House Of Commons
Monday, 3rd November, 1919.
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
Private Business
Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,
Fraserburgh Harbour (New Works) Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
New Writs
For County of Kent (Isle of Thanet Division) in the room of Lieut.-Commander Norman Carlyle Craig, K.C., deceased.—[ Lord Edmund Talbot.]
For Borough of Plymouth (Sutton Division), in the room of Waldorf, Viscount Astor, Chiltern Hundreds.—[ Lord Edmund Talbot.]
Oral Answers To Questions
Wild Birds' Plumage (Prohibited Imports)
2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when it is intended to introduce legislation to put a stop to the importation into the United Kingdom of wild birds' plumage, the export of which has been prohibited from other portions of the British Empire?
A Bill is in draft to deal with this matter, but, in view of the pressure of Parliamentary business, I am afraid that I cannot say when it will be introduced.
Trade And Commerce
Gauges (Key Industries)
3, 4 and 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether prohibition is enforced as to gauges in the interests of the two firms whose names have been given to the trade; and, if so, what effective steps can be taken to protect the users of such articles in regard to price;
(2) On whose advice the Government have placed gauges on the key industry list; and will he agree to the request from the trade to receive a deputation to discuss the position thus created; (3) Whether, in view of the uncertainty as to the definition of the term gauges and the apparent inability of the Board of Trade to give a clear and definite description thereof, he is aware of the detention and consequent expense which is being occasioned at ports on arrival; whether the tools in question are a proved necessity to the engineering and metal trades, and that there is a total inadequacy of British manufactured gauges; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?I will answer these three questions together. The decision to prohibit the importation of gauges, except under licence, after the 1st September, was based on the recommendation of the Committee on Commercial and Industrial Policy that the production of gauges should be treated as a key industry. I am aware that for these commodities the great engineering trades of this country were almost entirely dependent before the War, and are still largely dependent, upon foreign countries; the inadequate domestic supply was a source of embarrassment in respect of the output of munitions, and special action had to be taken to develop it; and the industry therefore complies with the four tests laid down by the Prime Minister in his statement of the 20th August. I am aware that certain difficulties have arisen as to the precise scope of the prohibition, but I trust those have now been largely removed. A deputation of merchants has recently been received at the Board of Trade, and I do not think a further deputation would serve any useful purpose. As regards the regulation of prices, I cannot anticipate the provisions of the Bill which will shortly be introduced.
Foreign Imports
10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of manufactured goods from Japan which have been imported during the months of June, July, August, and September; and whether the Government contemplate any action to protect British labour against unfair competition of Asiatic labour?
The values of the imports from Japan of articles wholly or mainly manufactured, other than food, during the months referred to were approximately as follows:
| £ | |
| June, 1919 | 700,000 |
| July, 1919 | 600,000 |
| August, 1919 | 430,000 |
| September, 1919 | 1,000,000 |
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the general trade policy announced by the Prime Minister was in regard to the products of Asiatic labour?
Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the Minister of Labour with regard to the probable effect of these importations on unemployment in this country?
The general trade policy, the complete trade policy, was announced by the Prime Minister, and that policy may affect Japan in connection with certain provisions which are proposed. The matter will be fully considered by the House when the legislative proposals are brought before them. With regard to the second point raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Billing), I am in frequent consultation with the Minister of Labour, but at the present time this country is suffering more from a shortage of goods than from anything else.
High prices.
23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what were the total imports into the United Kingdom of manufactured goods from Japan in the first nine months of 1914 and 1918?
In the year 1914, the imports into the United Kingdom of goods classified as "wholly or mainly manufactured" which were consigned from Japan, were valued at £2,696,010, and the corresponding figure for 1918 was £15,270,947. Corresponding figures for periods other than calendar years would involve special analyses of the returns necessitating an expenditure which I am unable to justify.
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise how the fact that there has been such an enormous increase in the imports of Japanese goods —the cost of which are low because of the low amount that has to be paid for labour —affects the‡ manufacturers in this country?
The high prices obtainable in this country, due to the shortage of supply here, attract Japanese goods. It is quite true the low cost of manufacture in Japan compensates to some extent the high freights, but this will only operate to the full extent so long as prices remain high.
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the freight in no way compares with the cost of labour?
That depends on the class of goods.
11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give any information as to the value of imported goods of German and Austrian origin for the months of September and October this year; and whether the Government have taken, or contemplate any action to secure to our national revenue, any part of the profit on such imports consequent on the depreciation of the mark?
The value of the imports from Germany and Austria for the month of September was £90,162, and from 1st to 25th October inclusive £196,764 Powers to deal with imports from countries where the depreciation of the sterling value of the currency is not adequately compensated by increased costs of production will be included in a Bill which will shortly be laid before the House.
Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate taking any immediate action to stop these imports, is he aware that there is a ship at Felixstowe for discharge at Harwich containing a large quantity of German goods, and is it a fact that German exporters of these goods are able to make enormous profits and seriously interfere with employment in this country?
There can be no serious interference with employment in this country when the total value of the goods which could possibly be produced in this country is £1196,000.
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that is only from one foreign country? Does he overlook the answer that he gave that in September from Japan £1,000,000 worth of manufactured articles came in, and is the Government going to do anything to find employment for these men?
The best way to find employment for British industries is to encourage the development of export trade. The goods which are coming into this country are mostly of the cheaper kind, and if we were to turn our skilled people on to making the cheaper class of goods it would be less profitable than to make good-class goods and export them.
Is not the most important thing to provide employment instead of giving unemployment doles?
Are we to understand that it is to be the policy of the Government not to give attention to the manufacture of articles in this country, but only to the exportation of goods?
No, Sir; I do not suggest that the hon. and gallant Member is to understand anything of the sort. The export of goods is certainly the more important.
What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to encourage export trade?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that German machine tools can he bought at present at very much less than pre-war prices?
In view of the unsatisfactory replies which have been given to my questions, I beg to give notice that I shall ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House after questions.
Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to my question?
14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the arrival on 24th October at London of the ss. "Batavia IV.," from Rotterdam, containing as its cargo a large quantity of manufactured goods of German origin, including twenty-five packages of toys; whether he can state what was the value of these toys; and whether he still adheres to his statement that manufacturers have nothing to fear from German competition?
Of the twenty-five packages of "toys" brought by the ss. Batavia IV." on the voyage referred to, eleven cases contained cheap mouth organs consigned from Germany of the value, of 11260, three cases mouth organs consigned from Holland valued at, £75, and six cases toys consigned from Holland valued at £425. No entry has yet been handed to the Customs in respect of the remaining five cases. I see no reason to modify the expression of opinion to which my hon. Friend refers.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that mouth organs are about 400 per cent. above pre-war prices, and can we have an assurance that he will not prohibit the importation of any cheap goods in order to bring down the cost of these and other articles?
I was not aware, although I dare say I could have ascertained if notice had been given me, that month organs were 400 per cent. above pre-war prices. It may be so, but I wilt look into it.
15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the arrival of the ss. "C. W. Eborall," on the 18th October, from Calais, containing the following. cargo: eight packages cottons, five packages drugs, 105 packages ribbons, seventy-five packages silk manufactures, sixteen, packages woollens, twelve cases machinery parts, and sixty-four packages cotton lace; whether his attention has been called to, the arrival of the ss. "Walmer," from Boulogne, containing twenty-four packages of works of art, nine packages books, eight packages buttons, sixty-eight packages cottons, 217 packages fancy goods, four packages gloves, sixteen packages leather boots and shoes, six packages. perfumes, 229 packages silk manufactures, sixty-six packages skin manufactures, seventy packages toys, nine cases electric apparatus, seven cases prints and photographs, fifty-six packages artificial flowers, and fifty-six packages straw hats; whether any of these goods are of German origin; whether the French Government are taxing similar goods imported from Britain into France; whether they have increased their tariff since the Armistice was signed; and what steps he intends to take to protect British manufacturers and British workmen?
My attention has not specially been drawn to the cargoes referred to in the first three parts of the question. As regards the fourth part goods of the classes indicated are subject to duty under the French Customs Tariff. As regards the fifth part there has been a general increase in the French Tariff rates, information relating to Which will be found in a White Paper (third 273) issued by the Board of Trade. As regards the sixth part, it is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to impose protective duties on French goods. The general trade policy of the Government was set out in the Prime Minister's speech in the House on 18th August and in the statement published on 23rd August.
12, 13, 21 and 22
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether his attention has been called to the arrival in London on the 24th October of the ss. "Florence' from Antwerp, containing as its cargo twelve packages drugs, thirty-five bundles paper, forty-three packages perfumery, five cases frames, 200 bags pepper, 117 cases window glass, eighty crates wall tiles, nine bundles woollens, and eleven cases watch work; whether any of these goods are of German origin; and whether it is the intention of the Government to permit German manufactured goods coming into this country free of duty;
(2) Whether his attention has been called to the arrival in London on the 24th October of the ss. "Benledi "from Shanghai containing as its cargo eight eases tooth brushes, eight bundles hats, and five packages silk; whether he can state what were the rates of wages paid to the workmen manufacturing these goods; and what means he intends to take to protect British labour from sweated labour in the Far East; (3) Whether his attention has been called to the arrival of ss. "Hodder" at Goole from Antwerp, containing twenty-three cases woollen yarn, eighty cases nails, one hundred glass tumblers, eight cases plate glass, 196 packages basket ware, and one case accordions; whether any of these articles are of German origin; and whether it is his intention to permit the unrestricted import of German manufactures; (4) Whether his attention has been called to the arrival of the ss. "Perth" from Yokohama, containing twenty cases silk goods, seventy-three cases porcelain, thirty-six cases fancy goods, nineteen cases gloves, sixteen cases toys, fourteen cases rubber goods, forty-three cases glass bottles, fourteen cases glass chimneys, ten cases cycle parts, six cases buttons, twenty-six cases fans, eighty-nine cases fancy goods, and twenty-two cases music goods; whether he has information as to the value of this merchandise; whether these importations cause a depreciation in our foreign exchange; and whether steps can be taken to check these importations by imposing an import tax?I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer to the questions asked by him on Monday last, 27th October.
24.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of wine imported into the United Kingdom during September last from Germany?
The registered value of wine consigned from Germany, and imported into the United Kingdom in the month of September last, was £3,125.
Dyes
25.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the subsidised dye manufacturers are supplying to woollen manufacturers dyes which are not fast to milling; whether, in consequence, large quantities of good material are being spoiled weekly; and whether he will take steps to enable woollen manufacturers to obtain dyes which can be guaranteed?
No, Sir. I have no information of the kind suggested, but if the hon. and gallant Member will furnish me with any concrete evidence on the subject I shall be glad to receive it.
Have not certain manufacturers already communicated with the Board of Trade on this subject?
Yes, Sir, I have frequent communication from manufacturers, but I have had none on this specific question.
I will send the right hon. Gentleman particulars.
I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "that the unrestricted importation of manufactured goods of foreign origin is a great menace to the reconstruction of industry, and seriously threatens to aggravate unemployment in the coming winter, and that this House therefore calls for the most urgent and prompt action on the part of the Government"; but
The pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported to rise in their places, and fewer than forty Members having accordingly risen, the House proceeded to the business of the day.Gas Prices
16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the substitution in certain districts, by order of the Coal Mines Department, of sea-borne Durham coal of inferior gas-making properties, instead of rail-borne Yorkshire coal hitherto used on account of its suitability, and by reason of the extra cost of freightage and additional tonnage required necessitates a considerable increase in the price of the gas to the consumers, he can see his way, if the arrangement is really necessary in the national interests, to make the extra cost involved a national one as in the case of the emergency coal supplied for household purposes?
The reasons for the subsidising of the small temporary supplies of emergency house coal by sea to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers do not apply in the case of the continuous supplies of sea-borne Durham gas coal which it has been necessary to arrange because of the shortage of Yorkshire coal, and I regret that I cannot undertake to recommend that the difference between the costs of the rail-borne and sea-borne coal should be met out of public funds.
20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the poor quality gas supplied to consumers by London gas companies in the London area; whether he is aware that the average calorific value during September and October this year was for the following companies: Gas Light and Coke Company, 449.3 B.T.U.; Commercial Gas Company, 467.2 B.T.U.; and the South Metropolitan Gas Company, 558.7 B.T.U.; and whether he is aware that low quality gas adds greatly to the cost of living of many families who use it for lighting and cooking purposes, and can he compel companies to all supply the same standard and also return to the prewar standard, or what action he proposes to take?
I am aware that gas undertakings generally are supplying gas of a lower calorific value than that which they supplied before the War. This is being done at the present time with the approval of the Board of Trade, with a view to ensuring an adequate supply to all consumers during the coming winter. As regards the future, I hope shortly to introduce a Bill giving effect to the recommendations made by the Fuel Research Board in their recent Report to the Board of Trade on gas standards (which has been published as Command Paper 108), whereby gas will be charged for according to the actual number of heat units supplied to the consumer instead of by volume as at present.
Can anything be done to compel the London gas companies to supply gas of the same standard, seeing there is now a great deal of difference between the quality of the gas supplied in the North and the South of London?
I will have the matter looked into and see how it stands.
Profiteering Act
19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the unsatisfactory results achieved by the Profiteering Act in its present limited and restricted form, the Government propose to pass legislation in the present Session to remedy the defects disclosed by the working of the Act?
I cannot admit that the results achieved by the Profiteering Act have been unsatisfactory. As I informed the hon. and gallant Member for Hull Central on Monday last, the question whether the powers granted by the Profiteering Act should be extended is at present under consideration.
Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied with the results of the Profiteering Act so far?
In so far as one can see, it is working surprisingly well, and because of its smooth working I think the time is approaching when the House should be asked to extend it.
67.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the unsatisfatcory arrangements for working the Profiteering Act; is he aware that only one meeting of the central committee under the Act has been held and that during the railway strike, and not one-third of the members were able to be present; that that third packed all the committees; that on the special committee for preliminary investigation of complaints speakers were objecting to the committee interfering with the policy of the Act; and whether he will request the Board of Trade to call a proper meeting of the committee to administer the Act and endow it with power to make the Act effective, together with the capacity to make such reasonable outlay as shall accomplish this purpose?
9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will explain why no meeting of the central committee under the Profiteering Act has yet been properly held; whether the only meeting announced was one for 1st October, when not a third of the members were able to attend owing to the railway strike; whether it is intended that the powers under the Profiteering Act should be fully utilised; and, if so, will he promptly arrange for a meeting of the committee and enable them to make such arrangements that the efficiency or otherwise of the Act may be thoroughly and completely tested?
17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the dissatisfaction that has arisen through the Profiteering Act Committee only having held one meeting; is he aware that this meeting was attended by only a third of its members owing to the others being kept away by the railway strike, and that the third present packed all the sub-committees with their own nominees; and whether he will consider the advisability of at once summoning a special meeting of the full committee, and indicate in the notice convening such meeting that the composition of the sub-committees will be reconsidered, and request all members of the committee to notify him of the subcommittees upon which they think their services would be most useful?
It would appear that the hon. Members have misapprehended the functions of the Central Committee, which are, under the provisions of the Regulations, to appoint its three standing committees and to act as a panel from which members may be chosen for the various sub-committees to deal with certain specific subjects. A meeting of the Central Committee was properly convened for this purpose and took place on the 30th September. I may add that the three standing committees and the six sub-committees appointed by them have during the past month held between them thirty-three meetings. It is certainly my intention that the powers under the Profiteering Act should be fully utilised, and they are, in fact, being fully utilised.
Does the right hon. Gentleman justify this very important meeting being held during the period of the strike when only half the members could be present?
It was a matter of considerable urgency and of pushing on with the institutions for the central machinery. The meeting was properly convened and a quorum was present. Standing committees were appointed and, as the Central Committee after the appointment of standing committees was merely a panel from which members can be and are being drawn, it seemed to me to be a perfectly proper proceeding.
German Battleship "Goeben"
27.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the battleship "Goeben" at Constantinople has been surrendered by the Turkish authorities; if it has been repaired; and if it is in charge of a British crew and every precaution is being taken to prevent her being scuttled and sunk?
I have been asked to reply to this question. The "Goeben" has been surrendered, and has been partially repaired. She is in charge of a Turkish skeleton crew in accordance with the terms of the Armistice, and every precaution is being taken to prevent her being scuttled and sunk.
Having regard to the unfortunate events at Scapa Flow, may I ask if this vessel is in shallow water?
I think she is. I am not quite sure that the foundation of the hon. Member's question is really a justification for the further question. Every possible precaution was taken at Scapa Flow.
Palestine
29.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Palestine is now open for the visits of travellers; if British subjects can acquire land and do business there; if the Customs duties have been settled; and if particulars of them are available for merchants?
Palestine is not yet open to the tourist, but every effort is made, consistently with shipping difficulties, to enable persons having definite business to go there. The transfer of land is at present prohibited, and no concessions or survey permits of a commercial character are granted, but, so far as I am aware, there are no restrictions on general business other than those necessitated by military considerations. 1 understand that the former Turkish Customs tariff, calculated on an ad valorem basis, is in force.
Having regard to the statement that land cannot be acquired by British subjects, may I ask if other people are allowed to acquire it Also, why cannot Englishmen take over businesses which they have bought?
My information is that the transfer of land is, in any case, prohibited. If the hon. Member has any particular case in mind and will bring it to the Foreign Office, we shall be happy to consider it.
Milk And Dairies Consolidation Act
30.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agri- culture whether matters arising under the Milk and Dairies Consolidation Act are matters relating to agriculture within the meaning of that expression in Clause 7 of the Agricultural and Fisheries (Councils) Bill?
The view of my Noble Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries is that the matters referred to in the question are to some extent matters relating to agriculture, but as they relate also to public health the mode of dealing with these matters by a county council is under consideration by the Board and the Ministry of Health. At a later stage provision will be made in the Bill referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend to deal with this point.
Steel Works (Government Liability For Enlargement)
31.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether he will state to what extent the Government is liable to meet the cost of enlarging private steel works owing to the absence of a break Clause in Government contracts?
Of the forty contracts involved which were outstanding at the time of the Armistice, seventeen contained a break Clause and twenty-three did not In the seventeen cases, it was found by the liquidators concerned that better results have been obtained by private negotiations than would have resulted from put. ting the break Clause into operation
Housing Act (Department Of Supplies)
32.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether he will give the estimated total cost of building materials purchased by the Department of Building Supplies for the erection of houses under the new Housing Act; and whether he will give the total cost of the salaries now being paid for administrative services in the new Department of Supplies, and say when its creation was sanctioned by Parliament?
The total cost of building materials purchased by the Department of Building Materials Supply is approximately £3,000.000.
This Department employs a staff of fifty-five. The wages and salaries amount to a monthly charge of £1,443. The Department of Building Materials Supply continues the functions formerly performed by the Building Works and Materials Branch of the War Office, and was transferred, along with the other functions of the Surveyor-General of Supply, to the Ministry of Munitions in March of this year. On the general question of the transfer of these functions, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office to the hon. and gallant Member for Clackmannan and Eastern Stirling on Wednesday last.On what Vote are these expenses charged?
The Vote for the Ministry of Munitions.
Poland
50.
asked the Prime Minister how many Poles are under arms; who is supplying them with munitions; and where they are fighting?
My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. To give this information would not be in the interest of the Polish people which has many dangers to face both from Bolshevist Russia and from Germany. Aid is being given under the authority of the Supreme Council, both from French and British sources to enable the Poles, who are an allied nation to equip their army. I can add nothing to what appears in the newspapers as to the localities in which the Poles are fighting.
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the total cost of this force in respect of munitions'?
Not without notice.
Does the cost fall upon us at all?
I have just said that aid is being given both from French and British sources to enable the Poles to equip the army.
Therefore, you can tell us?
Ts not the equipment of armies opposed to the general principles of the League of Nations; and would it not be better to send representative speakers to Poland?
Parcel Post (Claims For Damage)
41.
asked the Postmaster-General the total number of claims which have been received by the Post Office on account of damage to parcels, the number of claims for which responsibility has been acknowledged by the Post Office, and the amount of money paid out in respect of these claims during the six months ended 30th June, 1914, and during the six months ended 30th June, 1919; and, if there is a difference, how the same is accounted for?
I am unable, without calling for special returns, to state the total number of claims received on account of damage to parcels during the precise periods mentioned, but during the two years ended 31st March, 1914, and 31st March, 1919, the number of such claims for which responsibility was acknowledged by the Post Office, and the amount of compensation paid, were:
| Number. | Amount. | |
| 1913–14 | 10,950 | £3,051 |
| 1918–19 | 9,203 | £5,053 |
Munitions
Surplus Stores (Sales)
33.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions, whether he is prepared to dispose of the whole or part of the surplus war stores of personal or household use by means of Government retail stores, so as to enable small householders to secure the benefit of these sales?
The difficulties involved in setting up a retail organisation, which would necessarily be of a temporary character, render it impracticable to adopt the suggestion made by ray hon. Friend.
Explosives Store, Dinas Mawddwy
34.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions the name of the owner of the building now occupied as an explosives store at Dinas Mawddwy; what rent is being paid in respect thereof and the name of the superintendent; whether, although no explosives have been taken to or from the store since June last, the services of a superintendent and four men are still retained; and whether, with a view to economy in the national interests, immediate steps will be taken to close the store and thus effect a saving of nearly £1,000 per annum?
The owner of the store at Dinas Mawddwy is Mr. J. H. Bullock, J.P. No rent is being paid and the amount of compensation for occupation has not yet been decided. Mr. T. A. Bullock, a brother of the owner, is superintendent, and is in receipt of a salary of £200 per annum. Two labourers and two night watchmen are employed at salaries amounting to £9 2s. 6d. per week, so that the total of the salaries for a year is £674 10s. There is no other storage available, and as £12,000 has already been realised by sales, which it is hoped will continue, it is not at present expedient to destroy the stock and close the store.
Iron Bedsteads
33.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions how many iron bedsteads are available for disposal from the various camps and hospitals that have now been closed?
Approximately 9,000 iron bedsteads are available for disposal.
Will the hon. Gentleman hand that answer to the First Commissioner of Works to enable him to save several thousand bedsteads for which the Air Service are advertising?
We are in close communication with one another on the subject.
39.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that the Director of Supplies of His Majesty's Office of Works has invited offers to tender for 20,000 bedsteads for the Royal Air Force; that the execution of such a contract would be of great hindrance to the English bedstead trade owing to the present shortage of material and skilled labour; that, in consequence of the prohibition of the exporting of bedsteads during the War, there is a great demand overseas for English bedsteads arising from depleted stocks; that if English makers cannot supply that demand the trade will inevitably go to foreign rivals; and that other Government Departments have in their possession heavy stocks of similar bedsteads which they are gradually selling off at scrap prices; and whether, in view of these considerations, he will advise the reconsideration of the whole matter?
The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I have, however, been in communication with the Air Ministry who requested my Department to obtain the tenders in question and understand from that Ministry that it is not now necessary to purchase any new bedsteads. The tenders will therefore be cancelled.
Army Huts And Buildings
38.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions why ex-Service men's organisations are refused the concessions granted to housing and educational authorities with respect to the purchase of surplus Army huts and buildings?
The Government has decided in connection with the purchase by local authorities of surplus Army huts that a discount of 33⅓ per cent. shall be allowed to them by the Disposal Board, and the balance shall be credited to the Disposal Board by the Ministry of Health and the Board of Education respectively. The Disposal Board is not authorised to extend this concession.
I beg to give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory answer of the hon. Gentleman, I will raise this question on the Adjournment to-night.
Government Department's (Women Employes)
42.
asked the Minister of Food whether he will take immediate steps to terminate the appointments of all married women engaged in any department of the Ministry of Food with a view to the engagement of either widows of men in His Majesty's forces killed during the War or disabled soldiers?
Disabled soldiers are being substituted for existing officers of the Ministry of Food up to not less than 8 per cent. of the total staff, which is the percentage fixed for Government Departments generally. Married women not dependent on their earnings are naturally among the first to be discharged under the scheme; but the hon. Member will understand that it is necessary to consider the effect of such discharges on the general efficiency of the Department; and no pledge can be given that the appointments of all married women will be terminated.
43.
asked the Minister of Food the number of married women now engaged at the London and Home Counties divisional headquarters and at the various local food offices whose husbands took no part in the War but have remained in constant civilian employment?
The number of married women now engaged at the London and Home Counties divisional headquarters offices, whose husbands took no part in the War but remained in constant civilian employment, is two. The number of such persons in the various local food offices in the London and Home Counties divisions is eighty. About 20 per cent. of these women, however, are temporarily engaged for work in connection with the rationing arrangements, and their services will be dispensed with in the course of a week or two.
60.
asked the Prime Minister what was the total number of women employed in Government Departments before the War; the number at the time of the Armistice, and the number 1101V; and what is the total number of demobilised soldiers and sailors who are still unemployed?
The total numbers of women and girls employed in all civil Departments (including local offices throughout the country and tem- porary as well as permanent staff) at the-dates asked for are approximately as-follows:
| 1st August, 1914 | 45,000 |
| 11th November, 1918 | 220,000 |
| 1st October, 1919 | 155,000 |
Considering that the railways arc now under the Government, does the number the right hon. Gentleman has given me include women employed on the railways— work which could be done by demobilised soldiers and sailors?
I do not think the number can include women employed on the railways. The employâs of the railways are not employâs of the Government.
Taking into consideration the number of men who are unemployed, will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Department which deals with railways, in order that the work may be taken from the women and given to the men?
I hope he will be good enough to communicate direct with the Minister of Transport. I have a good deal of work of my own to do.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many Irish demobilised soldiers there are?
No. I cannot distinguish between the demobilised soldiers. If the hon. Member wants that information he must seek it from the Minister of Labour, from whom I had to get the information in order to answer this question.
Sugar
44.
asked the Minister of Food whether the reduced sugar ration to-householders, especially among the largo body of workers who are compelled to carry their food for consumption to their place of employment, is creating grave. discontent, arising out of the fact that whereas the householder is reduced to one half pound per week, a less ration than during the War, the manufacturers' supplies are equal to 1915 purchases, and are able to supply to any householder in the form of sweets six or more pounds per week, thereby permitting an essential food to be converted into a luxury; and whether the permission by licence granted to dealers to import free sugar has led to 3 gradual rise from 70s. to 105s. per cwt. against the Government selling price of 50s. per cwt. for householders, thereby encouraging gambling in food, and causing the price of sugar to rise against the Government in sugar-producing countries?
I am not aware that the reduction in the- sugar ration, which has been necessitated by the world shortage of sugar and the danger of prices being driven up to a wholly unprecedented level, is creating grave discontent among any body of workers, nor can I assent to the hon. Member's statement as to the amount of sweets available for householders. As regards the second part of the question, the hon. Member is mistaken in suggesting that the permission by licence to import free sugar has resulted in a rise in price from 70s. to 105s. per cwt.; the amount purchased in this way is extremely small in comparison with the total purchases in the world's markets. The Government selling price of 50s. per cwt., to which the hon. Member refers, was abandoned last April, and was applicable only to an inferior grade of sugar not suitable for grocery purposes. The Food Controller is stopping the importation of sugar by private traders after the end of this year.
Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the licences are issued to brokers, and how many tons come into the country under licence?
I am afraid I must ask my hon. Friend to give me notice.
Is not the hon. Gentleman going to take steps to keep sugar down to the price which obtained under the difficult exigencies of war?
We are taking all possible steps to keep the price of sugar down as much as possible.
But it has gone up‡
Milk For Children
75.
asked the Minister of Health how many local authorities have taken, or are taking, steps in exercise of their statutory powers to provide milk at a reduced price for children of the poorer classes within their areas?
As my reply must be rather long, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The following is the answer referred to: The number of local authorities in England and Wales who informed the Ministry and the Local Government Board of steps taken to provide milk for expectant and nursing mothers and children under five years of age, in pursuance of the earlier Circular of 9th February, 1918, is 200—that is, approximately 60 per cent. of the number of authorities undertaking maternity and child welfare schemes, including 24 metropolitan borough councils, 33 county councils, 79 county borough councils, and 144 town and district councils. Practically all these authorities will presumably continue or extend their schemes. About 40 local authorities said that no such action was necessary in their district, while a number of authorities failed to furnish any information on the point. Comprehensive schemes for the supply of milk have been adopted in fifty cases, but as a general rule the provision is limited to a supply of milk (including dried milk and condensed milk) to mothers and children attending infant welfare centres. Where fresh milk is supplied, this is usually done in the form of orders on local tradesmen. In a number of eases health visitors are instructed to report the need of additional supplies of milk among children whom they visit, and midwives are asked to supply information regarding expectant mothers who do not get sufficient food. Only three authorities have as yet replied to the Ministry's Circular of the 14th October, and they are among the 280 who already had schemes in operation. Local authorities were asked in the Circular to report any new schemes, any extensions of schemes, or any existing schemes of which they had not furnished particulars in pursuance of the earlier Circular.London Markets
72.
asked the Food Controller whether he has yet appointed the Departmental Committee to inquire into London markets; and can he give the names of the chairman and members, and state to whom applications should be made by those desirous of giving evidence on the subject?
The appointment of the Departmental Committee to inquire into the working and adequacy of wholesale food markets in London is now practically completed. I hope to issue a full list of members in the course of a day or two, and to summon the first meeting on Friday next. At the request of the Food Controller, I am acting as chairman of the Committee. The terms of reference to the Committee are, briefly, (1) to consider and report whether the existing wholesale markets for food in London are adequate, economical in their working, and efficient in their administration; (2) to consider the influence of wholesale market facilities on food prices; (3) and to report what steps, if any, can usefully, be taken in order to effect an improvement in the wholesale distribution of food by means of public markets; and any person able to assist the Committee should, communicate with the Secretary, Wholesale Food Markets Committee, Ministry of Food, 100, Cromwell Road, S.W. 7.
German Officers (Charges Of Inhuman Action)
46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can now give the numbers and the names of those German officers already in the hands of the Allies against whom it is proposed to proceed for inhuman action towards Allied soldiers or civilans?
No, Sir, this information cannot be published until the Treaty of Peace has been ratified.
Turkey (Peace Terms)
47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to disseminate the pledge with regard to the future Peace with Turkey contained in his speech of 5th January, 1918, in order to allay the increasing agitation in India. and Egypt?
The Prime Minister sets no reason now for disseminating any portion of this speech.
51.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is, aware of the grave unrest in the Moslem. world caused largely by a belief that the predominantly Turkish portions of the Turkish Empire are to be partitioned or divided into spheres of influence or mandatory areas under other Powers; and whether he can now reassure our Moslem fellow-subjects that the principle of self-determination will be applied to those parts of Asia Minor predominantly inhabited by the Turkish race?
The Government is aware of the interest of Indian Mahomedans in the future of Turkey, and will give, and has already given, their views full weight and consideration.
any reassurance to be given to these loyal Moslem fellow-subjects of ours in Turkey who are, as the right hon. Gentleman says, interested in this matter?
Obviously, until the Treaty is completed it is impossible to give any assurance, but it might be taken for granted that the greatest Mahomedan Power in the world is not leaving that consideration out of sight.
Hungary (Food Supplies)
48.
asked the Prime Minister whether reports received from Hungary show that food is urgently required in Budapest; whether about one million persons will require to be fed during the winter; and, if so, what action has been taken or is contemplated?
I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the-question is in the affirmative. The present shortage, however, is mainly attributed to requisitioning of food and transport material on account of the Roumanian occupation. The figure of one million persons probably requiring to be fed through national kitchens in the coming winter has been mentioned, but has not yet been verified. According to present estimates it is hoped that any deficiency in home products in Hungary will be made good by -deliveries from neighbouring countries.
Have the requisitions been stopped at the present moment or are they still going on?
I will make inquiry into that matter. My impression is that requisitioning has stopped.
49.
asked the Prime Minister what action it is proposed to take in order to safeguard the equitable distribution of supplies sent to Hungary?
I have been asked to reply. Prior to the Roumanian occupation, it was estimated that indigenous Hungarian supplies should be sufficient to meet the needs of the population during the present cereal year. The feeding of the Hungarian population and consequently the distribution of supplies is primarily the responsibility of the Hungarian Government. The Hungarian Food Controller, however, has been, and is being, helped to organise the supply and distribution of food by British officers and by the British Relief Mission, acting in an advisory capacity.
Railway Strike
52.
asked the Prime Minister whether any steps have been taken to discover the authors of the anarchist conspiracy which resulted in the railway strike; and whether they are to be prosecuted?
Any strike is anarchist which aims at compelling the Government to yield to the demands of a section of the population by holding up the whole community. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
I did not ask for a definition of what I meant by my question. I asked whether the Government are actually following up the anarchist conspirators who, the Prime Minister alleged, were the cause of the railway strike?
The hon. Gentleman did not hear the last part of my answer. I said we were not prosecuting anybody.
I will raise the question on the Adjournment to-morrow with the Prime Minister, if the right hon. Gentleman will acquaint him of my notice.
I will ask my right hon. Friend to look at the OFFICIAL REPORT.
British Fleet In The Baltic
53.
asked the Prime Minister what orders have been given to the admiral commanding in the Baltic with respect to the use of the British Fleet or seaplanes against unarmed Russians or against armed Russians, ships, or forts which are not engaged in attacking the British Fleet?
I have been asked to reply to this question. The admiral commanding in the Baltic has orders to employ his forces as necessary to prevent aggression by Bolshevik forces against the Baltic States and to assist by all means in his power those States which are fighting in accordance with the aims of the Supreme Council. If the reference to "unarmed Russians" is intended to imply the deliberate use of His Majesty's naval forces against such people, I can only say that it has not been considered necessary to give any orders on this subject.
Are we to understand that Petrograd has not been bombed from the air and that Krasnoye Selo has not been shelled by our warships?
The hon. and gallant Gentleman is to understand exactly what has happened. There have been answers in this House and a great many statements in the newspapers.
Are we to understand that the decision of the Government to abandon the land expedition against Russia does not apply to a sea expedition?
The hon. and gallant Gentleman can understand exactly what lie likes, but his interpretation bears no relevance whatever either to the question or to my answer.
Has the admiral on the Baltic station instructions to shell Bolshevik ships if they shell his ships, or has he instructions to start shelling or sinking Bolshevik ships?
I do not know what the hon. and gallant Gentleman means.
It is perfectly clear.
It is not quite clear. I dare say it is my stupidity. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman means that the naval officer commanding is not to fire until his ships are sunk, those are not the orders given him.
Are we to take the offensive and are our ships to fire first?
The instructions are perfectly clear. They are to take such steps as the admiral thinks necessary to assist the Baltic States, and certainly it is not suggested that he should wait until his men have been killed or his ships sunk before he replies.
Are we carrying on a sea war against the Russian Government?
That question is of an extremely vague character. I have given a definite answer to a definite question. The officer commanding the naval forces is instructed to give the best aid in his power to the Baltic States.
Is it not a fact that when engagements have taken place between Bolshevik ships and our ships the Bolshevik ships have nearly always opened fire first?
It is quite impossible to answer that question, nor really do I think it matters. Our naval forces arc instructed to do their best to help those in whose interest they are there. We leave it to them with perfect confidence.
Are the Baltic Mates consulted?
League Of Nations
54.
asked the Prime Minister who will be the British representatives at the first meeting of the Council of the League of Nations, whether the House of Commons will be allowed any voice in their selection; whether papers of the proceedings will he laid upon the Table of the House of Commons; and to what Votes will the salaries and expenses of the British representatives on the Council be charged?
It is hoped to make an announcement on this subject within the next few days.
Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question?
I am sorry. I have not the answer with me.
Ex-Kaiser And Ex-Crown Prince
56.
asked the Prime Minister whether any assurance or guarantee has been given by the Government of the Netherlands to the British Government or the Allies regarding the precautions necessary for guarding the ex-Kaiser and the ex-Crown Prince?
The answer to the hon. Member's question is in the negative.
Does the Government consider that the ex-Kaiser is entitled to better treatment than the great Napoleon?
I cannot express an opinion on that.
Cabinet
Ministry Of Food
58.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has received a resolution from the Consumers' Council protesting against the exclusion of the Ministry of Food from representation in the Cabinet, especially in view of the fact that the home producers of food are there represented by the President of the Board of Agriculture and the consumers, who comprise the community, are greatly prejudiced in regard to the most important questions of food prices and increased production now before the country; and whether the resolution will receive consideration?
The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. All the considerations referred to in the question were taken fully into account by my right hon. Friend in constituting the Cabinet.
Is the exclusion of the Food Controller due to disagreement between him and the Prime Minister?
Not at all. It is obvious that you must have some principle in the selection. In this case none of the temporary officers are included.
German Indemnity
59.
asked the Prime Minister if he can give an approximate idea when the first instalment of the German indemnity will be paid and the amount which it is proposed to allocate to this country; whether such proportion will be paid in bullion or in material and goods; when the sum the German Government has contracted to pay for the British Army of Occupation at Cologne, the first instalment of which is now overdue, will be paid; and what time limit is being allowed to the said Government for paying the latter instalments?
I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for West Toxteth on the 27th ultimo.
Has France or any other Allied country received any instalment of the indemnity from Germany?
That is not the question on the Paper, and I think it is better in these matters of an international character that I should have notice of any question. No distribution of payments under the Reparation Clauses can be made until the Reparation Commission has met and decided how they are to be made.
Is the policy of His Majesty's Government still that declared by the Prime Minister of demanding from Germany the full cost of the War and searching her pockets for it?
If the hon. Member will read the Peace Treaty for confirmation and exposition of the policy of His Majesty's Government in conjunction with their Allies lie will find it bears out entirely the statement of the Prime Minister to which he alludes.
That is why I put the question.
Deserted Wives
61.
asked the Prime Minister if the Government will take into consideration the introduction of legislation which will secure that wives deserted by husbands who have gone to live in some other part of His Majesty's Dominions can obtain and enforce maintenance orders for their support; and if steps can be taken to establish Courts for this purpose in every part of the Empire to consider matrimonial cases and secure that judicially separated wives shall not be left destitute?
Legislation dealing with facilities for the enforcement in one part of the Empire of maintenance orders made in another part has been for a long time under consideration. Reciprocal legislation in parts of the Empire other than the United Kingdom will be necessary and, as various parts of the self-governing Dominions have promised to take such legislation in hand, it is hoped that a Bill may be proceeded with in Parliament in the near future. I would also invite the hon. Member's attention to the "Matrimonial Causes (Dominion Troops)" Act passed during the present Session.
Railway Administration
Executive Committee
62, 63, and 64.
asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he can give the House any information regarding a proposal involving the immediate nationalisation and joint management by organised labour of the railways, which was lately the subject of secret negotiations between the Government and certain trade union officials, and which resulted in a decision of the Government to nominate a Railway Committee with railway workers appointed on it;
(2) whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation repealing or amending the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919; if not, will he say under what Clause of the Act the Government are taking powers to appoint a Railway Committee to advise the Government on matters affecting the interests of the railways and the State; if it is their intention to appoint the Minister of Transport a member of the Railway Committee; (3) whether he can give the names of the Railway Committee with which it is intended to replace the present Executive Committee; and will he say which of these names has been chosen to represent the shareholders at present owning the railway systems of the country and the traders and public using the systems?I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on Thursday last to a question on this subject. The power to appoint the Committee is given by Section 23 of the Ministry of Transport Act, but, as the Committee is not yet set up, I am unable to give the names of the members. When, however, it is set up, the names will be announced, and it will then be seen that the interests referred to are fully represented.
Will care be taken that representatives of the shareholders are put upon the Committee?
Certainly. They constitute the whole of the Executive Committee, and they will be largely represented.
I mean shareholders electing some of their own members; not merely members of the Executive Committee, but some independent representation of the shareholders.
I will consider that, but, as my right hon. Friend knows, directors are supposed to be elected by the shareholders.
War Fortunes Inquiry Committee
65.
asked the Prime Minister whether lie will so frame the terms of reference for the War Fortunes Inquiry Committee as to permit them to investigate the practicability of a Capital Levy?
The answer is in the negative.
Is it not a fact that the same evidence will be required in the inquiry on war fortunes as would be required in an inquiry into a Capital Levy; and, if so, why does the right hon. Gentleman resist the latter inquiry?
Because it is not so. The evidence will be quite different. I explained in the Debate the other day that one of the reasons which make it very undesirable to enlarge the scope of the inquiry is that we want the smaller point settled as rapidly as possible.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Committee will be set up?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that as soon as the Inland Revenue have completed their inquiries, which, I hope, will be very shortly, the Committee will be set up.
Have the Government decided upon the terms of reference to the Committee, and, in that case, will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an opportunity of hearing them before the Committee is finally set up?
Yes. The terms of reference will be published at the time a Committee is set up. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says the Inquiry is so far advanced that he will proceed at once with the setting up of the Committee.
Win the terms of reference apply only to the late war with Germany, or will they apply also to money made out of the sort of war with Russia, or retrospectively to the South African War?
It will apply to everything in connection with the war which has just terminated.
Including Russia?
Of course, it must apply to anything in connection with that. If the other suggestion was adopted I should have no hope of any decision in my lifetime.
Will it apply to fortunes made out of supplying Russia and the Allies in the early part of the War'?
Russia
Blockade (Soviet Russia)
66.
asked the Prime Minister whether any replies have yet been received from Germany or neutrals to the Note of the Allies requesting them to join in a blockade of Soviet Russia; and, if se what was the, nature of the replies?
No replies have yet been received from the neutral Governments to the Note addressed to them by the Allied and Associated Governments asking them to co-operate in the exercise of economic pressure on Soviet Russia. The text of what purports to be the reply of the German Government was published in the Press on Friday, 31st October. I have no information as to whether this text is accurate or not.
Bas the blockade of Russia ever received the approval of the House of Commons?
There is no actual legal blockade of Russia, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
It is very illegal?
British Fleet In Baltic
73.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what was approximately the cost of maintaining the British Fleet in the Baltic, including wages, salaries, coal, etc., but not loss in service or depreciation, during the months of July, August, and September?
The approximate cost for the period mentioned is £800,000.
Does that include the cost of sending out transports with coal and stores?
Yes, all the coal.
Egypt
Lord Milner's Commission
68.
asked the Prime Minister when Lord Milner's Commission is to proceed to Egypt?
The date of the departure of Lord Milner's Mission will not be fixed until Lord Allenby, whose return has been unavoidably delayed, has arrived in Egypt.
Educational Policy
69.
asked the Prime Minister if a day can be set aside before the end of the present Session for a discussion, on broad lines, of the educational policy of His Majesty's Government?
It will be difficult to find time for the work which must be done this Session, and I hardly think that there is a widespread desire for the discussion of this subject at present.
Government Contracts
The following question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. HOUSTON:
71. To ask the Prime Minister whether, with a view to recover money profits improperly made out of the nation during the War, he will allow the House to appoint an independent Committee with full powers of investigation to deal with all contracts made with Government Departments, more especially those with the Ministry of Munitions, War Office, and Admiralty, the Committee having power to obtain all documents and examine witnesses on oath; and whether he will give assurance that in cases where the Committee report that improper or fraudulent profits have been made the Law Officers will take steps to enforce the repayment of same and the punishment of the culprits?
I think the hon. Member has been asked to postpone this question?
No.
I should be glad if he will do so for a week.
May I ask whether the suggestion in the question is not the Most expeditious way of dealing with this question?
The question, as I understand it, is not about taxation, but about civil or criminal action, and that clearly must be considered by the other Ministers who arc more competent than I am to advise on the action to be taken.
Aliens (Grant To Dependants)
74.
asked the Minister of Health whether his Department has intimated to boards of guardians that the Government Grant hitherto made to the British-born wives of interned and repatriated aliens will cease oh the 31st December next, thus throwing such persons on to the local rates; and whether, as the internment and repatriation of the above-mentioned aliens was a national and not a local measure, is it the Board's policy that the maintenance of their dependants should be provided by the Exchequer, particularly as the majority of such dependants will become chargeable on the poorer Metropolitan unions?
Boards of guardians have been warned that the wives of interned and repatriated aliens who have been in receipt of the Government allowances must not expect a continuance of these allowances after the 3Ist December next. These allowances were authorised by the Treasury as an act of grace during the War, but this charge upon Exchequer Funds cannot be continued indefinitely, and I do not think that the guardians whose rates have been relieved by these grants while the expenditure was at its highest have much cause for complaint if the grants are withdrawn when the expenditure in respect of these cases is rapidly diminishing.
Will that apply to British-born wives of Russians who are not being allowed into the country, although nothing criminal is known against them?
I must have notice of that question.
Poor Rate (Greater London)
76.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the great increase in the poor rate in many of the districts of Greater London; if this rate has been increased from 6d. to 9d. in the £ in certain cases; if he can explain the cause of this increase, considering the small number of poor now receiving assistance; and if he will consider the effect this increase must have on the erection of houses?
The amount per pound assessable value of the poor rate has increased to the extent stated in thy question in many parishes in Greater London, but it may be pointed out that the expenses charged on that rate include, in addition to the cost of the relief of the poor, the cost of many services, such as education, main roads, lunatic asylums, and police, requiring labour and material which local authorities have to obtain at current prices.
Ministry Of Labour (Clerical Staff)
78.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the recent increase in pay awarded to the temporary clerical staffs in the Ministry of Labour as from April last has not been paid to the clerical staff in the Appointments Department of the Ministry of Labour; and will he state the reason for the delay in this case?
The increased rates of pay awarded to the temporary clerical staffs in the headquarters offices of the Appointments Department were brought into operation in July last.
The question of the revised rates to be paid to the provincial staffs of that Department has only recently been decided; but instructions were issued a week ago for the introduction of the revised rates, and for the payment of file arrears due on the basis of those rates.Out-Of-Work Donation' (Moulders' Wages)
79.
asked what were the average wages paid to moulders for the four weeks preceding the strike; and how many men are affected, directly or indirectly, in the engineering trades by the strike?
There are no statistics available to show the actual average earnings of piece- and time-workers in the period of four weeks preceding- the strike. The minimum weekly time rates (inclusive of war wages) recognised in sonic of the principal industrial districts by the workers' organisations ranged from 67s. 6d. to 73s. 6d., with a bonus of 12 per cent. on earnings in addition. In some of the smaller centres the rates were rather lower. It is estimated, on the basis of such information as is available, that the total number of workpeople in the ironfounding, engineering, and shipbuilding trades on strike or thrown out of work in consequence of the strike is approximately 100,000. In addition, a considerable number of workpeople are on short time.
Are these men who have been thrown out of work through no fault of their own entitled to out-work donation
The same rule is applied in connection with out-of-work donation as is applied in connection with the Unemployment Benefit Insurance Act. People who belong to the same establishment as those who are on strike do not receive benefit. Those who belong to other establishments do receive benefit.
If it is not the man's fault why should he be penalised for being in the same establishment?
Some rule has to be made. That was thought to be the most convenient. The argument as to the merits would take a very long time.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that crane drivers working in a foundry, receiving instructions from the engineering portion of the establishment, are in receipt of unemployment donation, while labourers working in the foundry are not in receipt of unemployment donation?
I cannot answer as to the facts which the hon. Gentleman has put, but these matters all go before the Umpire who decides the case brought before him. lie has recently decided as a general principle that any department of an establishment affected by the strike which is thrown out of work by the strike can be regarded as a distinct establishment by itself, even though it is under the same ambit and in the same establishment, and may be treated as a separate establishment for the purpose of unemployment donation. That is the general principle which he has laid down.
Does tire right hon. Gentleman mean by establishment a separate department of the same firm? If so, is he aware that in Wakefield no payment is being made to men who are not connected with the department which is on strike but are in another department of the same factory?
It rests with the Umpire to decide each case according to its merits. Of course we cannot go into every individual instance.
Premium Bonds
Report Of Committee
asked the Leader of the House whether, pending the decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of an issue al premium or prize bonds, the Government will exercise the power conferred upon it under the Defence of the Realm Act, and prohibit the forwarding of money through the Post Office in subscriptions to any continental lottery, prize bond, or sweepstake scheme?
Apart from other considerations, it would not, I feel sure, be practicable to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.
Before the Chancellor of tile Exchequer gives his decision, will there be any reference back to the old Committee which reported on premium bonds, or will it be a decision by the Government?
My right hon. Friend suggests, and I think it is the only possible way, that as this is a new Parliament we should have the matter reconsidered by another Committee.
Why is it not practicable for the Post Office to prohibit the delivery of letters addressed to continental agents for lottery bonds or sweepstakes?
Although the Post Office issues the postal orders the course suggested would be impracticable unless all the money were stopped, and all letters were opened to prevent letters with money reaching the agents of these lotteries.
Is it not a fact that large sums of money are leaving the country in this way, and getting into the French lottery loan, and would it not be better for that money to be kept in this country for our own lotteries?
As I have indicated, apart from the difficulty there are other considerations, and I think that we should be careful before taking steps to prevent money going to the French Government.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of letters asking for subscriptions for lotteries is arriving in this country bearing the Hamburg postmark?
Would it not be better and cheaper, instead of setting up another Committee, to consider premium hotels, to circulate among Members the evidence submitted to and the Report issued by the last Committee, which sat eighteen months ago, and took every kind of evidence, and let Members form their own opinion?
I hope sincerely that the time of the new Committee will be greatly curtailed by having at their disposal all the materials possessed by the old Committee, but the view of those who asked for the Committee is that probably the decision of the new Committee will be different from that of the old Committee.
Why bother about a new Committee at all? Circulate the Report of the old Committee, and take a Vote of the House.
Is the tight hon. Gentleman aware that only this morning Members received particulars of a very `attractive State lottery from Denmark with an English prospectus attached? Will he expedite a decision on this matter before the British public subscribe to these foreign lotteries?
I recognise that there ought not to be any delay in coming to a decision. I will discuss the matter again with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but. 1 ion inclined to think that the House would like to have the advice of a Committee of its own Members. [Cries of "No ‡"]
Has the principle been approved, though the scheme may be deferred? If it was understood that the Government approved the principle it would have the effect desired.
It is impossible to separate details and principles in cases of this kind.
Imprisonment Of Member
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that he had received the following letter relating to the imprisonment of a Member:
"General Headquarters, Ireland,
Parkgate, Dublin.
1st November, 1919.
Sir,
I have the honour to report that Mr. Ernest Blythe. M.P. for North Monaghan, who was arrested on 12th September. 1919, under a direction issued by the General Officer Commanding Southern District, Ireland, has been tried by district court-martial in Dublin, and sentenced to imprisonment without hard labour for one year, for the following offence against Regulation 27 of the Defence of the Regulations:
Having in his possession, without lawful authority or excuse a document containing statements the publication of which would be likely to prejudice the discipline of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
The sentence has been duly confirmed, and the accused committed to prison.
I have the honour to be. Sir,
Your obedient servant,
F. SHAW,
Lieutenant-General, Commanding-in-Chief, Ireland.
To the flight Honourable The Speaker,
House of Commons,
London, S.W. 1."
Selection (Standing Committees)
Standing Committee C
Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Mr. Baldwin, Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen, Captain Edge, Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood, Mr. Cecil Harmsworth, Sir Robert Horne, Mr. Onions, and Mr. Wardle; and had appointed in substitution (for the consideration of the War Emergency Laws (Continuance) Bill): Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Baird, Mr. Forster, Id r. Thomas Griffiths, Dr. Macnamara, r. George Roberts, Mr. Solicitor-General, and Sir Thomas Whittaker.
Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported front the Committee: That they had added to Standing Committee C the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the War Emergency Laws (Continuance) Bill): Sir Ryland Adkins. Sir Frederick Banbury, Major Barnett, Major Brassey, Major Boyd-Carpenter, Captain Hacking, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Lieutenant, Commander Kenworthy, Mr. Matthews, Mr. Neil Maclean, Colonel Mildmay, Captain O'Grady, Colonel Wedgwood, Colonel Penry Williams, and Major Edward Wood.
Reports le lie upon the Table.
Bill Presented
INDUSTIRAL COURTS BILL,—"to provide for the establishment of an Industrial Court and Courts of Inquiry in connection with trade disputes, and to continue for a limited period certain of the provisions of the Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act, 1918." presented by Sir ROBERT HORNE; supported by the Attorney-General and Mr. Wardle; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 201.]
Orders Of The Day
Aliens Restriction Bill
As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
Clause 5—(Employmeat, Of Aliens In Skips Of The Mercantile Marine)
No alien shall act as master, chief officer, or chief engineer, of a British merchant ship registered in the United Kingdom, except in the case of a ship employed entirely in trade between parts of the world outside the British Empire.
I beg to move to leave out Clause 5. This Clause was added to the Bill in Committee, I believe, by my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). It is always with the deepest regret that I differ from him, but in this case it is absolutely essential that those who do not wish to create international irritation should move for the rejection of this Clause. If the Clause be passed no American will be able to act as master, chief officer or chief engineer of an English ship. That will have the immediate result of profoundly annoying the whole of the American nation. The American nation is going to be a very large maritime nation, with a large merchant service. They will undoubtedly retaliate by having a similar law to this, and we shall have all Englishmen prevented from being masters, chief officers or chief engineers of ships flying under the American flag. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are not allowed now ‡ "] That will mean the definite creation of a split between the Anglo-Saxon peoples, which will be lamentable. But there is more in it than that. If this Clause goes through there may be a large movement among ships now flying the British flag to go under the American or some other flag. It is notorious that the connection between the flag of any company and the shareholders of that company is often very weak now. In many of these companies the Americans hold large blocks of shares. If you go into the Levant you find a great deal of Greek capital in ships flying the British flag. We do not want to have these ships transferred to a foreign flag. At present we have an overwhelming majority of the Merchant Marine of the world. [Cries of "No‡"] I say "yes." What nation has more than we have? We have an overwhelming majority.
No‡
My figures are as likely to be correct as the hon. Member's. We have more than twice as much as any other nation. That majority has been obtained by our liberal practice in the past employing those best fitted for the service. Apart altogether from questions of expediency—the question of whether this will not drive ships under a foreign flag and whether this will not cause irritation between ourselves and America—we on these benches believe in the international solidarity of labour We are not here to stir up international jealousies or to draw fine distinctions between different classes of labour. The whole questions is one question throughout the world—the question of Labour against Capital; and we are not going to be parties to any sort of measure which will stir up international jealousy and raise again the old nationalist spirit in order to bring the world into war. Although I know it is perfectly hopeless to press the Amendment, I should not feel that I was doing my duty if I allowed this Clause to go through with out making a protest against it as reactionary and utterly out of keeping with the spirit and the ideals of the League of Nations.
Amendment not seconded.
In view of an Amendment which has been put on the Paper by the President of the Board of Trade—an Amendment which I saw in common with other Members only on Saturday—I do not propose to move the Amendments standing in my name on the Order Paper, but later I will move manuscript Amendments. They are in manuscript for the reason that, as stated, I did not see the Government Amendment until Saturday.
4.0 P.M.
I beg to move to leave out the words "except in the case of a ship employed entirely in trade between parts of the world outside the British Empire," and to insert instead thereof the words
"or as skipper of a fishing boat registered in the United Kingdom, except in the case of a ship or boat employed mainly in voyages to or from ports outside the United Kindgom:
Provided that this prohibition shall not apply to any alien who has acted as a master, chief officer, or chief engineer of a British ship, or as skipper of a British fishing boat at any time during the War and is certified by the Admiralty to have performed good and faithful service in that capacity.
(2) No alien shall be employed in any capacity on board a British ship registered in the United Kingdom at a rate of pay less than the standard rate of pay for the time being current on British ships for his rating.
(3) No alien shall be employed in any capacity on board a British ship registered in the United Kingdom unless he has produced to the officer before whom he is engaged satisfactory proof of his nationality.
This is obviously a very important Clause for us all very fully to consider. If we were to make a mistake in the decision we arrived at with regard to the employment of aliens on board the Mercantile Marine we might do a great deal of harm to the prosperity of this country. There are several difficult points which, in the Amendment which stands in my name, I have tried to safeguard. We have, first of all, to recognise this fact, that a very large number of ships which fly the Red Ensign are, in fact, largely, and in some cases entirely, owned by foreigners. We have also to recognise that a great many of those ships are employed in parts of the world altogether outside Europe and that they never come to European ports at all, and many of them, from the day on which they are launched, or, rather, from the day on which they sail after launching, until the time they are broken up, never again enter the waters of the United Kingdom. Those ships, many of which, as I have pointed out, are owned by foreigners, and many of which never again come to the United Kingdom ports, constitute a large and valuable section of the British Mercantile Marine. We have had, for example, in the Eastern 'Mediterranean, working not only there but also in the Red Sea, a line of steamships which is owned by British capital, and which trades almost entirely in the Levant, and which goes to Italian ports and occasionally touches Malta. That line is of very great service to British trade and helps in the furtherance and development of that trade. And yet on those boats no passengers who speak English practically ever travel, and no merchants who speak English have to deal very much with the cargoes which those boats are carrying. We get there a class of British ship extremely useful to the nation, helping our trade and yet working really outside the area in which English is the spoken common language. We have boats of the same line trading in the Red Sea. In other parts of the world there are somewhat similar lines. For instance, there are boats which trade on the Irawadi. Those lines help British trade enormously-. Those are some of the considerations which we had to have in mind. We have also had to look very carefully at the position with regard to the employment of aliens on board British ships among the masters, officers and engineers, and the numbers which are actually employed are extraordinarily small, considering all the factors which affect the employment of non-British persons in those capacities on British ships. Among the masters, and we have almost exactly 6,000 masters on British mercantile ships, there are only fifty-one who are not British subjects, and many of those have served with great gallantry during the War, and handled their ships with great skill and great personal courage and bravery. There are sonic 10,000 mates in the British Mercantile Marine, and in that number there are only 220 who are not British subjects, and of the 17,000 engineers there are 313, or 1.8 per cent. who were born in foreign countries. Some of those are naturalised, and I am not quite sure, therefore, how many of them are technically aliens. We have also to think of the effect of any change we make in connection with the manning of the Mercantile Marine upon the employment of British seafarers. British seafarers are employed not only in the British Mercantile Marine, but also in large numbers in the Mercantile Marine ships of other nations. We had, for example, a great deal of employment provided for men of British race in ships which pick up crews at ports where they may be left behind or are wanted. Altogether the problem with which we are brought face to face in this Clause is one of very considerable complexity, and there are many different interests which converge upon it. We have the interests of the Officers' Association which would like to see none but real British-born subjects serving as officers. If that were made a statutory provision there is not the slightest doubt that a considerable amount of tonnage which at present flies the British flag would cease to fly that flag, not from any lack of patriotism, because very likely the owners of that tonnage are not British. If those ships pass from tae flag the effects would be these: Stores mid repairs which are now provided for and carried out on those ships would no longer be carried out or supplied from this country. We have to consider again in the event of another war those ships which in this War were at the disposal of the British Government because they flew the British flag, would not be at the disposal of our Government for requisition. So that we should suffer at once a loss of tonnage, quite inevitably, which in the event of another war would seriously cripple our marine resources. I do not think it is too much to say, and I have the very best authority I could get for making this statement., if all the tonnage which flies the British flag and which is foreign owned had been transferred from the British flag before the War we would not have been able to keep essential services going by sea. Thus we have to consider very carefully any action that we may take which would have the effect of encouraging, perhaps indeed compelling, the transfer of tonnage now under the British flag from that flag. Beyond that Interest of the Merchant Service officers, including masters and engineers, there is the interest of the crews, and those men through their organisation have a. very definite point of view with regard to what their interest is. They are very keen, and one can fully sympathise with them, that no enemy alien, and no German especially, should ever again serve on a British ship, and that point of theirs will be fully met by this Bill if Clause 10 becomes law. Beyond that they wish to see that it is not made possible for aliens to come to this country and accept a lower rate of pay and force down the standard of wages and conditions which they have won. We think that would be fully safeguarded by some such Clause as that which I am about to propose by one of the Sub-sections or my Amendment. They wish also to be sure that there will be no possibility of persons who are in fact hostile or of bad repute as foreigners getting on British ships, and they ask especially that there should he a definite provision inserted in this Bill which would make it essential that every foreign person's identity shall be clearly established before he can be shipped as a member of the crew. That is the system which is now in force, because at the present time the identity of a man shipping rim a Mercantile Marine crew has to be established and the men must have their papers. That is carried out under some of the War Emergency Provisions, and it is desired to make that arrangement permanent. That also is provided for in the Amendment which I have moved. We have also to think of this subject from the point of view of further changes in regard to the manning of the Mercantile Marine, and to think of that not only from the point of view of the members of the crew or of the officers, but also to think of it from the point of view of the shipowner, and keep the balance even and level between those two interests. That we have tried to do by the manner in which we have drafted Sub-section (2) of this Amendment, which provides that(4) Any person who engages an alien for employment on a British ship in contravention of the provisions of this Section shall be guilty of an offence under this Act."
That is the present arrangement and position, and what we are trying to do with that portion of the Amendment is to make good, as it were, the position which has been won by the men and to leave any further changes open for negotiations in the ordinary way between the shipowners and the representatives of the crews. I hope in this Amendment that we Lave managed to strike, as nearly as may be, the line of safety between all the conflicting interests which are at stake. We believe, if this Amendment be adopted, that the interests of those lines which trade outside the waters of the United Kingdom will be sufficiently safeguarded. We believe that under this Amendment the interests of the officers will be safeguarded so far as it is safe rigidly to safeguard them. The percentage of aliens employed is, as I have indicated, extremely low. We believe that under this Amendment We have met, in the proviso to what would be, if adopted, the last part of the first Sub-section of Clause 5, the case of the aliens who have served with distinction in the War. I do not know if it be generally known to the House that quite a number of alien masters were actually decorated for gallant conduct during the War and received the D.S.C. or other honours of the War. I have a list of alien masters who have been decorated in that way during the War before me on the Table. The same is true of alien officers of varying ranks, and the same, I may add, is true of alien members of the crews, many of whom have been decorated for gallantry on British ships, and without whose gallant and loyal conduct we could never have kept the Mercantile Service running, because of shortage of personnel at a tune when it was necessary to increase so largely the number of men employed in the Royal Navy. Therefore in the proviso we ask the House to safeguard the interests of those men who can definitely be certified as having performed good and faithful service during the War. I am sure that that will appeal to the general sentiment of the House as an absolutely necessary and fair thing to do. There is one point further which our Amendment does, and that is, as the Home Secretary undertook, that it brings the skippers of fishing boats registered in the United Kingdom and fishing in United Kingdom waters into the same position as masters, chief officers, or chief engineers of British merchant ships will be if the Clause be adopted. That, I am sure, is a right and proper addition to make to this Clause."No alien shall be employed in any capacity on board a British ship registered in the Unit,-d Kingdom at a rate of pay less than the standard rate of pay for the time being current oil British ships for his rating."
I would like to ask the President of tile Board of Trade why he has substituted the word "mainly" for the word "habitually" in the Amendment I. except in the case of a ship or boat employed mainly in voyages to or from ports outside the United Kingdom, and I think the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, I think we all realise that it is unnecessary and undesirable, and that it would be unduly hampering the traffic in the East, to insist upon the Bill as it left the Committee without any limitation; but I think the word "habitually" would meet the case, and the word "mainly" seems rather a weaker word. We all agree that we must protect this particular kind of traffic and must not by a general direction interfere with a very large trade which is being done in the East, and which can only be done under the condition of employing alien seamen. I want to have it perfectly clear that it shall deal with ships, I will not say exclusively, but I prefer the word habitually," employed in voyages to or from ports outside the United Kingdom and I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we ought not to water it down in the least degree when we have attained the object which we had in view.
I fancy that the President of the Board of Trade would not have any very great objection to acceding to the reasonable request of my hon. and learned Friend. This Amendment has somewhat taken the House by surprise. Most hon. Members did not know anything about it till this morning, and those whom the Board of Trade were good enough to consult on this matter received no intimation of any kind that a very serious alteration of a fundamental character was to be made in the agreement which was arrived at. In some respects tins Amendment, no doubt, is an improvement on the Bill, and it certainly meets the feeling of many of the constituents, for instance, of my hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) in that it includes the skippers of fishing boats. In recent days there has been a very considerable feeling with regard to the position of aliens on trawlers and fishing boats operating from this country, and in that respect I think my right hon. Friend has wisely gauged the feeling of the house, but I would venture to call the very serious attention of the House to sonic aspects of the Amendment which, if they are persisted in, will constitute a blow of the most severe kind at the remoter activities of the British Mercantile Marine. My right hon. Friend was correct when he said that in the first Sub-section of his Amendment he has made an improvement by excluding from the scope of that Sub-section vessels employed mainly in voyages to or from ports outside the United Kingdom. But when we come to Sub-section (2) we find a very different state of affairs. The House is here confronted with one of the most delicate and difficult problems which came before the Peace Conference.
May I illustrate this point from actual instances of what happens in certain parts of the world? There was before the War, and I hope there will be again very soon, a regular line of steamers running from Port Said right tip to Constantinople. These steamers trade from Port Said to Jaffa, Beyrout, Alexandretta, Mitylene, the Dardanelles, and Constantinople. There are other steamers which run through the Greek Islands, and there are two or three services exclusively confined to the Red Sea. Take the Red Sea services. You cannot possibly ask men to spend their lives in the stokehole of a ship which never comes home, and spends all its time in the Red Sea. You have there, on account of climatic necessities, a class largely of non-British Arab labour, and given equal conditions these men are per- haps nut one-third so efficient as a British man would be if he could stick it, but they have got to be employed. If the effect of this Sub-section is to double or triple the cost of running a British ship in these trades, then I think my right hon. Friend is not justly gauging the desires of the House in inserting such a provision. The effect of that would be almost instantaneous. The trade would continue to be done, but British ships would at a blow be placed out of the running altogether. The trade would be done, and the ships would be manned by these nationalities, but it would be done under a foreign flag, and I would ask hon. Members to consider what that means to this country. Today, on account of the position of freedom and elasticity in which we have placed the British Jereantile Marine, we have ships under the British flag which never see this country and are operating in the remotest parts of the world, but in a time of crisis every one of these ships can be called home to feed and defend the population of these islands, and if we make it impossible economically to operate these ships in competition with foreign ships in the tropics then we shall he handing over to the foreigner the British trade in the tropics, and we shall do not one atom of good to a single British working man. These are some of the problems to which I would most respectfully and earnestly-invite the attention of my right hon. Friend. I see upon the bench with him my hon. and gallant Friend who represents the Ministry of Shipping (Colonel Wilson). I know how sincerely he has, as his chief has, the interests of the British Mercantile Marine at heart, the interests not of the shipowners, not merely of the seamen, but of that vast organisation which means so much to the safety and prosperity of this country, and I would ask him to give us before we pass this Clause some assurance that we will not be doing what the House, I am sure, would never dream of doing if it were kept properly informed by the Government, namely, putting the British Mercantile Marine in these remote voyages out of the running with the foreigner. May I illustrate the delicacy of the point from the Peace Treaty l We are dealing here with a class of trade in which the men employed cannot reasonably be said to be in competition at all with British labour we are dealing with a trade where the cost of living bears no comparison to the cost of living in this country. We come into an entirely dif- ferent atmosphere when we get into these purely foreign trades, and that is realised by the Peace Conference, for the most elaborate precautions are taken in the. Peace Treaty for a conference of the various Powers to meet and go carefully and scientifically into these matters. May I quote to the House a few words from Article 405 of Part 13 of the Treaty—My complaint against my right hon. Friend's Amendment as it stands is that it does not have due regard to these very delicate and very important points. Further, in Article 427, the general principles which are to govern a careful and scientific investigation of this part of the question are laid down, and the third of these general principles is this:"In framing any recommendation or draft Convention of general application, the Conference' shall have due regard to those countries in which climatic conditions, the imperfect development of industrial organisation, or other special circumstances make the industrial conditions substantially different, and shall suggest the modifications, if any, which it considers maybe required to meet the case of such countries."
I presume that the time is not yet, come when one can move an Amendment to the Amendment, and that any Amendments to the proposed words will have to wait until the Question is put from the Chair, "That those words be there added." If I am right in that supposition, I think, however, I am entitled to mention to the House the Amendment which I would propose to safeguard the position of ships in which there is really no competition between the labour employed and British labour, and in which there can be none. In Subsection (2) of the Amendment of the President of the Board of Trade, after the words "United Kingdom," I should propose to insert the words "to which Subsection (1) of this Section applies." That would make it clear that vessels plying in entirely different parts of the world could not have these exclusive and rigid rules applied to them. I hope my right hon. Friend will accept that for the reasons I have stated, and also words at the end in order to safeguard the position of certain well-known classes of people, like the Goanese, about which I shall tell the House something on another opportunity. I should propose to insert the words"The payment, to the employed of a wage adequate to maintain a reasonable standard of-life as this is understood in their time and country."
The advantage of that would be that it would be recognised that these questions are matters for discussion and settlement at the conference which the Peace Treaty lays down, and, in the meantime, if any of these aliens are employed on British ships, they cannot be employed at rates lower than the rates which their services would command elsewhere. I would ask the President of the Board of Trade and the representative of the Ministry of Shipping to give us some assurance that nothing will be done that would lead to most serious damage to the Mercantile Marine on which the prosperity of this country depends."Provided that where the Board of Trade are satisfied that aliens of any particular race, other than former enemy aliens, are habitually employed afloat in any capacity or in any climate for which they are specially fitted, nothing in this Section shall prejudice the right of aliens of such race to be employed on British ships at rates of pay not below those current for their services."
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is not labouring under a misapprehension. I am honestly puzzled myself. When I read this Clause on Saturday, I took it that Sub-section 42) was covered by the words at the beginning of the Amendment, "except in the case of a ship or boat employed mainly in voyages to or from ports outside the -United Kingdom." I understood fiat that covered Sub-section (2). If that is true, 1 think the main objection of my hon. Friend fells to the ground.
1t does not.
There is another point. In the service to which I had the honour to belong, the Royal Navy, we employ in the Red Sea and Persian Gulf a. number of Kroo boys and Sidi boys precisely for the reason that climatic conditions make it necessary, but they are paid as Kroo and Sidi boys as a separate rating in the Navy, and I think that could reasonably he made to apply in the case of the Mercantile Marine. That, I think, cuts out the objection, but certainly these people could not be economically employed at the same wages as the British. They have not the physique or anything else, but they receive the standard rate as Kroo or Sidi boys or Lascars, which is recognised by the Seamen and Firemen's Union. Possibly my hon. Friend opposite might confirm that. Be that as it may, I would like to ask for an assurance from the President of the Board of Trade with regard to the words of his Amendment which cut out from this Act any alien who served faithfully and well in any capacity during the War. I would like an assurance that this will not apply to certain aliens who are now commanding British fishing trawlers, and who were engaged during the War by trawler-owners, were paid at the rate of a. shilling a month and got the uniform simply to protect them in case they were captured enemy submarines, as the enemy attempted to terrorise any seamen who were found fishing in certain areas. These men were fishing in comparatively safe parts of the sea, and were in exactly the same position as an alien, or civilian for that matter, who took the small business of a soldier who joined the Colours All Members of the House know that a Committee was set up specially to safeguard the rights of soldiers who left their shops or small businesses to join the Colours, to prevent strangers—aliens, of course, among them, but even civilians of our own country—from stepping in and taking their businesses. For that reason any soldier coining back has to get a licence at some pains and trouble to reopen his business.
These men, who are mostly members of the Scandinavian nations, are in exactly the same position. Owing to the great number of skippers, second hands, and trained fishermen employed by the Royal Navy in submarine and mine hunting, there was a shortage of qualified skippers for trawlers, and these extremely lucrative posts were taken by aliens, who now hold them, and who were nominally enrolled in the Royal Navy for their own protection. I do not think the House will recognise that that was good and faithful service entitling them to continue in these positions, because our skippers, who have been doing most arduous service—minesweeping, submarine hunting, and so on —have come back and cannot get boats, as these boats are commanded by Danes and Norwegians, and they feel, quite naturally, and I think justifiably, that while they were away saving their country their posts have been taken. I think we are entitled to an assurance—at any rate I would like one that this will not include those men, who did not fight for us, but simply earned large sums fishing, and got their temporary uniform and a. shilling a month from the Admiralty in order to safeguard them in the remote case of capture. I can assure my right hon. Friend that the feelings of the fishermen are very strong on this matter. I ton very glad to see the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Tickler) here, as he will bear me out. They do feel strongly that these men, who were not fighting, shall not be excluded from this Act, because there is a lot of fear, and almost indignation, amongst many fishermen on that- particular point.I crave the indulgence of the house, as it is rather difficult for me to get up, and I have to do my talking sitting down. With regard to the Amendment now before the House, I hope the Government will stand by it as it appears on the Paper. I came into the House when the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. A. Shaw) was telling a very long story about the effect this Clause is going to have on certain persons who a-re employed in the Red Sea. It so happens there are very few British ships which go to the Red Sea and employ Sidi boys. As a rule the tramp steamers arc manned by the ordinary European crew, but if it is necessary to employ these Sidi boys and others, and they do this useful work, I see no reason why the British shipowners should not pay a decent rate of wages to them. I do not want to see any legislation that is going to exclude any particular class of men from employment on British ships, because it so happens now that Britishers are obtaining employment on foreign ships. Only this week I have had a report from the Bristol Channel of some thirty or forty British seamen who have found employment on Scandinavian ships, of course, at the British rates of wages, and I think it would be a very bad thing indeed for Labour if the mobility of labour were destroyed. What we want to safeguard, 1 think, on British ships and in employment on shore is that aliens are not brought in to lower the standard of living of the people of this country, and to provide, as this does, that aliens shall not be employed to lower the standard rate of wages, is not striking a blow at any nationality. They are all welcome to come. Bat this does lay down as a condition of employment that the men must be paid the standard rate of wages. I cannot see any substantial argument at all in the speech of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, because the numbers of the foreigners he has mentioned who are employed on British ships are very few indeed, and if you seek to omit them men from the Act you admit hordes of Chinamen, who are the principal competitors of the British. I do not mean Chinamen who are British subjects, but I mean Chinamen who are aliens to this country. After the services which the seamen of this country have rendered to the Empire, they are entitled at least to that reasonable protection for their labour, and if it is a fact that these China-men can do the work so-much better than the Britishers, let them be paid a liberal wage, and not a sweated wage. For that reason I do hope my right hon. Friend will stand by the Amendment as it appears on the Paper. It is reasonable; it does not strike at any nationality. It simply lays down a principle that those men who come into our ships shall receive a proper standard rate of wages, and for that reason I support the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, and I hope the House will support it.
5.0 P.M.
Like other Members, on arriving here this afternoon I found the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade on the Paper. I was agreeably surprised to find that the right hon. Gentleman had taken this matter up. This is a question which has exercised the minds of the fishermen of Grimsby very considerably of late. The Grimsby fishermen, as the House well knows, have done their bit in the War. They have done their part nobly and well. They have had the thanks of this House on several occasions, voiced by Ministers. I want to ask the President concerning a small point, and the answer, I doubt not, will be very highly appreciated by the fishermen of Grimsby. They are very anxious indeed that the skippers of fishing vessels should be included in this Amendment. I want to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to make a slight alteration, and in the second Section of his Amendment to follow the words "chief engineer of a British ship" with "or the skipper or a mate of a British fishing vessel." The reason I ask for this is because the mate, as we all know, has to take the place of the skipper if anything should happen to the latter whereby he cannot perform his duties. In that circumstance the mate has to bring the ship into port. Another thing: The mate, with the skipper, has a share in the earnings of the vessel. Therefore, he is equally interested in the working of the ship as is the skipper. There is a very strong feeling in Grimsby that the mate should be included with the skipper, and put on an equal footing.
These men at the present time have come from mine-sweepers and have been demobi- lised. They have come back to Grimsby, where, we all know, many fishing vessels have been sunk during the War. Consequently, there is great scarcity of vessels and a considerable surplus of men who man these vessels. They consider it very hard when they see an alien occupying the post to which they think they are justly entitled. They resented this previous to the War These men to whom I refer have come over, as frequently they do—or did—on alien ships to land their catch at Grimsby for the market, and many of them have been in the habit of staying and taking a situation on board English trawlers, and eventually they have risen to the position of skipper or mate. The Grimsby fishermen would like to find that we have learnt something from the War. During the War these aliens were not seen on fishing vessels. They were allowed on mercantile ships, but not on fishing vessels, because these were trawling about, and dodging up and down, and the men on them were calculated to become possessed of information which might be valuable to the enemy. We in Grimsby would like to see that prohibition extended in time of peace. We know very well that the fishermen know every inch of the North Sea and, consequently, if an alien is in charge of a fishing trawler, he gets to know the seas as well as an Englishman. The consequence is that when the time of war comes—and we hope it will be a long time again before we have war—he is in a position to communicate valuable information to the enemy. We know this was done in the late War. Therefore, I make this appeal to the President of the Board of Trade to give us this concession, which I assure him will be highly appreciated by the men of Grimsby.I am in favour of the Clause as amended by the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. But I should like to ask one or two questions so as fully to understand what it means. The hon. Gentleman who lately spoke (Mr. Havelock Wilson) knows that all through the controversies of the last ten years I have through thick and thin maintained that we did not employ Chinese because of their cheapness; I have said over and over again that I myself employed them simply because of their efficiency and because there was not a sufficiency of British seamen to man British ships. Of all the aliens, I have found the Chinese the most efficient. Shipowners are agreeing to this Clause—quite a large body of them; and if anything were wanted to prove what I state it is the fact that we are all agreeing that the wages shall be up to those of the British seamen. It may be, or may not, that those who think that when the wage is raised the Chinese will be thrown out of British ships altogether, but many of these Chinese whom we have employed are not aliens. Some were amongst the best workers or employâs we could get. There has nut been interference, so far as I can see, with the employment of aliens on shore. It puzzles me, however, to know why the most cosmopolitan and most international trade should be hampered and hindered in the selection of those who perform its services. So far, though, as this Amendment of the Government goes, I am in favour of it. Might 1, however, ask for information upon Sub-sections (2) and (3)?
Does the first mean in relation to the standard rate of pay that a Lascar is to be paid the same wage as a British seaman? A great many of them are employed. The Sub-section is rather indefinite. I have consulted several of my colleagues, and none of us are quite certain of what is the exact meaning of this Sub-section. We shall be glad if the President would be kind enough to clear up the dubiety. There is another point in this connection. There are Lascars who are British subjects. They are employed on Eastern steamers. Then, again, there is the question of whether the Goanese have to be brought up to the same standard as the Lascar. Then, again, as regards some of the Eastern vessels, they only come home, perhaps, every four or five years to be overhauled, and in the hot climates they are almost entirely manned by those who are British subjects. Again, the vessels which trade between Boston and Jamaica. There is another point in Sub-section (3) as to satisfactory proof of nationality before employment. It says that the alien, Before being employed, shall produce to the engaging officer satisfactory proof of his nationality. This is a Clause which might give rise to a very great deal of delay, argument, and fighting with shipping masters. Seamen do not, as a rule, go about with their birth certificates in their pockets. What is the evidence that is aimed at or that is required from any alien at the shipping office? Take a Chinaman, for instance—and I want to be quite frank—I do not suppose any China- man living carries about his birth certificate. You have only the man's word against that of the shipping master, who may say that the applicant is riot a British subject, may say he is a German. This question is likely to give rise to constant argument. I do not know what evidence the Government desire. Ships, when the crews are on board, are under an obligation to sail at once, and it is a very serious matter, especially in these times, to hang up a ship for even a day. I have known ships hung up for over a clay over a trifle. I want to get clear on this point, so as to avoid any struggling of shipowners with Government Departments and shipping masters. If we know what we have to do we shall be prepared for it I am trying to make these practical points of a shipowner in daily practice who knows the difficulties which we constantly are up against. I should think it rather hard that Regulations should be framed that are not definite, and I should like to know what these really mean, so that I can provide myself against the contingency. I trust the Government will substantially hold to this Amendment, May I remind the House that if British ships had been confined to cargoes that are carried throughout the British Empire, instead of having more than 50 per cent. of the whole of the fleets of the world before the War, we should scarcely have had a quarter? So hon. Members will see that British ships are not only carrying the Empire trade, but the trade of the whole world. It does not, therefore, behave the British Government or the British nation to put impediments in the way of this great enterprise of providing a magnificent fleet of mercantile ships which will be available; that itself was not sufficient, because we had to go outside British shipping altogether, and hon. Members know the enormous rates we had to pay in comparison with that paid to British shipowners.The Government are quite willing to accept this Amendment. I may point out that the word "mainly" was inserted by the Parliamentary draftsman. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman opposite will formally move his Amendment later, and the Government will accept it. The Government has done everything that lies in its power to meet the wishes of hon. Members in regard to this particular of this proposal to the British Mercantile Marine. This Clause was introduced in Committee upstairs, and it has been my duty to inquire as to how it would affect the British Mercantile Marine and with the information available from officers' associations and owners, and the help of those who have been interested all their lives in the Mercantile Marine, I came to the conclusion that one had to proceed very carefully otherwise we might do more harm than good.
The way in which this Clause has been received has been very gratifying, and criticism has only peen directed against Sub-section (2). That, however, has not been serious, although it perhaps needs some explanation. My right hon. Friend, in introducing this Amendment, said the object of Sub-section (2) was to secure that there should be no forcing down of wages by the introduction of a foreign element into the Mercantile Marine, and it is with the object of carrying out that idea that this Sub-section has been introduced. The National Maritime Board has been dealing with the question of these rates, and the object of this Sub-section is to affirm and confirm the present state of things. I wish to draw the attention of the House to the words of this Sub-section which are "at a rate of pay less than the standard rate of pay for the time being current on British ships for his rating." The National Maritime Board laid down the conditions for the payment of coloured men and Asiatics and other seamen, but I want the house to clearly understand this question of a standard rate. There is no agreement to pay a standard rate except to the officers and men who sign on at any port at home.That is not so under Subsection (2) of the President of the Board of Trade's Amendment.
The intention of this Amendment is to affirm and confirm the present state of affairs, and to ensure that no alien ship employs or signs on men in this country at a lower rate of wage than the standard rate at present paid. Whatever one's wishes might be to ensure this standard wage being paid to men who signed on in ports abroad, that is impossible for us to achieve. The standard rate is different in different countries. In some countries the wages are higher and in some they are lower. It is obviously desirable, and I think hon. Members will thoroughly agree with my statement, that our men in this country should not be handicapped by the alien coming in and serving on board our ships at a lower rate of wage. I had a case only the other day in which there was a ship signing on stewards at Southampton, and a large number of aliens were being signed on at a lower rate of pay, and the reason given for this was that those men could speak the language of the passengers, the majority of whom were foreigners, and that Britishers were not available. In that case I am glad to say that the union concerned did not allow the ship to sail because the men were being signed on at a lower rate, and we want to stop that by this Amendment. If it is impracticable for the ship to sail because of the language question, it is only just that the men should be signed on at the rate of wage payable to the Britisher in a similar case. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Tickler) will be moved later. With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Sir W. Raeburn) Sub-section (3) prevents any alien totally excluded under Clause 10 coaling in by transferring to some other nationality. If this Subsection were not introduced it would be quite possible for enemy aliens to transfer their nationality, and then pass into the British Mercantile Marine. The question of the nationality of the Chinaman is a very difficult problem.
Why should it be?
It is so, as the nationality of a Chinaman can only be determined out in China, because he carries his nationalisation on his tombstone, and he cannot bring his tombstone to this country. That is the difficulty.
Has he no nationality until he is dead?
The tombstone is that of his ancestors. The Hong Kong Chinaman is a British citizen, but all Chinamen do not come from Hong Kong I think this Section will do a great deal, and I hope it will entirely prevent any aliens coming in under the guise of belonging to any other nationality. I hope the House will accept the Amendment as it stands. I can assure hon. Members we have gone very carefully into this matter, fully realising the vital importance of this Clause to the British Mercantile Marine, and I am quite sure we have gone as far as we ought to go.
May I have an answer to my question about the one shilling a month paid to alien skippers on trawlers?
I know those cases well, and it was paid to others than by those mentioned by the lion. and gallant Gentleman who went abroad, and they were paid one shilling a month. I do not think any further assurance is required than that which is given under this Amendment, and every case will be considered on its merits. It is not intended that any such men shall be detained under this Sub-clause. I would also point out that every case has got to be certined by the Admiralty that the man has performed good and faithful service in that capacity. The men referred to will not come under that category, and, therefore, I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend need have any anxiety on that subject.
The difficulties of the Government have been very great. As my hon. Friend has already stated, this deals with a great international trade by the British Mercantile Marine, and it has built up this great trade mainly owing to its freedom from restrictions in the past. I might remind the House that the British Mercantile Marine never began to grow rapidly until the repeal of the navigation laws, and it was the removal of those restrictions that produced the Great British Mercantile Marine which we possessed before the War, and which was doing half the carrying trade of the world. Therefore, I think the House ought to be very careful before it does anything to jeopardise the British Mercantile Marine. I maintain that while the Government has gone a long way towards meeting the wishes of those associations and those hon. Members who feel strongly, as I do, about enemy aliens, I think that to go any further might put the Mercantile Marine in danger. Therefore, I ask the House to accept the Amendment which has been moved by my right hon. Friend.I think the words "to or from" should be omitted, and the word "between" inserted. This appears to me to be a very serious flaw in the wording of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. A large portion of the voyage of every ship is taken up going to or from ports outside the United Kingdom, and I was going to suggest that instead of the words "to and from" the word "between" should be used; otherwise you knock the bottom out of the whole of our enterprise.
I am sure the House has been impressed by the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Wilson) and with the necessity for carefully protecting the interests of all concerned in the great British Mercantile Marine, and I think the House is in general agreement that this Clause has been carefully thought out so as to protect all legitimate interests. May I just call the attention of the House to a resolution which has been passed by a very representative body and which in some respects does not quite conform to the Clause? It is a resolution which was recently carried by the Seafarers Joint Council, which, as the House knows, is representative of nearly all the associations which represent every rank and every rating in the British Mercantile Marine. It has on its body people associated with no less than nine different associations representing chief officers, chief engineers, the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, and other bodies. They expressed the very strong opinion that the prohibition of aliens from being officers of the British Mercantile Marine should not be confined to masters and chief officers and chief engineers, but should extend to all officers and all engineers. I presume that my right hon. Friend has considered the question of extending the prohibition to all officers and all engineers, and, for myself, I think it is a pity that we could not so extend it and then make special exceptions to meet special Hoes of ships and special cases of individuals. I would, however, recall my right hon. Friend's attention to that resolution and ask if it is now too late to consider it.
We were told that we might have reprisals if we went too far. I expect that foreign nations already adapt their shipping laws to their own special advantage, and, if they considered that they could have any more advantageous shipping laws than they have at present, they would not be very much affected by such alterations as we make in our shipping laws. For instance, the United States, France, and Greece already prohibit aliens from being masters, officers, or engineers on their ships; they insist that they should all be nationals of their own country. If we were to enact that, I do not think that we should provoke any reprisals from them, One does not see how one could. The only other point to which I wish to draw attention arises in regard to Subsection (1) of the Amendment standing in the name of the President of the Board of Trade, where he makes a special exception in favour of a ship employed mainly on voyages to and from ports outside the United Kingdom. I have an Amendment on the Paper to cut out that Sub-clause and make the Clause prohibit the employment of aliens as masters, chief officers, and chief engineers apply to all British ships between whatever ports they trade. I recognise, however, that is probably going too far. It is only a small percentage of the officers who will be affected, and one has to consider whether it would not be to their disadvantage to make such a provision as has been suggested. I quite follow what my hon. Friend said as to the wording of the Sub-section, and his suggestion of the word "between" instead of the words "to and from," and perhaps the Government will consider it. But when I find representatives of such interests as those for whom the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Sir W. Rae-burn) and the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. H. Wilson) supporting this Clause, 1 confess that it removes from my mind any lingering impression that it might not be going far enough. When I see there my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, who throughout the War has been, and who is still, so staunch a supporter of the Mercantile Marine officers and men, and who has done such splendid service in the War, I am. quite confident that I shall not be going too far if I congratulate the Government upon having produced a Clause which has caused general satisfaction.I should like to say one or two words on this subject, because I belong to that very much maligned class the shipowners, though I should like to mention that I can speak from an impartial point of view, because none of the firms to which I belong employ any aliens whatsoever. I should like, if it were possible, for the whole of the British Mercantile Marine to be manned entirely by 13ritishers but I think a great mistake is often made and misapprehension often caused by Members and other people outside treating the prohibition of the employment of aliens on British ships on the same footing as keeping aliens out of this country. The idea of keeping aliens out of this country is to prevent a low scale of living and the unemployment of Britishers. When you come to shipping, however, you are dealing with an international question, and it is quite impossible to deal with it on the same lines. I should like to congratulate the President of the Board of Trade on the Amendment which he proposes, because I believe it goes very far towards meeting the views of everyone on this question. I heartily approve of all captains, chief engineers, and officers being Britishers, and I believe that by having chief officers and chief engineers Britishers we shall go a long way towards ensuring that all other officers will be Britishers, because an alien, knowing lie cannot rise higher than second officer or second engineer, will not so readily enter British service. But it is quite impossible to do move than has been done in this Amendment as regards the crew. That is a most difficult question, and I think the Amendment meets the case. I should like to ask one question. I am not quite clear about Sub-section (2), which says,
There is now a standard rate of pay in this country for engaging crews, and I understood from what was said just now that the Amendment confirms practically the same conditions as those in force at the present. time, and that if people engage a Chinese crew in China they would come under the same conditions as at present, although, as I interpret it, this Sub-section does not read in that way. It says, "No British ship registered in this country," but it says nothing about crews signing on. That is a point which I should like cleared up, because I am not at all clear with regard to it at present. I do not think that any case has been put forward that all crews should be entirely British, but undoubtedly it has been shown on every hand that it is impossible, if we are going to maintain the position that we have had in the shipping world, not to have a certain number of foreigners engaged as the crew, and as long as they get the same standard of wages I am sure that British seamen would not object, especially seeing that they manned many of our ships and fought for us during the War. After having used them during the War, it would be very in- judicious now that the War is over to tell our Allies and friendly foreigners that we have no further use for them. Besides being impracticable, it would be impolitic to press for the crews being entirely British. The Clause put forward by the President of the Board of Trade, to my mind, entirely meets the case and prevents any feeling that could possibly exist that British seamen were not getting fair treatment and fair play."No alien shall be employed in any capacity on board a British ship registered in the United Kingdom at a rate of pay less than the standard rate of pay."
I want to support the last speaker as to the necessity of some further explanation of Sub-section (2). It is not the explanation of the Government that matters in this case; it is the legal interpretation of the words, and, although understood from the Parliamentary secretary to the Shipping Controller that he was meeting the case so far as the intentions of the Government are concerned, I want to submit that the words as now down do not carry out those intentions. It is not clear whether the Sub-section carries out the intention of making an exception in the case of ships employed mainly to and from ports outside the United Kingdom. That is not clear, and the other point is certainly not clear. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping gave the House to understand that lie intended only to apply it to men who signed on in this country. I submit that is not the effect of the words, and before we accept this Clause the house ought to know that the intentions of the Government are legally expressed. I do not think that they are at the present time. It is a very important point, and the House ought to be very careful how they accept the Government Amendment.
I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend who has just sat down. I will go a little further and say that judging from the speech of the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Wilson) the Government do not understand their own Amendment, or, if they do, they are anxious that the House shall not understand it, because he has made statements which may perhaps be soothing to all the Members who have a doubt upon the matter but which are not at all verified by the Amendment as it stands. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) said that my hon. Friend (Sir W. Raeburn) approved the Clause, but I do not think that he did. I listened with very great pleasure to my hon. Friend, as I always do, because all his speeches are most illuminating; but my hon. Friend seemed to me to be anxious that the Chinese should have the same wages as Englishmen and that Lascars should not. That was the object of his speech. But as I understand it under this Amendment Lascars, if they are aliens will get the same wages as English seamen, but, if they are English subjects, it is doubtful whether they will, and in any case the Chinese will be better off than the English. Therefore, I do not think that my hon. Friend really did support the Amendment as it stands.
My doubt was the same as that expressed by my hon. Friend (Major Cayzer). I do not think that the Clause is at all clear. I know what the Government mean, but a Court of Law might take an entirely different view, and the purport of my speech was to find out what they do mean and to see that they put it clearly in the Clause.
That is quite correct. Let us, first of all, ascertain what the Government mean, and, having ascertained that, let us put it in the Clause. I do implore the House not to be led away by any assertion of the Government that the Clause means this or that. Let us put it in the Clause. We may have a change of Government or we may have other Ministers in these particular posts, and then we shall only have the Clause to which to refer. It will be no use bringing up the OFFICIAL REPORT and saying that the hon. and gallant Gentleman or the President of the Board of Trade said so and so. If it comes to a Court of Law, they will say, "All we have got to look to is the Act." Let us only look to the Act. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said in effect the Lascars would be paid the same rate as the British seamen, because there was a rating made for them. Now this rating is laid down by the Ministry of Shipping, it may or may not be in conjunction with the shipowner, and it may be altered at any moment, but this Amendment as it stands does not allude to any rating which has been laid down. Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman says that when they sign on certain things will occur; yet, again, there is nothing in the Amendment about signing on at British ports. What we have been suffering from of late has been a mass of ill-digested legislation not understandable by anybody. The hon. Member for South Shields is naturally anxious that there should be no undue competition with British seamen. I have never employed an alien all my life except for one single fortnight, and then I promptly got rid of him. It may be necessary in the interests of shipping in some cases to employ aliens. It may be that if this Amendment is passed in its present undigested form trade may pass from the hands of this country to foreign nations. We are dealing, as my hon. Friend said just now, with a most important Amendment affecting a far-reaching trade, and it is therefore most important before it is passed we should see that it is placed in an intelligible form. One of my hon. Friends said he thought time first part of the Amendment applied to Sub-section (2). I am not a lawyer, but I have had a good deal of experience of Bills passed in this House, and I will venture in the absence of any Law Officer of the Crown—I do not know why these learned Gentlemen are all away on an occasion like this—to take upon myself the place of one of them and to express my opinion that the first part of the Amendment does not apply to Subsection (2), but merely to the words preceding it and not to those following it. In my opinion it would be read by any judge as applying only to the words that go before it. Under these circumstances I trust that the House will accept an Amendment which I understand is to be moved later on, and which it is hoped may make the Intention of the Government quite clear.
I do not want to attack the Amendment which has been submitted by the Government, neither do I want to enter into a discussion as to the definition and exact meaning which might be placed upon the words of the Amendment. I have tried to give my best attention with a view of finding out what is really intended, how the Amendment is to be applied, and what will be its ultimate effect, and I have come to the conclusion that it is a fair and reasonable Amendment from the seaman's point of view. There are two interests to be considered. There is the interest of the shipowner, and there is also the interest of the seamen—[An HON. MEMBER: "And the public‡"]. For the moment we are dealing with the interests of the shipowner and seamen only. I was rather astounded in the earlier part of the proceedings to hear the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Sir W. Raeburn), make what was to me a very sensational statement, to the effect that they never employed Chinese because they were cheaper, but because they were more efficient than British seamen, and that there had never been any labour trouble in any of our docks on account of Chinese seamen being employed. I can go back a good many years, and I have met a great many of those who represent and are engaged in the shipping interest and I say this is the first time in my life I have ever heard it stated that Chinese are employed in British ships because they are more efficient than British seamen, and not merely because they are cheaper. I say emphatically in all my experience the great mass of Chinese seamen employed in British ships have been there because they have been cheaper, and I would add that the hon. Member must have had information time and again of cases where docks have been held up because an attempt has been made to remove Chinese seamen from ships in order to do shore work. The docks have been held up in fact until the Chinese have been removed, and this has occurred on may occasions and will happen again to-morrow if necessity should arise.
I repeat that in my opinion the Amendment prepared by the Government is fair and reasonable, and meets the case. As I take it no alien is to be employed in any capacity on board any ship at a rate of pay less than standard rate of pay for the time current. I quite anticipated when I read those words that an attempt would be made to cut them out, but my anticipations have not been realised. Here is the crux of the whole position. This has been the cause of the unrest, dissatisfaction and bitter hositility which has been shown in the past against the Chinese and indeed against Asiatics generally. But we have now entered upon a new era of life. We have brighter and better hopes for the future. We do not want to go back to the old state of affairs and I venture to think that even seamen themselves are now not hostile to foreigners being in the ship, so long as they get the same wages as British sea-men, and there is no undercutting. The Amendment as proposed by the Government goes a long way to prevent a return to the old condition of things so far as seafaring life is concerned, and I think the time of the House could be well devoted during the next hour or two in attempting to read what a judge or jury might possibly say as to the real meaning of the Clause. We have to satisfy yourselves here to-day what is the need and how it is to be met, and I am fully convinced that the Amendment as submitted by the Government goes a long way to meet that need. Therefore I hope the House will accept it in its present form.rose to put the Question.
"Reply."
I have had severs or eight Amendments handed in of words proposed to be inserted, and I think all the Amendments raised the point which has been referred to in the discussion.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived. Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "skipper," to insert the words "second hand."
The Clause will then read, "No alien shall act as master, chief officer, or chief engineer of a British merchant ship … or as skipper or second hand of a fishing boat," and so on. Probably Members of the House are aware that the second hand on a trawler holds exactly the same position as does the first officer on board a merchantman. He is second in command. He has to have a knowledge of navigation, he takes charge while the skipper is in his bunk, and he looks forward to a command of his own in the next year. He also, like the skipper, has a share in the trawler. I do not see why trawlers should be treated differently in this respect to steamers. The first or chief officer of a steamship already has to be British. Why should not the second hand be the same? These trawlers go round the Morocco Coast. They are getting larger every year, and now run up to 1,000 tons. Without any disrespect to the rest of the Mercantile Marine I would say that these men are the most valuable potential reserve for the Royal Navy. They are skilled seamen, being brought up to the work almost from childhood. They have been, and will, be invaluable in the future in two particular spheres of work for which they alone are fitted. The first is that of mine-sweeping. Their work is very similar to mine-sweep- ing, and their knowledge of the tides, sand banks, etc., is superior to that of any other merchant seamen. The second is the work of submarine hunting. We have to economise on our fighting forces in future. We have to economise in the Royal Navy, therefore the question of trained reserves for the Navy will be more important in the future than it is now. Every alien who is employed as second hand on a trawler is one trained skilful fisherman the fewer for employment in mine-sweeping in time of war. The President of the Board of Trade, if he opposes the Amendment, will probably say that numbers of these men did good service in the War. That is so. But the last War was a war against Germany. I believe it is a fact that the small neutral nations whose subjects probably acted in this capacity, such as the Danes and the Swedes, were at thoroughly cross purposes with Germany over the War. Can we be certain that in the future, if we should unfortunately find ourselves involved in war again, we should find these people on our side? Very strong views are held by the fishermen's organisations on this point, and I have letters from the associations which I could read pressing strongly that it should be compulsory that the second hand as well as the skipper should be a British subject. That is only in conformity with what is already in the Bill in regard to chief officers, and I hope the House will accept the Amendment.I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
This reopens a point over which I have spent very many hours study and cogitation. It is a very difficult point to decide what is the wisest and best course to be taken. In my original draft for this Clause I included second hands and then cut them out, really in order that I might have the assistance of the House in deciding the best thing to do. This particular point, from one point of view, seems unimportant, but from another point of view it is not so unimportant. Without doubt it is a great advantage to this country to have the men who are working round its coasts by day and night British and reliable. On the other hand, we have to consider the question of the development of the fisheries round our coasts and the actual ownership of the boats which are landing fish. At the present time there is a considerable quantity of fish landed from boats of which the capital is not British. That we hope to change enormously by the new scheme under which drifters and trawlers which were taken by the Admiralty during the War arc now being disposed of and placed in the hands of actual fishermen. It may be that at the present time and in present circumstances that this question of getting the help of foreign capital—for that is what it amounts to—in securing the food supplies of the sea for this country is not so important as it was. There is, therefore, a certain amount of doubt as to which is the wiser course to be taken. My own feeling is that in the long range the wiser course it to put in a provision that second hands shall also be British. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear ‡"] That being the feeling of the House, I shall accept the Amendment.
Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to. Further Amendment made to proposed Amendment: Leave out the word "mainly" ["employed mainly in voyages "]. and insert instead thereof the word "habitually."—[Sir H. Nield.]I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "to or from" ["voyages to or from ports "], and to insert instead thereof the word "between."
Under the Amendment on the Paper any ship going to any port, as long as it comes back to a British port, is exempt from the conditions of this Bill.I accept the Amendment.
Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "United Kingdom" ["ports outside the United Kingdom"], and to insert instead thereof the words "British Empire."
If this Amendment be not made, ships registered in the United Kingdom trading between ports of the British Empire can employ anybody they like. For instance, there are ships trading between Australia and New Zealand and between Capetown and Bombay. It is the wish of the House that British subjects should be employed on ships registered in the British Empire. That would include Indians and other natives who are very proud of this Empire.I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
If this Amendment were adopted it would have a very profound effect upon the whole position of the British Mercantile Marine. We have ships which enter British Empire ports in the ordinary tour of their voyages and which enter tropical poets where there is no opportunity of picking up British crews. The whole intention of my Amendment was to get some changes made in the proposals which were before the house that would safeguard these outlying lines. Many of these outlying lines are of the greatest importance to us. There is one line which, perhaps, touches British ports once in its round, and not always that, yet it does trade to the British Empire alone. May I point out that we have changed the word "mainly" to "habitually," so that it refers to vessels employed habitually in voyages between ports outside the United Kingdom? If in the ordinary course a ship called at a British Empire port, however outlying, then this provision would apply. I have no hesitation whatever in saying that if that were the case we would lose within a very few months a great deal of tonnage. It is these outlying lines for which it is so difficult to cater. The contingency which the hon. and gallant Member raised of ships trading between Australian and New Zealand ports, and therefore escaping all provisions of this sort, need not worry him, for in New Zealand and Australia the legislation in regard to shipping goes very much further than in this country. With regard to ships trading from British India in and about the tropical islands, there we are dealing with quite a different class of case. It is because of that class and because of certain instances which exist in America that in my opinion it is very desirable that this Clause should be adopted in the form in which it now stands, with the words "United Kingdom," and not with the words "British Empire."
Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in Sub-section (2), after the word "alien," to insert the words "when signing on in a port in the United Kingdom."
The statement made by the Government a few moments ago was that this Clause was meant to apply to men who signed on in ports in the United Kingdom, but as it stands it does not give effect to the desire of the Government. As it is most important that whatever we desire we should put clearly into an Act of Parliament, I beg to move this Amendment.8.0 P.M.
I hope the Amendment will not be accepted. I should like to make quite clear what is in our mind on this point. If you confine the Clause to the ports of the United Kingdom, you leave it open for shipowners to engage aliens abroad at wages much below what are paid in this country. For instance, you will have one class of British ships sailing on the coast of China manned by men from the United Kingdom getting full rates of wages, and you will have other ships which make a practice of discharging the white crews at ports in China and taking on Chinamen at low rates of wages. If Chinamen really are going to be employed instead of our own countrymen, the owners who want to seek an advantage out of that position ought to be compelled to pay the proper rates of wages which are paid in the United Kingdom. That is what has happened for years. How is it that we have at present from 16,000 to 18,000 Chinamen employed on British ships? It is due to the fact that they have been engaged at ports in China at low rates of wages. We want to prevent that. We say if a shipowner wants these aliens let him pay for them. I have listened with amazement to sonic of the statements which have been made in this Debate. It has been said Chinamen are the most efficient men who can be obtained. If they are so efficient the owners ought to have no objection to paying them good wages. I do not want the House to penalise shipowners who are employing Britishers and paying British wages. If we confine this Clause to ports in the United Kingdom you will be penalising shipowners who are employing Britishers and you will be giving a preference to the employment of Chinamen in ports in China. We do not want to exclude them because they are Chinamen. I do not think any such proposal would be entertained for a moment. But we have a right to say that no man of any nationality shall be used for the purpose of depressing conditions of employment in this country. I hope the right hon. Gen- tleman will stand by the Clause as drafted, and that any aliens employed on board British ships in any part of the world shall be paid the standard rate of wages. That does not interfere with the Lascar in any sense. He is not an alien. He is a British subject, and there is some reason why there should be a difference between the wages paid to the Lascar and to the white man, because as a rule you employ two Lascars to do the work of one white man, and for that reason you can quite understand Why there is a difference in the wages. But with the Chinaman it is quite the opposite. As a rule those who employ Chinamen employ the same number as they would whites. Chinamen engaged in this country generally obtain the same rate of wages as Britishers. But there are exceptions even to that. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make it quite clear that any aliens engaged in any part of the world must be paid the standard rates of wages and that standard rate of wages is what prevails in the United Kingdom for the time being. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make that clear and will stand by it.
I have heard to-night a good deal about the obscurity of this Clause. I cannot believe that it is an obscure Clause. I am not sure that everyone has been trying to understand it. There is a very definite intention in it, and that is to affirm and confirm the present position with regard to the payment of wages at sea. The hon. Member (Mr. Wilson) has made it quite clear that he at all events understands it as I understand it, and as I have no doubt it would be understood by any Court which is asked to interpret it. The position is this: If a British Lascar is employed at a certain rate of pay which is the standard rate for Lascars, no alien Lascar will be employed at a less rate. That is to say the rating of Lascars, whether British or alien, will carry the same rate of pay with it, and if an alien is brought in to do the work of a British deck-hand, donkey-engineman, or whatever it may be, he will receive the same pay as the British seaman. It does not say in any part of it, nor can it be read into it, that an alien is to get more than the British seaman, which has been read into it this afternoon. It deals with British subjects, whether they be European or Asiatic, and it says that man for man, if the rate applies to a British European subject and a man is brought in to do his work who is not British, that man shall receive the same rate of pay as the British European. If a man who is not British is brought in to do the work of a British Asiatic he shall receive the rate of pay of a British Asiatic, and it leaves open for future negotiations in the ordinary way, between the men on the one hand and the employers on the other, as to the difference that there is to be between the European British subjects' rate of pay and the British Asiatic subjects' rate of pay. That, I think, is quite clear, and that is what the Clause says as I read it, as the draftsman reads it, and I think everyone reads it. "No alien "—it does not say Asiatic—"shall be employed in any capacity on board a British ship registered in the United Kingdom at a rate of pay less than the standard rate of pay for the time being current on British ships for his rating." If he be rated as a Lascar, an A.B. or a fireman or whatever he may be, that will be his pay for the time being. I cannot see the difficulty. I cannot even get hold of it. I have tried to see where the point was, but I could not find it. If there be anything the right hon. Baronet can point to in the drafting of the Clause which will render possible the dreadful effects he described, I shall most carefully and willingly consider it. But at present I do not see it. The Amendment cannot be accepted.
It is what the Government said was the intention of the Cause. That is why I put it down.
No. I am sure there must have been some misunderstanding. What was referred to was ships which were not trading to this country, and I heard my hon. Friend describe the position—higher rates at one place and lower at another. We have British ships which never leave the Coast of America, and if they take up crews at American ports they have to pay the American rate. In the same way we have ships trading in the Levant, which never leave it at all. The rate arranged, if it be a standard rate settled and agreed for British Lascars, will extend to foreigners. I think it is plain. I cannot see any possibility of misunderstanding in it. It is left perfectly open for both shipowners and the seamen's organisations to discuss and agree about anything in relation to the arrangement of the standard in relation one to the other.
I think there is really no difference of opinion as to what is meant and intended to be meant. The only difficulty is as to carrying out exactly what the right hon. Gentleman means. If he would put in "standard rate of pay for the time being current on British ships for ratings of his class and country of origin." I think that would dispose of the whole controversy without altering the meaning of the Clause.
The difficulty is in the last three words "for his rating." Why not put down in a Schedule what that rating is? While I sympathise with the hon. Member (Mr. Wilson) and will help him all I can there is a difficulty with the shipowner, who cannot get Englishmen to do the work. It would not be quite fair to ask British shipowners to pay full rates of wages for the inferior work that he gets from the natives. We do not know where we are. Every Chinaman who comes from Hong Kong calls himself an Englishman, and it is difficult to differentiate between them. There is an obscurity in the word "rating."
It is really a very difficult point to meet in any other way than we have tried here. The hon. Member's suggestion has any amount of objections open to it. It really goes much further than he wants it to. We have certain standard rates laid down, and those standard rates apply to certain classes of seamen. There are rates for coloured men. That is what we have today in the manning of British ships. The Imperial Maritime Board have worked out a plan to get a clear standard of wages to prevent underselling of services by the foreigner with a lower standard of life. Where conditions in the past have recognised the existence of a coloured element in the crew, an Asiatic element, a Yellow element, a non-British element, a non-European British element; where that has been recognised as a standard part of the manning of the ship and where for that special section there has been a special rate of pay, that, under the present provision, is being continued. Where in the manning in the past a non-European element has always received the same wages as the European part of the crew, that practice is being continued, if it was of pre-war origin. That is what we are aiming at getting carried on under this Bill. We desire that the present position should be regularized, that protection of their standard of living should be given to our men. When I say our men I do not mean merely the home-grown Britisher, but our fellow subjects in India, and that if there be a British Lascar standard rate and the British Lascar be employed upon a British ship he will not be undersold by some non-British Asiatic. In this Clause we are protecting two sets, the British-grown seafarer and the British-Asiatic seafarer. We protect the British-grown seafarer against the European and the Asiatic, and we protect the British-Asiatic seafarer against the competition of other Asiatics. If there be any point upon which I can improve the drafting of the Clause I shall be glad to hear of it.
One would think, from the way the right hon. Gentleman speaks, that the Chinese rate of wage in this country was going to be maintained at what it is now. It is per month. The Chinaman and the white Britisher are to have the same pay. What will happen to the Blue Funnel boats which take on Chinamen at Hong Kong at the rate prevailing there? When they come to Great Britain arc they to be paid at the British rates?
If they are alien Chinamen.
I am speaking of the British Chinaman.
The British Chinaman will stand on the same footing.
I am quite clear about the Lascars. There is a rate for them, and it is quite clear that the Board of Trade intend to maintain it. The Chinamen are the difficulty. There are different rates of pay in China as there are different rates of pay here. A British Chinese crew from Hong Kong will receive pay at the home rate when they come to Great Britain. The point is not at all clear, and we want to have it cleared up.
We have heard references frequently to the Maritime Board having drawn up a scale. I take it that that Board is constituted both of employers and of representatives of the seamen. They have made out various scales for various duties on board ship. There is a rate for donkeymen and a rate for the other grades. I think the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) is either using his verbal microscope to find something that is not there, or he has some other motive. We have been told that there is an agreement. It would have tended to lessen the Debate if we had had the terms of the agreement which has been arrived at between the shipowners and the representatives of the seamen. The object of the Clause has been clearly stated by the Minister in charge of the Bill. It is to maintain a standard rate of wages agreed upon, and that it shall not be menaced by competition from other nationalities. If we had had the agreement it would have prevented any confusion and would have shortened the Debate.
I understand that prior to this Amendment being moved the House generally accepted the definition of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. 'Havelock Wilson) and the right hon. Member in charge of the Bill, that the intention of the Clause was exclusively to protect British labour against what we call unfair competition. During the discussion of that point various Members questioned whether the Clause as drafted gave effect to that intention. The right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) pointed out that, whilst he was not challenging the intention or questioning the object of the Clause he did not believe that effect was given to the Government's intention in the Clause, and he moved the Amendment, as he says, to give effect to the intentions of the Government. The right hon. Baronet says he does not challenge the intentions of the Government on that point, but the hon. Member below him clearly has something else in mind, because from the words that he suggested it was pointed out that the definition would be unfair to the shipowner. It is no use to argue for words or definition if the object of the words is not to define more clearly what is intended but is really to destroy what is intended and what was clearly explained from the Government Bench. The words of the Clause, I understand, are accepted on both sides in the sense that they do protect British labour, and it is useless to attempt to insert fresh words and to say that the object of them is to protect British labour and at the same time to suggest that it is not for that alone but for the purpose of giving a preference in another direction.
The Amendment I have moved is to give effect to what the Government says was their intention. I wrote down the words used by the hon. Member for Reading (Colonel Wilson). He said, "signed on in this country." It was to apply to men signed on in this country." The hon. Member for Lime-house drew the attention of the House to the words used by the hon. Member for Reading, and pointed out that they were not in the Bill. I said that the intention of the Government should be clearly expressed in the Bill, and with that object I moved the Amendment to insert the words. The hon. Member for South Shields made his object very clear. His object, and I am not questioning it, is to get the same rates for foreigners as for British seamen. No doubt he desires to obtain as much employment as possible for British seamen. I do not question whether that is right or wrong. That is not the object that we were told that the Government had in view. One hon. Member said that a steamer trading in the Red Sea might be prevented from carrying on trade in the Red Sea because no British stokers could be employed in the stokehole in the Red Sea, it was necessary to employ Arabs, and they could not afford to pay to Arabs, who were not as efficient as British stokers, the same rate of pay as British stokers. Then I understood that it would only apply to people signing on in British ports and not to steamers trading in that way. It struck me that there might be a very serious blow struck at British shipping if you made it impossible for British ships, trading under the conditions described, to carry on their business. Therefore, I want to meet that point, and that is the reason why I moved to put in the words. The effect of this Amendment would be that no alien shall be employed at a rate of pay less than the standard rate of pay for the time being current on British ships for his rating. I understand that a standard rate of pay fixed by the Imperial Maritime Board has been fixed after consultation with members of the trade unions and the shipowners. What we are doing now is to give by Act of Parliament authority to a Government Department to compel people to pay certain rates, provided that the trade unions and certain representatives of the shipowners agree that those rates are to be paid. At the present time the shipowners and the trade unions may agree that a certain rate shall be paid, but there is no obligation upon any other shipowner to carry that out if he does not choose to do so. Now, by Act of Parliament, and by a side wind, you are practically saying that whenever a certain number of shipowners and trade unionists come to an agreement, then, by Act of Parliament, everybody will be compelled to pay the rate that these people have agreed upon, whether they like it or not. That is a very far-reaching thing. It may be right in the United Kingdom, though I do not, think it is, but it is not right to say that it shall apply to vessels trading say from a port in South Africa to a port in the Mediterranean. The right hon. Gentleman said that a vessel trading from one port to another is hound by the Regulations of the port from which it starts. He instanced the case of Lascars.
I said that if a standard rate existed. There is no Lascar special rate, but the British Lascar could not be undersold by a non-British Lascar.
Under the Clause as it stands it is perfectly easy for a rate to be laid down which does apply to business of that sort in foreign ports, and the owner of a British ship though he had not agreed to this rate would be compelled to employ these particular people at a rate drawn up by somebody else. I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Member for South Shields. He was very lucid, though I think he goes too far. I think the result will be that you will damage British trade and that these vessels will hoist a foreign flag. I hope that the point will be considered in another place, because however necessary it may be to give the trade union rate of wages to workmen we do not want to do anything which will put a spoke in British business. It is all very well for the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Prime Minister to come here and say that there is no need for pessimism. That may be true if we carry on the old way, but if we are going to shackle trade as this Amendment may do it will be impossible to carry on so as to restore the country to the prosperity which it enjoyed before the War.
As several speeches have been made on this question of driving British trade away from the British flag, may I point out that it is a hollow cry? I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping how many British ships built by the British Government had been sold to foreigners this year. This was before the Recess. His answer was that 112 standard ships built to the order of the British Government had been sold to foreigners. As I hope that we shall hear no more of these vague statements against the very reasonable Amendment supported by the hon. Member for South Shields to the effect that it is going to drive British trade into foreign lands when you have already sold 112 British ships to foreigners.
I think that the view expressed by my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) the Member for the City of London, as to the legal meaning of Sub-clause (2) is correct. As it stands the word "rating" would be interpreted in any Court by which before a case might come as referring strictly and solely to the class of work the man is doing on the ship—stoker, donkeyman, A.B., or what ever it may be. That being so it follows necessarily, by the legal interpretation of the Clause, that it would become an offence for a British ship running in Eastern waters to carry a crew of Chinese Lascars who were aliens not shipped at Hong Kong, and it may be that it is impossible to run ships in those waters in the face of the competition which they have to meet except by crews of that kind. It is a very difficult point. I appreciate the labour point of view but I am sure it is not the intention of the Labour party to drive any British shipping 'out of trade. As the Clause stands I am satisfied that that will be the result. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will either accept an Amendment now to this Clause or give us an undertaking that the words shall be inserted in another place to deal with the matter.
Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.I beg to move, in Subsection (2) of the proposed Amendment, after the words "United Kingdom" to insert the words "to which Sub-section (1) of this section applies."
The effect of my proposed Amendment is to confine Sub-section (2) within the scope of Sub-section (1). It need not interfere with trade where foreign labour cannot really be said to be in competition with British labour at all. It must be remembered that you may have, on account of exigencies of climate which you cannot get anywhere else, cases in which it will take three men to do the work of one. Further there is no comparison as regards the cost of living between this country and these other lands. These very delicate topics are the subject of special provisions which I need not repeat, in the Peace Treaty which provides that a conference of Powers shall be held to lay down rules governing this very topic. It would be unfortunate if the House of Commons were allowed by the Government to strike in at this stage and prejudice the decisions at which the Peace Conference may arrive. It is obvious from what has been said that it is the desire of neither the Government nor of the House nor, I am quite sure, of the Member for South Shields to double or treble the cost of an English ship in case there is no possibility of any competition between British and alien labour.What class of ship?
Ships such as have been referred to in the previous speech plying in remote corners of the world, which never come home, which are in fierce competition with foreign ships in remote parts of the earth. To do that would be to put British shipping out of the running altogether as compared with the shipping of other nations, and indeed would put the finishing touch on British trade in the tropics. The President of the Board of Trade I know does not intend to do anything of the kind, but he is too vague in the words which he used. I quite agree with the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool (Mr. L. Scott) as to the legal effect of the Clause as it stands. After all, when the matter comes into Court no counsel will be listened to who refers to the OFFICIAL REPORT, and says "The President of the Board of Trade said so and so." The judge will say, "What the President of the Board of Trade said has nothing to do with the matter. I have got to look at what the Clause says." If there is a danger—and from personal knowledge I know there that a real danger does exist—in these words, it should be excluded by insertion of explicit words by the Government, and I hope that if they cannot adjust their minds to the situation here they may consent to the insertion of some words safeguarding the position in another place. For the effect of these words would be to produce not an increase but a diminution in the employment of British citizens.
Why?
Because you would put shipping in these tropical countries out of competition by making it impossible for them to continue. They will not be able to continue if these conditions are imposed and they will have to go under another flag. I do not agree with my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy). I speak with some knowledge of the matter, and so serious is the view taken of this that I have actually heard it said that this will make it impossible for them to carry on. We want to keep our shipping in these seas, but we cannot do so at a loss year after year, and we shall have to put them, say, under the Greek flag. Then we shall lose the advantage of these ships in a time of crisis. The net result would be a diminution of employment for our people, and a loss to the Empire. I hope that my right hon. Friend will adopt this Amendment. My hon. and gallant Friend will remember that he said he thought that it was implied in the Amendment as it stood. The only effect of this Amendment is to secure that this second Sub-clause shall be kept within the scope of the first. That meets the other point with regard to ships which come to this country.
I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
I may mention an actual case in which foreign competition has had a very serious effect on British trade. One of our greatest competitors in the East was a Japanese Line trading round the Chinese coast—Hong Kong, Singapore, and so on. They do not employ crews at the rate of pay that we should pay to men who are shipped, say, at Cardiff. They would have a great advantage therefore in Eastern waters, and might very well wipe out our ships if they had to pay these higher wages.The hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amendment may be a very good lawyer, but I venture to subimit that he does not know a great deal about the shipping trade, either of this country or of the Coast of China. First of all, the shipowners themselves agree to this proposal of the President of the Board of Trade, and agree to it in its entirety. There was another proposal before the House to exclude aliens entirely from British ships. Everyone who has any knowledge of the shipping trade knows perfectly well that that would be absolutely impossible in a world like this. Now we are told some alarming stories about the destruction of British trade abroad. I am as much interested in the improvement of the shipping industry as the hon. and learned Member. I do not want to see British shipping decay. I want to see it prosper, because the more ships we have the more opportunity there will be for employment for the seamen of our own country. Nor do I want to see coming to this country a class of shipowner who will make it a practice to engage Chinamen at a low rate of wages in Chinese ports.
My Amendment does not deal in any way with ships that trade with this country, but entirely with ships which operate outside the United Kingdom.
That is just the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not understand. He may understand law, but he has not a clear knowledge of shipping. A good many vessels engage crews of Chinese in China. They come to European ports and to the United Kingdom. They do not discharge the Chinamen here, but keep them on board until they return to a port in China, when they discharge the crew and take on another. Shipowners who indulge in that practice of getting cheap Chinese labour are operating their ships in all parts of the world. It is not merely a question of confining a ship to the coast of China. These owners could and would send similar ships to all parts of the world, having on board a crew engaged in China at a low rate of wages, and they would compete with our own countrymen. That is what they do. Where is the hardship to be imposed on any shipowner by this Clause? The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to think that if the House passes the Clause it is going to destroy entirely the shipping trade on the China coast. Those of us who know anything about shipping know that is not true. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will reject the Amendment.
I do not think that this Amendment really meets what we are all trying to meet. I do not think there is any real difference between the objects we have before us. Those objects are quite clear. We want to protect our own British-born fellow subjects, at the same time as we protect our Asiatic fellow subjects. The Amendment will limit the Bill in its scope to one part of the problem with which we arc trying to deal. I would ask my hon. Friend not to press this Amendment, but if he has one which will clarify the last words of the Clause, I think I should be able to meet him.
Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the suggestion which he has made. It amounts to this, that if we can find words, which he cannot find and cannot think of, to make clear what he actually means, he will be glad to accept them. All our efforts so far have been quite fruitless, and I think the real root of the matter is that neither the House nor the President knows exactly what he means. I am perfectly certain that the Courts of Law will not know what he means, and will not care what he means. The only thing to which they will pay attention will be the Clause. In order to safeguard the position—a very limited safeguard—of certain specific races and classes, I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2) of the proposed Amendment, to insert the words
That safeguards the position of the Goanese stewards who are employed on passenger ships trading from Bombay. They are in a sense hereditary stewards, generation after generation. They do their work excellently, and they are generally considered to be British-Indians, but, as a matter of fact, they come from a small Portuguese territory called Goa, which is entirely surrounded by British India, and they are aliens. These men are probably not nearly as efficient as British stewards, I admit, but during the War they have done their work thoroughly well, and it would be most unfair to say to them, "You have served us faithfully during the War, yow have never shown the white feather, but as a reward the House of Commons says you must go. You can go and give your services to some other nation." The Amendment safeguards their position and the position of all races which are specially adapted by their character, and are habitually employed, for the particular work they do—for instance, the stoking of a ship in the Red Sea—and are particularly suited to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade. I refer not only to the Goanese stewards, but to Arab stokers. Competition with British labour is not in any sense involved. We safeguard the position of these people so that they are placed on a level not lower than their fellows enjoy elsewhere, and we secure also the position of those trades in which the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. H. Wilson) is greatly concerned."Provided that where the Board of Trade are satisfied that aliens of any particular race other than former enemy aliens are habitually employed afloat in any capacity or in any climate for which they are specially fitted, nothing in this Section shall prejudice the right of aliens of such races to be employed on British ships at rates of pay which are not below those for the time being current generally for their services."
I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
7.0 P.M.
Through the wording of this Amendment is different from that of a previous Amendment, there is absolutely no difference in principle. The Mover does not dissent from that. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that one of the reasons wiry we ought to accept this Amendment is that the present Clause does an injustice to certain men who served us faithfully during the War. He says, in substance, that unless we pass this Amendment we must go to these people and say, "Although you served us faithfully and well, and though we appreciate your services, and we are very glad for all you have done, yet we have no further use for you." He implies that that is a message that must be given to these faithful people. My answer is that we will not tell them anything of the kind. We will say to them, "Yes, you have served us faithfully and well; we appreciate all you did, and now as a reward for your services you will net be any more sweated, but will be paid the same rate as other people." I think that is the answer to the story which my hon. and learned Friend put forward.I only rose to say that I hope that the House, which has already negatived a proposal to the same effect, will give a like verdict on this proposal.
I hope that somehow the case which has been put forward will be met. I do not want the Bill whittled away, but it is absurd to suggest that these men in any way compete with British labour. On the contrary, they are the means of creating more labour for British sub- jects. The P. and O. and the British India Steam Navigation Company and other companies could not run those lines unless they had Lascars. The same thing applies to the Goanese stewards. These ships are navigated partly in tropical climates, and the higher class of labour is purely white. It is true, of course, that the Goanese are aliens, but Goa is only a very small remnant of the once great Portuguese Empire. It is surrounded on every side by British territory, and effectively those men are to all intents and purposes British-Indian subjects. They are employed in British-Indian enterprises, because there is no enterprise in Portuguese India. I should think their territory is about half the size' of the county of Middlesex. It is really straining the point and not taking into account the actual material conditions when you treat men like these as aliens. Again, how are you going to get white labour to go down in the stokehole in the Red Sea? Everybody knows you cannot. I have the greatest respect for my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Wilson), and I remember more than a dozen years ago when he was bringing up every day cases of terrible cruelty to Lascars in the Red Sea. I asked him at that time had those people ever complained and that they were apt to know whether or not they were being boiled alive down below. Let us at least behave fairly and squarely to all the parties concerned in this matter. We are all anxious to protect British labour, but do not let us pretend that there is competition with British labour when there is not, and when alien labour, by performing functions which British labour cannot, creates the opportunity for the employment of British subjects. That is the very simple issue which is involved in my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment, and I really hope that the House will fairly and squarely deal with it on the actual merits of the case without being led away by any prejudice or sentiment.
I think it is quite clear to all in the House that what we desire to secure is that where we have, as in the ease of Lascars, some British and some alien, that standard rate of pay which is fixed shall extend to everyone in the same class. I am not sure that out of this Amendment we cannot fashion words which will make that point quite clear, and I would suggest this for consideration. "Provided that where the Board of Trade are satisfied that aliens of any particular race other than former enemy aliens, are habitually employed in any capacity or in any climate for which they are especially fitted, nothing in this Section shall prejudice the right of aliens of such race to be employed in British ships at rates of pay which are not below those for the time being fixed as the standard rate for British subjects of that race." That I think fairly meets the point and does not give away any of the principles of the Amendment.
I think that that suggested alteration goes only a very small way, though it does meet some of the considerations which I am advancing, and I am unwilling to put the House to the trouble of a Division. Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman would allow me, or will himself move, I do not think it would be wise to persist further in what I regard as an extremely legitimate demand. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) made what was, of course, an extremely clever debating point, but one which was not justified. He meant to imply that the Goanese stewards employed on great British lines are sweated. Nothing could be more contrary to the truth. It is not so. If the word "rating" was used it would mean that these stewards would have to be paid at the same rate as British stewards. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes‡"] We see now the full extent to which this attack on the Goanese stewards goes. We would be differentiating him from the Lascar, and the remuneration for his services would be so great that he would probably not be employed at all. These men would be told, according to some hon. Members, "You are good fellows, and we want to give you very much higher rates of pay," but the result would be that it would be impossible to employ them. Under all the circumstances my hon. Friends associated with me would be disposed to agree to the suggested alteration.
I shall have to put the House to a Division if the right hon Gentleman accepts the Amendment, because it practically destroys the whole value of the Sub-section. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no ‡"] I say it will, and I understand what the effect will be. What we want to do is to safeguard the position of British seamen, so that crews will not be engaged abroad who are going to compete in all parts of the world with British labour. I have already explained that a British ship signs on a Chinese crew, but they are not confined to the China trade. They may go to India or to the Mediterranean or to ports in the United States and they compete with other British ships which are paying the standard rate of wages. By this Amendment you are opening the door to exceptions to this Clause. I understand the effect of it, at least looking at it from our side. We are not pleading that Goanese and others should be excluded from British ships. All we say is, if you are going to employ them pay the proper standard rate of wages, and surely there is no hardship in that. We appreciate what the Goanese have done during the War, and the best reward we can give them is to continue to employ them and to pay them a proper rate of wages. My hon. Friend (Sir J. D. Bees) referred to the Lascars. We are not seeking to exclude the Lascars. We are not interfering with the Lascars. We are dealing with the alien and we are helping the Lascar by dealing with the alien. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not going to give way on this point.
I was under the impression from what was said earlier, that the Goanese being in India were to be lifted up to the level of the Lascars, but now we see that the Goanese stewards are going to be brought up to the level of British stewards, and just imagine what that means to the British India Company and other companies. The truth has come out at last. I was under the impression that what the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. J. H. Wilson) wanted was that when ships are in China they should get the standard rate in China, but now we see that when men are taken on in China if they come to Great Britain they are to get the same wages as Chinamen shipped on here or British men.
Hear, hear.
That is what we British shipowners have not agreed to, and I would ask the President of the Board of Trade to say whether I am right or wrong. I think it is well worth the time of the House to have lad this Debate so as to bring out the facts.
I should like to appeal to the hon. Member for South Shields not to go to a Division on this point, because I would ask him to consider the burden that is placed on the British shipowners. It has been been within my knowledge and I have seen the American flag run off the Pacific by the Japanese and the British, but the British ships had to employ the native labour that was available. If a British ship like a Canadian-Pacific ship is taking two or three hundred passengers, they cannot get fifty or sixty Englishmen who know the work of the stewards to do it, and they have to avail themselves of what is at hand, and they get very good Chinese stewards; and if you are going to call upon them to pay the same for them as for a high-class English steward, the Japanese will eventually knock us out of the trade, because the Japanese are a thoroughly efficient people and they are now running big steamers from Japan to Australia, to China, and to England, while a very large number of passengers are daily using the Japanese steamers as against ours, because they are well navigated and provided. I think it would be very much against the interests of the British seamen if we were to do anything by a chance vote in the House of Commons to put greater burdens on our shipowners than they can well bear in view of the competition that they have to face.
I am grateful to the hon. Member who has just spoken for his warning in reference to the Japanese trade. It is a most important fact that the Japanese will be running their ships vastly cheaper than ours, to China and on to this country too, on account of paying the crews a natural wage, such as we should pay the Chinese if we use them.
An hon. Member said we were getting the truth now, and I think one or two remarks by the Mover of this Amendment have escaped the attention of the House. The Mover of the Amendment based the whole of his case on the Goanese as a very great factor in shipping, and another hon. Member gets up and tells us that the whole of that country is about half the size of Middlesex. Another point was missed by the Mover of the Amendment, who not only dealt with Goanese stewards but got down to the stokehole and, after an interruption, said that these were Arabs. It is the intention apparently to have cheap labour against British labour; that is the intention from top to bottom. If hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen are honest, let them give to British labour a fair chance after the sacrifices they have made, without this camouflage and talking about the injury to a trade that can stand the cost. The hon. Member for Dumbarton seems to think the President of the Board of Trade is running away from a bargain, but as I understand it, this agreement is a variable agreement, according to the nationality. We are pleading that so far as the British seaman is concerned, his position shall not be worsened by alien labour, and as I have followed the Debate I am convinced that whether it is done intentionally or not it is clear that the object of the Amendment is to get cheap labour. If that is to be the attitude of the shipowners in this House, then I say that so far as industrial peace is concerned, good-bye to it. The seamen and firemen have by their heroism and by their sacrifices proved themselves to be valiant and noble servants of this country, and now, when the danger is past and gone, are we to be told that they are to slip back to the old days and to become the worst paid labour throughout the length and breadth of British industry? If that is so, the sooner we know it the better, and we shall know where we are.
I disagree entirely with the last speaker. Nobody can throw a stone at me by saying I am disposed to weaken the British seaman. I have had everything thrown at me from this corner of the House, and possibly from others, but I am as strong in my desire to keep this Bill protective as anybody can be. Are we not riding at cross purposes? I would not propose to support a measure which would allow a single alien to be employed where the Britisher can do the work, and it is only in the spheres where no British-horn person can possibly do the work on account of climatic conditions that I venture to think that then we ought to establish the claims of British native labour, so to speak, of Asiatic labour which is British in its sphere of origin, and we ought to say that they shall not be displaced by permitting on ships registered in Great Britain alien Asiatic labour, the principle being that where a Britisher can do the work he should do it and nobody should be permitted to take a standard wage lower than the proper rate for a Britisher; but it is purely a question of work which cannot be done by Europeans. I am quite agreed that whenever a Britisher can do the work he should by all means do it, and the shipowners should be compelled to pay the fullest rate to an alien who seeks to do the work that a Britisher ought to be doing.
I feel we are getting a little bit away from the suggested Amendment. We have got here a proposal to do precisely what my hon. Friend who has just sat down suggests, that where a rate is fixed for British Asiatic labour no other Asiatic labour will be allowed to be employed except at that rate, that where a British Asiatic has a standard rate, and that is an agreed rate to pay to a British Asiatic, then it is proposed that it should be the law that no other Asiatic shall be paid a lower rate. That is what we now propose, anti the wording is as follows:
I think that seems to be fair and to protect the interests of our Asiatic natives, and to come between the two points of view winch have been put."Provided that where the Board of Trade are satisfied that aliens of any particular race other than former enemy aliens are habitually employed in any capacity or in any climate for which they are specially fitted, nothing in this Section shall prejudice the right of aliens of such races to be employed on British ships at rates of pay which are not below those for the time being fixed as standard rates for British subjects of that race."
In the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment in favour of the words read out by the President.
Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2) of the proposed Amendment, as amended, after the word "rating," to add the words
"Provided that where the Board of Trade are satisfied that aliens of any particular lace other than former enemy aliens are habitually employed in any capacity or in any climate for which they are specially fitted, nothing in this Section shall prejudice the right of aliens of such races to be employed on British ships at rates of pay which are not below those for the time being fixed as standard rates for British subjects of that race."
I oppose this Amendment, and I beg to say that if it is accepted the whole of the time of the House will have been absolutely wasted. The proposal is that the Board of Trade shall under certain conditions do certain things, but where is the Board of Trade at ports in China? Is a ship to be detained at a Chinese port until such time as they can communicate with the Board of Trade in Great Britain to ask as to whether they can do certain things or not? As I have said, the effect of this will be to encourage the employment of large numbers of Chinamen on board British ships that are not going to trade on the coast of China only, but ships that will engage crews at Chinese ports and then trade to all parts of the world in competition with our own ships. What advantage is the Clause of the right hon. Gentleman? I appeal to the House of Commons to have sympathy for the British seamen. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear‡] Yes, but you have a very strange way of showing it, some of you, and we have had some remarkable sympathy expressed by Gentlemen interested in the shipping industry, who are very keen to tell us that we must not destroy that industry. I want to tell them that I am just as keen on preserving it as they are, bat I have a different way of showing my appreciation of the work that has been done by British seamen in this, War, and it is not by excluding the British seaman from employment that we are going to pay our gratitude to bins for what he has done. I hope the House will join with me in rejecting this Amendment, because it absolutely destroys the whole of what has been done in favour of the men, and I shall ask hon. Members to go into the Lobby against the proposal.
If the hon. Member who has just sat down referred to me, as he looked at me in rather a reproving way, I would like to assure him I am not interested to the extent of five shillings in British shipping. But I would like to point out the difficulties the Government would be in. How are you going to enforce this law against British shipping if Chinese are employed in Canadian ships? I think we are only snaking for trouble, and that the compromise proposed by the President of the Board of Trade meets a very difficult and delicate point in a fair way. I yield to no one, not even to the lion. Gentleman himself, in my high esteem and regard for the British seaman; in fact, I have the honour to be hon. treasurer of the oldest Maritime Association in this country, and I have lived with sailors all my life. I think the course proposed by the President of the Board of Trade makes a very useful compromise.
I rise to support the attitude of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. H. Wilson). I have been listening to the Debate all this afternoon, and I think the discussion on the Bill has undergone a very interesting transformation. In the earlier stages of the Debate on this Bill I observed that a number of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen were rabid anti-alienists. Nothing good could be said of aliens. But they are absolutely silent when the protection of the British seaman's wages is at stake, and when it is a question of retaining the large swollen dividends of shipowners in this country. When it comes to a question of that sort they forget about the terrible crimes of the aliens. You would think that these. Chinamen were more efficient than British seamen. Were it not for the
Division No. 120.]
| AYES
| [7.35 p.m.
|
| Adair, Rear-Admiral | Du Pre, Colonel W. B. | Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey) |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Edgar, Clifford | Keilaway, Frederick George |
| Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D. | Edge, Captain William | Kerr-Smiley, Major P. |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James | Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) | Kiley, James Daniel |
| Tynte Archdale, Edward M. | Edwards, J. H. (Glam., Neath) | King, Commander Douglas |
| Bagley, Captain E. A. | Elliot, Captain W. E. (Lanark) | Law, A. J, (Rochdale) |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Eyres-Monsell, Commander | Law, Rt. Hen. A. Sonar (Glasgow) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Falcon, Captain M. | Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ. Wales) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, London) | Fella, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey | Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.) |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Farquharson, Major A. C. | Lloyd, George Butler |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G. | Fell, Sir Arthur | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) |
| Barnett, Major Richard W. | Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Barrand, A. R. | Forrest, W. | Lonsdale, James R. |
| Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff) | Foxcroft, Captain C. | Lorden, John William |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Lynn, R. J. |
| Bell, Lt.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | Gange, E. S. | M'Donald, Dr. B. F. P. (Wallasey) |
| Bennett, T. J. | Ganzoni, Captain F. C. | M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.) |
| Bentinck, Lt. Col. Lord H. Cavendish | Gardiner, J. (Perth) | Macleod, John Mackintosh |
| Birchall, Major J. D. | Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke) | Macmaster, Donald |
| Bird, Alfred | Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | McMicking, Major Gilbert |
| Blake, Sir Francis Douglas | Gilbert, James Daniel | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James lan |
| Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith- | Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John | Magnus, Sir Philip |
| Bowles, Colonel H. F. | Gray, Major E. | Maitland, Sir A. D. Steel- |
| Bowyer, Captain G. W. E. | Greene, Lt.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.) | Mallalieu, Frederick William |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. | Gregory, Holman | Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B. |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Greig, Colonel James William | Mitchell, William Lane- |
| Bruton, Sir J. | Gretton, Colonel John | Moles, Thomas |
| Burden, Colonel Rowland | Griggs, Sir Peter | Moore, Maj.-Gen. Sir Newton J. |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay) | Gritten, W. G. Howard | Moreing, Captain Algernon H. |
| Butcher, Sir J. G. | Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W. E.(B. St. E.) | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. |
| Campbell, J. G. D. | Hanna, G. B. | Murray, William (Dumfries) |
| Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton) | Harmsworth, Cecil R. (Luton, Beds.) | Neal, Arthur |
| Carr, W. T. | Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter) |
| Cayzer, Major H. R. | Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston) | Nield, Sir Herbert |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) | Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Oxford Univ.) | Herbert, Dennis,: (Hertford) | Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G. |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin) | Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel F. | O'Neill, Capt. Hon. Robert W. H. |
| Chadwick, R. Burton | Hills, Major J. W. (Durham) | Palmer, Brig.-General G. (Westbury) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm., W.) | Hinds, John | Parker, James |
| Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood) | Hood, Joseph | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike |
| Coates, Major Sir Edward F. | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.) |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian) | Perkins, Walter Frank |
| Cohen, Major J. B. B. | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Perring, William George |
| Colfax, Major W. P. | Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley) | Philipps, Sir O. C. (Chester) |
| Colvin, Brig.-General R. B. | Horne, Sir Robert (Hillhead) | Pollack, Sir Ernest Murray |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Howard, Major S. G. | Pulley, Charles Thornton |
| Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan) | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | Purchase, H. G. |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University) | Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) | Raeburn, Sir William |
| Craig, Captain Charles C.(Antrim) | Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H. | Ramsden, G. T. |
| Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.) | lnskip, T. W. H. | Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr. N. |
| Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York) | Rees, Captain J. Tudor (Barnstaple) |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. | Jodrell, N, P. | Reid, D. D. |
| Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) | Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Richardson, Sir Albion (Peekham) |
| Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe) | Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke) | Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend) |
| Denison-Pender, John C. | Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor) |
| Dixon, Captain H. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Robinson, T. (Stretford, Lancs) |
| Doyle, N. Grattan | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen) | Rothschild, Lionel de |
fact that the cloven hoof has now been revealed, I would have sat silent. I support the hon. Member for South Shields, who knows more about the sailors than anyone else. The particular Clause of the President of the Board of Trade is not definitive enough—to use a famous word in these times. I think it is a pity, in view of the trouble the right hon. Gentleman has had over that word, he has not found something that is understood by the common people.
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment, as amended."
The House divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 53.
| Roundell, Lt.-Colonel R. F. | Sutherland, Sir William | Wilson, Colonel Leslie (Reading) |
| Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey) | Thomas-Stanford. Charles | Wilson, Col. (Richmond, Yorks.) |
| Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.) | Wilson-Fax, Henry |
| Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton) | Thorpe, J. H. | Winterton, Major Earl |
| Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange) | Tickler, Thomas George | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone) | Townley, Maximilian G. | Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon) |
| Seager, Sir William | Tryon, Major George Clement | Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, W.) |
| Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock) | Vickers, D. | Woolcock, W. J. U. |
| Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar) | Wallace, J. | Worsfold, T. Cato |
| Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.) | Wardle, George J. | Yeo, Sir Alfred William |
| Sprot, Col. Sir Alexander | Warren, Sir Alfred H. | Young, Lt.-Com. E. H. (Norwich) |
| Stanley, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Ashton) | Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H. | Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon) |
| Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston) | White, Col. G. D. (Southport) | Young, William (Perth and Kinross) |
| Steel, Major S. Strang | Whitla, Sir William | Younger, Sir George |
| Stephenson, Colonel H. K. | Wild, Sir Ernest Edward | |
| Stewart, Gershom | Williams, Lt-Com. C. (Tavistock) | |
| Strauss, Edward Anthony | Williamson, Rt. Hen. Sir Archibald | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-Capt. |
| Sturrock, J. Leng- | Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H. | F. Guest and Lord E. Talbot, |
NOES.
| ||
| Adamson, Rt. Han. William | Hellas, E. | Royce, William Stapleton |
| Been, Captain W. (Leith) | Hartshorn, V. | Short, A. (Wednesbury) |
| Billing, Noel Pemberton | Hayward, Major Evan | Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Caine) |
| Bottomley, Horatie | Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wisbech) | Sugden, Lieut. W. H. |
| Bramsden, Sir T. | Hirst, G. H. | Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey) |
| Burn, T. H. (Belfast) | Hodge, Rt. Hon. John | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Carter, W. (Mansfield) | Hogge, J. M. | Tootill, Robert |
| Clynes, Right Hon. John R. | Jephcott, A. R. | Waterson, A. E. |
| Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander | Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C. |
| Dawes, J. A. | Kenyon, Barnet | White, Charles F. (Derby, W.) |
| Edwards, A. Clement (East Ham, S.) | Loseby, Captain C. E. | Wlgnall, James |
| Edwards, C. (Bedwellty) | Lunn, William | Wilson, J. H. (South Shields) |
| Entwistle, Major C. F. | Murchison, C. K. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles) | Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Graham, W. (Edinburgh) | Newbould, A. E. | Young, Robert (Newton, Lanes.) |
| Green J. F. (Leicester) | O'Connor, T. P. | |
| Griffiths, T. (Pontypool) | O'Grady, James | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Grundy, T. W. | Palmer, Major G. M. (Jarrow) | Thomas and Mr. Seddon. |
| Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton) | Rowlands, James | |
Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.
On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Am I in order in moving one of my Amendments, or do I understand that the hon. and learnea Member for York has been called to move his Amendment?
The hon. and gallant Gentleman can select one of the three Amendments that he has on the Paper.
I beg to move, at the end, to insert the words
In any case, I intended asking permission of the House not to move the first and second proposed Amendments I have put down, the first being really met by the Amendment which has just been passed, and the second being met by the state of the Bill. With your permission, however, I beg to move my third Amendment. This Amendment is simply to limit, after the passing of this Act, the granting of a certificate of a master, mate, or engineer to British subjects. It will not interfere with the certificates already held by foreigners but will prevent those certificates being issued to foreigners in future. After the Debate that we have had I need not go much further into the matter, but I can best sum the situation up by quoting a few lines from a letter I have had from the Secretary of the Liverpool Shipowners' Association, in which he says:"After the commencement of this Act a certificate of competency under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, shall not be granted to an alien as master, officer, or engineer of a British merchant ship registered in the United Kingdom."
At present any decent man in the fo'c'sle looks forward to getting his certificate. These are the sort of people we should encourage to go to sea, so that every decent lad before the mast, assuming he behaves himself and proves his competency. should be able to look forward to commanding the ship. We want to keep the British Merchant service, so far as the officers are concerned British, if for no other reason than as an ample reserve for the Royal Navy. I hope that this Amendment, which has that object in view, will be accepted by the President of the Board of Trade, and we can then go far, at any rate, to have our Merchant Service officers gradually becoming fully British without in any way penalising the present holders of an officer's ticket. Many of these holders we know, have served very well in this War in our service."What we require, and what we look forward to, is the formation of a national scheme of training British boys in the merchant service, the same as is done in the British Navy. There are thousands of sturdy youngsters who want to go to sea, and for whom no, or few, facilities are provided. If such a scheme comes into operation we shall have an ample supply of British seamen."
I beg to second the Amendment. I notice that none of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's associates have got up to second it. I can only assume that the proposed Amendment does not appeal to what is known as the international spirit in politics. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment said he was going to give us a reason for moving it. I thought he was going to tell us, seeing he sits for Hull, that there was nothing for him to do but to put down such an Amendment. That is not at all the reason he gives us. He also told us that he considered in the best interests of the British Navy, that the British Mercantile Marine should have a fair chance. That is the reason, although it is not compatible with many of the speeches which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made in this House. That is the reason why I second the Amendment. It is absolutetly essential that we, as an island race, should, above all things, do everything in our power to encourage the youngsters in our nation to take to the sea as a profession. Anything we can do to encourage the foreigner, not in competition, but to establish him as a master in our ships is detrimental to the wellbeing of this nation.
We have this afternoon so far added to the Clause a series of provisions which makes it impossible to employ any alien as master, chief officer, or chief engineer on a British ship trading from the United Kingdom. What we are now considering is a state of affairs in which there may only be the possibility of finding any aliens in any of the officers in ships trading in different parts of the world. That we have already considered, and we have seen many arguments advanced. As a matter of fact the number of aliens employed at the present time, whilst the greatest possible is very small in spite of ships which are employed in the outlying services. I therefore suggest for the consideration of the House that the substance of this Amendment has already really been met by the various decisions of the House, and I would ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman not to endeavour to add this further provision.
The House, of course, cannot fail to note the lack of consistency which has just been exhibited. I am not going to oppose the decision of the Government in regard to this, but I should like to know whether this is part of an alien hunt or not? If it is, do let us be frank, and do not let lion. Members sometimes call out against other Members, as does the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Hull, while the Amendment he has moved would in part have that effect. Another thing the hon. and gallant Member for Hull did not move his earlier Amendments because he said the object had already been met in the Amendment passed by the House, whilst he himself went into the Lobby against it. That is an extraordinary position.
I was voting on the whole Clause.
It is worth while pointing out, for the benefit of the public, the condition of things under which we do our work in this House, so that they may realise it. I think it is very desirable to have this frank admission, and that the public should see how hollow are the pretences which guide us into one Lobby or the other as the case may be. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, oh‡"] Yes, at the same time, I claim absolute consistency for my own conduct in this matter, and for those who sit around me. I will only add this: that I hope the Government's answer is conclusive, and that the Amendments which already have been made in this Bill sufficiently guarantee the position of Britishers in relation to these matters.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 6—(Appointment Of Aliens To The Civil Service)
I beg to move, to leave out Clause 6. I do so for two reasons, one of which is that it suggests giving a power to the Home Secretary which he has not got already. The existing law on the subject is quite clear. By the Act of Settlement the alien is prohibited from holding any office or place of trust. It has been held by the esteemed lawyer who has just resigned the Mastership of the Rolls that that Section was unrepealed, and therefore still in force. I submit it is quite clear under the existing law that the alien is not eligible to be a member of the Civil Service. Further, the Clause gives the Home Secretary power to interfere. I submit the proper way to deal with the matter is to omit the whole Clause. It adds nothing to the existing law. To put in this Clause even with the addition the right hon. Baronet has suggested may create some difficulties of interpretation, for we would have a portion of the law included in the Act of Settlement repeated in different words under the present circumstances.
I beg formally to second the Amendment.
I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. Like himself 1 was under the impression that the Clause, as it stood, weakened rather than strengthened the law in regard to aliens. I accepted this Clause as it stands in Committee, and on looking into it I was rather under the same impression: that it gave the Home Secretary power which he does not possess to allow an alien to join the Civil Service. It is not quite so clear that the Act of Settlement goes as far as does this Clause. There can be no harm if the the Clause is amended as is proposed by my hon. and learned Friend. It will then read:
I suppose the intention would be to make the words conform to the Act of Settlement. therefore these words can do no possible harm. They make the law perfectly clear, and the point that aliens are not to be employed in our Civil Service. Therefore I would ask the hon. Member not to press this Amendment."After the passing of this Act no alien shall be appointed in any office of the Civil Service of the United Kingdom."
Are we to understand that the Home Secretary will himself accept the Amendment of the hon. Baronet? If that be the case there is nothing further to be said.
That is a very remarkable speech which has been made by the Home Secretary. Personally, I think this Clause is absolutely grotesque. It prevents the Government from employing anyone who does not happen to be British-born or naturalised for any purpose.
That is the existing law.
8.0 P.M.
Let us take a case in point. I do not know about the existing law; we are speaking about the before the House. Let me say, in the first place. I do not suppose anyone thinks there is a danger of aliens swamping the Civil Service. There is no doubt about the question as to whether or not we should have the power in our public offices to employ people who, for various reasons, may be absolutely essential for a task, and, indeed, quite the best qualified to carry it out. There is the instance of the British Museum, which is one of the offices in the Civil Service. Suppose somebody brings to that establishment valuable antiquities. Are we to be limited to British-born people as employés there, or as professors to interpret those things? Suppose we require the services of some distinguished antiquarian, are we to enforce upon such a person, because he is a foreigner, to take up our nationality? Take the Board of Education, which comes under the Civil Service. Suppose in outlining a great scheme of musical education for the children of this country we require to employ some foreigners, are we to say that we must not have a distinguished Italian or a French man as a servant on the Board of Education for a given time? Supposing the Office of Works puts out a great public building to contract and it accepts as the best designed one that is drawn up by a foreigner, would that foreigner not be entitled to bring over the foreign workmen who might be required to carry out the special artistic part of his work? Under such circumstances, what would have become in the past of all those bright artistic gems of this country?
What is now being proposed is a most extraordinary perversion of the alien question which can only be correctly described as grotesque. Take the case of diseases. The Colonial Office has to investigate tropical diseases, and successful administration depends upon us being able to master those diseases. As a matter of fact, when I was in Khartoum during the War I was told by Dr. Chalmers that the Germans were making most valuable contributions to the study of this subject before the War. I should imagine the person in charge of this health question at the Colonial Office would wish to have under him an officer who would be able to search the laboratories all over the world, but this Clause would prevent that. Really there are so many examples that it is impossible, without exhausting the patience of the House, to deal with them. Take the investigations in regard to the oil supply of this country. We are all desirous of adding to the reserves of this country and securing an adequate supply of oil, but we should not have been able to do what we have done in this respect without the persistence of aliens. According to this Clause the Ministry of Munitions could not employ any of these aliens in their office. A Clause of this kind cannot stand examination by sane people. As regards Sub-section (2) that is more remarkable still. If the Home Secretary issued a permit to employ these people he could not have an examination to see which would be the better person to employ, because no alien is to be permitted to sit for an examination, and so you get from absurdity to absurdity. The alleged danger that our Civil Service may become submerged by an alien immigration does not exist, but the real thing we desire is to have at the service of this country the best ability the world can offer. That is the principle on which our country has been built up in the past, and we wish to preserve that principle.The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken has been trying to make our flesh creep, because with the greatest respect to him anything more ridiculous than his law and his application of it I never heard. He suggests that no one could employ an Italian workman to carry out a particular piece of work if this Clause were passed.
A public building.
Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman really argue that to employ a particular workman on a public building is to give him an office in the Civil Service? That only requiries to be stated to show that if is ludicrous. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is trying to frighten the House by these illustrations, which have no application whatsoever to this Clause. Let us now talk about the real question: Should an alien be allowed into an office or place in the Civil Service? Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman read the Act of Settlement?
Yes, I have.
I do not know whether he gives it as his legal opinion that according to that Act an alien is eligible for the Civil Service. If so, he is a very daring man. I think there is considerable doubt as to whether the Act of Settlement does prevent an alien going into the Civil Service, and we want to make the law quite clear, and in accordance with the wishes of the great majority of the House we want to provide that an alien shall not be admitted to the Civil Service, and carry out what is the intention of the Act of Settlement. If this Motion to leave out Clause 6 is defeated, then I propose to move an Amendment to render it certain that an alien shall not enter the Civil Service not even with the sanction of the Home Secretary, and I shall move to leave out that part of the Clause by which he can enter the Civil Service by permission of the Home Secretary. I hope the House will reject this Motion to leave out this Clause, in order to arrive at the result we all desire, that is to make it clear that no alien shall be allowed to enter the Civil Service in the way proposed
Amendment negatived.
Amendment made: In Sub-section (1) leave out the word "in" and insert instead thereof the word "to."—[ Sir J. Butcher.]
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "office," and to insert instead thereof the words "or place."
I beg to second the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.I beg to move, in Sub-sections (1) and (2), to leave out the words
"without the written sanction of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who shall report to Parliament the names of all aliens so appointed, and the special reasons for such appointment.
My proposal will secure that no alien shall be allowed to enter the Civil Service even with the permission of the Home Secretary.(2) No alien shall be permitted without the written sanction of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to sit for any examination conducted by the Civil Service Commissioners."
I beg to second the Amendment.
Before the Home Secretary replies- I want to put before him a few points. In the first place, does the word "alien" include a native of Egypt at the present time or the natives of those areas now under British mandates? Are those aliens or British subjects? I want to be quite certain that we understand that anybody who is born under the British flag, whether it be in a Protectorate or a mandatory territory, is included. If we have this point cleared up, it will prevent difficulties in the future arising owing to the doubtful status of people like the Egyptians. I was informed that an Egyptian was not a British subject, but an alien. I was told this in connection with some Egyptian sailors who had to go back to Egypt, and I was informed they were not British subjects and that the Home Secretary could not do anything for them. I think it is important that we should know who are aliens, seeing that we are taking all this trouble to keep them out.
I should like to know whether a place of profit under the Civil Service includes an ordinary teacher in a board school or secondary school. Are they not included in the Civil Service? I should like a statement that this Clause does not cover anybody who is merely coming into this country to teach French, German, or Italian in any of our State schools. I am not quite clear as to what "place of profit" covers, and I should like to know whether it covers teaching in secondary schools, evening schools, or any other schools. On the general question 1 cannot understand why the hon. Baronet who moved this Amendment should be so anxious to deprive the Home Secretary for all time of the right of allowing an alien to take a job in this country in the Civil Service, because the only occasion on which the Home Secretary would be likely to face unpopularity on this subject would be when he had an extremely good case. Therefore I think it would be better to leave this power in the hands of the Home Secretary, so that if any emergency came along he would not have his hands tied by the law which would prevent him from giving employment to a man who was nominally an alien. Aliens are in two categories, those who fought with us and those who fought against us; and I view with grave suspicion all this lumping together of these two brands of aliens, lest we should find that we are welding them into one, the alien feeling that, whatever his nationality might be, the British Government and the British people are treating them all alike and as being inferior to the British citizen.With regard to what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said about the people of States mandated to us, they would also be aliens; and, as far as teachers and schoolmasters are concerned, they are paid out of the rates and are not ordinary Civil servants. While it might be well sometimes to have a German or a French teacher, we do want Britishers to teach our children.
Do I understand if we pass the excision of these words that the Government will have no power at any time to employ for any purpose whatever any alien, though that person may be some learned, scholastic, musical, or artistic person? Do I understand that the Government are to be absolutely excluded from giving any post in any office to any alien for any purpose? Is that what we are doing now?
No, Sir, and nothing like it‡
The hon. and gallant Gentleman continues to confuse the position. It is not a question of depriving the Home Secretary of any discretion; it is a question of putting an end to any doubt as to what is the law as laid down by the Act of Settlement, and I should have thought that my hon. Friends below the Gangway would have been the last persons in the world to impinge upon the Act of Settlement, because, as my hon. Friends know well, it was passed by their forbears, the Whigs. My hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Wedgwood) has merely tried to pervert history, as he tries to pervert our dealings with the Bolsheviks at the present time. As there never was any option or discretion left to the Home Secretary, there can be no question to be raised by the lovers of freedom and the lovers of the alien, the persons who take to their breasts those individuals and prefer them to their own countrymen. We are only reaffirming what the uncommonly wise ancestors of the degenerate party, to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman belongs, desired to do in 1689. My hon. and gallant Friend who sits on the Front Bench (Captain W. Benn) and my hon. and gallant Friend above me (Colonel Wedgwood) belong to that coterie of people who wrecked the efficient working of the Aliens Act of 1905. Let us have no nonsense about it. We know the fights that took place in 1904 to compel the withdrawal of the Aliens Bill, and the fights that took place in 1905 which curtailed the usefulness of the measure then passed; and the administrative Order of Lord Gladstone, the then Home Secretary, were conducted by the very same people, and brought about the troubles from which we have been suffering. Let us have no doubt, and let us have an Act upon the Statute Book which shall state in unmistakable terms that no alien shall be employed in the Civil Service.
May I appeal to the Home Secretary not to take the opposition to the Amendment too seriously? The hon. and gallant Gentleman who speaks so feelingly is obliged to keep his end up while his leader is dining. He has done his best, and I ask the House to give him credit for what he has done, and to allow the business to go on.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7—(Restriction Of Change Of Name By Aliens)
I beg to move to leave out Clause 7.
This is one of the new Clauses inserted in the Bill against the wishes of the Government by the active party below me. It deals entirely with the question of the change of name. It is divided into two parts. The first part prevents any alien from changing his name or from continuing to use a name which he has adopted since 4th August, 1914. The second part deals with firms or businesses. There are two arguments, and only two, against this Clause with which I will trouble the House. In the first place, the best way of turning a bad German into a good Englishman is to allow his name to be changed. It may be that the children or the grandchildren will not forget their origin, but in nine cases out of ten the grandson of a man with an English name will naturally believe that he has always been English. We have seen that over and over again in connection with the Huguenot families who form such a large part in our life to-day and who take such an active and patriotic part in the Army and the Navy and in the Civil Service at the present time. We have almost forgotten, just as the families themselves have forgotten, that they came over from France. They have become acclimatised in this country and their names have become English. How much more certain is it that those names which are changed from German to English will become so English that every member of the family will regard himself as a patriotic Englishman having all the same ideas and I am afraid the same ideals as the hon. Members below me. There is no better way of assimilating a foreign element than to allow them to take the names that prevail throughout the country in which they live. If a man is always going to be labelled with an alien name, then and then only can he be expected to maintain alien sympathies. Here in this country, with the birth-rate going down and the population decreasing as time goes on, we have to do our best in the future, as we have done in the past, to assimilate all alien elements. We are already a composition of Celts, Saxons, Angles, Normans, Danes, French, and Flemings. All these mixtures go to make up an Englishman, and why should we now, at the bidding of the students of history below me, suddenly reverse the process, and say that this composite Englishman shall suddenly become stereotyped and make the perfect Englishman? This Clause is particularly hard when it is directed against people whose names cannot be pronounced. Here in this country there are Russians, Poles, Czecho-Slovaks, and Jugo-Slavs, and if it is to be said that their names are to be perpetuated for all time, to be something which no member of the English race can possibly pronounce, all I can say is that it really is childish. You are reversing all the principles of civilisation which follow natural economic laws and the laws of development. You are trying by Act of Parliament to preserve for all time the weird names we see down Whitechapel way. The sooner you allow the alien element to assume English names and the higher English characteristics the better it will be for the whole country. There is another thing about this Amendment which strikes me as being the real thing which we have to fight: it is the spirit of persecution behind the Clause itself. After all, what do these hon. Members want? They want to see that the man who is now having the finger of scorn pointed at him for being a German shall always be in that unfortunate position. If the object were to preserve the pride of the German, if it were to preserve the dignity of the man's name and see that the father's name goes down to the grandchildren and the great-grandchildren, then I could understand the Clause. But it is brought forward by people who want to continue these people in the pillory for all time. They know that dur- ing the last five years they have been in the stocks and have been pilloried simply because they bore foreign names, and the desire of some hon. Members is to continue this for ever. They ant to ensure it shall not be forgotten that they are Germans, so that the finger of scorn may continue to be pointed at these unfortunate people. Among the people who will bear the brunt of this are the English born wives of these men. The men may have gone back to their country but their wives continuing here are to bear the foreign name and their patronymic is to be passed on to their children and their children's children. They are to be labelled for all time as men and women with German names. You have in fact in this Clause an epitome of the worst and basest motives which lie behind the whole of this wretched propaganda. You have the bullying view which marks the perpetuation of the hatred of the War, and the determination never on any account to allow the unfortunate mouse to escape the cat. I do not like this Bill or any part of it, but this Clause is particularly un-English and unintelligent because it pursues these unfortunate people with unbridled hatred.I beg to second the Amendment.
May I ask if the way in which it is proposed to put the question will rule out my Amendment to omit Sub-section (1)?
Yes. The hon. Member cannot have two chances.
But may I not withdraw the Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no.")
No, it is too late. I have already put it, before the House.
We have listened to a very amusing speech which I am quite sure was not intended to be serious. The whole point of this Clause is for the protection of ourselves. It refers only to people who are aliens and choose to remain aliens, and that lovely picture of children and grandchildren — [HON. MEMBERS: "And wives "]—is all beside the mark. These children and grandchildren will be British born. This does not affect British born people or naturalised subjects. These trill have the same right to change their names as other British subjects have.
But who is to pay for it?
That is not a very serious matter.
Not for a poor man?
It is essential we should know who people are. This gives absolute control. It also gives discretion in right cases to allow a change of name. That can always be done if there is really good ground for it. But where people choose to remain aliens for some ulterior or improper motive then the Clause will operate. That is all this Clause proposes, and I hope the House will not accept the Amendment.
Amendment negatived.
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "name" ["use of any name"], and to insert instead thereof the word "surname." We might possibly get sufficient mercy from the benches below me to allow an alien to change his Christian name, even if his surname must remain unchanged. It must be obvious that this is a question which affects children far more than anybody else. A child at school with a foreign name has much greater difficulty at school than even grown up people, and I think it might be possible to allow such a change of name as this, because it would not interfere with the police arrangements of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and at the same time it would be a step in the direction of humanity, and help to do away with the unpleasant distinction between the alien and the British-born.
Amendment not seconded.
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "he" ["by which he "], to insert the words "or his wife."
This Amendment would allow a foreigner to take the name of his British-born wife, so that they might carry on that family name. There have, of course, been in history an enormous number of people even in the best families who have taken their wives' names. While we are dealing with this Clause prohibiting the change of name it might be worth while to call attention to the fact that most of our best families now bear family names which they do not own or rather which were not the family names of their ancestors. An obscure Irish family of the name of Morris has adopted the proudest name in Christendom—Montmorency. People of the name of Power became De la Poer, actually changing an English name into a French name. The real name of the House of Percy is Smithson.What has that to do with the Amendment dealing. with the wife's name?
It has all to do with it. So many of them have taken their wives' names. A Smithson, as I said, became a Percy, a Bailey married a Paget and took the name of Bailey, an Adams married an Anson and took the name of Anson, and nearly every family in the land has adopted a wife's name in preference to that of a family ancestor. Even the noble house of Carrington had the original name of Smith. That in itself was the grossest of impostures, because the family name was not Smith. This right of changing the name has been allowed to another house and to English people generally, and it should also be allowed to an alien who marries an English wife. He should be allowed to take the English wife's name instead of making her take his foreign name. If we do not protect the foreigners, we might protect the English women who marry aliens. There is an enormous number of them who marry, not enemy aliens, but friendly aliens. If we allowed them to take the wife's name we should find these families carrying on the good English family names instead of allowing those names to die out. I cannot understand why it should not be permissible to make a change like this. If a man's mother's ancestors were English and he carried on that mother's name it is all the more certain that he will identify himself in every way with the land of Ids mother's birth. We should allow this one grace, that where an English woman marries an alien he should thereby, although he may not for many reasons take up British nationality, be allowed to accept her name instead of her having to accept his. There are thousands of reasons connected with landed property abroad why a man cannot give up his nationality. There is no reason why an alien who marries a British wife and settles down in England should not be able to take her English name, with all the advantages of unsingularity which the adoption of the English name would in that case give to him
I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so for the purpose of asking the Home Secretary for some reply. We want to be fair. Some of us hoped that we had got a new spirit in the world, and that, having fought the War, we were going to settle down to a better feeling between nations, instead of which we find that some people, with more time to dispose of than we have, have concocted all this spirit of suspicion, mistrust, and dislike which we thoroughly resent. I thought we had come to a new and better time. Those are general remarks on the Clause. The particular point I wish to put to the Home Secretary is this: Suppose an English woman has married a German and carries a German name she has become an alien. The man bearing that alien's name may have been deported back to Germany, his native land—Or to the United States.
Or to America, or her husband may die and she may desire to revert to her original name. I am sure that hon. Members below the Gangway who are prosecuting this campaign sincerely would not desire to inflict such a hardship on a woman who has married a German and has thereby become an alien as to deprive her of the right to bear her maiden name, or some other name in order to escape the invidium which for some time must attach to her having married a German.
I would invite the Home Secretary to explain to us his definition of a "proper and reasonable application. "He mentioned a few moments ago that if a person made a reasonable and a proper application the Home Office would favourably consider it. I would like to call the attention of the House to a matter on which I went to the Home Office. It was the case of a naturalised person who had changed his name by deed poll in the proper ordinary way. He married an English wife after he had done so, and since then he has had an English-born family. He was ordered to go back to his original name. He made what I consider a reasonable and proper application to the Home Office to be allowed to continue the name which he had in a reasonable and proper way assumed. The Home Office refused to permit it. 1 took the case back to the Home Office and asked whether there had not been some mistake or misunderstanding. There is nothing known against this man. He has lived in this country a number of years and changed his name in the proper legal manner, and I asked that in view of the fact that he has married an English wife and was married in the new name and had a family in the new name—
If he took his new name before the War then the case is not relevant to this Amendment. We are dealing only with the case of an alien who is proposing to take his wife's name.
I would support the Amendment for the reason that I do not think the Home Office will act reasonably. If in the case of an application being made of a proper and reasonable kind in a case which I consider far stronger than the one which is in the Amendment the Home Office has rejected the application, how can we expect the Home Office to treat an application made at the present time?
This Amendment, if carried, would destroy the whole of the control of the Bill, because, however much it might benefit a perfectly proper person who wanted to change his name for proper reasons, it would equally benefit a fradulent person who wished to do the same. So far as regards the case of the wife of a German, referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Bean), if the woman chooses she can make an application to change her name. There are several cases now I know of where the woman and children are known by one name, and the man himself, both personally and for purposes of his business, has had to revert to his own name.
Would the Home Secretary grant applications of that kind if made to him?
It depends upon the circumstances of each case Every case is gone into. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Kiley) has cited some cases in which he says that The action of the Home Office appears to him to be very harsh, but, like many other people, my hon. Friend accepts one side of the case without hearing the other. I do not know what case he referred to, but in every case I have looked into there has been some strong reason why refusal should be made. In the first place, it must have been because the man had changed his name since the War Before my hon. Friend condemns the Home Office, he might at least ensure that he knows both sides of the question. He has heard one side, no doubt, but that is all very well till another is told. This Amendment, if accepted, would simply remove the whole control of the Bill, and therefore goes to the root of what the Clause is intended to do. On that ground I ask the House to reject it.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment made: In Sub-section (2) leave out the words "such person as aforesaid," and insert instead thereof the word "—[ Mr Shortt.]
I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3), to add the words
This is really a drafting Amendment. Sub-section (5) says, "The Secretary of State, when he grants an exemption under this Section, shall not permit an alien to assume any name at haphazard, but shall ensure, as far as possible, that the new name is the equivalent in English of the alien's former name." That is not very well drafted. The word haphazard is not a good word for an Act of Parliament, and the words which I have proposed and the place where I propose that they should be put in seem more convenient and carry out the intention more completely. The words "shall ensure as far as possible that the new name is the equivalent in English of the alien's former name" might lead to very considerable difficulties. There is a very large number of Germans whose name is Fleischer. I do not know whether my hon. and learned Friend (Sir J. Butcher) would like to have a large number of aliens called Butcher."but shall not do so unless he is satisfied that the name proposed to be assumed or used or to be continued to be assumed or used is in the circumstances of the case a suitable name."
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words "and such special grounds shall be put in writing and shall be recorded by the Secretary of State."
I do not ask that this shall be done by the Secretary of State's own hand, or that a special register shall be kept, but that there shall be a full note of the grounds upon which the Order is made, recorded in such a way that it may be reasonably and quickly accessible to the officials of the Home Office, and allow no doubt as to its interpretation if any Member of the House desires information. It is not a matter of very great consequence to divide the House upon, and I hope the Home Secretary will give an assurance that there shall be an adequate note made at the time of the Order being made which shall be recorded in some manner at the Home Office, so as to give no doubt if consulted at some future time.I beg to second the Amendment.
Every alien has his record at the Home Office, and on his file there would be recorded any exemption, any licence and the special grounds for it, and all information. Naturally, it would be at the disposal of any Member who chose to put down a question or obtain it in other ways. The Minister would, or course, give it to the Member, and if he refused, the House might have something to say.
What I want to avoid is any cryptogrammic way of recording it, so that when an officer has left the Home Office his successor might not be able to understand it. I want it in plain English and in longhand.
I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that would be done. It is all minuted. First or all, there are the suggestions from the Department, then there is the reason for the decision of the Secretary of State himself.
Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the possibility of a later Government coming into power in four years, and having a first rate bonfire of all your records about aliens?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move, to leave out the words
I see no need for the insertion of this paragraph. After all, if the poor alien is-not to have a chance we will see that the rich alien, the Junker from Prussia, does not have any better chance of becoming a British subject. This, of course, affects people who have assumed a new surname since 4th August, 1914. There have been certain distinguished families who have taken English names since that date, I presume by Royal licence. I do not complain about this, but I want to know what other families have taken on English names by Royal licence, and whether we can have an example of this gross case of one law for the rich and another for the poor. After all, if we are to hunt aliens let us hunt all the aliens and not make a selection of all the poor miserable people who cannot defend themselves, and run away from the big people who can make things unpleasant for us. This paragraph is meant to protect the noble families. Let the Bill be exposed in all its naked beauty to the public when it becomes an Act of Parliament."(a) That the applicant, although a former enemy alien, is in fact a member of a nation or a race hostile to the states recently at war with His Majesty and is well disposed to His Majesty and his Government."
I beg to second the Amendment.
The paragraph has nothing whatever to do with rich or poor, but only with maintaining the species of control which exists at present.
Who have changed their names under Royal licence?
I have not got that in my mind. So far as the poor are concerned they are as carefully protected under (b) as any who have taken a Royal licence under (a).
Have there been any refusals under (a)?
I really do not have the facts in my mind at present. If the hon. Member really wants the information I will try to get it for him.
I rose to second after some little hesitation because I was waiting to see if anyone below the gangway would second. I hope they will. One hon. and learned Gentleman in the early stages of Committee,
Division No. 121.]
| AYES.
| [8.58 p.m.
|
| Adair, Rear-Admiral | Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff) | Bruton, Sir J. |
| Agg Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Bell, Lt.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | Burdon, Colonel Rowland |
| Archdale, Edward M. | Bentinck, Lt. Col. Lord H. Cavendish | Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay) |
| Ashley, Col. Wilfred W. | Bigland, Alfred | Butcher, Sir J. G. |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Bird, Alfred | Campbell, J. G. D. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Blake, Sir Francis Douglas | Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton) |
| Baifour, George (Hampstead) | Borwick, Major G. O. | Carr, W. T. |
| Barnett, Major Richard W. | Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. | Cayzer. Major H. R. |
| Barnston, Major H. | Bridgeman, William Clive | Chadwick, R. Burton |
when challenged from these benches by the hon. Member (Mr. J. Jones), who asked if an alien in Park Lane was going to be proceeded against, said certainly; he was as keen as the hon. Member to see that the aliens in Park Lane gained no particular advantage over the alien in the East End of London. Now we have an absolute test. We all know what a Royal licence means. People wish to hyphen their names or add their wife's names to theirs. I cannot see why these people should be exempt, and it would be most unfortunate if the Home Secretary allows it to be said that this is only aimed at the poor and the rich are exempt. There is too much of one law for the rich and another for the poor. I want to see that done away with. This is simply feeding that flame. I hope the Home Secretary will reconsider, and will allow this very simple Amendment to go.
I perfectly concur with what has been said. I do not treat the Park Lane alien any different from the alien in the East End. I should be glad for the paragraph to go out. I propose to leave out paragraph (b) and I would not mind if (a), (b) and (c) went out. It is purely departmental. Do not let any section of the House suppose that while asking for the protection of the British communitiy against an influx of aliens such as we have had for the last thirty or forty years we are doing anything which is against the best interests of this country. These aliens will not do as the Huguenots did, assimilate in the population and bequeath the best traditions of their race; but they are aliens who have aroused the antipathy of the British public, by keeping themselves aloof and while under-selling the British workman are ever ready to take advantage of the asylum we have given them. Treat them all alike, rich and poor. I would like to see England rid of aliens from top to bottom.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill." The House divided: Ayes, 163; Noes, 47.
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm., W.) | Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley) | Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.) |
| Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood) | Horne, Sir Robert (Hillhead) | Parkins, Walter Frank |
| Clyde, James Avon | Howard, Major S. G. | Perring, William George |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | Pollock, Sir Erhest Murray |
| Colfox, Major W. P. | Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) | Purchase, H. G., Ramsden, G. T. |
| Colvin, Brig.-General R. B. | Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H. | Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr. N. |
| Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan) | Inskip, T. W. H | Reid, D. D. |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University) | Jephcott, A. R. | Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend) |
| Curzon, Commander Viscount | Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke) | Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich) |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. | Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Robinson S. (Brecon and Radnor) |
| Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen) | Robinson, T. (Stretford, Lancs.) |
| Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe) | Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey) | Roundell, Lt.-Colonel R. F. |
| Dawes, J. A. | Kellaway, Frederick George | Rowlands, James |
| Edgar, Clifford | Kerr-Smiley, Major P. | Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey) |
| Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) | Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow) | Sanders, colonel, Robert Arthur |
| Eyres-Mansell, Commander | Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales) | Seager, Sir William |
| Falcon Captain M. | Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.) | Seddon, James |
| Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray | Lloyd, George Butler | Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock) |
| Farquharson, Major A. C. | Locker-Lampsan, G. (Wood Green) | Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar) |
| Fell, Sir Arthur | Lorden, John William | Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.) |
| Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue | Loseby, Captain C. E. | Sprot, Col. Sir Alexander |
| Forrest, W. | Lynn, R. J. | Stanler, Captain Sir Beville |
| Fraser, Major Sir Keith | M'Donald, Dr, B. F. P. (Wallasey) | Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Gange, E. S. | M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.) | Stephenson, Colonel H. K. |
| Gardiner, J. (Perth) | Macleod, John Mackintosh | Stewart, Gershom |
| Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke) | Macmaster, Donald | Strauss, Edward Anthony |
| Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | Magnus, Sir Philip | Sturrock, J. Leng- |
| Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John | Maitland, Sir A. D. Steel- | Sutherland, Sir William |
| Glyn, Major R. | Mallalleu, Frederick William | Sykes, Sir C. (Huddersfield) |
| Gray, Major E. | Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.) | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.) |
| Greene, Lt.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.) | Matthews, David | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.) |
| Gregory, Holman | Mlldmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B. | Thorpe, J. H. |
| Greig, Colonel James William | Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S. | Townley, Maximilian G. |
| Gretton, Colonel John | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Vickers, D. |
| Griggs, Sir Peter | Moreing, Captain Algernon H. | Wardle, George J. |
| Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W. E,(B. St. E.) | Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert | Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H. |
| Hanna, G. B. | Murray, William (Dumfries) | White, Col. G. D. (Southport) |
| Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds.) | Nall, Major Joseph | Wilson, Colonel Leslie (Reading) |
| Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.) | Neal, Arthur | Wilson-Fox, Henry |
| Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) | Newman, Major J. (Finchley, M'ddx.) | Woolcock, W. J. U. |
| Hiller, Lleut.-Colonel F. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter) | Worsfold, T. Cato |
| Hills, Major J. W. (Durham) | Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon) |
| Hinds, John | Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G. | |
| Hood, Joseph | O'Neill, Capt. Hon. Robert W. H. | |
| Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Parker, James | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Lord E |
| Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike | Talbot and Captain F. Guest. |
| Hopkins, J. W. W. |
NOES.
| ||
| Adamson, Rt. Han. William | Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wisbech) | Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Cohn) |
| Bann, Capt. W. (Leith) | Hirst, G. H. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
| Billing, Noel Pemberton | Hodge, Rt. Hon. John | Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey) |
| Bottomley, Horatio | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampten) |
| Bramsden, Sir T. | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander | Tootill, Robert |
| Carter, W. (Mansfield) | Kenyon, Barnet | Waterson, A. E. |
| Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | Kiley, James Daniel | White, Charles F. (Derby, W.) |
| Edwards, C. (Bedwellty) | Lunn, William | Wignall, James |
| Entwistle, Major C. F. | Lyle, C. E. Leonard (Stratford) | Williams, Lt-Com. C. (Tavistock) |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Murchison, C. K. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Griffiths, T. (Pontypool) | Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles) | Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Grundy, T. W. | Newbould, A. E. | Young, Lt.-Com. E. H. (Norwich) |
| Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton) | O'Grady, James | Young. Robert (Newton, Lancs.) |
| Hallas, E. | Rees, Captain J. Tudor (Barnstaple) | |
| Hancock, John George | Rose, Frank H. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Col. |
| Hayday, A. | Royce, William Stapleton | Wedgwood and Mr. Hartshorn. |
| Hayward, Major Evan | Short, A. (Wednesbury) | |
I beg to move to leave out paragraph (b). This paragraph deals with cases of change of name in which exemption has been granted under the Defence of the Realm Act or the Aliens Restriction Order, and those changes are not interfered with by this Clause. I move this in order that the Home Secretary may tell us in what sort of case the changes have been effected and whether this should stand.
In view of the fact that it will be very interesting to hear what the Home Secretary has to say, I beg to second the Amendment.
The Defence of the Realm Act deals with persons who are not natural-born British subjects. Of course the Aliens Restriction Order deals simply with enemy aliens. The number of cases which have been gone into is fairly considerable, and only a moderate proportion has been allowed. Under the Defence of the Realm Act there were about 200 allowed out of 400 or 500 applications. This was done on different grounds, in different cases. Under the Aliens Restriction Order the number has been very much smaller. Each case has been gone into carefully. The same applies to-day as applied to the earlier licensees. They are the poor people who have gone through the mill and had their cases examined and we propose that they shall stand.
I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme— to add at the end of paragraph (c) the words, "or by a married man of his wife's name" raises the same point as was raised in the earlier Amendment.
Not quite the same. The point of this Amendment is to allow an American, for instance, to take his wife's name. The previous Amendment dealt with the conditions of these men who were Germans and -wanted to change their names.
The Amendment moved to the first Sub-section deals with an alien, whether German or anything else. The same point is raised here as was raised in the previous Amendment.
Amendment made: Leave out Subsection (5).—[ Mr. Shortt.]
I beg to move, in Subsection (6), to leave out the words "not less than."
The effect of leaving in these words would be that there would have to be bargaining every time that an alien put in a claim to change his name. You might get perhaps a thousand pounds from the very rich man, but I do not think it is worth leaving it in on the off-chance of doing that, and it is very much better for the purposes of administration that there should be a definite fee, and there would be power in the case of poor people to remit the fee if necessary.Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move, in Sub-section (8), to leave out the word "if" and to insert instead thereof the word "unless."
I beg to second the Amendment.
I hope the House will accept this. I think that it really makes very little difference in the meaning. The Secretary of State would have to decide the case whichever words were in.
Amendment agreed to.I beg to move, to leave out the words "so required" and to insert instead therof the words "shall expressly dispense with such publication."
I beg to second the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8—(Deputation Of Former Enemy Aliens)
I beg to move to leave out Clause 8.
The Home Secretary was to have moved to leave out Clause 8, but unfortunately the Government were beaten the other day. The Whip was cracked, and their followers came to heel. But at a private conference in Downing Street the Government made this bargain with the Gentlemen below the Gangway, that if they would allow the alien pilot to come in the Government would go back on what they thought right and would allow Clause 8 to remain in the Bill. Clause 8 is now to stand. I would ask those who believe in reasonable and right and not in secret bargains in Downing Street, to vote, as they would have voted if there had not been this secret bargaining, in favour of removing this most hate-breeding Clause. This Clause provides that an alien who remains in this country, who has been examined by the Committees of Mr. Justice Younger and Mr. Justice Sankey, ha, passed those Committees, has passed the cross-examination of the police and the cross-examination even of the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for York (Sir J. Butcher), should once again be harned or removed from the country. It was only natural that when the Home Secretary saw this Clause in the Bill he said, No; these people have been examined once or twice already. Everyone has been expelled during the War against whom anything can be brought. We will not have these people harried again, just because they belong to an enemy country." Not only a German, but an Austrian, a Bulgarian, or a Turk who is now in the United Kingdom, man or woman, shall be deported forthwith,The Home Secretary managed to get the gentlemen of England to allow that to be extended to two months—"unless he shall within one month after the passing of this Act make an application to the Secretary of State in the Prescribed form—"
"to be allowed to remain in the United Kingdom, stating the special ground on which such application is based, and unless the Secretary of State after due inquiry shall grant him a licence to remain.
So that they may all know about it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] So that they may all point at his children at school, and jeer at his wife. These are mostly poor people, to whom the cost of advertising is a very considerable item. [An HON. MEMBER: "Half a crown ‡"] I should like to see the newspaper that would put the advertisement in for half a crown—(2) The applicant shall advertise notice of his application in some paper circulating in the district—"
"in which he resides or in which, if he is interned, he was residing previous to his internment.
(3) The Secretary of State may, not less than one calendar month after the date of such advertisement, if he is satisfied that there is no adverse report on the applicant by the military or by the police authorities, grant such licence subject to such terms and conditions (if any) as he shall think fit on any one or more of the following grounds, namely:
That is to say, that he is a traitor to his own country.(a) That the applicant, although a former enemy alien, is in fact a member of a nation or a race hostile to the State recently at scar with His Majesty and is well disposed to His Majesty and his Government."
"(b) That the applicant is seventy years of age or upwards, and has been at least fifteen years resident in the United Kingdom;
(c) That the applicant is suffering from serious illness or infirmity of a permanent nature;
If the boy was compulsorily enlisted, whatever honours or distinctions he may have won, that still does not exempt his father from immediate deportation—(d) That the applicant has one or more sons who voluntarily enlisted and served in the British Navy or Army or the Navy or Army of one of the Allied Powers."
If he has married an American it is all up with him. I think it is proposed that twenty-five years' marriage to a British-born wife is to be enough to prevent the husband being deported to Germany——"(e) That the applicant has lived for at least thirty-five years in this Country and married a British-born wife."
The British-born wife of an enemy alien deported will not have to be sent abroad, and will not be forced to go to a country where she does not know a word of the laitquage—"(f) That the applicant, although her husband is a former enemy alien living abroad or deported, was at the time of her marriage a British subject or citizen of an Allied State."
That is the Clause which was put into the Bill by the hon. and learned Member for York when it went through Committee. I say without fear of contradiction that everybody who was a Member of the last House of Commons and who was on the Committee would vote against the Clause. I believe you have in those few who survived from the last House of Commons the few survivors of those who regard the honour of England as being their most sacred possession. I fear that the Home Secretary often considers that the safety of England comes before its honour. I and those on these benches, as well as those who are ready to vote on this question to-night in the old English sense, consider that honour comes first and safety second. It may be that by harrying these people you may prevent continued residence in this country of some men of Bolshevist views or something of that sort, but it is far better that these people should still be here and even able to propagate their views rather than that the old English right of asylum and the old rule of treating as friends those people with whom you are not at war, of making no distinctions, after war is over, tending to perpetuate the feeling of hatred—it is better that we should incur certain risks than sacrifice all that which England has stood for in the past, and sacrifice it at the behes1 of people who do not know what the honour of England is."(4) If the appllcation for a licence is made on any ground other than one or more of those above specified, the Secretary of State either shall refuse the application or may if satisfied that owing to the exceptional circumstances of the case deportation would involve serious hardship of a personal nature on the applicant, grant him a licence under this Section."
I beg leave to second the Amendment, not from any love of Germany, but because of the experience which I gained on Mr. Justice Younger's Committee. That has convinced me that this Clause has been conceived and drafted without a knowledge of the position in regard to enemy aliens in this country as it is to-day. I understand that this Clause was inserted in Committee on the Bill. against the wishes of the Government, and I understand, moreover, that those who are responsible for this Clause urge as a. reason that all they are doing is to carry out the pledges given by the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor at the General Election. I have taken the trouble to look at those pledges. Any pledge which the Prime Minister gave at the General Election was directed, not against enemy aliens in general, but against enemy aliens in this country who had plotted against this country and have spied against this country. Let me quote some words which the Prime Minister used at the election. At Queen's Hall he said
He was clearly referring to those enemy aliens who had abused our hospitality Former enemy aliens who are now in this country, and at whom this Clause is aimed, do not come within the class of those with regard to whom the Prime Minister gave this pledge. When I say that, let us for a moment see who are the former enemy aliens at present in this country. First of all, there are some 21,000 men enemy aliens who have never been interned at all during the whole course of the War, and those people still remain in this country. Secondly, there are 3,920 of those who were interned during the War but who have been exempted from deportation by Mr. Justice Younger's Committee, of which I have been a member. Those 3,920 men are the balance of a total of some 24,000 enemy aliens who remained interned at the time of the Armistice. So that, as regards the interned enemy aliens, you have this position. At the time of the Armistice there were 24,000 of them, and to-day 20,000 of them have been repatriated, and you have only got 3,920 left. You have got the 21,000 who were never interned and the 3,920 who are all that remain of those who were interned. Let me first deal with those whom I may call the ex-interned aliens—that is to say, the 3,920. On the 3rd of April this year an official statement was made in the House of Lords to the effect that interned enemy aliens in this country at that time would be dealt with by a Committee to be set up under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Younger as he then was. That official statement was, in effect, a promise to the enemy aliens then in the country that their cases were to be tried by this tribunal, and that, once their cases had been investigated by that tribunal, that would be an end of it either one way or the other. That was the promise made in the House of Lords. Every enemy alien whose case was investigated by us made a statement to us in writing from his internment camp. Every statement was carefully considered by that Committee, and hon. Members who have taken the trouble to read our Report, which was published either to-day or a few days ago, can judge for themselves whether we have based our recommendations upon reason and justice or upon absurdities. We considered every man's case most carefully. Just consider what the position would be if this Clause were passed, so far as the men whom our Committee dealt with are concerned. It means that the whole of our labours during the summer have been utterly wasted, and it means that this Committee, which was appointed as a result of a promise given in the House of Lords, and from which I think it might be taken that effect would be given to its recommendations, all that is to go for nothing, because under the first Sub-clause of this Clause, every enemy alien now in this country is to be deported unless he once again makes representations in writing to the Home Office. That is the position with regard to the men who are left of those who were interned, and whose cases have been carefully considered by the Committee. And it is proposed that we should reopen the whole of their cases again. Let me refer to those who were never interned at all during the War. Of those there are about 21,000 left in this country. Every one of those men has been favourably reported on by the police and by the military authorities during the War. Their cases have been reviewed and they have been exempted by two Committees which have sat during the War, each of them under the chairmanship of a judge of the High Court, and after the close scrutiny of their cases, which of course would be necessary in war-time with regard to people who were enemy aliens and nationals of countries with whom we were at war. In 1915 a Committee was appointed under, I think, the chairmanship of Mr. Justie Sankey, to investigate those cases of enemy aliens then in the country. All those with regard to whom there was the slightest suspicion that they were unfriendly to this country were interned at the instance of Mr. Justice Sankey's Committee in 1915. That Committee practically got rid of anybody who might be called at all dangerous, and so those dangerous people passed into the numbers of the interned, and I have no doubt whatever in saying that to-day they are to be found among those of the interned who have found their way back to Germany—that is to say, they are among the 20,000 who have been deported from this country. Therefore the uninterned have already had their cases twice scrutinised and carefully investigated by two Committees presided over by a judge of the High Court. By this Clause both of these classes to whom I have referred, namely, those never interned at all and those left of the internees, are lumped together."they have forfeited their claim to remain. I have repeatedly said that in my judgment these people, having abused our hospitality, must nut get another opportunity of doing so."
I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend does not wish to deceive the House, but may I point out I was a member of the Committee in 1918 presided over by Mr. Justice Sankey, and know a good deal as to what took place there? Of those persons who were uninterned by far the greater portion were never twice scrutinised, and were let out in the earlier years of the War. I only interrupt on the point as to the cases being twice scrutinised.
I was not a member of the 1918 Committee, but I know, so far as the cases which have come before Mr. Justice Younger's Committee are concerned. a very large number—I will not say all—were scrutinised by two Committees. As the hon. and learned Member knows, the 1918 Committee was appointed owing to the popular clamour, and possibly a right clamour at that time, against enemy aliens of all kinds. That Committee was appointed not to weed out the dangerous men, that had already been done, but its function was to extend the age of residence which would qualify a man to stay on, and it also decided to put available men into the Army and the younger men who had grown up since the 1915 Committee. Whether I am right in saying that every uninterned enemy alien has had this scrutiny by two Committees or not, the fact remains that every unin- terned enemy alien has had to face the scrutiny of a Committee, and in my contention in many cases of two Committees.
I have told my hon. and gallant Friend the position.
This Clause, as amended by to-day's Paper by the Home Secretary, lumps all clases of enemy aliens together, and it proposes that they shall be examined once again by yet another Committee to be set up under this Bill. I do not often agree with my hon. and gallant Friend who moved (Colonel Wedgwood), but I must say it really does seem to me absurd that you should continue, as he said, harrying these people by another Committee, when they have already, every one of them, experienced investigation by one or two Committees, and some of them in this very year. With regard to the Committee which it is proposed by this Clause to set up, it is not to be a Committee which is to have complete discretion, because it is to be bound by certain very definite and specific rules. That is really an impossible condition for any Committee which is to undertake work of this kind. Working as I have done on the Committee presided over by Mr. Justice Younger, we have from the beginning found that it has been impossible to deal with these enemy aliens except with regard to every case individually. You may frame a certain list of categories, as has been done here, but it is quite impossible to bring all the cases within those categories. For instance, it is said here that a man may be granted a licence to remain if he is seventy years of age or upwards, but what about the man who is sixty-nine and a half? Because a man is seventy he may have been in this country two years, but he is to be allowed to stay. If a man is sixty-eight years of age, a single man, who has remained here for forty-five years, he has got to go. Does not that show the absurdity of trying to bring these cases within any particular category? Take again category (d), where it has got to be shown that the applicant has one or more sons who voluntarily served in the Army. I agree that we ought not to make a distinction between voluntary and compulsory service once a man has served in the Army. But take category (e), where if he has lived for at least twenty-five years in this country and has married a British-born wife he may stay. What about the man who has been in this country for twenty-four years and has married a British-born wife? He may have five or six small children who know no other language than English and who have been educated entirely here. That man would have to go, whereas another man, because he has lived in the country six months longer, is to be allowed to stay. I need not continue these instances. They show how absurd is the very idea of trying to deal with these people in categories in this way.
It is possible only to do as our Committee has done this year, and that is to deal with these questions upon the individual merits of each case. Again, this Clause completely ignores the claims of the British-born wives and children of these enemy aliens. The Committee upon which I have been sitting always regarded the claims of British subjects as of primary importance. We did not care so much about the Germans or the Austrians, but what we did care about was the British-born wives and children of these aliens, and if there was anything which did come to our notice it was the terrible hardships which would be inflicted upon these British-born dependants if at one fell swoop you were to banish them from the country. But this is what you would be doing. You would be putting before the British dependants one of two terrible alternatives. The wife or the children have got to decide whether they will go with their husband or father to a country which they loathe, Germany, or whether they will stay in this country separated from the husband or father whom they love. The Committee upon which I sat had many terrible and most pathetic cases of this kind to deal with. We often had a woman come to us, an Englishwoman, as patriotic in many cases as an Englishwoman could be, and say, "Do let my husband out. He is a German. I hate Germany. I loathe everything to do with Germans. I am disgusted at the way in which they have carried on the War. But he has been a good husband to me and a good father to the children." Then we have said to her, "If he goes to Germany, will you not go with him?" And she has said, very often, "I could not go to Germany. I could not face being with Germans, a British woman." We have said, "Which would you rather do?" And I can assure the House that in many instances that woman has been unable to answer because she has broken down and wept. And that is the terrible alternative that this Clause proposes to place before British women and British children. I presume my hon. Friend the Member for York and his friends, who are, I understand, responsible for this Clause, agree that it is possible to deal with these cases by means of cast-iron categories. Is that so?Yes. We propose to deal with them bye way of categories as the primâ facie reason for exemption, as we did on Mr. Justice Sankey's Committee. We reserve by this Clause a general discretion in proper cases for the Committee to exempt, just as in Mr. Justice Sankey's Committee we did reserve to ourselves, and exercise, a discretion to deal with exceptional cases.
I am not as experienced as my hon. and learned Friend in interpreting Clauses, but I cannot see in the Clause as drafted, or even as amended to-day, where the proper discretion lies. It seems to me that the Committee have got to abide by these categories or nothing at all, and the only thing that I can see is so far as it is personal to the man himself. But what about the British wives and children? However, to go back to the more general point, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has said, the Government have completely changed their face upon this question. A few days ago the Amendment to delete this Clause stood in the name of the Home Secretary. That was the considered policy of the Government after they had had months of experience on this aliens' question. It was their considered policy that the proper way to deal with the enemy aliens in this country was under the powers which they now possess under the 1914 Act. The Home Secretary has complete powers to do practically anything he likes with regard to getting rid of any individual alien in this country, but as the result of a Division in which the Government were defeated on the question of pilots, they have reconsidered this question, and they have retreated, and they now propose to accept, apparently, the principle of this extraordinary Clause. For the sake of some twenty alien pilots, they are going to sacrifice thousands of British-born women and children under the provisions of this Clause. The powers now possessed by the Home Secretary are large enough, as I have stated, in my opinion, for dealing with this matter. He has got powers for prohibiting aliens from landing, for prohibiting them from embarking, powers for deporting them and so on, already under the 1914 Act, and surely all that is necessary is that those powers should be continued, and, if necessary, renewed in a year's time, because I am the last in the world to say that the Home Secretary should not have power to deport a man. He should have power to deport an undesirable alien, but he has got that power now, and I cannot see why we should accept in principle this Clause, which is going to carry the matter so very much further.
I suggest that the Home Secretary should return to the position in which he was, and that he should agree to the withdrawal of this Clause. I think that is only fair reasonable and just. In his own mind, he knows prefectly well that is the only logical thing possible. But if he will not do that, I appeal to the Home Secretary—I wish the Leader of the House were in his place and I could appeal to him—after the Debate which will take place on this question, to leave it to the free decision of the House, and it is my conviction that if the Government Whips are taken off, this House will assert its ancient principle of freedom, or rather, I should say, of just treatment for those who have already been subjected to so many inquiries and commissions during the War. The alien who has done the country any harm, or who has in any way shown himself unfriendly to the country, has already left the country among the 20,530 who have been repatriated since the Armistice. Nobody has a scrap of sympathy with those people, and, so far as Lord Justice Younger's Committee was concerned, they ruthlessly deported anybody who came before them. But if I have in any way succeeded in convincing the House of the true state of affairs as it exists with regard to aliens, I cannot believe they will decide to deport in the time of peace those thousands of men, with many thousands of dependants, British-born women and children, who, during the necessarily drastic consideration of their case during the last five years, have successfully established before impartial tribunals of Englishmen, their right to remain in this country even in time of war.This proposal to leave out Clause 8 is supported by as strange a Parliamentary combination as I remember in the course of recent periods. It is supported, on the one hand, by the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme.
Supported by those people who fought.
And who is obviously desirous of having as many Germans as he can get in this country. I suppose he forgets the murder of non-combatants on our ships at sea, and who, when they were in boats trying to make their escape, were fired at by these friends of the hon. and gallant Member.
Is it in order to deal with the whole subject of hate-mongering on an Amendment which is devised to expel aliens a year after the War?
The hon. and learned Gentleman is giving reasons which may be good or bad, and which may or may not commend themselves to the hon. and gallant Member.
I should be indeed sanguine if I thought any reasons I gave for anything would commend themselves to the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, especially if I call to his mind some of the reasons, at any rate, Why people in this country are not desirous to have these beloved Germans amongst us in the future. I have said enough to indicate the state of mind of the hon. and gallant Member, who, notwithstanding these unheard-of atrocities perpetrated by Germans, and approved by the German Government, is still anxious to have Germans remaining in our midst. Of a very different type was the speech of the hon. and gallant Member who seconded this Motion. He was animated, so far as I could judge, largely by British interests, with which I entirely sympathise. I think he was deceived, because he did not quite know the facts, and because I do not think he quite understood the scope of this Clause. But, before I go further, I wish on my own part, and I think I may add on the part of those Friends who have been acting with me, to repudiate in the strongest manner the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme that there has been any bargain as to this Clause in any shape or form. It is suggested that we were bribed to vote on the second occasion for the Government Amendment to the Pilotage Bill by the promise of all these suggested changes in this Bill. I say positively there is absolutely not a shadow of truth for this suggestion. I voted for the altered form of the Pilotage Bill because I had not realised the fact before, and I believe that was what most Members of the House did.
As regards the present position of the other Amendments to the Aliens Bill, what happened was what, I believe, happens with any Bill of any importance. People who are supporting one view go to the Minister and put their view before him, and in this case there were conferences, such as occur in almost every case, and ought to occur, in order to get the conduct of the business of this country satisfactory. So far as details were concerned, I think we managed to come to an agreement. So much for that point. I hope, after what I have said, I shall hear no more about it. Some of these observations are the product of a diseased imagination. I do not, however, think I need discuss that point of view any more, because I do not think it commends itself to the House. Let me address myself to what fell from my hon. and gallant Friend opposite. May I remind the House what are the real facts? In the earlier days of the War there were a very large number of Germans and other enemy aliens uninterned — something like 21,000 or 23,000. At the end of 1918 the Government of the day, considering that that was a very large number of persons to be exempted, even with a special reason—and the matter having been constantly brought to their attention —appointed what is known as Mr. Justice Sankey's Committee.Would the hon. and learned Gentleman say how many were interned as a result of action in 1915?
About 24,000 or something like that, and about an equal number were left uninterned. It was in order to reconsider the cases of the very large number of persons left uninterned that Mr. Justice Sankey's Committee was appointed. On that Committee there was represented every section of this House, Unionists, Liberals, one Labour Member, and a member of the Irish party. There were then about 22,000 enemy aliens uninterned, of whom nearly 12,000 were Germans, while a little over 10,000 were other enemy aliens. That Committee, on which I sat, commenced, in the first instance, to deal with 3,200 Germans, and of that number about 2,500 were exempted from repatriation. We said to them: "You can still remain uninterned." The rest were repatriated or interned.
May I remind the hon. and learned Gentlemen that in this Clause no distinction whatever is made between people whom he exempted and whom he interned?
I was coming to that. Let me say at once, as regards those Germans and other enemy aliens exempted from repatriation or internment by Mr. Justice Sankey's Committee, that I am quite willing that they should remain here. If the Clause, as drafted, or amended, does not carry that out I am quite willing it should be so; and also that the Germans and others exempted by Mr. Justice Younger's Committee this year should also remain exempted. I believe the Government have the same view, that those exempted by Mr. Justice Younger's Committee this year, and Mr. Justice Sankey's Committee of 1918, shall remain here.
Can the hon. and learned Gentleman show the House any line in the Clause that either of these masses of persons will remain exempted now?
10.0 P.M.
The Home Secretary is to be advised by an Advisory Committee as to whom he shall and shall not exempt. If that is not clear, let him say so at once. If there is nothing in the Clause at present exempting these persons to whom I refer, there ought to be something. I have no objection to that. It is the proper thing for the Government to do this.
I would like to ask whether the hon. and learned Gentleman would have become a member of Mr. Justice Sankey's Committee in 1918 if that Committee had had placed upon its deliberations the kind of limitation that he proposes to place upon this new Committee?
I say at once that I should have been extremely grateful for an expression of Parliamentary opinion as to the conditions under which we should work. I should have been most grateful for assistance from Parliament. But, to come back to what I was saying: Mr. Justice Sankey's Committee considered 3,200 cases out of 12,000, and exempted 2,500 of them. We must bear this in mind—and I do ask the House to consider it. There are at the present moment nearly 19,000 former enemy aliens uninterned. Of this 19,000 there are something like 8,000 Germans whose cases were never considered in 1918. My right hon. Friend said once or twice that the cases of all these uninterned persons had been considered twice. That is not the case. There are at this moment 8,000 or more whose cases were never considered by Mr. Justice Sankey's Committee. That is not all. There are at this moment almost 8,000 enemy aliens other than Germans whose cases were not considered in 1918 by Mr. Justice Sankey's Committee, so that you have all these thousands whose cases were not considered. Why? Because at the end of 1918 the work of Mr. Justice Sankey's Committee was arrested, and we did not resume it. It is in order mainly to deal with those persons who never came under the consideration of the Committee of 1918 that I want this Clause. Here are 19,000 people still at large in this country, and I venture to say that we ought to have the proposed Advisory Committee to consider the case of these persons; to exempt such as ought to be exempted and to deport the rest. That is the object of the Clause. My hon. and gallant Friend opposite, when I say that that ought to be done, challenges the pledges that we gave—we and the members of the Government. He suggested the Prime Minister only wanted to deport or promised to deport only those who had been found guilty of spying or something of the sort. That is not how I read the pledge. On 6th September, 1918, the Prime Minister in the course of a speech said:
On 10th December, 1918, the Prime Minister said:"After what has happened it is quite impossible to entertain in our midst a population of which a considerable portion has. to say the least, abused our hospitality. They spied, they assisted Germany in passing plans for the destruction of the country, and if opportunity had offered them, they would have assisted in the execution of those plans to ruin the land that gives them shelter. They have therefore forfeited any claim.—"
That is the Germans—"There is a lady here who wants to know whether Germans are going to be turned out of the country. I can assure you that we will see to that. I have repeatedly said that in my judgment these people—"
Is not that a pledge which nearly all of us gave? It is a pledge which I gave myself, and if I were going to give a vote in defiance of a pledge which I gave to my constituency and on the face of which I got my majority, I should feel myself a disgrace and a discredit to this House. It is the duty of any hon. Member before he violates a pledge of that kind to go back to his constituency and say, "this is a pledge on which I got in, will you release me from that pledge? Unless you do that I am not the man to violate a pledge of that kind." The Lord Chancellor said at Bournemouth:"having abused our hospitality must not get another opportunity to do so."
There is no doubt about that. I am sure hon. Members opposite would not wish us to violate pledges which have been given by the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor. Such pledges were not only given by Ministers but by Members of this House, and we are not going back upon them. As I was a member of the Sankey Committee, let me inform the House upon what principles that Committee acted. We found that in order to deal with these cases it was absolutely necessary that we should lay down certain primâ facie categories of exemption, such as men over seventy, a man who was infirm, a hopeless invalid, and a man who has married a British wife and has British children, and when we found that a man fell under one or other of these categories and there was nothing further against him, such exemptions were to be allowed; but we reserve to the Committee the power also of dealing with exceptional cases, because there were other cases which did not fall under those categories, but were such for which we thought a person might reasonably be exempted, and power was reserved to deal with them. Those are the principles on which the Sankey Committee acted, and they have been embodied literally in this Clause. In the Clause as originally drafted all the exemptions were not included, but the Home Secretary has put down certain Amendments which will practically embody all the principles upon which the Sankey Committee acted. That Committee got together all the information they could acquire after investigating some thousands of cases, and we facilitated their action by giving wide discretion in proper cases upon their own responsibility. I think I have now answered the hon. Member who talked about hampering the Advisory Committee. We are bound to have a Deportation Clause, and we are bound to deport a certain number, and I think the hon. Member opposite agrees with that."I tell you here as a Minister of the Coalition Government that it is the declared policy of that Government to send back to Germany every Bosche in this country."
I agree that some authority must have power to deport them.
We are saying that they are to be deported subject to exemption by the Advisory Committee. What I think we ought to do in this Clause is to have a statutory enactment that if some enemy aliens are subject to certain exemptions, namely, those laid down by the Advisory Committee in accordance with the principles upon which the Committee acted, that is all we require, and if there is anything in the wording of the Clause to which my hon. Friend or anyone who acts with him take objection, I am not particular about the actual words, but upon those broad principles I ask the House to say that we are proceeding upon a proper system and giving proper discretion to the Committee. Subject to that I think this Clause will carry out justice on the one hand, and full justice to any alien who can show a right to remin here It will, at the same time, do justice to our own people who are entitled to have removed from their midst any alien who does not come within those categories.
Perhaps the House will permit me to say a few words about this Clause. Upon this matter I stand in a very unfortunate position, because I have not been a member of either of the Committees which have been referred to, and I did not take any part in the proceedings upstairs. However, my name is upon the Bill, and I have been considering during the past few days the questions which arise upon these Amendments and the Clause as it stands. The hon. and gallant Member who moved to delete this Clause suggested that the Amendments which were now being moved in respect of this Clause were the consequence of some bargain which was struck in regard to the question of pilots. The hon. Baronet the Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) has denied that categorically.
Had not the Government originally an Amendment to delete this Clause, and was it not deleted from the Paper after that meeting?
Everybody knows that the Amendment was to delete the Clause on the Paper, but that is not the point. What the hon. and gallant Member said was that a bargain was struck, the terms of which were that if the House would agree to alter and repudiate the Amendment carried against the Government on Thursday week, that then these Amendments embodying the terms which the hon. and gallant Member read out—seventy years and twenty-five years, and so on, and he went through them categorically and said those were the terms if the House would consent to abandon its vote that this Clause should, stand on those particular points, and he read out specifically those terms as part of the bargain. I am quite sure the hon. and gallant Member will accept from me the statement that that is not so. What happened was that up to the very last moment this Clause has been considered, and the question of what Amendments and alterations should be made in it was a matter of perfectly free discussion by the Members who took part, and who were interested in the Clause. It is quite unfair and inaccurate to say there was any bargain of the character suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). I approach this Clause from a somewhat in dependent standpoint. The hon. and gallant Member always stirs my blood a bit when he talks about the honour of old England, the right of asylum, and so on. I sympathise with and I know what the feelings of some of his constituents of Newcastle-under-Lyme must be when they hear him at his best. When considering what is to be done in a Bill of a permanent nature like this, because, although in all its features it is not permanent it is for all practical purposes largely permanent in its Clauses, ought we not as a parallel, rather to take what we have done in the past on previous occasions when what I may call an alien peril has had to be dealt with? May I remind my hon. and gallant Friend—I am sure it is only reminding him, because he knows it quite well—that in the year 1793 stringent measures were taken against aliens, and throughout the Napoleonic Wars stringent regulations were maintained until the year 1816, when we got into a period which corresponds largely to that of the present day? The war was over, Waterloo had been won, and we were in the condition of looking forward to peace. In 1816 an Aliens Bill—a stringent Bill and a very strong Bill—was passed, refusing the right of aliens to come into this country and giving powers to deport them. That Bill was passed for two years. In 1818 it was reimposed, and in 1820 it was again passed for two years. In 1822 it was further renewed for another two years, and, if my memory serves me—I have not refreshed it —I think it was not until the year 1826 that conditions were supposed to be sufficiently normal to allow a much more easier system of dealing with aliens to be introduced. It was not until something more than ten years after the Battle of Waterloo had been fought that we were in a condition to offer this right of asylum or to offer that generosity which the hon. and gallant Member desires to see offered as soon as may be.
I venture to offer these considerations to the House, because I think it is quite wrong to taunt hon. Members with acting under some form of panic or with being pressed to do what is either ungenerous or unwise or imprudent at the present time. We have an historical parallel for being very cautious in the way in which we proceed to withdraw the restrictions upon the immigration of aliens and to abandon the right to deport aliens. I approach this Clause, therefore, with a consideration for the safety of the country. The hon. and gallant Member for Mid Antrim (Major O'Neill) spoke with all the emotion that belongs, and rightly belongs, to a hardworking member of Mr. Justice Younger's Committee. He saw behind him the files of cases he had examined and the work the Committee had done, and he was a little bit afraid all that work would be thrown away if this Clause is introduced. It is quite obvious there are two views. One is that you must have some power to deport. Most hon. Members will agree there must. be some such power. Equally, you want to give full opportunity to all those persons who may remain with safety and against whom it would be very hard to impose too severe a penalty. The hon. Member recalled cases of women's tears. We do not ask him to forget them. But although a woman's tears may be very impressive one must have regard to public safety, and after that the safety of the alien who is allowed to remain. I believe you would not secure safety for those allowed to remain unless you satisfied the public conscience that proper and adequate steps had been taken and were constantly being taken to ensure that no alien likely to be a danger to the country was allowed to remain. If you do that, then we may secure the right of asylum and proper safety to those who ought to be allowed still to remain among us. We have these two views—the right to deport and the right to allow proper persons to remain. The problem is how to do it. It is said, "Leave it entirely to the discretion of the Home Secretary." I think the hon. Member for Mid Antrim has forgotten one thing. This Clause pays a greater tribute to the work of the Committees that have sat than would a mere Clause giving wide discretion to the Home Secretary. What does it do? It embodies in the Bill the experience of the working of these Committees. If the hon. Member will give a little attention to the Clause he will see it stands in this way. The Advisory Committee will advise, and when they have advised and come to a conclusion on the ordinary naval, military or police reports, they are to say this, that if the alien falls into one of various categories set forth in the Clause, then primâ facie he has a right to stay. That, in fact, embodies in the Bill the experience and wisdom of the Committees.If that be the true interpretation, why is there nothing in this Clause, and particularly in its first Section, to prevent the 4,000 exempted by Mr. Justice Sankey's Committee and the 3,000 exempted by Mr. Justice Younger's Committee from having to make a new application and to state special grounds?
I am not able to answer my hon. and learned Friend's question with accuracy. I would like to say I came here not really fully acquainted with the actual numbers of persons who have been dealt with by those Committees, I am informed, I believe not inaccurately, that there is a certain number of persons who were undergoing the research of the later Committee whose labours were stopped by the Armistice. The hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with me that it is not right to say that all those persons have been already examined by two Committees.
All have been examined by one Committee and 7,000 by two Committees.
That enforces what I say, that not all of them have been examined by two Committees. I think we may agree upon that. If that is so, one has to consider now whether these categories are wisely included in the Bill. To some extent they give a charter to the alien, because, if he falls within the categories, primâ facie he has a right to remain. In other words, Parliament says to the Advisory Committee, "If you are satisfied that any particular alien falls within these categories, then you can report that he should be exempt." It gives, so to speak, the principle of standards according to which the Committee can work. Short of that you are not taking advantage of what has gone before. If you put the Clause in you will be giving what I do not think has ever yet been given to the alien, that is standards or categories under which, if he falls within them, he has a right of exemption. I would ask hon. Members who are thinking this over from the point of view of a sense of justice and right to say whether they would prefer a simple Clause giving power to deport or that the categories should stand as standards and guidance for the Committees to act upon, and giving the right to the alien to remain if he falls within the categories. It must not be forgotten also that it is necessary to deal with the question of cases which fall very near the line. My hon. and learned Friend put the case of an alien who, instead of being seventy, was sixty-nine and a half. If he will look at Sub-section (4) he will see it says,
The Home Secretary may refuse the application or, if satisfied that owing to exceptional circumstances deportation would involve serious hardship, grant a licence. It gives the Home Secretary a right to discretion, and the Advisory Committee can say, "Although the particular standard is not reached in a particular case, yet we advise that your discretionary power should be exercised." Equally he is not necessarily bound to act in all cases, because in Sub-section (3) the words are:"If the application for a licence is made on any ground other than one or more of those specified—
Hence the Secretary of State is given a discretion either way, but the alien has the advantage of having his case brought to certain standards and if he is within those standards, primâ facie his right of exemption remains. In a difficult case it is better to introduce some specific Clauses into the Bill and not to leave the matter merely at discretion for this reason, as well as those I have already assigned, that if you leave it entirely to the discretion of the Home Secretary it is quite possible that you may have some popular clamour again arising. If you put this specific statement in the Bill you do a lot to prevent any such clamour arising. If there is to be a satisfactory solution of this problem and if the cases which have been examined by one or other of these Committees in which aliens have been allowed to stay are allowed to stand and satisfaction has been reached in respect of their cases, then you may rightly ask that no clamour should arise and prevent their living in safety and without any sort of alien hunt arising. In this Clause we give the right to deport, the right to remain and the right of allowing the alien to remain in safety. Having given some consideration to this case I commend it to the House."The Secretary of State may."
The Solicitor-General opened his speech by intimating that he was in a very fortunate position, inasmuch as he was able to approach this question without previously having committed himself. I thought he was going to follow it up by saying he was in that very fortunate position because his very distinguished colleague alongside him was in such a very unfortunate position. He proceeded to say that so far as the Government is concerned the inclusion of this Clause is no part of the bargain made at the conference at Downing Street. I readily accept that. But if it is no part of the bargain what is the explanation, what is the excuse, what is the justification for the Government, in the name of the Home Secretary, putting a Motion to delete this Clause the last time the Bill was before the House? The Government were defeated on a matter entirely foreign to the Clause. A conference was called at Downing Street and the Press announced a satisfactory settlement of the dispute. Every Member who was interested in the subject assumed that the satisfactory settlement had some reference to the point in dispute. We were all entitled to imagine at least that in that conference the one subject matter for discussion was the matter which was the cause of the Government's defeat. We find not only the Home Secretary's name removed from supporting the deletion of this Clause, but the Government is to-night advocating what the Home Secretary was down to denounce only a week ago. Some further explanation of this situation is required than we have at present. The Solicitor-General twits my hon. Friend with taking serious notice of the sentiment of women's tears. In this case the tears are those of thousands of English women who are as much entitled to the protection and sympathy of their country as any other section of it. But, says the Solicitor-General, we must not be influenced by such sentimental reasons as that. We must ignore the women's tears and we must have regard to the safety of the country. I agree, but did not the Home Secretary have regard to the safety of the country? Did the Home Secretary, when his name was down to delete this Clause, only influenced by the tears of these women, have no regard for the safety of the country? No, Sir; it will not hold water, because those of us who know the Home Secretary and his work know perfectly well that lie had as much regard for the safety of the country a week ago as my right hon. Friend has for it at the present moment.
I approach this question as part of the peace settlement. I can conceive of nothing worse for the future of the world and the future of our own country than to keep open a wound which ought to be healed. When one takes that view we ought not to be accused of love for the Germans There is no one with love for his country who could have any love for the atrocities of which the Germans were guilty; but that should not blind us from approaching this question in a commonsense way. The Solicitor-General reminded the House that the first Alien Bill followed the Napoleonic Wars. He said that the House at that time, like the House now, had to have regard to the danger of the country. Please observe that the danger which the House of Commons had then to consider was danger from the very allies who shed their blood with us in the recent war. We cannot ignore the fact that if the wound is to be healed, if there is to be peace in the world, and if we are to avoid the horrors of another war, it will not be done by setting up barriers of this kind. It will not be done by continuing class hatred. There are many people doing it, but there are more causes doing it than people. Those who do not want to promote class hatred in this country are those of us who, when the time comes, can give evidence of their sincerity in this matter, and they are, at least, entitled to say that just as class hatred is bad so it is equally bad to breed hatred between one nation and another. Who does this Clause affect? I have knowledge of at least a dozen cases of our own members I will give one to illustrate the principle involved. An English girl in Gloucester married a German, thirty odd years ago. She went to Germany and lived in Germany five months, when her husband died. She was there stranded, with no knowledge of the German language, and with all her friends in Gloucestershire. She decided to come back immediately to her own people, but she experienced difficulty and was compelled to live in Germany until her baby was born Two months after the baby was born she returned to her parents in Gloucester. That baby comes to this country, knows nothing of Germany, grows up, joins the railway service, marries an English girl, and when the War breaks out he is interned. That is one of many cases. These are cases that I myself brought to the notice of the Government because I believe that it was impossible to associate any German connection in a case of that kind, but the mother had neglected to take out naturalisation papers, and that was what brought him within the confines of the law. Now there is another aspect of the case. We had a large number of members who had lived in this country a Dumber of years and had married English girls. All those come under this particular Clause, because if they are less than thirty-five years in the country they cannot come within the category. I submit that while during the War there were excuses to be made for panic and bitterness and suspicion, we at least are entitled to say that these questions should be discussed now in an entirely different atmosphere. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion gave abundant evidence of the hardship that may arise under this Clause. The very fact that a week ago the Government had the same conviction that we are urging now ought at least to persuade the House of Commons that if the Government's judgment was right a week ago it must be wrong this evening. For all those reasons I hope that the Government will at least realise that we are entitled to have a free and open vote and let the judgment of the House decide the policy of the Government.I can assure my right hon. Friend, in confirming what has been said by my right hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Pollock), that there was no bargaining with regard to this particular Clause. At the same time, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Thomas) will allow me to correct an impression that appears to be held, and to point out that the reasons why I put down an Amendment striking out this Clause were very far removed from the reasons which he gave in support of this Motion. I may inform those Members of the House who were not in the Committee what really was the dispute between us, because I opposed this Clause in the Committee as it stands in the Bill now. It was not a question of whether this or that man was to be departed, or of whether there was any necessity for deporting aliens. The whole dispute between us was as to the method to be adopted. I will quote what I said in the course of my speech in Committee:
We were all agreed as to the necessity, primâ facie, of getting rid of former enemy aliens. We were equally agreed that there had to be some discretion and some exceptions, and that somebody must decide which those exceptions would be. The whole question between us was as to the best method of carrying that out. When I am twitted by my right hon. Friend with opposing to-day what I had myself proposed a week ago, it is only fair that I should be treated to-day, that I should be judged, not on the standard of the Clause as it is in the Bill, which it is sought to delete, but on the Clause as it would be if the House accepts the Amendments which I propose to put forward. I have withdrawn my Amendment deleting the Clause, but I have put down a large number of Amendments which, in my view, very materially improve and broaden the Clause as it stands. It is one thing to set up a number of cast-iron categories and to say that no person who cannot come within those categories shall stay. It is a totally different thing, when you are considering the case of a large number of aliens, to say, "We draw up a list of categories and any alien who comes within those categories primâ facie will be allowed to stay." That is the position. It makes a great difference when you accept the position that the categories are for the purpose of assisting the Advisory Committee. They are for the purpose of enabling the Advisory Commitee to say, "Here is a man who has served, or has two sons who have served, voluntarily in the Army, or has lived thirty-five years in this country and has married an English woman," and so on. The moment you arrive at that, unless there is some other good ground, the Committee are entitled to give that person no more trouble. That relieves the work of the Committee; it relieves the very large number of aliens who have passed through the sieve, and makes it very much easier for everyone. And then, even if the alien is not within those categories under this Bill, there is very wide power given for any proper reason still to exempt the alien. If the House accepts the Amendment which I shall move, it will read, with regard to the Advisory Committee:"The whole question between us is one of method. There is no question of principle involved; it is a question of method and it is a question of whether the best method is to tie the hands of the Secretary of State or to leave him with a discretion."
that is the categories—"The Committee may also, whether the application for a licence is based on any ground other than one or more of those above specified—"
Hardship to an applicant includes his wife and family."if satisfied that owing to the special circumstances of the case deportation would involve serious hardship on the applicant or injury to any British interest, recommend his exemption as aforesaid."
Would you put in the words injury to his family "?
If anyone will move those words, we will consider them. We shall not reach that to-night. Let me point out a further reason why I preferred my own method. Had it been left to the Secretary of State, I could then at once have appointed an Advisory Committee. No Secretary of State can carry out all these duties without an Advisory Committee. That would have given the power which the Clause did not. If my Amendments are accepted, the Home Secretary is entitled to have his Advisory Committee. That Committee will consist of a person of judicial training and position. I have in my mind a very highly skilled and judicially-minded man who, I hope, will take the position—[An HON. MEMBER: "Sir Ernest Wild," and cries of "Order ‡"]—who has been a very good judge in Court for something like twenty years. He does not happen to be the particular gentleman in question, although he might very well have been with his qualifications. That Advisory Committee will enable the position to be considered. Primâ facie every former enemy alien goes. We may be right or we may be wrong, but we never had a dispute as to that principle that primâ facie they went. When you come to the individual case the Advisory Committee will have certain categories. And the wider they are the better I should personally agree. If A, B, C, or D, conies within one or other of those categories, and if there is no report from the police or military which satisfies the Committee that there is some other reason against the alien, and the onus of satisfying the Commmittee will be on the police and military, then the alien is automatically exempted. If any man could come and say, "I have gone through both Committees before," there would be no question as to his position, which would be, primâ facie, for exemption. If he does not come within the categories, and the wider they are the better, he is still entitled to come under the special circumstances of his own case and the Committee can inquire into those. If he is a German and there is no hardship to anyone in going back, there is no harm in sending him back. If there is any hardship, and I say advisedly that is intended to cover the wife and family, the British-born wife and the children, then the Committee are entitled to advise the Home Secretary that the man ought to be exempted. It seems to me that that gives really everything which would have been got under the proposal that it should be done by Order in Council. We have to-day Orders in Council, and in the ordinary course they will cease to exist, and something must take their place. This is to be a continuation of those powers, and we put this provision of the Bill in place of the Regulations of the Defence of the Realm Act and the. Aliens Regulation Order. As I have said, there is no ques- tion of principle involved. It is a question of method, and I think we can get the most merciful, just, and, at the same time, most secure provision with regard to aliens under this Clause. Hardship can be avoided, injustice can be avoided, and the security of the country can be made absolute. Under those circumstances, I do ask the House to say that it is wiser that the Clause should stand. I am twitted with having changed my mind, but has nobody else ever done so? [An HON. MEMBER: "Wise men do‡"] I have explained Why I have changed my mind. and that it is as to method. An hon. Gentleman laughs as though I had been intimidated into doing so. I would say ask any of my hon. Friends if there was any intimidation about it at all. I have shown that something is an improvement, and when I am satisfied of that I have no difficulty in accepting it, no matter what is said. I think it is a better method. Certainly in its amended state the Clause is infinitely better than the Clause as it stands. I think it is even better than continuing, as I had proposed to do, the system of Orders in Council. I know the feeling with regard to Orders in Council in this House, and no one holds them more strongly than my hon. and right hon. Friends opposite. I did propose, in spite of that feeling, to continue them, but here is an opportunity to get rid of the Orders in Council and to get an equally efficient method. I therefore ask the House to support the Clause.
Which you thought ought to be deleted.
No. What I had moved to delete was the Clause as it stands unamended. The Clause I am supporting is the Clause as amended, which is a very different thing.
The Home Secretary has left me in a complete fog as to why he has changed his mind. I have in my hand the Report of the Standing Committee on the Aliens Restriction Bill, and from that Report it is clear that he has this evening drawn an absolutely false distinction between the Clause which was originally proposed by the hon. Member for York and the Clause as it will be with his own Amendments, if they are carried. The Home Secretary this evening said he would have been prepared to look at this Clause in a very differ- ent sense if these categories at the time of the original proposal had not been brought forward in a cast-iron form, but he pointed out that these categories allowed him no discretion at all. As a matter of fact, the original proposal said that in addition to these categories,
Where is the new feature in these Amendments that are proposed this evening? He had that discretion offered him by the hon. Member for York in the Standing Committee and yet he stated that he proposed this Clause because the method of the hon. Member for York to carry out these exemptions was hopelessly the wrong one; and in the Standing Committee he used almost the same words as he did to-night, that it was only a question of method. I really think the House is entitled to some explanation, if it is not a bargain with the hon. Member for York, why the Home Seceretary goes back on all that he said in Committee when he was offered all in the Committee that he is asking for to-day. I think as a matter of fact the Government have been rushed in this matter. I think they imagine that certain Members who came to them last week have much more support behind them in their extreme views about the alien question than they really have, and, personally, I would much rather be led by the Government than by the stunt Press. If I had any doubt how to vote on this Clause I should have been quite convinced by the hon. Member for York. He began by telling us that the Germans had sunk unarmed ships and their women and children. What conceivable connection has that fact with the proposal to inflict a great injustice on thousands of British-born women and children of British women by German fathers?"if the application for a licence is made on any ground other than one or more of those above specified, the Secretary of State either shall refuse the application or may, if he is satisfied that owing to the exceptional circumstances of the case, deportation would involve serious hardship of a personal nature on the applicant, grant him a licence under this Section."
It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.
War Emergency Laws (Continuance) Money
Resolution reported:
"That it is expedient to make such provision as may become necessary by reason of the tem- porary continuance, by any Act of the present Session to continue temporarily certain emergency enactments and Regulations, and to make provision with respect to the expiration of emergency enactments and instruments made thereunder, of the Injuries in War (Compensation) Act, 1914, and the Injuries in War (Compensation) Act, 1914 (Session 2)."
Resolution agreed to.
County Court Judges (Retire Ment Pensions And Deputies) Money
Committee to consider of making further provision out of the Consolidated Fund and out of moneys provided by Parliament with respect to the Retirement and Pensions of County Court Judges and the employment of Deputy-Judges under any Act of the present Session relating thereto—( King's recommendation signified)To-morrow.—[ Mr. Montagu.]
The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Business Of The House
I desire to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury what will be the first Order to-morrow?
The Aliens Restriction Bill will be the first Order and the Agriculture and Fisheries (Councils, Etc.) Bill the second Order.
Is it proposed to proceed with the Third Reading of the Aliens Bill?
That will depend upon the time at which the Report stage concludes.
Army Huts And Buildings
I desire to draw the attention of the House to an answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions to a question of mine this afternoon. I asked if he would state why ex-Service men's organisations are refused the concessions granted to housing and educational authorities with respect to the purchase of surplus Army huts and buildings? The answer was as follows:
That means that the Government—it may be the Ministry of Munitions or the War Cabinet as the over-riding authority—have decided in the disposal of these Army huts that the needs of housing and of education shall be given a very substantial concession, of which I do not in the least complain, but that the needs and demands of the ex-Service men's organisations shall be absolutely ignored. I do not in the least complain that the Government should in disposing of their surplus goods help forward housing, which is a crying need, and education, which is also needed, but whose need is not quite so crying. But I do protest most strongly at the persistent refusal of the Government to make any concession to the organisation of these ex-Service men when they want to purchase a house, and above all, when they want to purchase a house that can be used for recreational purposes. This aspect of the matter does not affect the urban areas, because there is no place to put up the huts, and the men there have accommodation in the existing buildings or they can better arrange it. But it presses very hardly upon the smaller country districts and towns. Thousands of these huts are there rotting away, and the men, if allowed, would have taken them down themselves and put them up again. But the Ministry of Munitions says, "We will have the full market price." That attitude comes very strangely from a Government whose avowed policy has been to give preference to ex-Service men in Government appointments; while in the case of an organisation of ex-Service men, formed to make motor-cars, they also made a concession. Surely, then, they can make a similar concession in respect to the sale of these Army huts? I do not ask for the 33⅓ per cent, but for sympathy on the part of the Ministry of Munitions. I ask them to inquire from the Cabinet whether this concession cannot be given. Many of these men are in poor health. Many have not much of this world's goods. Many have not very pleasant homes. and if the Government can see its way to allow these huts to be sold at a cheaper price, and so give these ex-Service men the benefit, after their past work, I think such a concession would be very gratefully appreciated by the ex-Service men's organisation of the country."The Government have decided in connection with the purchase by local authorities of surplus Army huts that a discount of 33⅓ per cent should be allowed to them by the Disposal Board, and the balance should be credited by the Disposal Board to the Ministry of Health and the Board of Education respectively. The Disposal Board is not authorised to extend this concession."
The attitude of the Government towards this question is one which possibly has escaped the notice of the House. The Government are only too anxious, or they suggest as much, in the case of ex-Service men to give the same concessions as to others, but directly it becomes a question of an organisation of the ex-Serivce men, then they seem to be in doubt as to whether or not the interests of the country will be served There seems to be a more or less determined policy of the Government not to recognise the organisations of the ex-Service men. Anything that tends to strengthen the ex-Service men's organisation receives very little support from the Government. That is wrong. The only thing that could make the ex-Service men's organisation a menace to the Government would be the attitude of the Government towards these men. There is no step the Government could take more calculated to bring about a better organisation than to give the men a meeting-place. To give this concession would enable them to have their clubs and meeting houses. The hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Ashley) represents a very large body of ex-Service men in the remarks he has made, and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions to remember what has been said, in words that are hardly yet cold, on behalf of the men when serving and making the great sacrifice. When we were asking them to do that, nothing was too good for them, but when they get back into civilian clothes we hardly recognise them. If there is one thing these men would appreciate it would be the expressed policy, not by words but by actions, of the Government, which would show them that we were only too anxious to promote the same spirit of comradeship now which held them together in the trenches, and would show them that the same spirit existed now, by giving them facilities such as the Army huts would afford. That is not very much to ask. The huts are not of very much value now, and these ex-Service men ought to get a concession of this kind at a price which they are able to pay. They should have some slight concession in price as compared with the price charged to the gambler in war material who wants to retail the huts at a profit.
I realise the difficulty in which I am placed by having to appear unsympathetic towards a claim which appeals to me as much as to every other hon. Member of the House. I wish it were possible for me to say that I was prepared to do everything I have been told should be done, but I am in the position of a trustee endeavouring to realise for the country the highest possible value of a vast property, and I cannot on my own responsibility, nor am I prepared to advise the Government, to take the step which I am asked to take. Before I deal with the main point which my hon. and gallant Friend has put I would like to say there was one observation made by the last speaker to which I take exception, and that is that we appear to have adopted a policy of not recognising the ex-Service men's organisation. That really is not the fact.
What I suggested was that it was the action of the Government that had led the ex-Service men to believe, that that was the case.
That cannot be ex-Service men who have had any experience of the Ministry of Munitions, for 30 per cent. of our total male headquarters staff are ex-Service men, and I do not believe that any other Government Department can make such a claim as that. Not only so, but where it has become necessary to discharge ex-Service men in our employ I have insisted that no man should be discharged unless his claim has been heard by a Committee on which the ex-Service men are represented. That applies not only to our headquarters but to our depots throughout the country. My hon. Friend says we have made these concessions to local authorities and not to societies like the Comrades of the Great War and the Discharged and Demobilised Soldiers' and Sailors' Association. What arrangements have we made with the local authorities? A discount of 33⅓ percent. is allowed to local authorities for the purpose of housing, the treatment of tuberculosis, and education. Applications for purchase must be approved by the Ministry of Health or the Board of Education, or the Scottish Office in the case of Scotland, and after that approval these Departments will pay to the Disposal Board the sums represented by the agreement which has been made. Therefore, so far as the Disposal Board is concerned, it gets the full market value of the huts. I do not, however, defend this purely from the point of view of the Disposal Board. I recognise that the Government is a unit, and the policy of the Government is the policy which I am defending in this particular. Is there a real distinction of principle between municipal authorities and organisations such as those of which my hon. and gallant Friend has spoken? I think that there is a real distinction which justifies a difference of attitude on the part of the Government. The municipal authorities are publicly elected, and their expenditure is under public control., We are carrying out the old principle that where public money goes public control must go. I submit that that is a real distinction which is worthy of consideration by my hon. and gallant Friend. We can have no control over the expenditure of money by organisations like the Comrades of the Great War or by the organisation with which my hon. Friend. opposite (Mr. Hogge) is connected. That really is the distinction, and I think that the House will recognise that it is a distinction based upon principle. Now as to the application of the principle in practice. If we were to make the concession for which my right hon. Friend has pleaded, we could not stop at the Comrades of the Great War or any other organisation of ex-soldiers and sailors. The same demand would be pressed upon me from all quarters of the House on behalf of all kinds of organisations and for all kinds of Government stores. Hospitals, lifeboat institutions, ambulances, village halls, have all already made such demands, and have been pressed upon me by Members of the House and by letters received from different parts of the country. Believe me, you could not possibly stop once you de- parted from the principle of making this concession only to public authorities and organizations—
May I ask, if the Government can stop at giving a preference in the matter of employment to ex-Service men, why they cannot stop at giving a preference to them in the matter of selling these huts?
My hon. and gallant Friend is really pressing me, as I thought I should be pressed. The moment that a concession is made it is made the excuse for further pressing for an extension of that concession to other classes of the community. That really cannot be done with safety to the interests which it is my duty to protect. I do not think a day passes without I get letters from different parts of the country pressing upon me exactly the same considerations on behalf of institutions with which every humane man must sympathise. I have had very strong appeals made on behalf of the blind and on behalf of lifeboat institutions. Practically every philanthropic and religious organisation in the country will call upon Members of this House to press me to make some concessions which I am now being asked to make in the interest of this particular class or organisation. I would like the House to get back into the frame of mind in which it discussed the revised Estimates last week. The few of us who are here are in a sympathetic mood, and we see the strength of the claim which these men can make upon our sympathy and gratitude, but I want the House to get back into the position that it was in last week when we were facing a very serious financial situation, and all parts of the House felt that it was necessary in the interests of the State as a whole and not of any one class of men to do everything that we could to strengthen the financial position of the country. It is not a small amount involved here, and if you accept what I believe to be the fact you cannot stop with the Comrades of the War. It is not merely the amount involved here, as I say, for up to the present time between the Armistice and to-night, £100,000,000 have been realised by the disposal of surplus stores. I hope we shall realise many more millions by the 1st of April next year. It is impossible to make an exact estimate. It is a vast national property. The people poured out money without stint and it is my duty to see that as far as we possibly can we get back for the taxpayers every possible penny in return. It may be thought by some hon. Members that I take up a hard and unsympathetic attitude, but I hope the House will support the Disposal Board in its policy of securing for the taxpayers of this country the greatest possible return that can be secured in the liquidation of this great national property.
Cannot you draw a distinction between the demobilised soldiers and sailors and the Comrades of the War Association and the other institutions you have mentioned?
If I attempted to draw a distinction it would be swept away before many weeks are past. Once we make a distinction organisation after organisation will find spokesmen in this House, and be able to put pressure on the Government until the distinction is worth nothing.
These huts were erected for military purposes.
This is a great national property. We are endeavouring to realise it to the best advantage for the State, and it will be seriously diminished in value if I adopt this suggestion.
May I ask whether, in the event of any municipal authority making a direct appeal on behalf of the disabled soldiers' and sailors' organisations, he will give it consideration?
I am going to make a practical proposal to my hon. Friends. Let them organise the various representative associations for soldiers and sailors, get them to join together, and let them pool their demands. Let them send in a comprehensive statement of what huts they think they could make use of, either as clubs, hospitals, or for any other purpose. If they will do that, I can then consider it not as an isolated bargain, but as one undertaking, and I could give my hon. and gallant Friend very special terms, not the 2½ per cent. which has been suggested, but a very substantial discount.
Twenty per cent?
I will say ten to start with. I think I should be justified in doing that. We should be saved much cost for guarding, advertising, auctioneers, etc., and if my hon. Friends will get together and send in a comprehensive demand showing the requirements of all the organisations throughout the country it will not find any unsympathetic treatment. It can be dealt with as a business proposition, and I shall not then have all the other organisations in the country asking me for concessions. I hope I have met my hon. Friend.
I join heartily with my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Ashley) in the demand he has made. I think my hon. Friend the Deputy-Minister for Munitions is forgetting that the category in which he put philanthropic institutions the fact that the discharged and demobilised men are in a very different category from the lifeboat and similar institutions which were in existence before the War began. The discharged and demobilised men have returned from the War; they have organised themselves, whatever we think of the value of their organisations, we have to recognise the fact that they are organised. They require a certain centre for their activities. These huts are a convenient centre for those activities. If we are really true, to the promises we have made there is no object to which the Government can devote their charity—if I may use that term—better than to this object. It is preposterous that a discount of 33⅓ per cent. should be given to municipalities for tuberculosis buildings, and that it should not be given to men who have served with - the Army. My hon. Friend (Colonel Ashley) put the position quite clearly. He represents the Comrades of the Great War. I do not represent now, but I did, the National Federation. If my hon. Friend carries out the promise he has made, my hon. and gallant Friend opposite and myself will put up a joint proposal for the purchase of huts which both organisations are willing to purchase. I am quite certain that the Deputy-Minister will find that we shall not agree to 10 per cent.
Oh, no ‡
Thirty-three and one-third per cent, is given to municipalities. I urge my hon. Friend between now and when he meets both of us to consider whether 10 per cent is enough. We have heard a great deal in our Debates recently about the discontent which exists in the country. There is one source of discontent we should all allay if we put our minds to it—that is the discontent among the discharged men, who feel they have a grievance. Everyone here knows they have a grievance. If you can meet these men by way of providing a social centre for them in their separate portions of the country you are doing a great deal to remove the other grievances. These men want to meet together. They cannot meet together because they have not too much money. They could do it if provision were made for them cheaply. It is a better investment in social stability than many laws we pass in this House. I accept the offer which my hon. Friend has made. My hon. and gallant Friend opposite and I will meet my hon. Friend, and probably we shall come to some arrangement.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes after Eleven of the clock.