else. Is not this an occasion where he should take that step? The committee were bound to take a conservative view; they were in a way civil servants. They cannot form opinions as to whether the situation in the future is going to be rosy or not. They cannot afford to be overoptimistic. But the right hon. Gentleman is a Member of the Cabinet; he presumably knows all its plans; he presumably believes in its future. Perhaps he does; I do not know whether anybody does now. But I know that he is full of hope and courage. Ought not he to be the man who should say, "I have two courses open to me, the one a timorous course? It is going to assume that everything will come out badly, and therefore
2892
I am going to save up all the money I can."
The other way is to put the money into circulation—not to hide his talent in the ground like the man in the Scripture, but to put it out to service where something could be made of it. That is a position which might be too much for Sir William Beveridge and his committee. They can present the facts, but it is the Minister who must make the ultimate decision. If he believes in the Government and in the future of this country, I believe that he would have done wisely to take his courage in both hands and spend the money in the other way. Electorally it would have been the same. After all, there is something in moral and prestige. If the Government show that they have confidence in themselves, the country, too, may begin to wake up and believe that something will be done. It is always what I have seen in the case of this Government; they go so far and then draw back at the critical moment. To have spent this money in the way which has been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke for the official Opposition and the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) might have involved some risk, but it would be a risk that would be repaid a hundredfold.
9.28 p.m.
Mr. MARKLEW: As a new and comparatively inexperienced Member of this House it is just within the bounds of possibility that I may mistake the purpose of its debates. if I am wrong, perhaps I shall be corrected by older and more experienced Members, but at any rate I have formed the conclusion that the purpose of debates is to ascertain the minds of Members with regard to the particular proposal under discussion, and as far as possible to act consistently and to take such guidance as the House may give through the free and frank expression of its opinions. I cannot conceive that this House can otherwise fulfil its function, which I understand to be that of executive officer of the will of the people of the country. I have listened to all but two of the speeches—and those two were brief—which have been delivered in this Debate, and I have come to the conclusion that if the Minister is guided at all by the weight of the opinions which have been expressed, if he pays any attention to the wishes of

2893
the House as expressed not only from the Opposition benches but from the benches supposed to be occupied by his own supporters, he will certainly not push to the extreme to-night his request that the House should give its assent to the confirmation of this Order.
Knowing as I do something about the spiritual dispositions of the right hon. Member's mind and how prayerfully disposed he is on occasions I am quite sure that this afternoon and this evening he must have been engaged very frequently in silent prayers, if only to be saved from those he is accustomed to look on as his friends. Time after time from the benches behind him volley after volley has been fired at his proposals, criticism after criticism being directed against the case which he in a half-hearted manner tried to put up in support of this Order. I submit that the Minister of Labour cannot claim that he is acting in accordance with the wishes of this House if the wishes of this House are to be ascertained by the arguments adduced from these benches, both on the Opposition and on the Government side. I would suggest that if the occupant of the Chair, whether yourself or the Speaker, for whom you are deputising, were acting in a judicial capacity, listening to the arguments from both sides of the House and summing up the matter with an impartial mind, you could have no alternative but to advise the House that the weight of argument and the strength of the evidence were all in favour of rejecting this Order.
The Minister cannot claim to be acting even on such advice as he asked the House to believe that he was guided by as far as that advice was given with a due consideration to the weight of evidence. On page 30 of the report, which I must admit contains the Minority Report of Mr. Arthur Shaw, though this statement has never been challenged by the Minister or any of his supporters, it is stated:
"with the exception of the evidence submitted by the National Confederation of Employers' Organisations all written and oral evidence was in favour of disposing of the surplus by increasing benefits."
What is the use of a committee, even it be dignified with the name of a statutory committee, if it cannot give advice in accordance with the, weight of evidence,
2894
if it is only to accept the evidence of one section of the people represented, and is to rule out the evidence of the great body of people affected and whose interests are more important than the interests which may be associated with the National Confederation of Employers' Organisations? The advice tendered by the statutory committee, having regard only to such advice as has weight of evidence behind it, should induce this House to recognise that the recommendations of the statutory committee are not such as to recommend themselves to the good judgment and approval of the House.
The third point I should like to make is in connection with what I have conceived to be the real purpose of unemployment insurance. I may be wrong; being young and inexperienced I am likely to make mistakes; but I have always conceived that the ostensible object of insurance was to provide some sort of assistance, always inadequate, to those who were in need of that assistance. The relief afforded by these various schemes has generally had some relation to the question of need. For instance, individuals in receipt of a certain salary during the period they are employed, if it is considered that the salary is sufficiently high to exclude them from requiring public assistance from insurance benefits during any subsequent period of unemployment, are excluded on the ground that their salary when employed is too large to bring them within the purview of unemployment insurance schemes.
I suggest to the House that this Order is condemned on the ground that if, as the Minister claims, it is to give relief to all, it cannot be claimed to give relief where it is most urgently needed or would be most appreciated. That is recognised in the report on page 22 of which the Statutory Committee tell us quite frankly that:
"To take 1d. off the contribution would cost practically the same as adding 3s. a week to all adult benefits; can it be doubted that the latter use would give more general satisfaction? "
In the administration of public affairs and in the dispensing of moneys for which we may be said to be the trustees, surely we ought to adopt that line of action and pursue that policy which would give the most general satisfaction. Will the Minister carry out that policy, will he adopt that advice? If he does not do so,

2895
he will be acting once more in direct conflict with what is palpably suggested, though not recommended in so many words, by the Statutory Committee itself.
Another point I would like to make is that the recommendations of the committee, which we are asked to approve, cannot be claimed to deal justly with the contributors, even on the grounds of treating the surplus on a strictly insurance basis. I heard some very strange arguments this afternoon and evening by individuals who have been begging the Opposition to regard the Unemployment Insurance Acts as embodying insurance schemes. I think the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) very neatly disposed of that suggestion. These Acts are nothing of the sort. They are schemes to make the workers in employment shoulder the burden of their fellow workers who are out of employment. Let me not be told that the employer makes his contribution and the State its contribution. If I am told that, I shall reply with the assertion, which no one dares challenge with any hope of being able to refute, that the State cannot make its contribution until the worker has first put it into the Treasury, and that the employer cannot make his contribution, nor does he, until the worker has in the first instance earned that contribution for him.
The Minister has defended the reduction of contributions on the perfectly unjustifiable ground that it would be easier to increase contributions in the future than to decrease benefits should the fluctuating state of the fund require any adjustments to be made. I refer to this point because the Minister himself so frequently emphasised it, and when he was speaking I challenged him to state to the House why it was easier, if the exigencies of the fund in the future should require it, to increase contributions rather than to reduce the rate of benefits, he shuffled round the point, and pretended to answer it by saying that hon. Members on this side know perfectly well what are the difficulties. Of course we do. I was not asking the right hon. Gentleman to state the difficulties, but to state why those difficulties were so appreciable. He failed to refer to that point. The real situation is that it is comparatively easy to raise contributions when it is necessary to do so. That, however,
2896
is due to the generous disposition of the workers as a class; they never grumble, when they are in work at making a contribution, very often out of proportion to their own capacity to make it, in order to assist those who, for the time being, are out of work. But when it comes to asking for a reduction of benefit from those who have no other income to rely upon and no other means of satisfying their own and their families' requirements than their unemployment benefit, knowing the entirely insufficient nature of that benefit, they naturally resist.
There is the real reason why it is easier to increase contributions if the occasion demands it than to decrease benefits. The reason is to be found in the spirit of generosity on the port of workmen, of which the Minister, through his policy, would take a mean and unfair advantage, preferring this cheap and easy way of meeting the possible exigencies of the fund in the future rather than meeting them in a fair and just way, which would be to say that those who can afford to do so ought to lighten the burden of their fellows and should be called upon to do thath before they ask for and are given any relief for themselves. The man in employment never begrudges his contribution to the fund, but the man who is unemployed is bound to resist the reduction of his benefit.
In conclusion, I ask hon. Members opposite who have listened to any portion of the Debate not to be influenced by the circumstance that these recommendations embodied in the Order are to be accepted by us merely because the Statutory Committee makes them. What are we here for if not for the purpose of forming judgments of our own and, so far as we are able, giving executive power to those judgments by the way in which we vote in the Division Lobby? We are supposed to be the most shining example, and very nearly the last surviving example, of democratic Government, but if this evening we accept the proposal of the Minister and surrender our own rights to frame policy and to make decisions, reserving to ourselves only the right to accept, and not daring even to exercise the right to reject proposals such as these, then we are undermining democratic forms of Government and tamely submitting to Government by a committee, and that a committee not

2897
even directly or indirectly responsible to this House.
9.44 p.m.
Mr. GALLACHER: When the Minister concluded his introductory speech with the remark that he wanted to put a smile on the face of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I made an interjection which was not caught up at the time, but to which I wish to refer now, and to which I would like hon. and right hon. Members to give some attention. I consider it nothing short of a scandal that a, Minister should make so flippant a, remark in view of the fact that he was dealing with a question that affected thousands of men, women and children who are going short of food and clothing. I am certain that no hon. Member can deny that that is the case, and the question which ought to have concerned the Minister was how to utilise this money to ensure that these men, women and children would at any rate get a better share of the require-merits of life than they are obtaining at the present time. Smiles on the faces of innocent children would be more desirable than a smile on the face of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. From my study of the right hon. Gentleman I am convinced that all the wealth of Midas would not bring a smile to his face.
In the course of this discussion we heard an hon. Member below the Gangway opposing the suggestion that this £6,000,000 should go to the unemployed on the ground that to give an unemployed man a week would not make his position any better. I never heard such an argument. I do not want to take advantage of this occasion to give the House a lecture on Marxian economics though I think such a lecture would be much needed. I agree that if the printing press were used to turn out nominal money which had no relation to the production of consumption goods, as is proposed by the Social Credit party, it would mean a general depression. But to give this £6,000,000 to the unemployed would very much better their position, without affecting for the worse the conditions of the employed workers in the country.
Take the case of the millions which are going to the royalty owners. Suppose you handed that money out to the unemployed. The unemployed would be better off and there would be no disadvantage to the employed. It would only cause
2898
disadvantage to another and less worthy section of the unemployed, namely, the rentiers. The more you can give to the unemployed of whatever money is available at the present time, the more advantageous it will be, both to the unemployed and the employed, because it will be utilised for consumable goods instead of being wasted at Monte Carlo and in other directions. Another hon. Member said that criticism from friends of the Government would be helpful. I was surprised at that statement because I had come to the conclusion that the Government had not any friends left. I am certain that before long the present Government will not have any friends and will pass from our midst altogether. The speech of the Minister and his support of this document will help to lead to an early demise of the Government as at present constituted.
I wish to direct special attention to this point. The Minister said that unemployment insurance was not arranged on a basis of need. He said that the principle of unemployment insurance was that a fund was raised from certain sources to be used in the best possible manner to meet the requirements—apart altogether from the question of need—of those who were thrown out of employment. Now this fund, which has been organised for the purpose of aiding people thrown out of employment, has a surplus of £6,000,000. Again, I emphasise that it is not a question of need. This money was raised for the purpose of helping the unemployed, yet the Minister calmly proposes that this surplus, instead of being used for the purpose for which he himself says the fund was organised, is to be handed back to those from whom it came. I never heard such a proposition. And this proposal is made at a time when people are in urgent need and are clamouring for help.
What does Mr. Shaw propose? That a man between 21 and 64 should receive 18s. a week. Will the representative of the Government say that 18s. a week is too much for any man between those ages? I would like to see the Minister being asked to go out with 18s. in his pocket to spend the evening in the customary manner in which Ministers spend their evenings. I remember a discussion in reference to the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer—to whose

2899
face a smile is to be brought—was attending a dinner which cost 38s. a head. I do not know what one would get for 38s. a head. I see an hon. Member opposite who, I believe, is associated with the shipping industry. He is not smiling now, but he was smiling recently when the shipping subsidy was under discussion. I wonder how those in the shipping industry, who have their hands deep in the subsidy, would feel on 18s. a night, not to speak of 18s. a week. Is the Minister then prepared to say that it is better to hand back this surplus than to devote it to giving a man 18s. a week? Then, Mr. Shaw proposes for women between 21 and 64, a payment of 16s. 6d. a week. Will the Minister say that 16s. 6d. is too much for a woman to live on for a week? I wish to impress on the Minister and on Members opposite that in many cases these are questions of life and death. They can read in the newspapers day by day of mothers who are being driven to desperation because of the miserable amounts they are receiving. Yet we get flippant remarks here about putting a smile on the face of the Chancellor.
I know cases such as those referred to by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) of men who have lost their wives and who are trying to keep households going, perhaps with a sister acting as housekeeper. When those men are out of employment they receive no consideration whatever for such housekeeper. We see the friends of hon. Members opposite getting subsidy after subsidy and getting their hands deep into the public purse, but when there is a surplus of £6,000,000 in a fund specially organised to deal with unemployment, it is not to be given to the unemployed. As I said before it is not the question of what the people need. To give a man 18s. a week is not giving him what he needs. But when you have a fund that is organised to meet, as far as it can, the necessities of those who are faced with unemployment, and instead of utilising it for the purpose of increasing the allowances, you talk about handing it back, never was there such a proposal as that.
I say it is almost incredible to believe that a Minister could come and act, as the Minister of Labour has acted, as the humble messenger of Sir William
2900
Beveridge and the Statutory Committee. There never was the slightest indication in his attitude or in anything that he said that gave any representation of a Minister representing a Government. It was just one quotation after another from the report that had been prepared by Sir William Beveridge, and this is one of the factors of which every Member in this House has to take note. I make an earnest appeal, especially to those who supported the subsidies to the shipping industry, to the beet sugar industry, and to others, not to take up this attitude of handing back this money, but to use the money for the purpose for which the money was collected. The fund has been organised to assist the unemployed. Let us in this House tell the Government that it has to go to the unemployed, and if the Government do not like it, let the Government go.
We have already been told by this Government that we have either to give up our policy or to give up the Government. Intimidation of that kind should never be tolerated, and I am certain that to-night the Members of this House would vote against the Government, would vote against the pitiful example of leadership which we have had from the Minister of Labour, except they are afraid that if the Government go, there will be a slaughter, not of the innocents, but of the guilty. It is the one thing that is in the minds of hon. Members opposite, but I ask them to face the possibility of a slaughter. It is better that hon. Members opposite should be slaughtered than that the men, women, and children who have been thrown out of employment by the decay of capitalism should be kept continually in the condition in which they find themselves now. To every penny of this money the unemployed are entitled. It was raised for that purpose. Let this House decide that for that purpose it shall go.
9.59 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) called my right hon. Friend and myself solid in so many words and second-rate by inference. We are not discouraged by that. It would probably need reference to a Statutory Committee to decide whether on balance we have been complimented or not. He complained that there

2901
has been an absence from the front Government bench of other Members of the Government. Perhaps he was not here when the Prime Minister listened to a portion of this Debate, but, leaving that aside, I am certain that if my hon. Friend carries his mind back to the days when he was a member of a Government, he will remember very many occasions such as this when probably the departmental Ministers were for the most part the only habitual residents of the front Government bench, and on those occasions, as on this, he and the House perfectly understood that no disrespect to the House was intended.
I suppose it is true to say that the human race is more governed and swayed by considerations of comparison than by those of actuality, and I think that has been brought out in this Debate. Nobody really objects that a certain amount of money is to be given to somebody, but what we have been concerned about has been the particular method of distribution. As the arguments in favour of a particular course have been set out, first by the Statutory Committee and secondly, very fully and forcibly, by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, I do not think there is much for me to do except to traverse the various points which have been raised in the course of the Debate. To start with the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), he said that my right hon. Friend had spoken in "mournful numbers." If I may take the poetic quotation from which that phrase is culled, it runs:
"Tell me not, in mournful numbers,
Life is but an empty dream.'"
All that I can say is that if my empty dream resulted in a disposable annual surplus of £6,500,000, I should habitually eat the most indigestible things I could for supper and wake up a happier man.
The next point which the right hon. Gentleman raised was to say that the particular proposal for this distribution would put £2,000,000 into the pockets of the employers. That aspect of the case was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) and, from our side of the House, by the hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. J. R. Robinson). But let us look at some other pockets into which some of this money is going. It is stated by the Statutory Committee that the distribution which they recommend
2902
will be equivalent to a rise in wages of £40,000 a week, and they point out that during the year 1935, which has been a year—one is glad to emphasise it—of very appreciable wage rises, the weekly rise has been £187,000, so that actually the comparative rise in wages which this distribution will represent to the employés' side will be something a little under a quarter of the total weekly wage rise during the year 1935. I do not think anybody can suggest that that is inconsiderable. I am sorry that I happened to be out of the House when my hon. Friend the Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) made his speech, but I understand that he put that point with great cogency, and when I hear that my hon. Friend put a point of that description with great cogency, I know that it cannot possibly be dealt with by a better voice.
In point of fact, to take up a general attitude of hon. Members opposite to this method of distribution rather than distribution by way of benefit, I would say this, that it is just this tendency to neglect the cumulative effect of disregarding the apparently small contributions to sound finance that eventually lands any Governments, as it landed their Government, in financial disaster. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street said that any Minister of Labour or any Ministers who pleased the Chancellor of the Exchequer were almost lost, but Ministers who do not please the Chancellor of the Exchequer are lost entirely.
The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) in a, speech of great force showed that one had to consider this question of sound finance, and he put forward a strong argument in favour of the course which the Government have pursued. The last remarks of the right hon. Member for Wakefield were a general wail of despair about the misery which was being caused by the economic forces of the world which no one had thought fit to bring under control. That was impressive, but it was rather spoiled subsequently by a remark by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith), who drew attention to the improving trade, not only in this country, but throughout the world.
The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) raised a point which was voiced by many other hon. Members about the difficulty in which the House

2903
was by having either to agree to or to reject this proposal in tote. That, indeed, is the case, but the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), who was on the same tack, was wrong in his line of argument. He complained that the Statutory Committee had decided for a long period ahead quite definitely the particular form of treatment of the unemployed. The Statutory Committee has not decided it at all. The Government has not decided. It is the House which will have to-night an opportunity of deciding for itself. I would ask the hon. Member, however, whatever views he may have on this proposal, to remember that the whole machinery of Governmental approval and finally of Parliamentary approval is as open on this point as on any other.
The hon. Member for East Birkenhead, the hon. Member for Stockon-on-Tees (Mr. H. Macmillan), and other hon. Members complained because we were bringing forward this proposal when the regulations of the Unemployment Assistance Board were probably shortly to come before the House. What is my right hon. Friend the Minister to do? He is taunted almost daily because of the delay in the Unemployment Assistance Regulations, yet, when he brings something forward, the burden of the complaint is that he is bringing it forward too early. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is a cheap point."] The spring appears to be a season of the year in which one cannot do right. Somebody said that it was a cheap point. Let me give a dearer one. The Statutory Committee, with that fairness which gained the commendation of the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone), put the particular point about the Unemployment Assistance Regulations very forcibly, but notwithstanding that, they felt entitled to make this proposal and they did not consider the proximity of the Unemployment Assistance Regulations a, cogent reason why they should not put forward this proposal for the consideration of the Government.
The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees was horrified at the mention of the rate of unemployment of 16.75 per cent., and that point was taken up by many hon. Members opposite. One or two doubts
2904
were raised by hon. Members for Farnworth (Mr. Rowson) and Stoke (Mr. E. Smith), who wondered at this figure being chosen because they saw the prospect of a declining rate of unemployment. That is true. The Statutory Committee draws attention to the fact in their report that the true rate for December, 1935, was 14.1, and they also said they were prepared to consider a diminution in the rate down to the latter part of 1937. The trend for the immediate future is therefore fully taken into consideration by the Statutory Committee. What one has really lo come down to is what, in point of fact, enters into this calculation of 10.75 per cent. I do not think I do the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street any injustice when I say that his remarks rather indicated that we were setting this out as a sort of holy thing that had to be adhered to as closely as possible. We might almost have imagined that in future years, if we found the trend of unemployment becoming more favourable, there would be an emergency cabinet meeting to see whether we could not adjust our policy more in consonance with this forecast. I think that that was the emphasis which a great many hon. Members made. I do not think that I can do better than to read exactly what this calculation was intended by the committee to be, and what it has been accepted by the Government to be. Referring on page 7 to a statement submitted by the Committee on Economic Information, the committee says:
"This statement has been submitted to us by the Committee on Economic Information subject to various explanations and reserves suggested by the Sub-Committee. It is to be regarded not as an attempt to prophesy but as a contribution, so far as the knowledge now available permits, to the formation of a working hypothesis upon which policy in regard to the contributions and benefits of the Unemployment Fund may reasonably be based."
I emphasise the words "working hypothesis." The hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spells) in a spontaneous, but all the more telling speech, made an answer to the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees. It was a burden of the complaint of the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees that the Government should even have accepted this particular figure as a working hypothesis. It is true that any anticipation like that—nobody is more ready to admit it than the Economic

2905
Advisory Council or the Statutory Committee—is uncertain, but at all events the Government, with necessary Governmental prudence, have not been afraid to accept that particular figure which the Statutory Committee have put forward as a working hypothesis, and no one will be better pleased than the present Government if, in subsequent years, that particular figure is falsified on the right side, though, indeed, an anticipation of a previous committee was falsified, unfortunately, on the wrong side,
The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour) made a far-reaching recommendation in the form of a combined plan of health and unemployment insurance. That opens up a very wide and interesting subject which is, perhaps, matter for further investigation, but I think he will agree that this is not the time at which one would develop consideration of that subject. He also mentioned—although I did not hear his speech myself I anticipated that he would mention it—the question of seasonal workers. All I can say on that subject is that it was carefully and thoroughly investigated by the Statutory Committee only last year, and as the outcome of that consideration fresh regulations were brought forward, and that at less than a year's distance from those fresh regulations coming into force it is rather early to suggest an alteration in them.
Then the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities made a telling speech on her own particular subject. One phrase in it particularly struck me. She said that what was being done for women generally was little more than a positive fraud in the realm of social insurance.
Miss RATHBONE: Little "less" than.
Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I beg pardon. Yes, "a little less." I wondered what, in fact, it was that was a positive fraud, and I was left in doubt until the hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) told me that unemployed men had "pinched" matches from their wives. That seemed to be the rock bottom of social injustice where the sexes are concerned.
Miss RATHBONE: If I may put the point in a single sentence, it is that the Government treat women on the plan of
2906
"Heads I win and tails you lose." Wherever it is profitable to the fund to pool women and men together it is done, and wherever it is profitable to the fund to segregate women from men and treat them as a separated class they are so treated.
Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I never toss with coins like that. If we worked out in strict proportion the amount which can be drawn in benefit by women, related to their contributions, instead of the amounts being 15s. for women and 17s. for men it would be 15s. 3½d. for women and if and when this particular proposal is agreed to that discrepancy of 3½d, will, in point of fact, be reduced to a penny; so I do not think there is very much cause for complaint in respect of the comparative value that men and women get in respect of their contributions. It has been shown, too, that over a period of 15 years the inequalities have gone first one way and then the other, and that substantially womn have gained as much as they have lost. The hon. Lady also mentioned the Anomalies Act in relation to married women. There was no question there of trying to discriminate unfairly against women. The whole object of the Anomalies' Regulations was to remove undoubted abuses which were pressing on the fund to the detriment both of women and of men. I must say that I was sorry that the Chair prevented her from developing her argument over the whole field of social insurance. I do not propose, to go over the ground off which she was warned, but I suggest that if she had pursued her activities further she would have found that the boot was largely on the other foot.
The hon. Member for Farnworth raised the point that in some way the National Confederation of Employers' Organisations had exercised undue pressure upon the Statutory Committee. If the hon. Member turns to the report he will find that, quite apart from the general evidence which was presented by that organisation, on the subject that he mentioned, the Statutory Committee specifically asked the Confederation for further evidence on the subject. When an independent committee actually go out of their way to ask the Confederation for specific evidence on a certain subject, it is rather hard to blame the Confederation for exercising undue influence upon the proceedings of the committee.

2907
Those were the main points raised by bon. Members, and most of them were raised not by one hon. Member only, but by several. A further point was raised by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead, who said frankly that he considered that the Statutory Comniittee had been a success. I do not know exactly in which respect he meant that, but I feel certain that he and many other hon. Members will join with me in giving as much expression of gratitude as we can to the admirable work done by Sir William Beveridge and his colleagues. I am glad that an hon. Member on the opposite side of the House should have given me this opportunity of expressing what I am sure is a widespread feeling.
It is possible that the hon. Member meant success in a broader and less personal aspect, that is that, quite apart from the particular work of those gentlemen, the method of approaching these subjects by means of a Statutory Committee had, in this case, and not merely in this report but in other reports which they have put before the Government, been a success. The report of the committee shows the extent and the complexity of the subject with which the committee had to deal. First, in order to establish a basis for their report, they had to make a very careful scrutiny, in which they called to their assistance another body, the Economic Advisory Council, of the trade and unemployment situation, and to make a forecast several years ahead. Having got that basis, they had to consider the particular method of disposal of the surplus, which necessarily led them to consider a variety of factors that go right to the root of the social service system in this country.
The Debate which has taken place in the House to-day has only emphasised the importance and complexity of the factors with which the Statutory Committee have had to deal. I think it is common knowledge that the burden which falls on a modern Government, the burden which falls on a modern Parliament, is increasingly heavy. Increasingly Government and Parliament have to consider problems involving a great number of very detailed considerations, and I agree with the hon. Member for East Birkenhead in his opinion that on the whole this House is not too well adapted for
2908
the detailed consideration of some of these problems. I think that of recent years a fear has been raised in the minds of many students of government as to whether the present structure of government and the present structure of Parliament would be sufficient to stand the strain of this increasing burden of detail work which is being thrust upon it. Therefore we have seen a development of statutory and semi-statutory bodies throughout this country, such as the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Unemployment Assistance Board; and even the marketing schemes, although they have large independent powers of operation, have a statutory basis of existence.
Lastly, we have the particular committee whose report we are considering this evening. The bodies such as those I have mentioned are much too diverse in their nature, composition and activities to enable any effective detailed comparison to be made between them, and it is certainly too early to say that any one of them provides a sealed pattern which could be followed in every case. Perhaps there is no such sealed pattern. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead said that time would show, but I am convinced that the technique of the relationship of statutory and semi-statutory bodies to the Government and to this House must be studied carefully and worked out carefully if we are to preserve the efficiency of government and Parliament under modern conditions, and if we are to preserve, as we must preserve, ultimate definite Parliamentary control over whatever is brought forward and whatever has to be decided. If I may say so, the Debate to-day has shown that, even when something originates in a statutory committee, this House will treat that subject properly and sincerely when it comes before Parliament for final decision, and I believe that on the correct solution of this particular technique a great deal of our modern governmental and Parliamentary procedure will in the future depend. The Statutory Committee has examined an important problem; it has issued a report which the Government have adopted and have come to a conclusion which I think the House will do well to endorse.

2909
Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 184; Noes, 96.

Division No. 145.]

AYES.

[10.30 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

Palmer, G. E. H.

Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Patrick, C. M.

Albery, I. J.

Grlmston, R. V.

Peat, C. U.

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

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Penny, Sir G.

Anderson Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)

Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

Peters, Dr. S. J.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)

Petherick, M.

Apsley, Lord

Guinness, T. L. E. B.

Pilkington, R

Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)

Gunston, Capt. D. W.

Porritt, R. W.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Guy, J. C. M.

Procter, Major H. A.

Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

Hanbury, Sir C.

Radford, E. A.

Balfour, Capt. H. H.(Isle of Thanet)

Hannah, I. C.

Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

Ramsnotham, H.

Baxter, A. Beverley

Hartington, Marquess of

Rankin, R.

Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

Harvey, G.

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)

Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

Bernays, R. H.

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

Blair, Sir R.

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Remer, J. R.

Blaker, Sir R.

Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey)

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Blindell, Sir J.

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)

Ropner, Colonel L.

Bossom, A. C.

Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'nderry)

Boulton, W. W.

Hopkinson, A.

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Bower, Comdr. R. T.

Horsbrugh, Florence

Rowlands, G.

Boyce, H. Leslie

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

Runciman, Rt. Hon. W.

Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

Hudson, R. S. (Southport)

Sandys, E. D.

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

Hulbert, N. S.

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

Bull, B. B.

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

Scott, Lord William

Butler, R. A.

James, Wing-Commander A. W.

Selley, H. R.

Campbell, Sir E. T.

Keeling, E. H.

Shakespeare, G. H.

Cartland, J. R. H.

Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

Cary, R. A.

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

Cobb, Sir C. S.

Kerr, J. G. (Scottish Universities)

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.

Latham, Sir P.

Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

Colman, N. C. D.

Leckle, J. A.

Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)

Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

Spens, W. P.

Craddock, Sir R. H.

Lindsay, K. M.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

Cranborne, Viscount

Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)

Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

Lloyd, G. W.

Storey, S.

Crowder, J. F. E.

Loder, captain Hon. J. de V.

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

Cruddas, Col. B.

Loftus, P. C.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

De Chair, S S.

McCorquodale, M. S.

Sutcliffe, H.

Donner, P. W.

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

Tasker, Sir R. I.

Duggan, H. J.

Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

Tate, Mavis C.

Duncan, J. A. L.

McKle, J. H.

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

Dunglass, Lord

Maclay, Hon. J. P.

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

Dunne, P. R. R.

Magnay, T.

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Eastwood, J. F.

Manningham-Buller. Sir M.

Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

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

Titchfield, Marquess of

Emmott, C. E. G. C.

Markham, S. F.

Tree, A. R. L. F.

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

Everard, W. L.

Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.

Fleming, E. L.

Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

Wakefield, W. W.

Fox, Sir G. W. G.

Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

Wallace, Captain Euan

Fraser, Capt. Sir I.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Waterhouse, Captain C.

Fremantle, Sir F. E.

Mitcheson, G. G.

Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

Furness, S. N.

Moreing, A. C.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Ganzonl, Sir J.

Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)

Wise, A. R.

Glucksteln, L. H.

Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

Womersley, Sir W. J.

Goodman, Col. A. W.

Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

Gower, Sir R. V.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward and Mr. Cross.

NOES.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

Cluse, W. S.

Gallacher, W.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Cocks, F. S.

Gardner, B. W.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

Compton, J.

Garro-Jones, G. M.

Adamson, W. M.

Daggar, G.

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V (H'lsbr.)

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

Banfield, J. W.

Day, H.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Batey, J.

Dobble, W.

Grenfell, D. R.

Bellenger, F.

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

Benson, G.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty,

Griffiths, J. (Lianelly)

Broad, F. A.

Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)

Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Buchanan, G.

Foot, D. M.

Hardie, G. D.

Charieton, H. C.

Frankel, D.

Harris, Sir P. A.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Maxton, J.

Simpson, F. B.

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Messer, F.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Stephen, C.

Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

Naylor, T. E.

Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

Holland, A.

Oliver, G. H.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Hopkin, D.

Owen, Major G.

Thurtle, E.

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Paling, W.

Tinker, J. J.

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Parker. H. J. H.

Walker, J.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Potts, J.

Watkins, F. C.

Kelly, W. T.

Price, M. P.

White, H. Graham

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Pritt, D. N.

Wilkinson, Ellen

Lathan, G

Qulbell, J. D.

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Lawson, J. J.

Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

Wilson, C. H (Attercilffe)

Lee, F.

Riley, B.

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Leonard, W.

Ritson, J.

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Leslie, J. R.

Rowson, G.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Sexton, T. M.

MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

Shinwell, E.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Marklew, E.

Short, A.

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
"That the draft of the Unemployment Insurance (Reduction in Weekly Rates of Contributions) Order, 1936, laid before Parliament on the eighteenth day of March, in pursuance of the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 59 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, be approved."

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (AGRICULTURE) BILL.
  Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
  10.40 p.m.
  Mr. E. BROWN: Perhaps it might be for the convenience of the House if I made a short explanation of the Lords Amendments, seeing that I propose to ask the House to agree with them. Will that be agreeable?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, with the approval of the House.
  Mr. BROWN: If hon. Members will look at the Amendment Paper they will see three Amendments which form one group. The first Amendment is on Clause 1, page 1, line 6. The second Amendment is on page 2, line 8, and the other is in Clause 15, page 11, line 16, to leave out lines 16 to 23. These are a consecutive series of Amendments and are drafting Amendments designed to remove doubts that have been aroused as to the draftsmanship of the Bill and whether it carries out the intention to remove employment in agriculture from the ex-
  2912
  ception and to make it insurable, subject to the modifications contained in the Bill. This series of Amendments carries out that purpose and is purely drafting. Therefore, I shall ask the House to take these three Amendments as one and to give assent to them.
  The next Amendment is in Clause 6, page 4, line 37, after "year," to insert "agricultural"; in line 40, after "days," insert "agricultural"; and in line 42, after " days," insert "agricultural," also in page 5, line 1, after no," insert "agricultural." These also are drafting Amendments and arc designed so that agricultural benefit and no other benefit shall be taken into account. The next Amendment is in Clause 10, page 8, line 21, at the end, to insert:
  "(3) In calculating the amount of any repayment to be made in accordance with the regulations made for the purposes of this section, fractions of a penny shall be disregarded."
  This Amendment is to make it quite clear that we are to follow the customary practice of the industrial scheme. If hon. Members desire to know whether the claims are to be dealt with en bloc or separately, I may say that they will be dealt with separately. There is a further Amendment to Clause 10, in page 8, line 23, leave out "under" and insert "for the purposes of." This is a drafting Amendment. The words will then read:
  "The amount of the repayments made in any year in accordance with regulations made for the purposes of this section shall be deducted"—
  There is a further Amendment, which is in the nature of a new Clause:

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (AGRICULTURE) BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Payment of Agricultural Benefit through Post Office.)
    As soon as may be after the passing of this Act. the Minister shall consult with the

    2913
    Postmaster General and, subject to his concurrence, shall make Regulations under the principal Act so far as it appears to them to be practicable and reasonable or the purpose of enabling persons residing in rural areas to make claims for, and to obtain payment of, agricultural benefit at a Post Office within a reasonable distance of the place where they reside.
    This Amendment was inserted in another place in order that what was the intention of the Government from the beginning could be carried out, namely, that first of all we should have regard to the rural background in the unemployment insurance scheme for agriculture and that, secondly, the agricultural worker should not have to travel too far for the purposes of the Act. I made it clear to my fellow Members in Committee upstairs that that was always our intention. Consequently, there will be branch offices established and there will be appointed rural agents in a large number of villages.
    Mr. OUIBELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear what is meant by the words:
    "as it appears to them to be practicable and reasonable for the purpose of enabling persons residing in rural areas, etc."
    What is meant by "practicable and reasonable" in this respect?
    Mr. BROWN: It is to make it quite clear that we shall carry out our intention of making it as easy as possible for rural workers to obtain the benefits of the Act. After I have consulted with the Postmaster-General we shall take such steps as commend themselves to our discretion in the matter.
    Mr. LAWSON: Have the right hon. Gentleman and his Department had any experience in rural areas of the administration of this matter?
    Mr. BROWN: We have had experience—
    Earl WINTERTON: This is an Amendment of some substance, and I should like to have your ruling on this point. I take it that this desultory discussion will not prevent any hon. Member discussing this Amendment when it is put?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister of Labour is making a general statement as to what he proposes to do, but each Amendment will have to be put separately, and then any hon. Member
    2914
    can discuss the Amendment if he so desires.
    Mr. BROWN: I can assure the noble Lord that this is a point to which we attach great importance; it carries out what is the desire of the Government. It was raised in committee in the form of a new Clause which I could not accept, but we have consulted those specially concerned with the problem and the new Clause embodies the agreement which has been arrived at. There are two main purposes in mind, first, that we shall administer the Bill with the rural background always in mind and, secondly, avoid all possible hardship to people in remote villages where the normal exchange offices are not possible by making the fullest possible use of post offices which may be in the area.
    The next Amendment is purely drafting and is consequential on the Amendments to which I have already referred. The Amendment in the Schedule is to leave out lines 29 to 34, and insert:
    "At the end thereof there shall be inserted the following sub-section:
    '(5) the following persons shall not be insured under this Act in respect of employment in agriculture, that is to say—

    (a) persons not domiciled in the United Kingdom who are ordinarily resident outside the United Kingdom;

    (b) persons who are, to such extent and in such circumstances as may be prescribed, ordinarily dependent for their livelihood on occupations in agriculture that are not insurable employment;

    and if any question arises as to whether any person is by virtue of this sub-section not insured in respect of employment in agriculture, the question shall be decided by the Minister subject to the provisions of section eighty-four of this Act,' "
    The first part deals with migratory labour. It is little more than drafting, but it was pointed out to me that there was some danger in the old form of words that a returned British soldier might find himself excluded from the benefits of the scheme. We do not desire that, and the Amendment is to safeguard the position of a returned British soldier. The position of ordinary migratory labour remains the same. The Amendment also carries out an undertaking which I gave on Report stage in regard to smallholdings to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). The next Amendment also on the Schedule is in the form of a new Sub-section: Line 33, at the end, insert:

    2915
    "Section seventy—At the end thereof there shall be inserted the following sub-section—
    ' (3) For the purpose of determining in relation to persons employed in insurable employment in agriculture the excess which must be payable under the rules of an association in order to enable a special arrangement with the association to be made or continued, sub-section (1) of this section shall have effect as if the amounts mentioned in paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) thereof were reduced by one-half.' ")
    It modifies the rules as to the amount of benefit which an association must pay out of its own funds to enable a special arrangement to be made to pay its members through the association instead of at the local offices. It was raised also in another place. There was, I believe, some misunderstanding about it, for at the moment there are no associations of that kind operating in rural areas, although some may have rural members who get additional benefits through the association. But some importance is attached to making it as easy as possible for additional benefits to be given, and after discussion this also has been agreed as giving effect to the desire of those who raised the point in another place.
    Lords Amendments considered accordingly.
    Lords Amendment: After Clause 12, insert:

    NEW CLAUSE A.—(Payment of agricultural benefit through Post Office.)
    A. As soon as may be after the passing of this Act, the Minister shall consult with the Postmaster-General and, subject to his concurrence, shall make Regulations under the principal Act so far as it appears to them to be practicable and reasonable for the purpose of enabling persons residing in rural areas to make claims for, and to obtain payment of, agricultural benefit at a post office within a reasonable distance of the place where they reside
    Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    10.53 p.m.
    Earl WINTERTON: I want to raise one point on this Amendment. It is a rather important Amendment. I am not quite
    2916
    clear from the Minister's remarks about the genesis of this Amendment. He spoke of some agreement having been reached. We must not discuss proceedings in another place, but I understand that the Amendment was carried against the Government.
    Mr. BROWN: Originally, but that was withdrawn in another place and this is substituted by agreement.
    Earl WINTERTON: That does not alter the fact that the principle was carried against the Government in another place, and in view of the strictures sometimes made against another place I am glad to think that by their action agricultural labourers have been saved hardship and wear and tear in their boot leather. Agricultural labourers are employed for various reasons into which I need not go when physically more infirm than labourers usually employed in industry, and it is very important in the case of these men, who would be the people who are likely to be out of work, that they should be able to obtain unemployment insurance as easily as possible. I think it is not going too far to say that but for this Clause many would not have drawn insurance at all. They would have been nervous about making the journey. But if we are to have the Amendment we may as well make it workable, and I share the doubt of the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) as to the meaning of these words. I share his doubts as to whether the words,
    "so far as it appears to them to be practicable and reasonable,"
    are sufficiently stiff in the circumstances. The word "practicable" is one which is dear to the heart of all civil servants and Ministers. It is constantly being used, and, as any lawyer would tell the Minister, there have been a great many legal decisions on the meaning of that word in many Acts. I notice, moreover, that this procedure is to be set up after the Minister has consulted with the Postmaster-General and after the Postmaster-General has given his concurrence. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give an assurance that he really intends to apply this procedure in all rural districts, and not merely in the more remote districts. I believe it to be essential if the whole scheme is to be to the benefit of agriculture, as we all wish it to be.
    10.56 p.m.
    Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: I would like to put the same point in another way, and I hope the Minister will be able to give a little more information concerning it. I did not quite recognise his description of how this new Clause came here as corresponding exactly with my own reading of the facts. According to the Minister, this was the thing most dear to his heart. I rather gathered, not from what happened in another place, but from what happened here, that it was not so, and that it would not have come as it has now but for the action taken somewhere else. I think all hon. Members would like to know whether or not, in effect, this new Clause is likely to work out in a way which will make these benefits payable in post offices, because under the wording "practicable and reasonable" it may be one thing and it may be another. I know that we cannot tie the Minister and that we cannot ask for too much information in the initial stage, but will this, in effect, mean that the ordinary rural post office in an ordinary district, which is neither too concentrated nor too remote, will pay the benefits to the agricultural labourers, or will it only apply in very remote districts where the workers would otherwise have to go a very long distance to get their benefits? If the Minister can give us more information about this, I am sure the House will be grateful.
    10.58 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I would like to point out to the House that the original Act allowed post offices as well as Employment Exchanges to be used, but as most of the unemployed were industrial workers and were in places where there were Employment Exchanges, the Employment Exchanges were used. As a Member representing a very large agricultural district and perhaps the largest cultivated district in the country, I welcome this concession by the Government. In ray constituency it would be almost impossible for the agricultural labourers to go the long distances they would have to go to the towns where the Employment Exchanges are available.
    10.59 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: An Amendment very much on these lines was put down in my name on the Committee
    2918
    stage of this Bill, and consequently I would like to thank the Minister for making this concession now. He has made slight alterations in the Amendment I originally put down, but I hope he will be able to assure the House that this will not mean that he will whittle down the concessions he has made. I hope he will assure the House that every post office in every parish will be available for thus purpose.
    11.0 p.m.
    Mr. SEXTON: I, too, represent an area which is largely rural, and I welcome this Amendment. I have often wondered whether such facilities could not be made generally available, and I hope that experience in the working of this Measure will influence the Government to extend the practice to all areas. Some of my constituents live 10 miles away from an Employment Exchange, whereas they are only, perhaps, a mile or a mile and a-half away from the rural post office. In the winter time, when the roads are often blocked with snow and the weather very inclement, it will be a real convenience to labourers in that area to be able to make use of the post office.
    11.1 p.m.
    Mr. E. BROWN: With the permission of the House, I should like, in reply to the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland), to say that the intention of the Government was to make the best possible arrangements that could be made for the convenience of the labourers in these districts. The problem of unemployment insurance is not an easy one, and a vast amount of detail is involved in the operation of the ordinary machinery. Therefore it would be impossible and indeed unnecessary to use the village Post Office where there was a branch office of an Employment Exchange. On the other hand there are places where the Post Office would not be the best possible medium for carrying out our intention. What we had in mind was, first that in some places we would appoint local agents. In many cases, with the permission of the Post Office authorities and subject to their willingness to act these would be rural sub-postmasters. In other cases, where there is no branch office of an Employ-

    2919
    ment Exchange and where no Post Office is available, it was our intention to appoint travelling agents to attend on some days in the week so that the agricultural workers would be able to lodge their claims and make their signatures and have their benefit paid by means of postal orders which could be cashed at the nearest Post Office.
    That was the type of machinery which I had in mind. The Amendment to which the Noble Lord referred was not in those terms. It was an Amendment which would make it mandatory for the Minister, in every case, to use the Post Office and that would not merely be unnecessary and very costly but would indeed be impossible. When I am asked whether this will be the normal machinery, I should not be frank with the House if I did not say that, I do not think "normal" to be the right word in this connection. I will say that we do intend this to be a reality. The Ministry has a very large experience, on the industrial side, of the difficulties of administration and, having surveyed the whole field and seeing what the need is, we will, in the letter and the spirit, carry out the terms of this Amendment.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: How are the Ministry officials to let the labourers know when these agents are going to visit particular villages?
    Mr. BROWN: Those who are concerned will get to know.
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
    Remaining Lords' Amendments agreed to.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [30 th March],
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Provincial Legislative Assemblies) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament, subject, however, to the following amendments:—
  In paragraph 2 of Part I, after line 28, on page 2, insert,—
  2920
  '"member" in relation to a constituent body for a commerce and industry, mining or planting constituency, does not include an associate member.'
  In paragraph 6 of Part II, in line 31, on page 8, after 'is,' insert an Indian Christian.'
  In paragraph 9 of Part IX, after line 29, on page 60, insert,—
  '(6) Paragraph 9a of Part IX of the Sixth Schedule to the Act shall apply in relation to the Shillong constituency as it applies in relation to territorial constituencies.'
  In paragraph 14 of Part XI, in line 14, on page 69, leave out 'road and public works,' and insert 'local, land or village.' "—[Mr. Butler.]
  Question again proposed.
  11.7 p.m.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): I beg to move, in line 16, at the end, to add:
  "In paragraph 4 of Part VIII, in line 11, on page 52, after 'ten,' insert 'of Part VIII.'
  In the Ninth Schedule. in line 24, on page 146, leave out 'West,' and insert 'South.'"
  These Amendments have been inserted in another place. They are both drafting Amendments and therefore need a minimum of explanation. The first is a drafting slip. There is a reference to "paragraph ten," and that should refer to "paragraph ten of Part VIII." The second Amendment is a printing mistake which was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles), to whom we are much obliged, which makes clear the different boundaries.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Address to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [30 th March],
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Provincial Legislative Councils) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."—[Mr. Butler.]
  Question put, and agreed to.

  2921
  Address to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [30 th March],
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."—[Mr. Butler.]
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Address to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [30 th March],
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the Government of Burma (House of Representatives) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."—[Mr. Butler.]
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Address to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [30 th March],
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the Government of Burma (Senate Elections) Order, 7936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament, subject, however, to the following amendments:
  In paragraph 6, in line 22 of page 2, leave out 'sub-paragraph' and insert 'sub-paragraphs.'
  In paragraph 6, after line 30 of page 2, insert:
  '(4) In this paragraph "Minister" means a Minister under this Act or the Acts repealed by the Government of India Act, 1935.'"—[Mr. Butler.]
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Address to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935.

    PUBLIC SEWERS (CONTRIBUTIONS BY FRONTAGERS).
    Ordered,
    "That so ninth of the Lords Message [2nd April] as communicates the Resolution, That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to consider the provisions of
    2922
    Sections 62 and 64 of the Romford Urban District Council Act, 1931, with respect to contributions by frontagers to the expenses of the construction of public sewers, and to make recommendations as to the circumstances in which, and the conditions upon which, similar provisions should be allowed in future Bills, be now considered."—[Sir G. Penny.]
    Lords Message considered accordingly.
    Resolved,
    "That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution."—[Sir G. Penny.]
    Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

    PUBLIC HEALTH BILL [Lords].
    Ordered,
    "That the Lords Message (3rd April) communicating the Resolution, That it is desirable that the Public Health Bill [Lords] be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, be now considered."—[Sir G. Penny.]
    Lords Message considered accordingly.
    Resolved,
    "That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution."—[Sir G. Penny.]
    Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

  DERELICT BUILDINGS AND SLAG HEAPS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain, Margesson.]
  11.10 p.m.
  Mr. TINKER: I want to bring forward a question on which I did not get satisfaction when I raised it the other day. It refers to the position of localities which have in their areas derelict buildings, slag heaps, pit heaps, and low-lying land covered with water, which are eyesores to the community. I want to know what powers the Ministry of Health has to remove them. This matter is causing a great deal of controversy all over the country, particularly in Lancashire. A body calling itself the Lancashire Industrial Development Council has been formed. It is composed of gentlemen who are attempting to get some scheme into operation by which these derelict heaps can be dealt with. They have met the Minister of

  2923
  Health, and according to a document issued by this council they have not received much satisfaction. This document sets out the reasons why they want to bring forward this scheme. They say that it has been ascertained, for instance,
  "that a local authority has no powers to deal with what is by no means uncommon in Lancashire—an old derelict mill on a main street, full of broken windows, falling to pieces visibly, hut from its situation, impossible to deal with as a danger to the public."
  The next paragraph says:
  "Consideration has also been given to ways and means of securing improvements in road frontages, removal of pit banks and flashes, chemical waste heaps, smoke nuisances and similar local eyesores."
  The question which I put to the Minister of Health as a supplementary was as to the position of local authorities if they tackle this question and attempt, for instance, to put right low-lying land that is covered with water, or to remove these pit-heaps and slag-heaps and put the land into habitable order, or in a condition that will enable it to grow produce. Would that land afterwards belong to the owner of the property? Would he be able to come along and say, "You never had a right to do that; I would have dealt with it some time or other, but you have now improved it and put it right, and I am going to claim it back." What is the position of local authorities in that respect? Can they lay claim to the land if they improve it, and can they claim financial assistance from the Ministry of Health in so doing?
  What is the real position of local authorities in this matter? If it is such that they cannot make these improvements, pressure will be brought on the Government to give further powers to local authorities. I was told by the Minister that another place was dealing with this by way of some Measure. I have looked it up, but it does not help me very much, and, further, it is not yet in operation, and I am anxious to know what can be done at the present time. Every hon. Member from an industrial area will bear witness to the truth of what I have said. Everyone sees the ravages of uncontrolled industrialism in past times, and wants to know what can be done to improve those localities. After all, it
  2924
  is our country. Where there is a blot on the landscape it ought to be removed. We want powers given to local authorities to put things in order, and I believe that local authorities are progressive enough to do so. I have been reading recently a book written by a man named Priestley called "English Journey."
  Without wishing to advertise it I would advise hon. Members to read it, because it is a good book. He has been in many parts of the country and this is what he says of Lancashire:
  "We went through to Bolton. Between Manchester and Bolton the ugliness is so complete that it is almost exhilarating. It challenges you to live there. That is probably the secret of the Lancashire working folk. They have accepted that challenge. They are on active service and so, like the front line troops, they make a lot of little jokes and sing comie songs. There used to be a grim Lancashire adage, 'Where there's muck there's money,' but now, when there is not much money, there is still a lot of muck."
  That is typical of many Lancashire industrial areas. The term "muck" is quite appropriate. All the money has gone, the residue is not pleasant. But it is our place, and a place we like, and it is to our interest to try to improve it and make it habitable if possible. If the localities are made attractive there will be a likelihood of getting works to come there, and it is the duty of the Government to give a lead to the localities in any action they may wish to take.
  11.17 p.m.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): I sympathise with the difficulty of the hon. Member who has raised this question, because it is rather a complicated one and it is almost impossible to explain the position by question and answer. I will do my best to state the position as I think it is. It will be easier if one divides the question into subheads. If the purpose of the local authority is to prevent danger from derelict buildings there are adequate powers under the Public Health Acts for that authority to deal with the matter. As the hon. Member has pointed out, those powers to deal with dangerous buildings are being extended under a Public Health Bill which was introduced in another place, and which in Clause 57 proposes to give power to local authori-

  2925
  ties to apply to magistrates for an order requiring the owner to repair or demolish a building which, owing to its ruinous or dilapidated condition, is a source of annoyance to neighbouring householders or is seriously detrimental to the amenities of the neighbourhood, and to clear the site, and the local authority will be given power to act in default should that order not be carried out.
  The next point is that if it is the purpose of the local authority to abate a nuisance, again that authority has ample power under the various Public Health Acts. My hon. Friend has been very active in dealing with that aspect of these matters.
  I have dealt with dangerous buildings and disfigurements. What the local authorities have no powers at present to do is to acquire sites for industrial purposes. Parliament has always been chary of giving powers to local authorities to put the ratepayers' money at risk in developing sites which would normally be developed by ordinary commercial undertakings. The hon. Member will appreciate the obvious reasons for the position that Parliament has always taken up. There are special exceptions, into which I need not go. The hon. Member will recall that there are certain special areas, notably South Shields, Tynemouth and Gateshead, in which, by way of experiment, schemes are going on, and those sites may ultimately be used for industrial purposes.
  Lastly, the question arises, under what conditions a local authority can deal with ugly features, low-lying, waterlogged areas, and derelict slag heaps which do not naturally constitute an active nuisance. I think the position is that a local authority can seek to acquire such an area if it is within their statutory
  2926
  purpose. They can acquire a derelict area for housing; or, if it adjoins their area, they can, under a recent Act, include it in a large re-development area, or acquire it for allotment purposes or for the provision of a recreation ground.
  The hon. Member has asked me what happens in respect of the ownership of land where a local authority have stepped in and made an improvement. The answer is, of course, that the local authority cannot step in and try to improve the land unless it is within their statutory powers to do so, and they certainly cannot do it without the consent of the owners. If land, but for these improvements, would have been practically valueless, the local authority would negotiate with the owner. Suppose it were for the purpose of providing a recreation ground in an area where there is no recreation ground. The local authority would say: "This land is valueless." In that case the local authority would take a long lease or acquire the freehold, and, having acquired the site, they would carry on under their statutory powers.
  Mr. TINKER: If the owners were not prepared to sell at a nominal price, is there any power to force them?
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Yes, there are compulsory powers of acquisition for certain statutory purposes, and the valuation would be fixed in the ordinary way. I think that covers the position of the local authorities. I hope I have done something to clarify the position for the hon. Member, who did quite rightly in raising this important matter.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five Minutes after Eleven o'clock.

  ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.
  ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.
  CZECHOSLOVAKIA (ANTISANCTIONS PROPAGANDA).
  CZECHOSLOVAKIA (ANTISANCTIONS PROPAGANDA).
  POLAND (MINORITIES TREATY).
  POLAND (MINORITIES TREATY).
DEFENCE.
  CO-ORDINATION MINISTER'S STAFF.
  CO-ORDINATION MINISTER'S STAFF.
  EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.
  EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.
  EXPENDITURE (ACCOUNTANCY).
  EXPENDITURE (ACCOUNTANCY).
  AEROPLANES (OUTPUT).
  AEROPLANES (OUTPUT).
  ARMED FORCES (NATURALISED BRITISH SUBJECTS).
  ARMED FORCES (NATURALISED BRITISH SUBJECTS).
  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
  ECCLESIASTICAL DISCIPLINE (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  ECCLESIASTICAL DISCIPLINE (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  DENMARK (TRADE NEGOTIATIONS).
  DENMARK (TRADE NEGOTIATIONS).
  RUMANIA (BRITISH CREDITORS).
  RUMANIA (BRITISH CREDITORS).
COAL INDUSTRY.
  MINERS' HOURS (OVERTIME).
  MINERS' HOURS (OVERTIME).
  SAFETY IN MINES.
  SAFETY IN MINES.
  HYDROCARBON OILS PRODUCTION.
  HYDROCARBON OILS PRODUCTION.
  HOUSING, COWDENBEATH.
  HOUSING, COWDENBEATH.
  IMPERIAL CONFERENCE (OTTAWA AGREEMENTS).
  IMPERIAL CONFERENCE (OTTAWA AGREEMENTS).
  SOUTHERN RHODESIA.
  SOUTHERN RHODESIA.
  BECHUANALAND.
  BECHUANALAND.
  UGANDA (COTTON CROP).
  UGANDA (COTTON CROP).
  PALESTINE (CONSTITUTION).
  PALESTINE (CONSTITUTION).
  MERCANTILE MARINE (UNEMPLOYED FIREMEN).
  MERCANTILE MARINE (UNEMPLOYED FIREMEN).
  MANUAL WORKERS (HOLIDAYS WITH PAY).
  MANUAL WORKERS (HOLIDAYS WITH PAY).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (ABINGDON AERODROME).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (ABINGDON AERODROME).
TRANSPORT.
  MOTOR VEHICLES, SPEED LIMIT (PROSECUTIONS).
  MOTOR VEHICLES, SPEED LIMIT (PROSECUTIONS).
  ROAD ACCIDENT, GRENDON.
  ROAD ACCIDENT, GRENDON.
  POLICE PATROL SERVICE.
  POLICE PATROL SERVICE.
  MOTOR RALLIES.
  MOTOR RALLIES.
  LENNOXTOWN-FINTRY BRIDGE, STIRLINGSHIRE.
  LENNOXTOWN-FINTRY BRIDGE, STIRLINGSHIRE.
  NEW ROAD, STOCKPORT.
  NEW ROAD, STOCKPORT.
  RAILWAY PASSENGER FARES (LEGAL LIABILITY).
  RAILWAY PASSENGER FARES (LEGAL LIABILITY).
  ROAD-MAKING, SCOTPISH HIGHLANDS (LABOUR).
  ROAD-MAKING, SCOTPISH HIGHLANDS (LABOUR).
  TOWY BRIDGE, CARMARTHEN.
  TOWY BRIDGE, CARMARTHEN.
  IRISH SAILORS' AND SOLDIERS' LAND TRUST.
  IRISH SAILORS' AND SOLDIERS' LAND TRUST.
  TERRITORIAL ARMY (PRISON OFFICERS).
  TERRITORIAL ARMY (PRISON OFFICERS).
  POLICE PENSIONS.
  POLICE PENSIONS.
  JUVENILE CRIME.
  JUVENILE CRIME.
  AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  OXFORD PRISON (ESCAPE).
  OXFORD PRISON (ESCAPE).
  DUDLEY QUART ER SESSIONS CONVICTION.
  DUDLEY QUART ER SESSIONS CONVICTION.
  AFFORESTATION, DARTMOOR.
  AFFORESTATION, DARTMOOR.
  INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL.
  INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL.
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (PROVINCIAL LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES) ORDER, 1936.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): My Lords. I beg to move that an Humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that an Order be made in the form of the draft approved, with Amendments, by the House yesterday.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that an Order be made in the form of the draft approved, with Amendments, by the House yesterday.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (PROVINCIAL LEGISLATIVE, COUNCILS) ORDER, 1936.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I beg to move that an Humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that an Order be made in the form of the draft approved by the House yesterday.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that an Order be made in the form of the draft approved by the House yesterday.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (SCHEDULED CASTES) ORDER, 1936.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I beg to move that an Humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that an Order be made in the form of the draft approved by the House yesterday.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that an Order be made in the form of the draft approved by the House yesterday.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

GOVERNMENT OF BURMA (HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES) ORDER, 1936.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I beg to move that an Humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that an Order be made in the form of the draft approved by the House yesterday.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that an Order be made in the form of the draft approved by the House yesterday.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

GOVERNMENT OF BURMA (SENATE ELECTIONS) ORDER, 1936.
THE MARQUESS OK ZETLAND: My Lords, I beg to move that an Humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that an Order be made in the form of the draft approved, with Amendments, by the House yesterday.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that an Order be made in the form of the draft approved, with Amendments, by the House yesterday.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

EUROPEAN SITUATION.
LORD SNELL LORD SNELL rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are able to make any statement on the present position in Europe; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope the. House will believe me when I say that the Question which is down in my name on the Order Paper was not placed there
508
either to embarrass His Majesty's Government or to make it more difficult for those charged with the highly important and difficult business of negotiation at the present time. The Labour Party has, I think, throughout this crisis refrained from exploiting the situation for Party purposes, and my criticisms to-day, such as they may be, will recognise the difficulties and even the dangers of the present position. The intention of the Question was to afford to His Majesty's Government the opportunity, if they so desired, to make any appropriate and helpful statement upon the position that they seem to think right, and also to try-to impress upon the Government the great anxiety felt by large sections of the country at the drift of affairs in our foreign relations.
Those manifold difficulties will be spoken to from many points of view this afternoon. I can perhaps best assist your Lordships' House if I try to present as quickly as I can what I conceive to be the view-point of the Labour Party, and, in doing so, I venture to remind your Lordships that whatever its position in your Lordships' House may be, its position in the country is such as to entitle its views to be received with serious consideration and with politeness. I very much regret that unusual preoccupation has prevented me from informing the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, of a few of the main points to which I desire to ask his attention; but my duty will be to try to present in large the problem as I see it, and I do not ask for specific answers to-day to the questions that I put to him. I should like to know whether the Government still hold to the proposal to police the Western frontiers of Germany with a combination of British and Italian troops. I should like also to know whether Germany is to be allowed without protest to build fortifications upon her Western frontiers so that she could have undisturbed opportunity to concentrate upon her Eastern frontiers. I should also hope that the noble Viscount might be able to tell us something about what is likely to happen in regard to French fortifications, not now but in ten or twenty years time. And I should like also to ask for more definite information as to the future of the mandated territories, arising out of remarks made a few days ago by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Then I should also

509
like very much to ask whether Italy is to be allowed to continue to spread Christian civilisation in Africa in the manner in which she is now performing it. What is the policy of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in regard to the Committee of Thirteen which, I think, is meeting to-day? I should like also to ask whether the Government have received, and if so, have they come to any conclusion upon, the French proposals that are said to be imminent?
First of all I would like to say a few words upon the question of Italy and Abyssinia. I think that your Lordships' House has the right to ask for precise information as to what it is proposed shall be done in the present circumstances, and whether His Majesty's Government intend that the League of Nations shall be finally and completely humiliated and disgraced. It is a personal opinion, but I cannot help feeling that His Majesty's Government have some responsibility for the blinded and tortured men in Abyssinia who are now groping their way to the grave. I cannot help feeling that, if His Majesty's Government at an earlier period had been more definite in their position the war itself might have been prevented. As I have seen it, the Government have prevaricated, pleaded and admonished; they have protested their own virtue, and have, like the Pharisee, stood aside and thanked God they were not as other people. I think if I were in Kenya or Tanganyika, or elsewhere in Africa, I should scarcely like to look a black man in the face. I feel also that the one man who comes out of this horrible situation with any kind of credit is the Emperor of Abyssinia himself. I express my own great personal sorrow that the glorious land of Cavour and Mazzini should have its name stained with these infamous practices.
Our Government may say that they have done all that they could do and that the other fellows in the League are responsible. However that may be, of one thing I am quite certain, that if a Labour Government had been in their position, if they had been only half as bad as I think the National Government have been, they would have been torn to pieces by the self-denying scribes of Fleet Street or by the Primrose League, and we should even have had a run on
510
the banks! It is difficult for politicians in the position of the National Government, and even of your Lordships on the other side of the House, to ask for restrained criticism, because when we have responsibility for the nation's affairs the forbearance of members of His Majesty's Government and your Lordships generally is about like the forbearance that a pack of hungry wolves have when they surround a wounded buffalo.
Now I would like to say something in regard to the position of Germany. What attitude do the Government propose to take in regard to the German peace proposals? In my judgment no sort of antipathy that may exist towards the German system should prevent us from exploiting to the utmost those proposals, if they are likely to serve the end of peace. We in this country have nothing whatever to do with the internal politics of Germany, with the character and quality of her leaders. That is the business of the German people. If they prefer subservience to freedom, that is their concern, and if the land that bred Goethe and Kant feels able to prostrate itself before those who now lead it, that is also their business; but my own opinion, for what it is worth, is that in the proportion to which they are content to do so they will be judged by future generations of an awakened German people.
The Party for which I have the honour to speak has never been unfriendly to the German people, and is not now. It never believed that Germany alone was responsible for the War. It never supported the campaign of patriotic slander that was directed against her. It tried to help her in getting readjustments in the Versailles Treaty. It protested against the invasion of the Ruhr and the occupation of the Rhine. It wants Germany to have full and complete equality with other nations. But Germany must remember the difficulty that the world is in; that her word is no longer respected in the old sense; and that to-day, when Germany is making a kind of appeal for a new start, she lectures the nations in much the same tone that is habitually used by His Majesty's Government, and even by your Lordships opposite, when you are addressing the Labour Party.
At Ludwigshaven the other day Herr Hitler said that "what he had in mind

511
was a permanent settlement of the relations between the European peoples, in the same manner as he had established order in his own country." I hope that Herr Hitler will not be hurt if I say that his methods, while accepted in his own country, would be entirely unacceptable in ours. We should like to know more, if the Government can tell us, about the attitude of Germany towards Russia. I cannot help feeling that the strength and the integrity of Russia may be of some interest to us in the years to come, especially with the developments in the Far East, and I also feel that there is nothing in the cultural relationships between nations more characteristically clumsy and dangerous and short-sighted than the conspiracy of hatred and slander which has gone on in this country against that great people. The internal affairs of Russia, like those of Germany or any other land, are matters for her own people, and if they are satisfied with it that is their business. It is a system that would not suit us. But my responsibility is not to deal with Russian nor with German leaders; my responsibility is very carefully, and with some anxiety, to watch our own as best I may. The Labour Party will be no party to any arrangement which leaves Germany free and determined to attack Russia if she desires to do so.
What then ought to be our outlook in these circumstances? I am trying to speak with moderation and with a full sense that even the least important of us has a responsibility to promote peace and to try to appease hatred and remove misunderstanding. My own feeling is that we should aim at producing peace by mutual security if we can achieve it; not peace by combinations and balances of power, for they are precarious and always uncertain. If what I want should involve a reorganisation of the League of Nations itself, then we must face that; but I hold that no one is entitled to say that the League has failed altogether. Nor had anyone any right to imagine that it would perfectly perform its task. How could it, created as it was in such circumstances and having suddenly to meet all the difficulties of a world in chaos? What human institution is perfect? Everything changes, and since the League was
512
established circumstances have changed, and some change in its structure and purpose may be required. We are told by the physicists that the universe itself is not static but is in process of development, and so on. Sometimes, for my comfort, I adapt the lines of a New England poet that I revere, and say:
" The League, the League is all we have
For our sure possessing.
Like the Patriarch's angel, hold it fast
Till it give its blessing "—
if not in the present form, then in some better form.
I should like also to say a word or two about France. What is the Government's attitude towards France and her policy at the present time? I cannot help feeling that France has an enormous responsibility upon her for the position that now exists in Abyssinia and elsewhere. The English people, as I see them and know them, have grown somewhat tired and alarmed at the shrill implacability of the French Government. France might have set a great historic example if she had led the way after the War in disarmament, if she had refrained from placing black troops on German territory, if she had not invaded the Ruhr. If she had not done these things, what a different Europe there would have been! But when making these judgments we have to make allowances for the experiences of France. Talk to any Frenchman you like, and within five minutes he says: "Yes, but you have not been invaded! "And, my Lords, we have not. In judging France, let us try to imagine what our own feelings would be if twice within my lifetime we had been invaded and our towns and villages had been destroyed. If we try to do that, we may understand something of what France feels.
When one considers what Hitler's written policy was—the destruction of France; a position which he tries as a politician to hide—one can sympathise with French suspicions in the matter. I only desire in this connection, before I close, to say that if our lot is bound up with France for good or for evil, if British lives are the price of her misfortunes and her mistakes, we may have the right to require of her that she should make her contribution at the present time by exploring in the spirit of

513
give-and-take and good will the proposals that have now been made. I will refrain from going into the question of Staff consultations, which I understand are to take place. I can only say for my Party that we distrust them because we do not know what is implied in them or how far they are intended to go. In conclusion, my Lords, I would venture to express my own personal faith, not in armaments, not in defensive and precarious alliances, but in the building-up, step by step, of a League of Peace between the nations. I hope that before we have separated to-day the Government may be able to give us some hope and some encouragement that this is being done.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, I would ask your permission to intervene for a few moments in this debate at this stage. In doing so I shall do my best to answer such of the questions of the noble Lord as are in my power to answer, and my noble friend Lord Stanhope will be prepared to answer any other points that any of your Lordships may raise in the course of the debate which will follow. This is the first occasion on which this House has had the opportunity of a debate directly addressed to the examination of the matters that have been in all our thoughts during the last month. I should be the first to acknowledge—as, indeed, was done in another place—the great restraint and consideration, arising out of public spirit, that have been shown not only to His Majesty's Government but also to the welfare of public affairs by the representatives of the Opposition, and indeed by all sections in this country. The noble Lord, I am sure, will also be the first to recognise that anyone in my position invited to speak on rather difficult and delicate subjects which are not immediately within his own department must be excused if he approaches them with a certain measure of care and prudence in order, if possible, to escape the charge of making a difficult situation more difficult than it is in any case bound to be.
The noble Lord began by asking me certain specific questions, some of which, indeed, fall into the natural structure of what I have it in mind to say and to which, perhaps, I might give the answers in that form. But before I come to them
514
I think I may say a word or two about one matter that he raised, which lies perhaps a little outside the actual terms of the Question on the Paper but which concerns affairs in Europe: the present position of affairs in Abyssinia. With regard to the general facts of the state of the machinery at Geneva, I do not know that I have anything to add to what was said by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, the day before yesterday in another place, about the actual state of the remit to the Committee of Thirteen and to the action that the Committee of Thirteen had up to the date when he spoke taken on it. As the noble Lord will be aware the Committee of Thirteen is meeting to-day in Geneva, when I have no doubt my right honourable friend will put before them the general considerations to which he gave expression in another place two days ago.
May I remind the noble Lord of one sentence in the speech which my right honourable friend there made? After reminding the House of Commons of the passage of events since last February, he went on to say that in March he made it clear on behalf of His Majesty's Government that on the whole they were of opinion that an oil embargo should be imposed, and at that point he reminded his hearers that a proposal was made that one further opportunity should be afforded for conciliation before the embargo was put on. He went on to say:
" Conciliation was accepted by both parties, but in the interval since the acceptance of that conciliation the Italian Government have intensified their aggression."
Then I would call attention to these words of the Foreign Secretary:
" In the view of His Majesty's Government it would be intolerable that we should at Geneva merely speak of conciliation while war continued. There must be real conciliation, that is to say, conciliation which results in a given period in a cessation of hostilities, otherwise the Committee of Eighteen would have to face its task once again. The position of His Majesty's Government remains exactly the same as it has been throughout the dispute. We are prepared to take part with others in economic and financial measures, if others accept them and carry them out in the same spirit and the same measure."
This discussion, as I say, is proceeding to-day at Geneva, and I am not in a position to add anything to what is before

515
the noble Lord or indeed before anybody else at this stage in regard to it.
I must, however, say something about one or two comments of the noble Lord in his speech with which I am bound to differ. He asked whether His Majesty's Government were prepared to allow the League, if I remember his words aright, to be completely disgraced or completely humiliated, or something to that effect. At the end of his spech, however, he said he was greatly gratified to feel that the League had not in fact failed and he condemned the words of those who would argue that the League had failed. That is entirely my view. Where perhaps, when he began to speak, I might have felt that I differed from him was in feeling, as I do, that he made insufficient allowance for the fact that both the League and the conditions in which it has had to function have been essentially different from the League and the conditions in which its fashioners made it and thought it would function. I do not develop that at any length because it will be present to the minds of all your Lordships. Membership of the League is obviously different, the conception of its duties is different and the state of the world in which it has to function is essentially different from that in which those who made it looked forward to its functioning. And I should say that a League that is 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. representative cannot be expected to be 100 per cent. effective. It is unjust to the League to expect that it would be so. When the noble Lord went on to say that in his judgment His Majesty's Government must accept responsibility for tortured Abyssinia—
LORD SNELL: I said that they might have to share in the responsibility, not take the whole of the responsibility: I did not suggest that.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I understood the noble Lord to say that in his view the Government must accept responsibility.
LORD SNELL: Share.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: Yes, share, but accept responsibility for tortured Abyssinia. I am not prepared in that form to admit responsibility at all. What does the noble Lord mean? It maybe true to-day, and it may have always have been true, that the only way of
516
preventing this war and the only way of stopping it would have been to have taken action that involved the direct risk of bringing this country into war with Italy. May I ask the noble Lord and his friends directly, would they have been prepared to throw this country into war with Italy in order to stop war between Italy and Abyssinia? Unless he is prepared to say that, and unless he would have been prepared in office to make that his policy, then the charge, against His Majesty's Government of not having done all they could within the limits open to them to prevent and to stop this war, in my humble judgment, does not lie. Certainly speaking for ourselves that was never our policy, nor if it had been our policy should we have been able to secure the general assent of the League of Nations Members in support of it. I am perfectly content to place the record of His Majesty's Government, given the instrument at their disposal, before the judgment of any impartial men or any impartial critics, and challenge them to say at any given point where and in what direction His Majesty's Government might, with general support and with general collective assent, have done more than they have done to stop a state of affairs for which I admit I have as warm and keen a sense of condemnation as any noble Lord sitting opposite. To say that we merely protested our virtue and then stood aside is, with all respect to the noble Lord, rather to be accounted one of his flights of imagination than one of his arguments of reason.
I turn now to the main matter to which the noble Lord directed our attention and I find great identity of purpose in everything that was contained in his speech with that which I find in my own mind. We both have, we all have, the common purpose of trying to the best of our ability to contribute to European peace. It has been frequently said that peace is the greatest British interest. Of course it is far more than that. It is the only interest of the whole world that is worth striving for, because in the interests of peace nearly everything else is contained and by it sub-served. The promotion of peace has been the constant end to which all the efforts of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and His Majesty's Government have been continuously

517
directed. And I do not find in the speech of the noble Lord, although he asked questions that I shall seek to answer, any great difference as to the method by which we have sought to ensure that end.
What do we, in fact, when we speak of peace, mean by it? It is sometimes spoken of as if it meant merely abstention from open warfare, but I think peace that was merely that would deserve the name of peace as little as a system of morality would be entitled to claim our loyalty that aimed no higher than the avoidance of open ill-doing—and I think it would be as insecure. Indeed, I believe that one of the contributory causes of 1914 was perhaps the fact that our policy of that day was not sufficiently positive. The point that I wish to make to your Lordships is that peace is no mere negative thing, because in this great struggle as I see it—the great struggle of the world and of human nature—the forces of good that make for peace and the forces of evil that make, for war are perpetually ranged against each other. In that warfare there is, and there can be, no armistice and no neutrality. If we want peace we have to work always for the understanding which may make possible the adjustment of differences, and also may give vitality to any terms of settlement. And I venture to think that so long as the path is blocked by fears and by resentments and by mistrust progress is at the best uncertain and at the worst impossible.
Now, the world to-day is standing at the cross-roads, and a hundred years hence, if the world survives, we shall all be judged by the direction that we now take; for upon the choice that we take at the cross-roads depends much more than the issue of our immediate difficulties, and the price of wrong judgment will be a very high one. Though the crossroads have long been in sight it is, I think, true to say that the world has been brought right up to them by the recent action of Germany and by the inevitable reactions from it. The history of those events is of course fresh in our minds, and I do not recapitulate it. It is quite undeniable that the method which was chosen by Germany to force her claims upon the world's attention has dealt a wounding and very far-reaching blow at all the foundations on which the international
518
order has to be reared. Germany has justified her action on the plea of past grievances, and there will be, no doubt, in sympathy with the noble Lord, a general desire that what I may call this era of grievances should be closed. But if and when that can be done and has been done, we must, I think, be sure that in future, as there will be no justification so there will be no intention in any circumstances to resort to that method again; and there will be no hope whatsoever of a settlement unless of that we can be positively and absolutely sure.
I need not remind your Lordships that confidence in the observance of international undertakings is as vital to the life of nations as confidence in the observance of contracts is to the conduct of their business and economic life. Therefore, the first thing that my right honourable friend had to do was to re-establish the foundations before he or anyone else could set to work at building the new house which we all desire to see. I have seen it suggested that the fact that my right honourable friend laid great stress upon the importance of what he has often called this interim period implied that he was unduly obsessed by the technical spirit, and was not sufficient alive to the greater project of the building of permanent peace. But that of course is quite untrue, because the due liquidation of this interim period was the essential condition of getting on to the permanent work which we all desire to see undertaken. And it was therefore for that reason that the efforts of His Majesty's Government infallibly fell into two compartments, first of all, of course, the attempt to devise conditions for the period intervening before the negotiations on larger issues could be undertaken; and, in the second place, the direct preparation for the time when, if the earlier difficulties could be overcome, the larger work should be taken in hand.
It was with that double object that the Locarno Powers worked some three weeks ago. It was evident that unless by some means some measure of confidence could be re-created in the period antecedent to that when it was hoped to reach discussions on the main questions, there was no chance of establishing a sufficient background of confidence to permit any hope of the larger negotiations being brought to a successful issue,

519
even if it were possible ever to get them begun. It is at that point that we feel that the German Government might have given us greater help. We have made it quite plain—and this answers one of the questions of the noble Lord—that our proposals of March 19, whatever their merits or demerits, were not of the nature of an ultimatum. But we had also, I think, the correlative right to expect that if the German Government were unable to accept any or all of the proposals we made, they would have made alternative proposals of equivalent value for the purpose to which ours had been directed. As the noble Lord knows, my right honourable friend will be holding discussions in which I shall also be associated, with representatives of the Locarno Powers during the next day or two, when one or two of the other matters that he mentioned will no doubt come under review, and therefore he will perhaps excuse me from saying more at this stage about them than that. But the fact that the German Government have been unable to make such a contribution as we had asked from them to this interim stage seemed to His Majesty's Government to reinforce the obligations that they had accepted in the earlier conversations to do what they could to reassure their co-signatories of Locarno—France and Belgium.
I was very glad to hear what the noble Lord said at the end of his speech when he invited us to place ourselves in the position of those countries. Those countries had lost, and had lost literally in a night, a security to which they attached great importance, and they had lost it in a way that seemed to them, as to us, to strike at the root of international stability. Therefore, quite apart from the fact that we were bound by our signature to very precise obligations under the very Treaty which Germany had unilaterally denounced, your Lordships may take it as quite certain that it was abundantly plain to those who were engaged in these negotiations of three weeks ago that those countries could only be induced to take their just share in the task of reconstruction if, meanwhile, they could be reassured as to their own security. The Staff conversations, of which the noble Lord spoke with some anxiety, and the letter that my right honourable friend sent a week or so ago to France and Belgium
520
were the contribution of His Majesty's Government to the creation of conditions which might make negotiations possible—in my judgment, as I have said, a contribution that it was quite essential to make.
I must say a word or two upon the Staff conversations. It is not necessary to emphasise again that these Staff conversations—contemplated, your Lordships will remember, under paragraph III of the White Paper—are concerned only with the discharge of our existing obligations in the event, which we hope will not occur, of unprovoked aggression. My right honourable friend gave the further assurance in the House of Commons on April 3, to Mr. Lloyd George, that
" it is not contemplated to put any of these military plans into operation in the unfortunate event of the failure of these negotiations unless "—
I would ask noble Lords to mark these words—
" there is an unprovoked attack by Germany on Belgian or French soil—an actual invasion of either France or Belgium."
Nor will your Lordships have failed to observe the precise conditions my right honourable friend attached to these conversations in his letter to the Ambassadors on April 1—namely, that
" this contact between the General Staffs cannot give rise, in respect of either Government, to any political undertaking, nor to any obligation regarding the organisation of national defence."
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: May I ask a quesion on that point? As I understand my noble friend, this obligation ceases unless there is unprovoked aggression on the soil or frontiers of France or Belgium. Would I be right in interpreting that to mean that the casus fœderis cannot arise as the result of any treaties which France may have with other Powers to which we are not a party?
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I have heard the noble Marquess ask that question before in the House, and therefore I have come prepared with the answer, but it falls in a little bit later and, if I may, I shall answer it in my own form. It is of the first importance. In view of these explicit statements, I am satisfied—and I hope your Lordships will be satisfied—that no danger can rightly be held to attach to them of involving this country

521
in unspecified commitments. They are not the assumption of new obligations. They are only an examination of the technical steps that would be necessary to fulfil obligations by which we are already bound, and it is perhaps worth while, though I should think hardly necessary, to remind your Lordships that these obligations correspond exactly with the vital interests of this country, recognised as such for many centuries. There was, as was said in another place, nothing new in Locarno, and there is nothing new about its maintenance. Moreover, if the conditions postulated in the letter in the White Paper ever came to prevail, the condition of our assistance to France and Belgium against unprovoked aggression, for which this Staff contact may be continued, would for the first time—your Lordships will mark this—be on the basis of reciprocity. I can imagine that when no conditions are laid down as those in which one country would undertake to help another, it might be possible that Staff conversations might give rise to expectations that the event might prove unfounded, but that, I suggest, cannot arise when both the obligations and the means of discharging them have been the subject of exact definition.
With all respect for Mr. Lloyd George, I cannot myself see that there is any foundation at all for suggesting that the existence of such carefully circumscribed obligations or contacts would be likely of themselves, in any degree whatever, to make war more probable. The noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, has often talked in this connection about the time table beginning to operate; about the action of one country leading by mechanical consequence to counter-action by another, until the inevitable drift is set up towards that steep slope at the foot of which lies war. I believe he would agree that that against which he has warned the country is the result of something quite different—namely, the division of Europe into opposing blocks of nations bound to one another by close alliances; and no one—the noble Lord opposite and I are here in complete agreement—could feel more strongly than I do that against any such issue from our present anxieties all our statesmanship must be directed. I do not think that Europe can ever hope to win peace by a return to the pre-War system of alliances; but I do think,
522
definitely, that in any attempt to organise collective security for an area about which we feel able to anticipate with reasonable assurance the judgment of our fellow-countrymen, it is a real guarantee of peace that it should be plainly stated in advance that this country would resist with all the means at its disposal any wanton disturbance of the peace.
I fully share the sense that the noble Marquess has in his mind of the importance of precision, and here I come to the point on which he interrupted me just now. "Unprovoked aggression," under Locarno and under these Papers, means what it says. It does not mean, if I may repeat the words that my right honourable friend used in another place:
" a situation when, owing to obligations elsewhere, our neighbours may become involved in conflict and may call for help in a quarrel that is not ours."
I think that is a specific statement which answers the point of the noble Marquess. These undertakings, therefore—and this is the point I wish to leave in your Lordships' minds—have no wider scope than the original obligations deriving from the Treaty of Locarno which they are designed to implement.
That brings me to say something about another matter that is in the minds of many thoughtful people, and that is about the relation of Locarno, and what flows from it, to the wider instrument of the Covenant of the League, subject to which Locarno was, of course, drawn. It has been a criticism of the Locarno Treaty—as of any other limited and specific undertakings—that it pro tanto weakened the prestige and position of the Covenant. The argument is plain enough. If the Covenant was what it has pretended to be, there is really no need for these other reinsurances which are only taken out because you do not feel certain on the day that the Covenant will be able to meet the claim. That is the broad argument in colloquial language, and I would readily admit that argumentatively I think the position is a strong one and can be sustained; but, as so often happens with human affairs, though the argument is excellent I am convinced the truth lies on the other side. I believe that these regional and specific guarantees, so far from weakening, supplement and reinforce the Covenant and help it with its

523
main job which, I would like some of our warmongers constantly to remember, is peace.
And that I think for two reasons. First of all, that to which I alluded at the outset of my remarks, because of the difference between the original conception and the actual conditions in working practice of the Covenant to-day; and, secondly, because it is essential in these matters, however much we may seek to set our gaze on the stars, that we should be realists and keep our feet on firm ground. I believe that British public opinion is prepared to accept particular and antecedent obligations to support France and Belgium against unprovoked aggression, firstly, because it thinks, and thinks rightly in my judgment, that this is a real contribution to the steadying of the European situation; and, secondly, because it feels by instinct that as it has always acted for generations so, given the compelling circumstances, it would infallibly act again.
But this attitude—and here I come to another question that the noble Lord, I think, asked me—should not be interpreted to mean that because we have assumed more specific obligations in the West which we were not prepared to repeat for the East of Europe, therefore we disinterested ourselves from all events and issues arising outside what perhaps I may call the Locarno area. In my view such an attitude would be quite impossible, partly because peace is, and is likely to be found indeed to be, indivisible; and it is very hard for me to imagine that if the East of Europe were really aflame you could feel any confidence that the flames would not spread across to the West, but also, of course, because of our obligations under the Covenant which are obligations by which we abide and which we intend to implement to the utmost of our power. Therefore it is with the single object of trying to strengthen the forces of real peace, and with some such conception as I have tried to lay before your Lordships as to how it can be achieved, that we shall examine the latest German Note and any proposals coming from any other quarter that may be laid before us.
The plan of which I have seen reports in the newspapers as likely to be submitted by the French Government has not as yet reached the hands of His
524
Majesty's Government and therefore I can say nothing about it. The Secretary of State has already said that, while he regretted that the German Government had been unwilling to give us greater help in the immediate problem, he yet, along with His Majesty's Government, recognised the importance of many of the proposals that the German Government had made and, taken together, they obviously constitute a body of material which must be carefully sifted and examined. I hope that in any communications that His Majesty's Government may have to make to the German Government they will bear in mind the wise counsel of the noble Lord opposite, that they should not allow to creep into them any of the temper that he has noticed with respect to criticisms of the Labour Party in or without this House. On that task of sifting and examining those proposals His Majesty's Government are already engaged in the hope that means may be found by which the Governments with whom His Majesty's Government have been working may be associated with them in their examination. The German proposals range, of course, over ground much wider than the Rhineland or the position of the signatories of the Locarno Treaty. Therefore, I think, on that ground, as indeed on others, there is a good deal to be said for so extending the scope of the preparatory discussions that will be necessary as to make the League of Nations as such a party to them, and I hope that we may secure a general agreement for that course.
Your Lordships, therefore, will not expect me to make detailed observations upon particular points of the German Note to-day, but one or two general observations may not be out of place. In all human relations, and particularly perhaps in such a case as this, when the attempt-is made to compose differences, the vital thing, I suppose, is that all parties should be so inspired by the common purpose that that which they have in common is really deeper and is really stronger than all the things by which they appear to be divided. And where that condition prevails, of course, agreement can be won, and agreement having been won such understanding can be established as is likely to give that agreement the quality of permanence. We are all only too well aware of how gravely and how disastrously the efforts

525
of the last years in Europe to find this true basis of peace have been prejudiced by all the complex of conflicting emotions to which the nations of Europe have been very naturally subject. We all see the problems in different perspective so that it is extremely difficult for one nation to see that which seems plain necessity or simple equity to another, and it is from that that in part comes the failure up to now of reconciling what always must be the two dominant paramount necessities of Europe which must be reconciled if the peace of Europe is to be any more than an uneasy and insecure neutrality, and those two paramount necessities are the equality of Germany and the security of European States.
I would hope, for example, that to-day France and Belgium would be not less willing than ourselves to give full recognition to the rightful claims of Germany in the sphere of equality, provided that they can be satisfied that the German Government will in fact recognise the duties towards all Europe that such equal rights entail. In other words, if I may use perfectly plain and frank speech, Europe needs to be satisfied that the peace project of Herr Hitler is sincerely meant and that the fact that certain countries find no specific mention in it does not imply that they have no place in the peace vision of the German Chancellor. No one can deny that, whatever faults there may have been on the other side, the German Government, by the procedure of the fait accompli and by the proclaimed philosophy of the overriding justification of State necessity, have gravely shaken international confidence. And confidence is a plant of painfully slow growth. Yet, if progress is to be made, it is to the future rather than to the past that our eyes must turn. So far as this country is concerned our policy will be to stand steadfastly by all who seek peace, and to oppose all who would betray the cause of peace. Every opening must be put to a fair and dispassionate test—the test of time and practice. By that proof alone can the genuine character of the nature of such opportunities for settlement be ultimately judged.
I do not think that for practical statesmanship there is any other way of determination. Meanwhile, we shall neglect no effort to reach a land of peace; but we will relax no precaution on the
526
road. Nor, finally, can I doubt that if ever the hopes of peace that we all cherish are to be more than dreams that pass, the nations of the world must call to their aid forces of which perhaps they have hitherto made insufficient use. The late Lord Grey used, I think, wise words when he said that nothing so predisposes men to understand as the consciousness that they are understood. Trust does indeed beget trust, and I see little hope of European peace, even if we are able to gather the nations to the business of negotiation, unless those concerned can bring to the Council table that quality which will then impel them to see the best and not the worst in what each may have there to contribute, above all remembering that they are perforce and in truth, by the common fact of their humanity, partners in the enterprise of securing the conditions by which alone the future of that humanity can be preserved.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I should like in the first instance to thank the noble Viscount who has just spoken for the definite answers to certain questions which he has given, and for the extremely eloquent and moving speech which he has just made. He said during the course of his speech that the world had reached cross-roads. I think he is right. I think the negotiations and discussions which will take place, probably during the next year, will determine whether Europe finds a basis of peace or whether it is going to drift back to a situation in which it will at any rate find it extremely difficult to avoid war. The situation, as I see it, has been profoundly changed by three events in the last six months. They are three events on which I shall lay rather a different emphasis from the noble Viscount who has just spoken.
I think the first and most significant event is the conclusion of the Franco-Russian Pact. I do not think the noble Viscount made any reference to it. I do not think the people of this country realise the immense effect that that Pact may have on Europe and on ourselves. Admittedly, it is still perhaps in a somewhat inchoate condition, but do not let us disguise from ourselves the fact that it bears a suspicious resemblance, in its very nature, to one of those pre-War alliances which were

527
one of the primary factors in embroiling everybody in circumstances in which they could not avoid war. Every alliance is defensive and this alliance is carefully drawn within the terms of the Covenant except that it excludes the Council of the League of Nations almost entirely from any decision as to whether warlike action is legitimate or not. The decision lies unilaterally in the hands of the two signatories alone. That is the first and significant fact, and I think we have to recognise the immense effect that the conclusion of that alliance between an immensely powerful Russia and a very powerful France must have upon a nation which during all its history has been frightened about encirclement and the danger of having to meet war on both fronts, and has also been concerned, not so much with Bolshevism, as with the constant pressure of the great Slav world on Central Europe for at least two centuries. I think that is a factor the significance of which will become more and more important as time goes on, not only for Europe but for ourselves.
The second factor which has changed the situation is the disappearance of the demilitarised zone through the unilateral entry of Germany into that zone, clearly contrary to the letter of the Locarno Treaty. I am not going to embark upon a discussion as to the relative moral merits of Herr Hitler's action and the action of certain other Powers. I think what we have to realise is that the demilitarised zone has disappeared for ever and that whatever the result of negotiations may be we have to recognise that the special security for France and the special weakness for Germany which it involved have disappeared. We have to-day to look at a Europe in which Germany has recovered full sovereignty over her own country and the right to take the same measures to defend herself as are claimed and exercised by every other sovereign State. That means an immense change in the Europe of to-day. It gives Germany more power and must affect France's relationships with the minor Powers of Eastern Europe.
The third, and in some ways the most significant, change is the successful defiance of the League of Nations hitherto by Signor Mussolini. If there is one criticism to be made upon the speech of the noble Marquess it is this. I
528
do not think it is quite just and fair for him to cast so many aspersions upon the trustworthiness of the Chancellor of the German Reich in going back after fifteen years into his own country, admittedly in violation of a treaty, without passing at least as formidable strictures upon the head of a nation which has invaded a small country also contrary to all treaty obligations and carried on the war in a manner which has deeply offended the moral sense of all mankind. I do not think that anything you can say about the National Socialist régime is to be compared with the criticisms which it is possible to pass upon a régime which is training even infants in school to prepare for Imperialism and war.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I do not want to interrupt my noble friend, and only do so because, if he thinks that I have failed in my speech to give outward expression to my condemnation of Italian action, that is an impression that I ought not to leave in his mind. Indeed, I thought that my words had protected me from doing so.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, the situation, as I venture to say, has been changed, and profoundly changed, in the last year by the three events I have mentioned: the Franco-Russian and the Czecho-Russian Pacts; the disappearance of the demilitarised zone; and what has hitherto been the successful defiance of the League by Signor Mussolini. What frightens me is that the policy of the Government can, not wholly unjustly, be described as one of feebleness in Africa and enlarged commitments in Europe. If that is so, I think we are going to face an extremely dangerous situation. The central point that I want to lay before your Lordships to-day is this: whether we consider the future of the League of Nations, whether we consider our guarantees to France and to Belgium, whether we consider the future of the British Commonwealth of Nations—the greatest institution for preserving peace which still exists in the world—we are more and more being driven away from eloquent idealism back to one central fact: what is this nation prepared to fight about? Until we have made up our minds about that, there will be uncertainty in our policy; uncertainty in Europe as to what our policy is and as to what contribution, if any, we can

529
make to the stability of Europe; uncertainty in the League as to what it can ultimately rely on. That is the central problem which confronts this country and every country to-day, and the reason is that the League of Nations is not a Government: it is an association of sovereign States for certain purposes, and, inevitably any form of coercion between sovereign States involves the risk of war. The clear evidence of the last year has been that Article 16, the Article governing economic sanctions, an Article which might be very effective if all nations were universally combined, in a partial League is either ineffective or brings you to the risk of war. It is one or the other. It either brings such feeble pressure to bear on an aggressor State as can practically be ignored as a means of stopping that State from achieving its immediate purpose, or it brings such severe pressure to bear upon that State that it is likely to retaliate by action which means war.
In the last resort, the League is an instrument for waging war for international purposes instead of for national purposes. It is only when we face that fact that we shall clear our minds and clear our policies to-day about the League, about Europe, and about the British Empire. In the negotiations which are now beginning, and which, as I think, will go on for many months, the first thing about which we have to be clear and to educate our own countrymen to be clear is the points upon which they must be prepared in the last resort to go to war, and must therefore make it clear to other nations that they are prepared to go to war. We have done that in the case of Locarno, and I, personally, entirely subscribe to the declarations which were made to France and Belgium, on the assumption that these are genuine undertakings to go to their assistance if there is a case of unprovoked aggression by Germany. But I am not prepared to subscribe to these declarations if they mean that those countries can come to us and say that the casus fœderis can arise as the result of any treaty of any sort or kind that they have made with anybody else to which we are not a party. It is absolutely vital that we should make that distinction, not only to France and Belgium, but also to the whole world and within the British Commonwealth.
530
When we consider what we are prepared to fight about, I would ask your Lordships to consider for a minute the situation in which we find ourselves to-day in the world as a whole. There is a famous reference—I think Cecil Rhodes made it once when he quoted the fourteenth chapter of St. Luke to Dr. Jameson—which is very appropriate to us to-day:
" What king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand? "
What is our ten thousand? We have just built a great base at Singapore to deal with a very menacing situation in the Far East. Can we send any considerable number of ships there even to-day? We have obligations to Australia, to New Zealand, to India, to Malaya, which come, in my view, a good deal before obligations—or some obligations—in Europe. Are we in a position to discharge them? I do not think that recent events in Japan have diminished the power of the military policy in that country, and it seems to be true that the United States is contemplating seriously withdrawal altogether from the Philippines in another nine years. How far do our ten thousand go to enable us to discharge obligations, which are just as great as any others we may have nearer home, to the people who enjoy liberty under the British flag and who look to us to protect them, and on whom in the last resort our own prosperity and security depend?
I would ask a question about a situation nearer home. I have no inside information, but I understand that a very considerable proportion of the British Fleet is now in the Eastern Mediterranean, that no inconsiderable proportion of the Air Force is in Egypt, and that there have been reinforcements in North-Eastern Africa from the British Army. Are they going to have to remain there as long as Signor Mussolini has any considerable army in Abyssinia? Are we going to be able to move the British Fleet over to Singapore or to the North Sea as long as Signor Mussolini keeps 300,000 troops, white or black, in Abyssinia? It is a very formidable question, and it is a question which we have to answer before we lightly undertake further obligations in Europe. I, for one, am not only horrified by some of the

531
methods which Signer Mussolini has adopted, but have never had much doubt in my own mind as to what his ultimate Napoleonic purpose might be. If the day came when Great Britain had to remove her Fleet from the Mediterranean, either to go further east or to come home, and became seriously embarrassed, would there be any obstacle, once he had an army in Abyssinia, against his repeating exactly the operation which his great predecessor Napoleon made in his first enterprise out of Europe some. 120 years ago? I do not think it is going to be easy for us to remove a very considerable proportion of our forces from the Mediterranean in the near future.
May I come back now to Europe? Is there any necessity, now that the Treaty of Military Assistance has been signed between France, Russia and Czechoslovakia, for us to be scared into further military commitments in Europe? Let me just read to you some figures—I do not say accurate figures but the best figures I have been able to obtain—showing very broadly what I may call the distribution of forces in Europe between the status quo Powers—that is, the Powers who are primarily interested in maintaining the status quo—and the Powers primarily interested in altering it. France has an Army of 520,000 men of whom 210,000 are overseas in Algeria, Morocco and elsewhere. She has 1,670 of what I believe are called front-line aeroplanes. Belgium has an Army of 68,000 and probably about 200 aeroplanes. Czechoslovakia has an Army of 200,000 and 400 aeroplanes; Poland an Army of 266,000 front-line troops and 500 aeroplanes; Rumania an Army of 150,000 and 250 aeroplanes; Russia an Army of 1,300,000 which, on the authority of my noble friend on my left, is supported by 3,000 aeroplanes, a number which he says is rapidly going to be increased to 15,000.
LORD STRABOLGI: My authority was M. Pierre Cot, the French Air Minister.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Probably he has very good sources of information. Yugoslavia has an Army of 200,000 and 400 aeroplanes. That gives a total of over 2,700,000 front-line soldiers and 6,420 aeroplanes on the side of the status quo Powers. That is not including Italy, which on a peace basis has
532
an Army of 370,000 and about 1,100 aeroplanes. On the other side what have you got? There is the normal German Army of 550,000. I am not including paramilitary formations which exist in all countries to a greater or lesser degree. Her present Air Force probably numbers 1,500 machines. Hungary has an Army of 34,000 and Bulgaria an Army of 30,000. You have a total of about 610,000 men and 1,500 aeroplanes. I should be the last to underrate the advantages possessed by a great military Power in the central position, nor can anybody who remembers what happened in the late War minimise the immense danger when small Powers can be taken in detail by a great Power without being supported by any other great Power. I merely put these figures forward as showing that Europe has immense reserves for the defence of the status quo if it likes to organise them without calling upon us at all.
When we consider the tremendous obligations which rest upon us in the Far East, in the Mediterranean and now in the west of Europe, I would urge upon the Government the paramount importance of not being lured into further commitments in Europe with anything like the arms and preparations which we have to-day. That is really the central point which I wish to lay before your Lordships. We have got to consider what we are prepared to go to war for, and what are the resources by which we can make war, before we can enter into commitments. It is only when we have faced what we feel we can get the country to fight for—and still more important to remain united behind a war—that we are in a position to say to the rest of the world what obligations we can undertake, what we can fulfil and what we cannot. I venture to think that much the most important thing we have to face is that question.
If possible there ought to be another Peace Ballot asking the country what it is prepared to fight for. In the situation which we are reaching in the world today security is coming more and more to rest upon what people are prepared to fight for. Until we face that we shall go on with the wobbling policy for which we are criticised by every other country and for which the National Government is criticised on this and other Benches. I ask the Government to consider that,

533
and to consider the future of the League of Nations—that also is involved—and then, having made up their minds, to tell the country what things they are prepared to fight for and the instruments by which they can make their decision effective.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, we have listened to a most interesting speech from the noble Marquess with which I find myself almost entirely in agreement, particularly as to the questions which he thinks ought to be raised. I entirely agree. I think that really is the point. The point is whether we are going to persist with the old system of international government or the new system. It all comes back to that. Once you have made up your minds about that the rest of the questions become easy. It seems to me that the debate this afternoon really does turn on that question. In the few observations I am going to make I will endeavour to make good that proposition.
There are two broad questions that have been discussed. The first is the question of the Rhineland, about, which my noble friend the Leader of the House-spoke mainly, and on that question I do not propose to say much because I find myself in almost entire agreement with everything he said apart from certain details. I confess I think the suggestion of asking Italy to be one of the guardians of the faith of the world was perhaps unfortunate, but no doubt it was not made by the British Government. Apart from that and one or two other details I agree broadly with the policy of the Government. I think the speeches of the Foreign Secretary have rightly drawn a distinction between our duty under Locarno and our duty under the League Covenant, and I think that as long as that central distinction is preserved we shall not get into very serious trouble in Locarno. To the consultations between Staffs I confess I do not attribute so much importance as do those with whom I usually find myself in agreement. If we are under obligation to go to the assistance of France in certain events, it is only a matter of common sense that we should discuss exactly what that means if that duty is to be discharged.
I pass at once to the other question, which to my mind is far more urgent, and which, properly considered, is really far
534
more important. In that respect I agree with very much that was said by my noble friend who has just spoken. I mean of course the question of Abyssinia. That is where I agree with him. To my mind all these questions come down to the same principle, as far as principle is concerned. In the Far East the whole question was: Is Japan to be allowed, at her own will, to set aside a number of treaties and to decide that she has a right to do certain things without any appeal to anybody else except to her own sovereignty? That is the old system—every country to be entitled to do exactly what it wants for itself and nobody to interfere with it except at the price of war. The result, of course, was very disastrous in the Far East, and I think we are still suffering from that. I am not going back into the question of who was to blame, but I think we are still suffering from the fact that Japan was able to defy the most clear expression of opinion by all the other countries assembled in the Assembly of the League—fifty or sixty of them—and to go on with her policy as if their protests had never been made.
Then we come to the Rhineland, and if I may say so to my noble friend who has just spoken, though I am sure he recognised it, I do not think he really attributed quite enough importance to that. It is not to my mind the re-occupation of the Rhineland by Germany that is important, though it is a breach of treaty, and it has importance from that point of view; the real importance of it was the argument put forward to defend it—namely: "We have a right to do this because we are a sovereign country and we will allow no one to interfere with any exercise of our sovereignty." That is a fatal doctrine—and my noble friend, I am sure, will agree with me—if we are to establish the new order of affairs, and if we are really to put with any hope of a clear answer the question which he so much wishes to have put before the people of this country. And now with regard to Abyssinia it is just the same. The two issues in each of these three cases are: (1), respect for treaties—I need not say any more about that than, has been said—and (2), the broad proposition: Are we to attempt to establish in the world some form of international—I will not call it government, it does not amount to that—but some form of international control, or are we

535
to allow a recrudescence of the old international anarchy? Are we to have the new system, or the old? Are we to have the system so rightly condemned by my noble friend who leads the House, the system of alliances, or are we to have the system of the League, which is essentially different? That is the great issue before us.
I agree with what my noble friend Lord Lothian said just now that the Soviet Treaty is not in accord with the new system. It is not so, I quite agree; none of these special treaties are. They are the hang-over from the old system, and I quite agree we have to get rid of them sooner or later. It is only in that sense that—though I was partly responsible for it because I was a member of the Cabinet when it was done—I have never been quite happy about the Locarno system. I do not agree with my noble friend about that. My experience in the country is that Locarno is far more unpopular than the larger obligations of the League. The idea that it is to be confined to a particular case is not accepted. They do accept the proposition that we have to do something to re-establish the peace of the world. A big broad general system is the right way to do that—that is accepted. But if you talk to them about the historic interests of this country in the Netherlands you will find that the argument has a very poor reception. It is not only that these things depend on the same principles, but they hang together. A faulty decision in one will hopelessly compromise the decision in the other, and so on. Therefore we have to look at these things, and that is the excuse, in my judgment, for discussing the question of Abyssinia, even though the Notice on the Paper talks about the situation in Europe, because what happens in Abyssinia will vitally affect the position in Europe.
When you come to compare the relative importance of the German issue and the Abyssinian issue, I think that there is an unfortunate and considerable difference of opinion between what I take to be the popular opinion in France and the popular opinion in England. I quite understand how it happened that to the French the Rhineland issue is far more important than the Abyssinian issue. They look upon it on the old lines—the danger of an attack by Germany
536
against France, and all the old traditions of centuries, and all the old alliances, and how it is to be met by getting this country or that country on one side of the alliance or the other. I quite understand that to the Frenchman that must seem far the most important issue. But, judged as we judge the thing here, I think we are right in thinking that the Abyssinian issue is really the more important of the two.
I believe it is going to be the more vital, because when you come to look at the incidents of the Abyssinian question it is a far bigger thing than the re-occupation of the Rhineland by Germany—in itself, apart from its ultimate consequences: the whole horrible incident of an invasion, an invasion carried out in the way this invasion has been carried out. You have the absolute defiance of the Covenant, the express defiance by the spokesman of Italy; and not only of the Covenant, but of the Briand-Kellogg Pact and of all the other treaties. A wholesale slaughter, a hecatomb of treaties has been the accompaniment of the Italian policy. Then quite lately you have, in addition to that, the fearful savagery with which the war is now being carried on, in defiance again of quite express and definite treaties—more treaties thrown on the scrap-heap and creating precedents for future war which must give every country, and particularly this country, the utmost anxiety. We may see in the fate of the open towns in Abyssinia to-day the horrible fate of London to-morrow. And not only London, but, if the same precedents are to be followed, we are to see every little country village exposed to bombing and machine-gun fire and the slaughter of the women and children in it. The results will be something perfectly portentous if those principles of warfare are really to prevail in any future war which may unhappily take place.
Lastly, in estimating the importance of the Abyssinian issue, we have to recognise our special responsibility. I fully understand my noble friend's protest against that doctrine. But it is so; we cannot avoid it. Be it so that the responsibility for the mistakes, if mistakes were made—and I think very bad mistakes were made—was the responsibility of the League: but our inherent authority, our

537
inherent position must give us always a very great share of responsibility for any international mistake in which we are concerned. Not only so, as my right honourable friend Mr. Winston Churchill pointed out the other day, we did take, I think quite rightly and properly, an active part in pressing on the Council of the League the establishment of sanctions, and I agree with Mr. Churchill that, having done that, we incurred a special duty to do our utmost to sec the thing through and to see that those sanctions were effective.
And when I say effective, what do I mean? Of course it is true, profoundly true, that the first, duty of the League is to stop the war. There cannot be any doubt about that. Read, not this Article or that Article of the Covenant, read the thing as a whole. There is no question that that is the conception, not of the words of the document, but of the whole idea. If you come to the words, they are extremely clear as well. And if it is the duty of the League to stop the war, then it is our duty—and I venture very respectfully to urge this; I do not think that the Government disagree, but I do urge it in any case—it is our duty to press the League to discharge that obligation. I know that some of my noble friends hold the view that that obligation does not rest on us unless every nation is prepared to agree with us in the step which we take. That is said, no doubt, in a popular way, but it cannot actually be what is meant. The abstinence of some small Power, for example, would surely not remove our obligations, or the abstinence of two or three or a dozen small Powers. The real issue is not unanimity, but whether we can command such a force as will make the opposition practically hopeless.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: And persuade France.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: You do require to persuade France in order to obtain that.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: Is it possible?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: That is a different matter. I am merely for the moment arguing the point that the only limit, as I see it, to our responsibility in this matter is that, giving the best attention I can to the documents
538
which bind us, I do not take it as our duty to act unless we have in support of our action so large a measure of assistance that the opposition will be practically hopeless. I know that when we say anything like that we are accused of being warmongers. I was glad to hear my noble friend Lord Lothian saying in so many words that he was a warmonger in that sense. But just let us see what it is we say. We say it is the duty of the League to take whatever steps are necessary to stop the war, and when we suggest something of an extreme character such as cutting off communications between Italy and Africa or putting on oil sanctions, or whatever it may be, we are told that means war because we will have to fight Italy. What does that mean? It means that if we do certain things in discharge of our treaty obligations, and in discharge of the principles which we are trying to set up, Italy will attack us. It is not a question of our going to war with Italy: it is a question of Italy attacking us; and therefore we must not do it, we must not risk doing that, because that will produce war. It means we are not ever to take any steps if a Dictator says: "If you do that I shall attack you." That cannot be right; that must be wrong: that cannot be a defensible point of view. We have got to do our duty under the Covenant. We have got to do it reasonably. We have got to take a reasonable course, but, taking that and assuming we have the support of a sufficient number of States to make our action practically certain to be successful, then the question of what action Italy or any other delinquent may take is a matter no doubt to be considered, but it is certainly not to be regarded as a conclusive answer to the discharge of our duty. Otherwise we should be really accepting the view that a delinquent country was entitled to dictate the measures of coercion. That seems to me to be the absurdity to which the argument could be reduced.
I entirely agree with my noble friend who was good enough to say, in his courteous interruption some time ago, that we must have Franco with us. That is a sine qua non, practically, as I understand the practical situation. It would not have been so, perhaps, in the Far East. We should have had to have America; but we cannot act in this case,

539
at least so I think, unless we have the support of France. It is possible that the French Government will act in such a way as to make it impracticable for us to take necessary action. One of my noble friends thought the other day it was sufficient to show that a course was idiotic to make it unlikely that the world would adopt it. I am afraid I do not take such a sanguine view as that. But if the French do take that line, that it would be idiotic of them seems to me to be beyound discussion. Their whole hope, in my view, in the end, like the hope of all other peace-loving countries, must be in collective security. I do not see any other hope at all for them. If they allow the League to be undermined, if they allow aggressive countries to defy the League and carry through their policy in spite of it, it seems to me that the chief hope of France is seriously interfered with.
I am bound to add this, as I am speaking on this subject, that it would be foolish of us, foolish, if I may say so respectfully, of the Government, to ignore the strength of feeling in the country on this point. I have not any doubt that the policy pursued by France last autumn has been responsible for the larger part of the reluctance, or the apparent reluctance, in many quarters to any action which would seem to bind us further to France in the present crisis. At the present moment I am satisfied that that feeling is far stronger than it has ever been that we are, and ought to be, bound to carry out our obligations so as to protect Abyssinia from the aggression of this infinitely more powerful aggressor. All the British feelings—do not let us through false shame conceal it—are on that side. The desire for fair play, the desire for chivalry, the hatred of cruelty, all the best and strongest feelings that move our people, are combined in this matter, and I am satisfied that, though that feeling is already strong, it is going to be stronger and stronger until it may easily reach an embarrassing strength.
What I feel is that that aspect of the case has never got home to the Italian Government and perhaps not to the French Government either. They do not understand it. They think that underneath it all is some curious anxiety about the waters of Lake Tsana or some such
540
nonsense as that. I observe with almost indignation that at this crisis, when the country is stirred to its depths by the appeals from suffering Abyssinians and the account of what they are suffering, we are told that the Italian Government have given fresh assurances that they are going to respect out rights in Lake Tsana, and that they do not contemplate at the moment any invasion of Egypt. That is not the point. One right that we care about in this matter, apart from these humanitarian considerations, is the right to peace. In my belief my noble friend Lord Lothian was perfectly right in saying that until that is established, and accepted, as the essential motive of our foreign policy, to the extent that in certain circumstances we will take forcible action to repress the aggressor, there is very little hope either that the world at large will understand what our policy is or, if they do understand it, that that policy will be successful.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will feel a strong sense of gratitude towards the noble Lord, Lord Snell, for having put the questions that he has to the Government, and, if I may, I would like to congratulate the noble Lord on the admirable speech which he delivered. We have up to the present time looked upon the Socialist Party as a warlike Party, anxious to make war on all countries, yet at the same time not allowing this country to have those adequate defences which are necessary to enable it to fulfil the obligations which it might undertake. But I found no sign of that attitude in the speech which the noble Lord, Lord Snell, delivered, and I think that he put some important questions to the Government.
The noble Viscount who replied for the Government spoke in his usual eloquent and attractive manner, if I may say so, and enunciated a number of facts of which we were all perhaps well aware, but he did not give us any very real guidance as to the foreign policy which His Majesty's Government propose to pursue. I know that we are at the present moment in a very difficult position and no one would care to say anything at this time which might embarrass our Government in the negotiations which they are proposing to carry on, but one somehow feels that in our foreign policy—and I think it has been noticeable in the speeches to

541
which we have listened—there is some lack of direction and an absence of any definite plan. I am not sure that owing to our inadequate defences we have not found ourselves for some years past in a very difficult position, and have not felt capable of laying down any definite policy for the guidance of the world. I feel sometimes that if we could have done that, it would have relieved us from many of those difficulties in which we are now placed. But it does seem to me that at this time we require some definite foreign policy to be pursued, and that we should put that policy forward and adhere to it whatever it may be.
The noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, gave us a very clear picture of the state of Europe at the present time, and I know that state of Europe is a source of great sorrow to my noble friend who sits on the Cross Benches (Viscount Cecil of Chelwood). No one has fought harder than he during the last few years to reduce armaments in the world. He spent many years on the Preparatory Commission and he has made speeches in all parts of the country, yet to-day we see Europe an armed camp and armaments are increasing. This shows very clearly, I submit, that the policy which has been pursued during the last sixteen years has not been an effective policy, and that the faith which we have reposed in the League of Nations has not as yet been justified. But while I say that, I also wish to state that there is no warmer supporter of the conception of the ideal for which the League of Nations stands than myself, and I feel that unless we can establish a League in accordance with the ideals that are in our minds the outlook for Europe and the world is a very gloomy one indeed; in fact, I for one in that case see no future for the world except through some tremendous catastrophe out of which a new era may begin. But I am sure none of your Lordships are anxious to see that catastrophe. We earnestly hope that a reconstruction of the League of Nations may take place, and that we shall see established a worldwide organisation capable of bearing the strain which will be put upon it and of fulfilling the desires of the nations of the world.
The debate to-day has ranged over a somewhat wide area, yet I feel that none of us can say we have been able to derive
542
from it any very great satisfaction. There were gloomy prognostications in all the speeches to which we have just listened, but it does seem to me that, whichever of the questions may be actually the most important, the one which is filling our minds at the present moment is the situation which has arisen from the latest move of the German Government. I venture to say with all respect that this moment is one which should be taken advantage of, and that we should under no circumstances let this opportunity slip. One feels that a network of formalities will arise from the proposals that have been made. There is a danger that counter proposals will be put forward, and that instead of this opportunity being seized now, months will be allowed to slip by so that we shall be unable to derive from the situation the good results which I believe can be obtained from it. We have discussed today the collective power of the League of Nations and the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, has told us of his opposition—he did not quite call it opposition, but I agree with him in what he said in regard to his lack of agreement with the Locarno theory.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: May I be allowed to state that it would be unfair for me to say that, for I was responsible for it with others. What I meant to say was that I thought for the moment it was the right thing to do, and the only thing to do at the moment, yet I always did feel it had certain weaknesses which made it very difficult to defend in the country.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I think I know exactly what the noble Viscount means, and in no circumstances would I think of doing him an injustice. I know that he believes in the collective arrangement of all these matters, and looks askance and with doubt at any arrangement which can be brought about by direct negotiations between Powers. But I do feel in the particular situation in which we are placed that an agreement between Germany, France and certainly Great Britain would be of the greatest advantage to the world, and I think your Lordships will agree with me when I say that this is the development to which the nations of the world are looking. The people in this country are increasingly interested in foreign affairs. It is quite

543
true there are various matters in this country which may cause them to forget the great importance of foreign affairs at this particular moment, but I think that nothing would give greater satisfaction to the people of this country than that some definite and satisfactory agreement should be arrived at between Germany, France and this country.
That is why I would most sincerely urge upon my noble friend who is going to Geneva to try and hasten these matters, because while there is sometimes some advantage in delay, I am quite sure there is no advantage in delaying this matter. One does most sincerely hope that we shall be able to consider the German proposals and consider the French proposals. I hope the French proposals are not in the nature of counterproposals, but are proposals which somehow will fit in with those that have been put forward by Germany. I hope we may be able to consider them and take a long step forward towards bringing about that peace towards which the world is so anxiously looking. The present situation has many alarming characteristics, but I do hope we shall be able to view it as a whole in its proper perspective. One does look to the representatives of Great Britain, the Foreign Secretary and the Lord Privy Seal—and I am sure we can have no better representatives—to do all they can to see that the matter is put in its proper perspective, because the world is looking at these negotiations and is believing that good will come from them. I do most sincerely hope that that confidence which is reposed in those who are dealing with these matters will not be misplaced.
I think we should realise what really is the reason for the situation in which we find ourselves at the present moment. The situation has been brought to a head, if I may say so, by our policy of sanctions. We have adopted a half-hearted policy of sanctions. I am one of those who are not at all in favour of the policy of sanctions as it is being carried out at the present moment. My conception of the League of Nations—I have had an opportunity of putting it before your Lordships before, and I ask your indulgence to allow me to put it before you to-day—is a great comprehensive organisation which includes all the nations of the world; an organisation which by its composition would be of so powerful a character that, although it
544
had the power to impose sanctions, those sanctions would never have to be imposed. I feel that the present organisation falls short of that composition, and that therefore the imposition of sanctions of this character constitutes a great danger and that those sanctions do not fulfil the objects which, as a weapon of the League of Nations, they are supposed to fulfil.
We know quite well that France was placed in a tremendous difficulty in deciding whether she should implement her allegiance to the League of Nations or consider her friendship and attachment to Italy, which is one of the greatest factors in the security of France. By our policy, in which we persuaded France to do neither one thing nor the other, a regrettable estrangement has taken place between Italy and France. That has forced France into the hands of Russia. Hence this very ill-fated alliance which has been brought about, and of which mention has been made to-day, although its full significance does not appear to have been realised. That alliance cannot be said to infringe the League principles. I think the signatories to the alliance have been careful that the League principles should not be infringed; but there is no doubt as to the meaning of that alliance. It is part of the policy of the encirclement of Germany, because France believes that by a policy of that description she will add to her own security. That is a policy with which I cannot agree. I most sincerely hope that we shall be able to persuade France that her future does not lie along that direction, but in an understanding with Germany and the full support of a reconstructed League of Nations.
I would deprecate the suggestion, which one does hear on all sides, that Germany cannot and will not respect treaties, and because of that suggestion, for which Germany has given very good reason, I am sorry to say, there is a prejudice against the proposals which the Germans have put forward. I, for one, condemn strongly the methods which the Germans have employed, but I think that we must realise that there are what I might call mitigating factors. All negotiations to which the Germans have been a party during these last few years have not been negotiations brought about on a basis of equality, and I think that inequality of status between countries is always very likely to vitiate negotiations

545
brought about between them. I am not saying this as an excuse for the action which the Germans have taken, but I put it forward, and I believe in it strongly, as what I call a mitigating factor. We must remember that Germany has been a defeated country, that she has passed through degrading conditions, that certain concessions of a not really very important character have been made to her, and that in every possible way her inferiority has been emphasised. Now Herr Hitler's power and policy are a direct reaction to the mistaken policy which the world has pursued, relating to Germany, in the last few years.
Germany requires help and sympathy like every other country. There is a suggestion that Germany is powerful and is desirous of making war on various countries, and is determined to be a direct disturber of the peace. I am quite sure that that is not the policy of Germany at the present time. At the present moment Germany is in no sense capable of making war, and it seems an extraordinary thing to me that the French should desire certain undertakings to be given at this moment, as if there was some danger of an invasion of France taking place in the next few-days or in the next few weeks. There is nothing of the kind in being at the present moment; but this is the time at which Herr Hitler has put forward proposals which I feel are a great move in the direction of peace. I sincerely hope that France will be able to put her fears and anxieties on one side, and will see in these suggestions the possibility of a new future, and that, instead of making new proposals and rendering the situation more difficult than it is at the present moment, she will see the course which she should pursue.
When we speak of France we must all look on France, naturally, with feelings of the greatest sympathy and affection. After all, none of us can forget the years which have gone by, in which we faced our dangers and our troubles together, and I think that if we look on the practical side of the question we know quite well that in future our fortunes are linked up with those of France. There is no possible situation which I can foresee in which France and Great Britain can find themselves ranged on different sides if such an emergency as war should ever take place. But the French
546
are essentially realists, and they have their one ideal before them, of security. They are concerned for the maintenance of what they believe to be their security, and they will consider no other question at the same time. They have endeavoured to achieve that security by subscribing to the League of Nations, although they have been desirous of fashioning a League of Nations of a pattern according to their own ideas. If the League of Nations did not furnish them with the guarantees they required then they desired that security should be obtained by alliances and guarantees of a different character. We must necessarily remember that the abiding fear which is always in the mind of France is the danger which she believes to come from Germany along her frontiers. I feel it is quite necessary that we should be able to persuade France as to the pathway along which her security lies, and if we can do that a great many of the difficulties with which we are faced will be solved.
Hitherto, by various disappointments, the French have felt that their security depends on the subjection of Germany. We have found in all these years that they have opposed every move in the direction of giving equality to Germany. Now the last element of the inferiority of Germany in the maintenance of the demilitarised zone has passed for ever, and France will be put in a position of dealing on a footing of equality with Germany. I feel that those who represent us at Geneva have a great task to fulfil—that is, the reconciliation of warring elements which at the present moment are dividing France from Germany. I believe that can be done after full consideration of Herr Hitler's proposals, and I sincerely hope that we shall be able to see those proposals developed into a lasting system which will bring peace in Europe for many years to come.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, in intervening in this debate I must make it clear at the outset that I speak only for myself. That has the advantage that I can speak plainly, and I intend to do so. I have had many years' experience now of your Lordships' House and I know that your Lordships do not object to candid and plain speaking. The noble Viscount who spoke for the Government used grave

547
words about the situation and said we were at the cross-roads. It is of course true that we are living in probably some of the most fateful days in history. People are and need to be intensely anxious. They feel that the sand in the hour-glass is last running out, and they want to know whether this chance—this last chance, it may be—of effecting a settlement in Europe is going to be grasped or whether, as so often in past days, it is going to be thrown away. I find them asking this: Is France once again going to be allowed to destroy a settlement as so often in the past?
I do not think myself that the debates which have taken place in Parliament up to the present have represented what very large numbers of people in the country are thinking. The people want to see swept aside all these diplomatic punctilios and juridical niceties and a settlement got, and they know that that can only be done by at last treating Germany fairly, differently from the way which she has been treated in the past. The noble Marquess who has just sat down made, if he will allow me to say so, a valuable speech with much of which I find myself in agreement. People are anxious because they know that if things are going to be put right there must be a fresh start in Europe and there must be an end of the Versailles spirit which has been the curse of the Continent for the last seventeen years. I am sorry to say that the Foreign Secretary, in the speeches which he has made in regard to this very grave and intensely delicate situation, never seems properly to have understood the German point of view. Certainly he has not stated it. Even the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, I thought, erred to some extent this afternoon in that direction. The noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, pointed out that the noble Viscount, apart from a few perfunctory remarks, hardly referred to the Franco-Soviet Pact and Mr. Eden in another place said very little about it when putting the position before the House. The noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, said that Germany justified what she had done on past grievances, but her main justification, as I read her reply, is the Franco-Soviet Pact and not past grievances.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, said she had done what she had done because she was determined at all costs to assert
548
her sovereignty. That no doubt was part of her policy, because she felt that the time had come when she must no longer be under the inequalities under which she was suffering, but the factor which brought about the present position was the Franco-Soviet Pact, and the German Government, to do them justice, have been perfectly candid about that from the very start. As The Times Berlin correspondent—who, if I may say so, has sent singularly able and informative despatches—pointed out, ever since the spring of last year the German Government have said that if France went on with the Franco-Soviet Pact they would regard it as a breach of Locarno. Undoubtedly that Pact is against the spirit of Locarno. There can be no question whatever about that whatever juridical niceties may be put forward. It is part of the policy of the encirclement of Germany, and if we were in Germany's position we should feel exactly as she feels about it. This constant scolding of Germany for treaty-breaking puts an almost intolerable strain on the position, especially when it comes from France with her record about disarmament, both in regard to the Covenant and the final Protocol of Locarno, her invasion of the Ruhr, which was quite illegal and against the wishes of this country. France, as we all know, was the main factor in causing Article 16 of the Covenant to be broken in regard to sanctions against Italy. For France to pose as the upholder of International Law in Europe and to indulge in shrill condemnation of Germany because of the peaceful militarisation of the Rhineland is merely to aggravate the situation.
Obviously another great obstacle to conciliation are the Staff talks. There has not been a great deal said about them this afternoon, but I have no hesitation in saying that the overwhelming majority of the people of the country are against those talks. If a plebiscite could be taken that would be abundantly confirmed. Yet the Foreign Secretary actually said in another place that they would not in any way prejudice a settlement. The German Government have said exactly the contrary. They have said that they would be regarded as seriously prejudicial if the talks went on. That is common sense. Anybody but a diplomat could see that. They might have been designed to exacerbate the

549
situation. Consider the alternative. Suppose Germany at this moment was carrying on Staff talks with some Powers. Think what a howl would be sent up of "How can you trust Germany now?" Obviously it has been a very great mistake to give way to France on this point.
Moreover, there is no rational reason for the Staff talks at all at the present time. There is no fear of Germany attacking France at the present time. As "Scrutator" pointed out in the Sunday Times on Sunday—and he is one of the most able military critics in the country—
" There is no more risk of Germany's attacking whilst these negotiations are in progress than of Franco attacking."
And what did the Germans say themselves in their reply last week?
" As is obvious from her offer, Germany has no intention of ever attacking France or Belgium. And, taking into consideration France's colossal armaments and the enormous fortresses on her Eastern frontier, it is well known that such an attack would be senseless from the purely military point of view alone."
What on earth, then, is the, urgency of these Staff talks? Why could not they have been postponed for three or four months until negotiations have been carried through? Quito obviously they are a very disturbing factor in the situation.
Now the Foreign Secretary insists that in the White Paper there is an obligation under Locarno to go to the assistance of France and Belgium. The White Paper in effect says so. That is, under Article 4 (2) of the Treaty of Locarno, which says that:
" As soon as the Council of the League of Nations is satisfied that a violation or breach has been committed it will notify the Powers signatory of the Treaty and they will come immediately to the assistance of the Power against whom the act complained of is directed."
The submission I make is that as a matter of fact under the Treaty of Locarno there has been no obligation whatever in the present circumstances to go to the assistance of France or Belgium. Clearly the Treaty of Locarno envisaged an act of unprovoked aggression, and that has not taken place. This has been pointed out in one or two able letters in The Times, and I would like to say here that I think The Times in these grave days, both in its leaders and in its correspondence columns, has performed a very great
550
national service. It has been pointed out there that obviously the Treaty of Locarno was never intended to apply to peaceful militarisation. Such militarisation was never foreseen, and not provided for. The words are that we will go "to the assistance of the Power against whom the act complained of is directed."
What evidence is there that the peaceful militarisation of the Rhineland is directed against France and Belgium any more than against other Powers signatory of the Treaty? And indeed Article 44 of the Versailles Treaty says this:
" In case Germany violates in any way Articles 42 and 43 "—
that is, the articles which say that there should be no militarisation and no fortification—
" she shall be regarded as committing a hostile, act against the Powers signatory of the present Treaty."
The Powers—all of them, not merely France and Belgium. How could it be contended before any jury of twelve Englishmen that the putting of 30,000 German troops in an area which has a German population of 14,700,000 is an act directed against either France or Belgium more than against anybody else? No jury would convict on that.
I want to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will deal with this point. I will put to him two specific questions. We are told we are obliged under Locarno to go to the assistance of France and Belgium—that is one of the justifications for the White Paper. I say that we are not obliged to do anything of the sort under the present circumstances. I ask the noble Earl these two questions: Were the words I have called attention to—namely, "against whom the act complained of is directed "—ever considered by the Foreign Secretary and the Government in coming to the conclusion that there was an obligation on us in this case of peaceful militarisation to go to the assistance of France and Belgium? If so, on what grounds was the conclusion reached that the act complained of was directed against France and Belgium any more than against all the signatory Powers?—which is what the Treaty of Versailles laid down would be the effect of a breach of Article 42 or Article 43. I contend that this is a very serious matter.

551
Germany has asserted again and again that what she has done was merely to affirm her sovereignty, and that fits in with the facts—the number of men and so forth. Clearly that fits in with what she has done. She has evidently had no intention up to the present of attacking anybody, and therefore up to the present we are not called upon to go to anybody's assistance.
It is only because of a strained and, in my view untenable, interpretation of the Treaty that we have been drawn into the present position, which, as Mr. Lloyd George has pointed out in a very able speech, is a very dangerous position: we are getting nearer and nearer, with obligations and commitments, to a condition of things which will one day lead to war. It is all very well to say that these Staff talks are really only part of Locarno, and that they do not carry us any further than Locarno. I agree with what the noble Viscount implied, that the British people have never really been consulted about Locarno, and they have never really understood it. In any case Locarno was signed in 1925, when the condition of Europe was totally different, and it was signed mainly for two purposes: first, to bring Germany into the League of Nations; and, secondly, to lead to disarmament—and France and the other nations undertook to disarm in the final Protocol. Those two things at the present time are not in existence. Germany went into the League of Nations and then went out, and there are jurists who hold that that very fact invalidated Locarno. And certainly France has not disarmed; on the contrary, ever since Locarno she has been rearming as quickly as her finances would allow. And yet we are told that this is only the same policy of Locarno, and that we are really being committed to nothing more. I say that is putting a very strained interpretation upon the position. It is opposed to common sense. Obviously we are committed to more when we have these Staff talks.
But then the Foreign Secretary said in his speech: "Ah well, we had to give way. If we had not given way we do not know what would have happened. It was the danger of war. This was the price we had to pay for the restraint of France." What was the restraint of France? What could she do? Did she propose to go to war because of peaceful
552
militarisation? If she had done that it would have been a gross breach of the Kellogg Pact, to which France is a signatory. And now she is posing as the upholder of International Law in Europe. Presumably when she is blaming one Power for breaking a treaty she would not break another at the same time! I am afraid there is only too much reason to believe, looking at the situation all round, that now that France has got us tied to her by these Staff talks, she really wants the negotiations with Germany to break down. She has never said a syllable to help them. On the contrary she has done everything to hinder them. M. Flandin went back to Paris, and that very evening in the Chamber he said: "Of course there will not be any foreign troops on our soil. That would be a monstrous iniquity." Is that the way to bring about a settlement at a time of very difficult and strained relations?
The fact is that France wants to keep the status quo. Now she has us committed to her, she wants that rather than a European settlement. But it is time that all this came to an end. The majority of the people of Great Britain are sick and tired of being dragged at the heels of France, and France's best friends should tell her so, and tell her she is making a profound mistake in continuing along the same fatal course which she has so often pursued in the past. Large numbers of people in this country hold that it is France who is mainly responsible for the condition of Europe to-day. After all, she has been the guiding factor in foreign policy for the last seventeen years, and there is a widespread demand that Great Britain ought at last to have a foreign policy of her own, not dictated from Paris. Unfortunately, for practical purposes the Locarno Treaty has now become an Anglo-French Alliance in effect; and yet it is quite certain that a big majority of the people of Great Britain are opposed to any such alliance.
Vast numbers of people have been alienated in recent months from any support of France at all. The noble Viscount said that one reason for that was what France did in regard to Italy and sanctions. Let us look for a moment at what France did in the matter of sanctions. From the outset it has been

553
France which has stopped effective sanctions. She refused to apply effective sanctions to Italy despite Treaty obligations, yet France wants sanctions against Germany despite the fact that they would be illegal because Germany is not an aggressor. So almost at one and the same time France, in her own interest, has stopped effective sanctions against Italy and, in her own interest, wants effective sanctions against Germany. Failing to get them she has enmeshed Great Britain in what is in fact an Anglo-French Alliance.
Before I sit down I want to say a word or two about the insistence which is put forward that Germany must make some gesture if negotiations are to succeed. She is to promise this or that for three or four months if there is to be a prospect of success. As a matter of fact Germany has gone a long way in that direction in her reply; she has promised certain things. But in truth all this talk of the supreme value of some gesture is remote from reality. If Germany is what she is represented to be by anti-Germans—namely, entirely untrustworthy and unscrupulous, the fact that she might be prepared to make some gesture would not indicate any change of heart but might be a trick any unscrupulous Power would adopt in order to get her own way later on. In those circumstances there would be no difficulty in her agreeing for four months not to fortify the Rhine, but that would be no safeguard. In any case Germany, as has been pointed out this afternoon, will not permanently agree not to fortify the Rhine. That is not equality, and she ought not to be asked to give any such guarantee. Such a prohibition is quite inconsistent with sovereign rights. Germany would fight rather than agree permanently not to fortify the Rhine. What is France going to do? Is she going to war with Germany to stop her having sovereign rights? If so, she will not have the British people with her, and if she does it that would be a gross breach of the Kellogg Pact which France has signed.
It seems almost incredible that we should be standing out for some gesture which, even if we; could get it, would have small bearing upon the situation. All this sort of thing ought to stop. If negotiations are to succeed, the past must be buried and Germany must be treated as an equal. Unless you are going to do
554
that, unless Germany is to be treated fairly and differently from the past, it would be better to break off negotiations altogether. You must do one or the other. This vacillating, wobbling, half-hearted, pin-pricking policy is bound to end in disaster. If negotiations do break off, it is vital to bear in mind the alternative. The alternative is an intensified armament race in every country in Europe. That: is what will happen. No feeling of security anywhere from hour to hour until the war comes, the war which the Prime Minister has told us will mean the end of civilisation. That is the alternative. Surely, it would be a crime against humanity to let small diplomatic punctilious points, juridical or otherwise, which have no real substance, break off negotiations—to break them off because of reasons which are trifling in comparison with the stupendous issues at stake.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, this debate started with speeches on the subject of Abyssinia, and I should have thought that is a topic which must be as distasteful to one side of the House as to the other. The official representatives of both Parties are equally responsible for this policy, and must be equally disappointed at its futility. When I have on previous occasions ventured to express my disapproval of this policy I have been told that I was living in a pre-War world, which on the whole is no worse than living in a fool's paradise. I believe it is quite a common circumstance for people who are insane themselves to think they are the only sane people in the country and that everybody else is mad. I confess I had something of that feeling myself when this war began. I never in my wildest moments dreamt that I should find myself associated with Lord Rothermere and Lord Beaverbrook and, I suppose, Sir Oswald Mosley and Lady Houston, but the extraordinary thing is that the most unlikely people are right sometimes and other people are wrong. This is a case in point, and very much the same thing happened in 1914. In 1914 all the most eminent people in the country, all the high-brows, were convinced that war with Germany was unthinkable, and the so-called stupid people, amongst whom I temporarily rank myself, were convinced of the opposite; and it is the stupid

555
people who are right again now. I observe that the more important people are becoming converted, because I notice that both Sir Austen Chamberlain and Mr. Winston Churchill made speeches in another place on Monday strongly condemnatory of the Government's policy with regard to Abyssinia.
Everybody recognises the miserable failure of that policy, and I am not going to recount the various details, because I have done so often before, but if the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, when he gets up, is able to quote one single solitary instance in which any benefit has been achieved for ourselves, for the Abyssinians, or for the League, I am prepared to withdraw any uncomplimentary observations that I have made in the past. I know very well he cannot do it, but I can suggest something to him, and that is that he might at all events admit we have learned a useful lesson. It is an extremely unpleasant one but at least we have realised, at long last, that our military and naval position is totally unsatisfactory and, to put it plainly, it is very doubtful whether we should be able to take on a great Power with any certainty of success. That is a rather melancholy conclusion to arrive at, but that assists the Government in this way because, as we all know, they are now obliged to tell the country that £300,000,000, I think, is required to put us in a state of defence. Whether that be regarded as a contribution towards collective security or not I do not know, but that is one small lesson we have learned, and it will be all the easier for the Government therefore to obtain the sum required without the opposition that would otherwise have been the case. I am wondering incidentally whether some noble Lords on the Opposition side will suggest that the Abyssinian policy of His Majesty's Government is all part of a Machiavellian design to enrich the armament firms of this country.
The connection between Abyssinia and the Rhine is not very clear, but nevertheless it is fairly obvious. In the first place it must be perfectly plain to everybody that the complete failure of the League was an incitement to Herr Hitler to take the action which he has done with regard to the Rhine. But there is another consequence of our policy
556
which is directly affected by the endeavour to enforce sanctions. Everybody knows perfectly well that the French most reluctantly embarked on the policy of sanctions. They did their best to resist it, and when they came to adopt it they did as little as possible. In fact, I am not sure they did anything at all. As somebody remarked—I think it was the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry—the French are a realistic nation, and I am perfectly certain that when they gave their consent to the application of sanctions and co-operated in a perfunctory way, they exacted something from us in the nature of reciprocity. I presume it afforded them an opportunity, so to speak, to squeeze us upon the subject of a possible attack on the part of Germany.
I am wondering whether the Staff talks of which we hear so much were part of the bargain—Staff talks which, I entirely agree with the noble Lord opposite, seem to me perfectly unnecessary, for this reason, that however illegal Herr Hitler's action may be, it does not constitute a threat of aggression at all. France is in no more dangerous a position now than it was in six months ago. Ever since the War the French have been spending colossal sums upon the fortification of the frontier. I believe they have spent something like £500,000,000 to £600,000,000 on it; they have been busily engaged in encircling Germany with satellite States which are heavily armed; and they have finally concluded an alliance with the Soviet, the object of which is unconcealed. The alliance with the Soviet Government was made because Russia is a formidable military Power. There is no secrecy about it at all, and the fact of this alliance being concluded, what-ever the views of the Labour Party may be on the subject, seems to me to have been an extremely valid argument on the part of the Germans that at all events the principle of Locarno has been destroyed.
What is there on the part of the French really to be afraid of? The mere fact of 50,000 men being introduced into the Rhine Valley makes very little difference. Nobody in their senses can believe that the Germans are going to fight them, at all events for some time to come. The French have not only prepared for an invasion for years and years, but they

557
have also prepared by contracting these alliances. They have made this pact, and no nation in its senses under the circumstances would dream of any aggressive measures at all. Therefore, what is there to talk about? If I understand the matter rightly, and if I am not misquoting Ministers, I think it has been stated that in no circumstances would British troops be used to turn German troops out of German territory. I believe that is a pledge that has been given. In that case, what is there to talk about, and what could we do in the matter? You may say we are responsible, but, as a matter of fact, we have not got any troops available for this purpose at all. I cannot help suspecting that these Staff talks are really a concession on the part of the Government to French, I will not say vanity, but to French amour propre—a thing which French Ministers can talk about when they go to their electors in the course of the next week or two. But the fact does not seem to me to have any real significance at all.
In any case, the situation on the Rhine has led to some extremely unpleasant criticism of this country in the French Press, not altogether unaccompanied by threats. For instance, I read in English papers of March 25 a translation of an interview given by M. Flandin to the representative of a journal called the Tribune des Nations, which, I understand, is an organ connected with the League, and in that interview he said in effect—I cannot quote his words because I have not them here—" If the English are going to maintain the attitude that they are holding at the present moment, what we shall do is this: we shall make our own terms with the Germans, practically at the expense of the English." There is no justification for any language of this kind, but I adduce it as an instance of the feeling which, in some quarters of France, prevails with regard to this country. I observe that my noble friend the Secretary of State for India, the other day in a speech which he made, I think at Manchester, stated that all the trouble in Europe was due to the action of Germany, and when this statement was criticised in The Times he replied that he was only expressing his private opinion. Well, I do not know whether Cabinet Ministers exchange private opinions upon questions of this kind or
558
not, but I cannot help thinking that if he was to examine his colleagues he would find that they did not all agree with him.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I think the noble Lord has misunderstood the point. What I said was that certainly I was solely responsible for what I had said, but that was in reply to a suggestion by The Times that I did not approve of something said by somebody else.
LORD NEWTON: Yes, I know; that is the whole point. The noble Marquess was expressing his own views, but they were not necessarily the views of his colleagues, and, as I say, if he were to consult them, he would find the views of some of his colleagues were the exact opposite. If he were to consult a wider audience, I think he would find that there was an enormous mass of opinion in this country which refused to take that view, and took the view, on the other hand, that the present unsettled condition of Europe, the deplorable condition of Europe at the moment, is not due solely by any means to Germany, but is due to the fact that Germany has not had fair play since the War; and, in fact, that the real causes of the present condition of Europe are to be found in the post-War Treaties. There are sympathisers on both sides in this country. There are strong supporters of France, and there are many people who sympathise with Germany. I am not ashamed to avow myself as having very considerable sympathy with Germany, but I do not include in that sympathy—not that it will make any difference to him—Herr Hitler and the Nazi Government. To my mind Herr Hitler, whatever his merits may be, which are no doubt considerable, seems to go out of his way whenever he gets a chance to alienate his friends. He begins by alienating opinion by the persecution of Jews and political opponents in his own country, then he outrages and alarms foreign opinion by the breaking of treaties and by totally illegal acts. If I were a German I should be inclined to implore Providence to be delivered from this particular man. He may mean well, but it seems to me that on the whole his influence is disastrous, that it will be ultimately disastrous to Germany, and that at the present moment it is certainly disastrous as regards the feeling of the outside world towards Germany.

559
I think the prevalent feeling in this country is that we desire to be on equally good terms with both France and Germany. I do not know that we have any particular preference for one or the other, and I sympathise with the idea that there should be an alliance between the three countries, but it does not look like that being so at the present moment. I however derive great consolation from the fact that His Majesty's Government are going to take what I believe to be the really sound course. They are not going to take sides, but they have undertaken to consider the proposals which Herr Hitler is putting before Europe. Whether they are really valuable or not I cannot say, but nothing could be more unsatisfactory than the condition of Europe at the present moment, and I sincerely trust that these proposals will be carefully investigated. As far as my personal opinion goes, for what it is worth, I do not believe there ever will be any satisfactory settlement of Europe, that Europe will ever be really peaceful and satisfied, until the League of Nations is remodelled and until the post-War Treaties are revised.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, I want to express the anxiety which is widely felt lest the Government, while at first they took up the position of friends of both sides, are moving somewhat away from the position of mediator, and I wish to ask the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, if he can assure us that recent indications do not indicate anything of the kind. The public and the Press have noted a certain departure from the attitude expressed by the Prime Minister in the first debate which took place in another place two days after the German coup. The Prime Minister said that" our aim was to bring France and Germany together in friendship with ourselves." He criticised both sides. He did not spare France, and that struck people as an extraordinarily significant utterance at such a moment, when France was asking our aid as the aggrieved party. The Prime Minister apparently felt that some warning was needed, and he said that "our best hopes have been blighted, sometimes by the French in our view missing an opportunity of accepting some offer." Then he went on to criticise Germany, using these words: "doing some act to liberate herself in breaking a treaty which has shocked our conscience," and again,
560
" in such a way as to shock the most delicate susceptibilities of the French." But he qualified that criticism with these words: "She has acted in that way I do not believe deliberately."
In that speech the Prime Minister took up the authentic attitude of mediator. He showed an absolute absence of bias towards either side, and the attitude of a potential friend to both parties, crediting both with sincerity. At that moment the French Government were proposing violent action, and asking us to take the strictly legalistic view. The Prime Minister's tone was markedly different, and his attitude, adopted by the Government, saved us from what would have been a reckless policy. Events now show to all the world that the French proposals would have been fatal. The Foreign Secretary has an extraordinarily difficult problem to face. No doubt experts had urged the Government towards leaning in favour of the letter of the law. The Cabinet preferred to lean in the direction of judging by the spirit of the law, but it does look as if in subsequent days there had been some movement away from that middle position, and certain newspapers have voiced the alarm that has been felt.
I would point to the White Paper of March 19 as one evidence of it. The proposals were made in a very different tone from the utterance of Mr. Baldwin. The tone was not that of a mediator. You might call it minatory. It seemed to assume that Germany was guilty not only in the letter but in the spirit. It departed from the conception of equality. The noble Viscount who leads the House, in his eloquent and moving speech, dealing with general considerations, said that Germany's excuse for her action is the grievance which she has suffered. I agree with my noble friend Lord Arnold that that does not do justice fully to the German case. The noble Viscount used afterwards the expression: "The era of grievance has closed." All of us welcomed such a statement from him, but the liquidation of the immediate crisis, as he called it, does need evidence from us of complete impartiality and total freedom from leaning to one side or the other.
I think that the White Paper, judged fairly, did show a certain bias. For instance, in the proposal of a one-sided zone. That surely implied that we are not at the moment prepared to recognise

561
Germany as a sovereign State with complete equality. If even we are not prepared to recognise that from this moment, then I think we create a despair in Germany and we jeopardise the prospect of receiving Germany into the League. The noble "Viscount, in his speech after that, made an extremely interesting appeal to the German Government. He tried to make acceptable what he evidently felt was an almost impossible pill for the German Government to swallow. It moved me to admiration to see how his great gifts were employed in making the pill as acceptable as possible. It was a masterpiece of persuasive argument, but he could hardly expect that it would succeed in inducing Herr Hitler to accept the proposal of a one-sided demilitarised zone.
Then, when you come to the question of Staff talks, we have had powerful criticism of the fact of the Staff talks to-day. Apart from, that, it seemed to me that the White Paper emphasised the Staff talks in a quite unnecessary way, and even if we were still occupying the same impartial position it was needless to give them such prominence in the White Paper. The tone of the White Paper was quite alien to that of the utterances of Mr. Baldwin to which I have referred. Then, after that, we had the debate in another place, and the Foreign Secretary went out of his way to defend the proposals in the form they took in the White Paper, and dwelt with emphasis upon the fact that we were not arbitrators. It seemed to me again that he was taking a different attitude from that of the Prime Minister, and there was a great deal of comment in the Press on the fact of this difference of tone. That departure from the part of mediator seemed to most of us disastrous. It seemed to us that if it were carried to any distance the last chance of establishing the League on a new and sound foundation would be gone, that we should be showing we were taking the French view as more reasonable than the German view, and that we agreed in essence with the French policy—a policy represented in the main by the invasion of the Ruhr. If we did approve of the French policy of past years, which has been so devastatingly criticised to-day, we should remember that that is the policy which produced Herr Hitler and Hitlerism in Germany, and we have
562
perhaps in the past given France reason to think that we did agree by our genial complacency and sympathy.
We have more or less followed the policy proposed by the French Government, and therefore it seems to me we are partly responsible for the shock which was felt in France three weeks ago at finding that we do not at all agree with the fundamental idea of French policy. What we understand as reason is not at all the same as what is understood in France as logic. We never of course can regard predominance as a possible basis of permanent peace, but we still have the Paris Press talking about France the victor, Germany the vanquished—an idea perfectly alien to ourselves at this stage of history. We all know the French view, which has been very well expressed by my noble friend Lord Snell. It is perfectly understood in England and great sympathy is felt for it. But it really is all to the good if the French people are now coming to realise that what we want is a League on a permanent basis and not on a precarious basis like that of subordination. Our views of policy are our own and there is public anxiety now, as my noble friends have said, lest perhaps the Government are drifting a little towards the adoption of French policy, as has so often been done in the past. I submit that the Prime Minister's reaction immediately after the coup was right and sound, and I hope that the noble Earl who speaks for the Government will be able to assure us that there is no departure from it whatever.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, the debate which has arisen on the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Snell, has been anticipated by a discussion in another place a very large portion of which was devoted to the Italo-Abyssinian dispute. I do not propose to make any reference to that to-day except to observe that I find some difficulty in accepting the contention put forward on behalf of His Majesty's Government that from September, 1934, until May, 1935, they had nothing before them except the Walwal incident. I do not know what smokescreen can have been interposed between them and the facts that was potent to prevent them seeing. The continual despatch of arms to East Africa throughout the summer, autumn and winter of 1934, the appeal of Ethiopia in January

563
of last year, repeated again in March, invoking Articles 10 and 15 of the Covenant, representing that the menace of war existed, and then finally, the acceptation of conciliation commissions from which without protest the real issue, the menace of war, was excluded, seem to make it difficult to claim to-day that nothing else was before them except the Walwal incident.
I will leave that alone to-day because the hour is advancing and I propose only to deal—without the slightest spirit of criticism of the attitude of His Majesty's Government up till now—with a problem which perhaps more than any other in my long experience seems to me to require examination without prejudice in the light of practical considerations. I believe that on the decision to be taken after the proposals that have been made by Germany depends any prospect of relief from the condition of unrest and constant preoccupation which has impeded the recovery of the world from the cataclysm of the late War. Its grim legacy has left other issues still to solve but in the main the essential cause of that unrest remains the perennial irreconcilability of France and Germany, accentuated, in the case of the former, by a conviction—genuine, if to my mind not really justified—that their future security was not accurately guaranteed, and, in the ease of the latter, that a position of inferiority in the family of nations, which a great and potentially powerful people could not endure without humiliation, must not be perpetuated.
If the present aspect of this issue between them is largely psychological it is really almost as old as history. As you will all remember, Tacitus represented the Gauls and Germans as being divided by a river, a mountain and an incompatibility of temperament. The majority of the German people, for reasons which it is interesting to examine, remained outside the orbit of the Roman Empire. France inherited from Gaul perhaps more than any other country the Roman tradition, and she may logically claim an historical title to uphold the sanctity of contracts. We ourselves inherited very much from the Roman tradition, but we have also acquired from long experience a conviction that in national as in human affairs there is an advantage in compromise, in fair play and in the saving grace of common sense, and that the
564
strict application of a code may often lead to miscarriages of justice.
The attitude of France in the present issue has been, as always, perfectly logical, but in a fluid world logic cannot be the sole determinant. It is accepted by those who from long personal contacts know them best, that the peoples of the rival protagonists are sincerely desirous of peace and convinced of the futility of war, but a fatalistic drift of preconceptions still darkens the air with suspicion. It cannot be a national interest to perpetuate antipathies. No one can contest the paramount importance of observing respect for the sanctity of treaties and for pledges freely given until by mutual consent they can be revised or rescinded. On the other hand, it cannot be reasonably maintained that with changing circumstances treaty restrictions imposed under exceptional conditions can permanently remain exempt from that time limit to which all human issues are subject. We have seen, since the cessation of hostilities, certain nations with a long tradition of antagonism rapidly resuming relations of good will. We have ourselves, I think, not failed by accelerating the evacuation, resisting new occupations, and terminating Reparations, to give testimony of our desire to deal equitably with issues which stood in the way of Germany's recovery. I trust it is not too much to hope that at the present critical moment our friends in France will display the same conciliatory spirit.
I have said before in your Lordships' House, and I repeat, that I hold no brief for Germany, but I have always endeavoured in international issues to understand the point of view of either disputant; and I ask myself how far was the action of Germany not rendered inevitable by this attitude of mistrust and suspicion of which she knows herself to be the objective? Germany has seen herself surrounded by a chain of alliances within the body corporate of the League of Nations, extending across Europe. She has seen every effort to achieve disarmament obstructed and thwarted, and the greater Powers, with the solitary exception of Great Britain up to the present time, vastly increasing their expenditure on armaments while she had been unable to recover that sense of equality in the family of nations which she holds to be her due. She has seen one proposal after

565
another for the discussion of certain essential issues rejected without consideration. And so finally, when the German people realised that their encirclement was about to be completed by a pact with Soviet Russia, whose aims and propaganda they regard, whether rightly or wrongly, as a menace not only to their own, but to the whole of Western civilisation, they applauded the violation in the letter of treaties which they regarded as having been already evaded in the spirit.
They may exaggerate the danger they apprehend from that propaganda, but, having lately returned from a country where it has been in recent times particularly zealous, I have been able to realise the wide range of its activities. We who have made sacrifices of our own interests, as I have read them, and even of old friendships that were precious to us, for principles to which we had of our own free will subscribed, cannot approve the method, but we may understand, and therefore to a considerable extent excuse, a sense of disillusion which has had recourse, in order to escape from servitudes felt to be inconsistent with national dignity, to a procedure which international traditions condemn.
I have been told, but I think by an ever-diminishing number, of people to whom I have spoken of the new Germany, that I am easily persuaded and should study historic precedents. I think I am as familiar with historic precedents as most of them can be, and yet I am convinced that it is more opportune and more helpful for a future settlement in Europe to study more recent history, giving credit for extenuating circumstances, and to welcome proposals for a future setttlement than, with all deference to the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India, to urge a re-examination of the philosophy of Bernhardi and Nietzsche and Treitschke, the last of whom was electrifying university audiences in Berlin when I was there at least fifty years ago. These men belonged to the Bismarckian epoch, in which a succession of victories and the unification of Germany after the long period of struggle had intensified the imperial spirit to dazzling point.
I still travel a good deal, and often find occasions to revise old pre-conceptions with new experience. During the last
566
year I have visited many of the countries on the Continent which are now most under discussion. Perhaps what has impressed me most in one of them with which I have been familiar for more than half a century, Germany, was what I may call the democratisation of the country, if I may use that expression without putting too great a strain on its connotation. The old iron caste system, which Bismarck maintained was necessary to the then condition of Germany, has disappeared. All classes have been shuffled up together. The land camps have brought the youth of town and country into healthy and genial contact. The manner of the drill sergeant no longer governs the attitude of officials, or even of police, who are friendly and helpful, just as old men used to tell me fifty years ago they had always been in Germany before the Bismarckian régime. I found there a new spirit of hope and confidence in what a short time before I had esteemed to be a nerveless and disillusioned people. In the pre-War Germany the Army constituted the only real social organisation in the country. After 1918 all standards of tradition disappeared and with that to a very large extent the disciplinary, the moral and the physical training for which we largely depend on our schools and colleges, but for which in Germany school and college life made no provision. A new social organisation has to be established to stem the drift to anarchy, to engender a corporate spirit and disciplined character. Well, the Germans believe that military service offers the instrument best suited to their national temperament. I only mention this because I should like to remind some people that there may be other uses for a national armament than that of pure aggression.
I find here to-day in this country, in all sections with which I come into contact, a strong and a growing feeling that since the Peace Germany has not been altogether fairly treated. An apparent determination in certain quarters to prolong indefinitely servitudes imposed immediately after the strain and the resentments of the Great War, while the rest of the world failed to implement its undertaking to disarm, her effectual isolation completed by the Pact with Soviet Russia, and the rejection hitherto of all advances made by the new régime, have

567
influenced public opinion here in a direction which it is not possible to ignore, and I can have no doubt what the effect would be if the proposals which have commended themselves to that opinion were to prove of none effect. France and Belgium are protected not only by the obligations that we have assumed, but they—and I might add Holland also—are reassured by the conviction, of which Herr Hitler makes no secret, that the good will of Germany is indispensable to the recovery and prosperity of his own country.
The alternative to such a settlement is unthinkable. The possibility of another World War is unthinkable, for it would mean the end of the world we know. Those of us who have reached the term of human activity have still one absorbing preoccupation—to leave to our children and to our children's children a better and more hopeful world than we have had to live in for the last twenty years. A great opportunity seems to be offered us to-day when the accepted Leader of a great people, which has contributed so much to the enlightenment of mankind, conscious that he has the whole nation unanimously behind him, invites us to forget the past, to bury the hatchet, to lay aside mistrust and suspicions, and meet round the Council Table to devise a scheme to ensure the peace of the world. We may not share some of his ideologies, we may regard his outlook as contracted, we may regret the disregard for obligations which have commanded traditional respect, but it is sufficient to know the man to entertain no doubt as to his directness and sincerity. There are critical moments in international affairs when it is more urgent to grapple with real values than to quarrel over forms. I believe the vast majority of my countrymen stand for acceptance in principle of the offer that ho has advanced, and I would appeal to our friends in France to co-operate in insisting on their receiving fair consideration and so ensuring that that new gleam of light on the horizon of the Western world shall not lead us only to disillusion.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, at this late hour I shall spare your Lordships practically any reference to the general situation, especially as it is my intention, I am afraid, to extend the bounds of an already wide debate. All
568
I would say about the general situation is that, whatever may be the result of the present unfortunate disputes between Italy and Abyssinia and between France and Germany, we shall never get lasting peace in Europe until not merely the Treaty of Versailles, but also that of Trianon, is radically altered, if not altogether scrapped. The point I have really risen to put to the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, is one which arises out of the points put forward by Germany for consideration in her case. That point is with reference to her former colonies. A certain number of questions have been asked, especially in another place during the last few days, and the replies to these questions, even the one given as recently as this afternoon, have been of a character likely to cause a certain amount of alarm among those of us who see no justification whatsoever for the handing back of any mandated territory to Germany.
I am not going to labour the point of view, although I think it is one which I share with a great many people in this country, that there is no ethical reason whatsoever why we should hand back any of the colonies to Germany which we acquired by conquest at the finish of a war brought on by Germany, but I suggest there are three very practical reasons why any such return is entirely injudicious and ought not to be contemplated. The first is that it would not satisfy Germany if Tanganyika, which is generally understood to be the one they have their eye on first, were handed back. Sooner or later they would seek to reconquer South-West Africa and the Cameroons as well. The second point is that should there ever again be hostilities with Germany, which we must pray will never be the case, but about which we cannot be certain, the nuisance value of a German base in Tanganyika would be very great indeed, both from the military and naval point of view. We should have to keep a large force both on sea and on land occupied, which might well be required elsewhere, and a whole Continent which would otherwise very likely, even in a world turmoil, remain in a state of comparative peace, might be plunged into war. The third, and even more vital, reason is this. Can it be claimed by any one that Germany's record in regard to the treatment of the

569
inhabitants in the German colonies before the War is one that makes anyone confident about her administering them again in the future?
We have heard a great deal about the atrocities of Italians upon Abyssinians, but we have not heard mention of the atrocities of Germans upon helpless Hereros and other tribes in South-West Africa before the War, and I think we should be very chary indeed before we again abandon the inhabitants of any portion of Africa to the tender mercies of the German colonist and the German official. Unfortunately, there would seem to be very little reason to suppose, at the present time, that there has been any change of heart as far as Germany is concerned, because whatever may be the injustices from which that country is admittedly suffering, we have to remember that she is carrying on a calculated, cruel, sadistic persecution of certain elements of her own countrymen within her own boundaries, and, for my part, I am not prepared to admit that Germany is the moral equal of this country as long as she continues to oppress Jews and Christians alike in the way she is doing.
To sum up, the questions I shall put to the noble Earl, which I trust he will be able to answer fully when he replies, are these: In the conversations that have taken place between Herr von Ribbentrop or any other German Ambassador, official or otherwise, and any one of our Ministers or permanent officials, has any promise been made or indication been given to Germany that we should be prepared to consider the handing back to her of Tanganyika or any part of her former colonial possessions; and if not, can we have an assurance from the Government that under no circumstances will our Government be a party to any such proposal? Those of us who, in the past, have felt critical, will find our criticism carried to the point of opposition if there is to be any question at the present time of handing over to Germany these colonies which she lost as the result of her wilful precipitation of the world into the conflagration of 1914.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Snell, who performed a service in putting down this Motion, has asked me to wind up for my noble
570
friends on this side, and I shall do so, I hope, with the required brevity. The noble Earl who has just sat down tempts me to follow him, as he always does when he speaks. I was delighted to hear what he said about the Treaties of Versailles and Trianon. I wish he had been of my generation because he might then have assisted me in another place seventeen years ago when I moved their rejection and voted against them, facts which I now have the satisfaction of remembering. Not only that but I opposed the Treaty of Sevres and the Treaty of St. Germain and other most unfortunate instruments of that kind which were drawn up at that time. But when the noble Earl reminds us of the very deplorable events which are happening in Germany, the persecution of this and that class and creed and so on, I feel compelled to resist his blandishments because, as my noble friend Lord Snell put it so well, these matters are after all the affairs of the German people. It is an unfortunate fact that in very many countries today the most abominable cruelties are taking place, tortures by police of political prisoners in South American Republics and in Eastern Europe, and horrible doings of that kind. But we have to curb our moral indignation. We can express our detestation of these things, but I do not think they should sway our foreign policy.
I remember at the same period about which I am speaking, when passions were aroused over these unfortunate Peace Treaties which are the cause of this debate keeping your Lordships so late to-night—I remember at that time great indignation being expressed against Russia because of the excesses of the Russian revolution. At that, time I, and my noble friend Lord Snell and others, pleaded in the face of great insult and calumny for non-intervention against Russia, for the patching up of the former friendship of this country with that great country, and the restoration of normal relations in spite of the excesses which we did not attempt to excuse. I am afraid I find myself compelled to take exactly the same line with respect to Germany to-day. However much we may deplore these events in Germany—and I am sure this is also the view of the Government—we cannot allow our policy to be swayed by them.

571
I will also follow the noble Lord's example in exploring one further small new patch of territory. Usually when we have these debates on foreign affairs your Lordships have the privilege of hearing the last speech for the Government made by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. I do not know what effect the Lord Chancellor's speeches have on your Lordships, but I always go away with a glow of satisfaction and a feeling that after all the Government are trying to do the right thing, that they really do want to support the Covenant of the League, that they are against war, and do want to encourage peace everywhere. That is always the effect of the Lord Chancellor's peroration on me, and apparently on the noble Earl who is going to reply for the Government in a few moments. But when I come to examine their deeds I find my doubts arising. I am going to refer to one of their recent deeds for which they may disclaim direct responsibility, but for which, apparently, they have some responsibility, and that is in connection with the attempted suppression, or at any rate the obstruction, of a peace film produced by an organisation which is a subsidiary of the League of Nations Union.
Films in this country are under the censorship of a so-called independent body, a Film Board, the Chairman of which is a very distinguished member of your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Tyrrell. I allowed myself the courtesy of informing the noble Lord, Lord Tyrrell, that I intended to bring this matter up at the end of the debate tonight. I also, I am afraid at somewhat short notice, informed the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that I was going to refer to it. I was always under the impression that the Board of Film Censors was concerned with morals and decency and seeing that films were not published which offended the religious susceptibilities of people. I think it will be a surprise to your Lordships to hear that they apparently exercise some political censorship and that they apparently, in this case at any rate, look askance at, or with hostility and suspicion on, any film which is intended to encourage the peace feeling.
The film to which I refer is an antiwar film. It is not intended to be a
572
recruiting film. It does not gloss over the horrors of war and it reiterates again and again—of course it is a sound film—the words of our revered Prime Minister that there is no defence against air attack. And I suggest those words are even more true now than when the Prime Minister said them. This film has been refused a licence, though my last information sent by my right honourable friend Mr. Greenwood, a member of another place, is that the licence is now going to be granted. But your Lordships will, I think, be a little surprised to hear that the Board of Film Censors, presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Tyrrell, sent this film to the War Office for their opinion, apparently on the ground that some of the shots of the film, as they are called, may have been Government property. My information is that it is not the business of the Board of Film Censors to safeguard copyright or to safeguard Government property or anything of the kind. They are concerned with decency and morals and the other things I have referred to.
I think it is most unfortunate that this thing has happened. I dare say the explanation may be that they wanted to be sure the War Office films had not been misused without their permission. I understand there is nothing in that, and that now permission is going to be given; but it is a little unfortunate, at this time particularly, that a film made by voluntary efforts under the auspices of the League of Nations Union, which has been distributed free, solely for the purpose of encouraging the peace movement in this country, should be held up and obstructed in this way. I am very glad that the latitude allowed in your Lordships' House enables me to raise this matter, and I hope that the noble Earl the Under-Secretary will allow himself the same latitude in replying to me. Another noble Lord, who has taken a great interest in the British film industry when he held another Government office is the present Air Minister, and I hope that he agrees with me that this sort of thing should not be allowed to happen.
I referred just now to the events of some seventeen years ago when we had the Treaty of Versailles before Parliament. Your Lordships this evening heard a speech from the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, to which I

573
listened, if I may say so, with very great interest, which contained an apologia for Germany and what I felt was a veiled attack on Russia. I think it is generally agreed now—and this thread has run through all these debates—that taking the long view the events of the last few weeks and other events in Germany, including the excesses to which the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, drew attention, were caused by the Treaty of Versailles and what followed it. I have been refreshing my memory by re-reading the debate in another place when the Treaty of Versailles was before us and also I have read the debate on the same Treaty in your Lordships' House. Nowadays the noble Marquess and the noble Earl and others, with great truth, say that the Treaty of Versailles was a mistake. I ventured to point that out at the time. I ventured to point out that you deprived this country, Germany, of all her colonies completely and therefore pressed her into an inferior position, that you deprived her of the Saar Valley for fifteen years, and that you had by these things and by your Armies of Occupation and crushing Reparations put a general badge of inferiority and disgrace upon her. I said that all those things—they are all reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT—were bound to resurrect the Prussian spirit which had been defeated by the War.
At that time the German people were pacificists; they were disillusioned, the Bismarckian bubble referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, in his speech a few minutes ago had been pricked, and they were ready to play their part in the new society of nations, and, indeed, to go into the League. They were excluded even from the League of Nations. I ventured to prophesy that by what was being done the seeds of future trouble were being sown. I was, unfortunately, only too right. When we came to a Division there were very few who supported us. I note that among noble Lords who were then members of another place who voted for the Treaty of Versailles wore a number of your Lordships now present, including the noble Lord, Lord Stonehaven, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Air Minister, my noble friend Lord Marks, who was in the Chamber a few moments ago, and the noble Viscount who answered the Question put by my noble friend Lord Snell, and who leads
574
your Lordships' House, Viscount Halifax. These noble Lords, then members of another place, voted for the Treaty of Versailles, and when it came to your Lordships' House—I have been looking at the debate—I see that the late Viscount Bryce had some very pertinent criticisms to make. But I do not find the name of the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, no doubt for very good reason—he was not there. He may have been abroad or absent on public service but he was not present at the time.
Now we are living seventeen years after these events. I perhaps need not press the point much further, but there is something to-day which alarms me and I venture once more to give warning of trouble that we may be laying up for ourselves, and perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, will refer to this matter when he replies. I find a tendency in many influential quarters to clear the field, if I may so express it, for a German attack on Russia. It is called by other names, of course." Limiting the risks of membership of the League of Nations "is one of the phrases used." We must not entangle ourselves in the East at all and limit our commitments only to the West "is another. Lord Halifax, who spoke for the Government, answering my noble friend on another matter, and answering also the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, put it in a slightly different way. He said that we must limit our commitments in the West, and that France's obligations must not involve us in trouble in the East, or words to that effect. I would remind your Lordships that all these pacts of non-aggression are merely superfluous, in my opinion. We are all bound not to commit acts of aggression by the Briand-Kellogg Pact, the Pact of Paris, the pact outlawing war.
I took some part in the public campaign for the outlawing of war, which led to the President of the United States taking the initiative and to the Briand-Kellogg Pact being drawn up and signed. Every war must be started by somebody, and anyone who starts a war breaks his pledge under the Briand-Kellogg Pact. We are bound honourably also by the Covenant of the League of Nations, and as long as Russia is a Member of the League of Nations—she was welcomed to the Council by the

575
Government of which the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, was an influential and distinguished member—we are bound to go to her assistance if she is attacked. I find suggestions in many quarters, from important people, to the effect that Russia must be left to her fate and Germany must perhaps be compensated in Europe in that way.
I also have information, as no doubt also have the Government, that there is the beginning of a change of outlook in Germany herself towards Russia—that there are influential people in Germany who feel that a continuance of hostility towards Russia would be a mistake. There are the 1,300,000 reasons quoted by Lord Lothian, which exist in the numbers of the Russian Army, and there are the other 3,000 urgent reasons in the number of front-line aeroplanes possessed by Russia, not to mention the natural resources of the Russians. It would be extremely unfortunate at this time if this policy is supported of pretending that we have no obligation towards Russia such as we have towards other countries. I suggest that the sooner we get back to the policy, mentioned indeed by the noble Viscount who leads the House, of indivisible peace safeguarded through the League of Nations, the better.
May I express an opinion which has been already explained by my right honourable friend Mr. Attlee, in another place, in connection with Staff talks? I would like to extend a little what he said. I do not find great cause of alarm in the Staff talks themselves, as long as they are not confined to certain Powers only. I agree that to confine the Staff talks to only one side of the Locarno group is objectionable. War Staff talks themselves are, I think, quite essential at the present time, but they should include more nations. For example, if there is a fear of German aggression across the Rhine from the re-militarised zone, Holland is in equal danger with Belgium or France. Why have the Dutch Government, as a fellow Member with ourselves of the League of Nations, not been invited to participate in the Staff talks, and why have not the Staff talks been extended, as should have been done years ago, to all the other Members of the League of Nations? We had an example last autumn in the case of the Mediterranean Powers, when our Cabinet took some alarm, apparently, at threats
576
from Italy. We sounded, if that is the correct term, we interpolated the other Mediterranean Powers, the Turks, the Greeks and the French, the Spaniards, who all have important strategical positions in the Mediterranean, and I presume that some sort of Staff talks took place for meeting any situation of danger.
I say that that should have been done many years before and should have begun in 1921, when we began to build up the framework of the League of Nations. I see no more objection to these Staff talks than to a meeting of chief constables within a country threatened with internal disorder. They are for police action, and the answer to the German complaint is: "Come back into the League and we will be delighted for your General Staff, with their great knowledge and ability, to come into these talks with us as well." If they are really only what I may call police measures which are being examined, then everyone who comes in and offers to provide his quota towards dealing with an aggressor would of course be welcome. Then, if you get that state of affairs, first one nation and then another will begin grumbling at the expense. They will say that under these arrangements for keeping the peace they are spending more money than is necessary in providing aeroplanes and so on, and you will have the Ministers of Finance objecting that taxation is high, and that they do not like the expense. Then, my Lords, you will have the right atmosphere in which you can bring about by agreement a limitation of armaments. That is the long-range policy which we should be working up to, and I was glad to hear the Foreign Minister state that he hoped that Germany will be back in the League this summer. Then, if there are Staff talks, the Dutch and everybody else may be brought into them.
Lord Mansfield referred to the question of colonies, and I am glad to notice that my noble friend Lord Arnold, in a debate which he initiated a few days ago in this House, seems to have made a rather notable convert in the person of Earl Stanhope, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. If he was correctly reported, recently, he has apparently an open mind on this question of Germany regaining some of her colonies. That

577
was rather a departure from the policy laid down by the Colonial Secretary on this subject, and perhaps we can have an enlargement of his views when the noble Earl comes to reply.
Now may I refer to something which was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, in reply to my noble friend Lord Snell. I entirely agree with what my noble, friend and other noble Lords, including Viscount Cecil, said about the disgust of the British public at what has happened in Abyssinia and the apparent failure so far of the sanctions policy. It it a most horrible business. As has been well said, it is not a case of Italy against Abyssinia but of Italy against the League of Nations. It is possible to trace a clear chain of events. It has been done before in your Lordships' House, and I do not want to dwell on it now. The links are only too visible. First Japan was allowed to engage in aggression against China, which encouraged Italy in her aggression against Abyssinia, and the third link of course is the German departure from the letter of the law. If finally Italy is allowed to profit by her aggression, a very serious blow will be struck at the whole League system. That we all know. It is only a platitude, but it is necessary to make this beginning in discussing to-day the system of collective security.
The noble Viscount who leads the House, and who is now I hope having a good air passage to Geneva, says that we did all we could without risking war with Italy. He threw out the well-worn challenge to us of the Labour Party: "Would you be prepared to face threats of war from Italy in taking measures to stop her aggression in Abyssinia? "Of course, we would. Certainly we would. Just as the policeman in the street has, if necessary, to face the assassin's pistol, so in certain circumstances, as the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, pointed out, we have to be prepared to resist force with force. We of the Labour Party were quite aware of that when we debated the matter last October at our Annual Conference. We see no alternative at all, and we say that if the collective system is made strong, and if it is known that it will be used, the aggressor will be discouraged from challenging not only the moral but the material forces of the world. If we are never to risk war in support of the Covenant, and of the
578
system of collective security, then we are encouraging any bully, any pinchbeck Napoleon to upset and destroy the peace of the world. In fact, we are giving over domination to the Fascist nations.
The noble Lord, Lord Rennell, quoted Tacitus. May I quote Virgil? "It never troubles the wolf how many the sheep be." I am afraid that in this Abyssinian affair and perhaps in others to follow with other aggressive nations, Signor Mussolini has been the wolf and the freedom-loving democracies of the West, the democratic countries of Europe—or their Governments—have been the sheep. That is one of our complaints against the present Government. They have given way to threats in this matter—either threats from Italy or perhaps hidden threats, as the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, suggested, from France. That is the question we have to face: What should be the point at which we are prepared to resist threats and indeed the warlike action of aggressors and peace breakers?
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, so many statements have been made in another place in recent days that I think your Lordships have realised that there is very little new which can be said and the attendance in the House at this moment shows, I think, that your Lordships do not expect any long statement from me. Several of your Lordships have referred to the Abyssinian question. I only want to remind your Lordships that that is actually being discussed at this moment at Geneva by the Committee of Thirteen, who are going into the whole question of the gas bombing which has taken place according to our information in Abyssinia, although I understand that so far the Italian Government have not made any answer to the request for information which was made by the Chairman of the Committee of Thirteen. I think your Lordships will all agree that serious as that question is, the real matter that we should all like to get settled, and settled soon, is the question of bringing the war in Abyssinia to a conclusion at the very earliest-possible moment.
The greater part of the debate has, of course, dealt principally with Locarno, and I will endeavour to meet some of the points. My noble friend Viscount

579
Halifax challenged the Labour Party with regard to what action they would take against Italy, and I am glad that at any rate one member of the Party has had the courage to meet that challenge. We understand that he is quite prepared to take action which would involve this country in war with Italy, in spite of the fact that we should have been acting single-handed in taking action of that kind, and therefore there would not have been collective action. We understand that is the policy of the Labour Party, put forward by one of its responsible members.
LORD STRABOLGI: Why single-handed?
EARL STANHOPE: For the very good reason that we should have got no support from other nations.
LORD STRABOLGI: I understood we sounded all other Mediterranean Powers, including France, and they gave a satisfactory response.
EARL STANHOPE: They gave the satisfactory response that they would come to our support if we were attacked. That is a different thing from saying they would have supported us in attacking some nation which would have brought on a war. For that we should certainly have received no support.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am much obliged to the noble Earl, and I apologise for interrupting him, but I never suggested that we should attack Italy. I have said that from the beginning there should have been a complete boycott. That is what we have already said would have been effective.
EARL STANHOPE: I understand the noble Lord and his Party would have been prepared to take some military sanctions which would have involved Italy making war on us. Nobody has suggested that we should attack Italy—except a few Italians—but there are a certain number of people who have thought that we should have brought the war in Abyssinia to a conclusion by blocking the Suez Canal by unilateral action on the part of this country. What I am trying to find out is whether that is the policy of the noble Lord and those associated with him, whether they think that ought to have been done by this country. It is of great importance. I
580
understand him to say that he would have been prepared to stop ships going through the Canal or to take some military action which would have definitely have brought us to war with Italy.
LORD STRABOLGI: I never mentioned the Suez Canal. I have always said that there should be economic sanctions—complete economic sanctions—and I still believe that they could and would have stopped the war.
EARL STANHOPE: The noble Lord said a great deal more than that. He said he would have been prepared to take any action, and that I understand to be not only economic but also military. If he tries to wriggle out of the challenge I can understand his difficulty, but unless his noble Leader, or somebody in another place, disowns him, I understand him to mean that the Labour Party would have been prepared to take military sanctions which would have involved us in war with Italy. I am not surprised that one of his Party in another place asked:
" May we have an assurance that the country will not be drawn into war by the Labour Party? "
LORD STRABOLGI: That was Mr. Maxton?
EARL STANHOPE: Mr. McGovern.
LORD STRABOLGI: He is not a member of my Party.
EARL STANHOPE: He is a member of the Independent Labour Party, which I understand is called Labour for the purpose of numbers when the Labour Party wishes to say how many votes it has got. But I really cannot go into the personal and political difficulties of the noble Lord's Party. When I heard that four of them were going to speak this evening my retort was that we should have four different lines of foreign policy before us.
My noble friend Lord Lothian made a very telling speech, which I am bound to say I interpreted in exactly the opposite way from the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil. I understood Lord Lothian to mean that in view of the obligations which fall upon us as a part of the British Empire we have many risks to face in every part of the world, both East and West, and that that was quite as much as we could fulfil. I understood him therefore to say that the risks

581
that we take under Article 16 were more than we ought indeed to face. Exactly the opposite view was taken by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, who suggested that we ought to go to the utmost extreme and be prepared to take every kind of action for collective security. I have found that view backed in some parts of your Lordships' House to-night, and I think by the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton. First of all, it seems to me a policy of negation and of hopelessness to say that you cannot do anything in regard to collective security. I am quite prepared to admit that the League, as it is composed now, is one that is not in the position that we all hoped that it would be in. It is not composed of all the great nations of the world, and until it is so composed its powers and its influence are a great deal less than we had hoped when the League was founded. But to say that therefore nothing can be done is a policy of hopelessness, because it means the complete abolition of all that we mean by collective security.
I do not take that view. I personally think that the League on the whole has done very well, even in regard to the Abyssinian struggle. I think the effect in Italy has been very much greater than many people yet realise. But let us remember that this is the first time in which sanctions have been imposed, and it has been no mean achievement to get more than fifty nations to agree, first of all to declare the aggressor, and, secondly, to see that sanctions were imposed at what was really very short notice after that aggression had begun. It is quite true that certain nations accepted the obligation of imposing sanctions very half-heartedly indeed, and some of them have been somewhat half-hearted in actually carrying out their obligation to impose sanctions. But we shall never really get the full effect of sanctions until every nation is prepared to face and to shoulder its full responsibilities. That is, I think, a matter that has to be brought home to them, and brought home to them very strongly.
There is yet a further matter in which we can strengthen the League a good deal, and that is by seeing that every nation contributes its full quota to the defensive Services which would be required under collective security. There
582
are certain nations, and particularly the smaller nations which stand to gain more by collective security than perhaps the greater nations would do, some of whom are somewhat inclined to think that they will get full security without making their contribution because the great nations will always come to their rescue at the last moment. That is an entirely false idea, of what collective security means, and until every nation is prepared both to face and to shoulder its responsibilities we shall not really be able to take effective action collectively.
The noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, asked me if we were acting as mediators and with impartiality between France and Germany in regard to the present position. The answer of course is, No. We are not in the position of mediators. We are one of the signatories of the Locarno Pact, and the Locarno Pact has been broken by the action of Germany. It is therefore absurd to say that we should stand in a position of mediation between France and Germany. We ourselves are quite definitely committed under that Pact, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, said, because the point that he brought out has certainly been very carefully considered with the best legal advice that we can obtain, and we have no doubt whatever that we are definitely committed under that Pact in regard to the actual phrases which he mentioned.
LORD ARNOLD: I think I am entitled to a rather more definite reply, because that is merely an affirmation to the contrary. The words I called attention to were that we were called upon "to come immediately to the assistance of the Power against whom the act complained of is directed." The question which I asked the noble Earl—and I wrote it down so that there might be no mistake—was, Were those words considered? He now says they were. I say: if so, on what ground was the conclusion reached that the act complained of was directed against France and Belgium any more than against all the signatory Powers? because I pointed out that in Article 44 of the Treaty of Versailles, which bears on this particular matter according to the phraseology of the Locarno Treaty, it was distinctly said that any breach of this matter, that is any remilitarisation, would be regarded as committing a hostile act against the Powers signatory—that is, all the Powers. And I asked specifically

583
what was the justification for singling out two Powers as distinct from the others in view of all the conditions and circumstances which I adduced.
EARL STANHOPE: But surely it would be against the four Powers—not only France and Belgium, but also the cosignatories, this country and Italy. It obviously cannot be directed against Germany, who is herself doing the act complained of.
LORD ARNOLD: The noble Earl has given precisely the reply I wanted. That means it is not specifically against France, and therefore under Article 4 (2) of the Locarno Treaty we are not called upon to go to its assistance.
EARL STANHOPE: Of course we are called upon to go to its assistance. If a treaty is broken and it definitely says that certain nations will undertake certain actions we, if we are one of those nations, are certainly going to fulfil our bond and honour our signature.
LORD ARNOLD: I will not detain the noble Earl at this hour, but he has completely given the case away and said precisely what proves my point.
EARL STANHOPE: If that is so I must have put it very badly, because that point has been definitely considered by-legal opinion, and those legal advisers have not the smallest doubt that the noble Lord's statement is completely wrong.
LORD ARNOLD: If that is so the noble Earl should give me the reasons. I asked him for them.
EARL STANHOPE: Various points were made in regard to Germany being considered to be in a position of unfairness. May I say that I think that many people in this country would have felt that Germany had a very strong case that the demilitarised zone sooner or later should be brought to an end, but there is a provision in the Treaty of Locarno by which, if the Franco-Soviet Pact was thought to be contrary, either in spirit or in the letter, to that Treaty, the matter might have been put either to The Hague Court or to some other body. Germany, of course, did nothing of the kind, as we know. She broke the Treaty unilaterally, and that is, as the Leader of the House has said, the serious point
584
of the matter. The point is not the re-occupation of the Rhineland. It is the serious point as to whether treaties are to be sacrosanct in future or not.
There have been statements made in Germany which really caused some anxiety, that treaties must give way before the "eternal rights and the eternal duties of the German people." It is quite easy to say either in regard to this or some other treaty that rights have been infringed, or that there is some, unfairness, or that something or other has happened which alters the situation of the treaty; but if we are to be faced in future with treaties which may be torn up by unilateral action, we are going to build on a very unstable foundation indeed. It is for that reason that the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State have been doing their utmost to get a feeling of confidence restored, and to see whether nations can be brought together and to build on a foundation which everybody will realise is a secure foundation, and one which is going to last. If we can do that, then we hope we shall be able to bring the nations together again—France and Germany—and although we are not actually mediators, because we are definitely committed to one side, to do an act of mediation, and do what my noble friend Lord Londonderry suggested, which of course we all so much desire, to get France and Germany and ourselves once more in friendship and agreement on great matters of economics, politics, and policy.
Some noble Lords have been anxious that we should cut loose from all our engagements, and I have tried to meet that point. Other noble Lords have asked for explanations as to what is meant by the German proposals. We are only as yet examining these proposals, and therefore a great many questions will have to be asked by His Majesty's Government of Germany before we obtain real clarification of what is meant. My noble friend Lord Mansfield asked some questions in regard to colonies. The phrase in the German paper, "colonial equality of rights," may mean the return of one mandated territory or the return of everything. We have not yet discovered, and His Majesty's Government have therefore not begun to consider the question at all. My noble friend knows that a fairly long statement was

585
made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer I in another place two days ago on this matter. He said quite clearly that in no circumstances would there be any question of giving away British Colonies, but in regard to mandated territory that is in rather a different position. He indicated that there was no chance of our considering such a matter unless other nations in a similar position also considered it, and also that it was brought before the League of Nations, and he entered this further caveat, as my noble friend suggested, that the views of the natives in such territories would have to be given very careful consideration indeed.
THE EARL OP MANSFIELD: May I ask whether the noble Earl is not able to give an assurance that in no circumstances will the Government consider any such transfer?
EARL STANHOPE: No, I am not in a position to do that. In a question as wide as this, where we are engaged in getting Germany back to the League of Nations and getting a general settlement, I think it would be extremely unwise to give any such assurance. I am not a member of the Cabinet in any case, and therefore I am not in a position to give any assurance, on behalf of His Majesty's Government in such a matter as that.
The hour is late, and I have really nothing more to say, but may I just remind your Lordships of this? Many years ago, at the Lord Mayor's banquet in November, 1879, Lord Beaconsfield said:
" So Long as the power and advice of England are felt in the councils of Europe, peace, I believe, will be maintained, and maintained for a long period."
Like so many other sayings of Disraeli, these words are, I believe, as true to-day as when they were uttered over fifty years ago. We have been endeavouring to give our counsel in the affairs of Europe, and His Majesty's Government are taking steps to increase the power of this country by the defence arrangements which we are making. I believe that if we use
586
our power and our counsel in the affairs of Europe we shall be able once more to extricate Europe from the great difficulties that face it at the present time. I agree that Europe is in a most unsatisfactory condition, but I believe that by the influence and leadership of this country, exercised as it has been in the past and increased in influence by the rearmament proposals which His Majesty's Government have put forward, we shall be able to benefit not only this country but all the world and to establish peace once more on a sure foundation.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, the intention of the Question on the Paper was not to criticise or embarrass His Majesty's Government, but rather to be helpful. I think the debate has been of a serious nature, and I can only express my regret that in the reply of the Government it was thought necessary, in view of the reticence which we have exercised, to make a cheap debating attack upon the Labour Party. What does it matter whether there were four different views expressed in four different speeches? The duty of every member of your Lordships' House is to contribute the best he has and knows to the discussion that is before us, and I only say in conclusion that it is not the Labour Party which is under criticism, if anybody, but His Majesty's Government. I beg leave to withdraw.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

SUGAR INDUSTRY (REORGANISATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past seven o'clock.