I beg to move, " That the Lords Reasons be now considered."

It will be convenient perhaps if I explain in general terms the Amendments which have been made and then deal with them more particularly as we come to each particular Amendment. The first is with regard to the Council. The Council, as originally proposed by this House, was to consist of 40 Members under an independent President, 20 appointed from the South and 20 from the North, and each House of Commons was to have the right to appoint 10 of its own Members and 10 from outside to the Council. The Lords, in the first instance, made Amendments which the Commons disagreed with the other day. They have now made a still further Amendment. They have accepted the principle that the President should be an independent person appointed by the Lord Lieutenant. I am going to move an Amendment to the Lords Amendment to make it quite clear that the Lord Lieutenant is acting in accordance with instructions from His Majesty, that is to say, acting on the advice of British Ministers. The Lords have accepted the principle that there should be an independent President appointed by the Lord Lieutenant. They have insisted, however, that the Senates shall have a hand in the appointment of the Council. They have insisted that the Senates shall each appoint seven Members of the Council, while the House of Commons of Southern and Northern Ireland respectively will each appoint 13 Members of the Council. I am going to ask the House to agree with the Lords in this Amendment as a reasonable compromise, not departing from the principle which actuated this House in the previous form which it adopted. The House of Commons in fact will appoint this Council because the Senate of the North of Ireland is appointed by the House of Commons by proportional representation, and so in the North of Ireland, at any rate, the Council will be elected indirectly by the House of Commons as to seven Members and directly by the House of Commons as to thirteen Members. Therefore, as regards the North, there is very little difference in it. As regards the South, of course the Senate is constituted in a different way, and I cannot say so absolutely that the House of Commons there will therefore indirectly effect the appointment of the seven senators. But, nevertheless, it is, in my judgment, a reasonable compromise, and I shall ask the House to accept it.

The next Amendment to which I will call attention relates to the administration of the Diseases of Animals' Act. The House of Lords have insisted that the administration of that Act shall be left to the Council. We considered the matter in this House, and we came to the conclusion that it was preferable really that the administration of the Department should -not be set up separately for the Diseases of Animals Act, but rather that it should be administered by the two Boards of Agriculture, one in the South and one in the North. But it is not a matter of principle. It is a matter rather of convenience. This course can be made convenient if the two Parliaments agree, because they can say, " We will entrust to the Council of Ireland the administration of the whole of the Board of Agriculture, and not split it up." So it does, as it were, lead the way towards a unification of the administration of the Act and of the Board of Agriculture. I suggest that the House should accept this Amendment, and should make it useful by allowing us to move a consequential Amendment which will put the administration of the Diseases of Animals Act in exactly the same position as regards money as the railways and fisheries. Otherwise, if we do not make that consequential Amendment, the Diseases of Animals Act, it is true, will be assigned as a function to the Council, but the Council will not be able to appoint any officers or really take any action in the matter.

Then comes really the most important Amendment, that is the Amendment to Clause 70. The original Bill provided that after the election, if in either Parliament 50 Members were not effectively returned to the Parliament, a nominated Government should be set up and the Lord Lieutenant, with the assistance of the nominated Government, should rule that part of Ireland which had failed to elect a Parliament properly. The Lords, in the first instance, put in a scheme in connection with the Members of Parliament elected for the various constituencies in Ireland to this Parliament, which proposed that Mr. Speaker should send letters to those Members to ascertain whether or not they accepted the constitution under the Bill, and that if in reply the Constitution was not accepted, then the nominated Government should immediately take place. This House disagreed with that method, and the Lords have now considered the reasons given for our disagreement and have abandoned their proposal for sending letters to Members of Parliament. They have accepted, in broad principle, our Clause, but have made two material alterations which I must ask the House to consider. The effect of the Lords Amendment is that under the Clause as it stands the Order suspending Parliamentary Government may suspend it only for a limited period as specified in the Order—that was our original proposal—and after that period had elapsed a new Proclamation could be issued and Parliamentary Government resumed if the elections fructify. The Lords object to this automatic resumption of Parliamentary government, and they propose that the suspensory Order is not to be limited in point of time, but that the suspension of Parliamentary government consequent thereon is to be perpetual, unless within two years after the date of the suspensory Order both Houses of the United Kingdom Parliament pass Resolutions declaring that it is expedient that the Parliament should again be summoned for that part of Ireland which is in default.

I ask the House not to agree with that, and I am going to try to meet the Lords. Their first object is that this procedure of Parliamentary government and nominated government alternately shall not go on for a long period of years, creating, as they think, unrest and disturbance in the area which is being subjected to these changes of government, and they have proposed two years. I hope that within two years, long before two years, a constitutional government, duly elected, will be set up in Southern Ireland; but we must have a larger margin of time than two years. I am, therefore, going to ask the House to strike out the two years and to insert three years from June next, which practically gives us three and a half years. Then I am going to ask the House to turn the Resolutions round the other way. As it stands now in the Lords Amendment, no second offer of Parliamentary government could be made unless a Resolution of both Houses had been passed that it was expedient to make the offer. I ask the House to put it the other way, and that the Executive of the time shall be allowed to make the offer unless the two Houses resolve that it is inexpedient to make the offer. That makes a considerable difference. The two Houses might have a difference of opinion whether it was expedient or inexpedient. In the Lords' form it would require both Houses to agree for the-second offer to be made. In the form that I now propose that the Commons: should accept, it would require both Houses to agree that it was inexpedient. If either House refuses to say that the offer ought not to be made, then the offer will be made. There are one or two small consequential Amendments to-be dealt with, but the Amendments I have dealt with are the main Amendments which now come before the House.

Question, "That the Lords Reasons be-now considered," put, and agreed to.

Lords Reasons considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 2.—(Constitution of Council of Ireland.)

(1) With a view to the eventual establishment of a Parliament for the whole of Ireland, and to bringing about harmonious, action between the Parliaments and Governments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland, and to the promotion of mutual, intercourse and uniformity in relation to matters affecting the whole of Ireland, and to providing for the administration of services which the two Parliaments mutually agree should be administered uniformly throughout the whole of Ireland, or which by virtue of this Act are to be so administered, there shall be constituted as soon as may be after the appointed day a Council to be called the Council of Ireland.

(2) Subject as hereinafter provided, the Council of Ireland shall consist of a person appointed by His Majesty, who shall be President, twenty persons, of whom not less than ten shall be Members of the House of Commons of Southern Ireland chosen by that House in such manner as that House-may determine, and twenty persons, of whom not less than ten shall be Member of the House of Commons of Northern Ireland chosen by that House in such manner as that House may determine, and the appointment of Members of the Council of Ireland shall be the first business of the House of Commons of Southern Ireland and of Northern Ireland.

A Member of the Council appointed by the House of Commons of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, if on his appointment he was a Member of either House of Commons, shall, on ceasing to be a Member of that House, cease to be a Member of the Council:

Provided that on Dissolution of the Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland the persons who are Members of the Council appointed by the House of Commons of that Parliament shall continue to hold office as Members of the Council until the date of the first meeting of the new Parliament, and shall then retire unless reappointed.

The President of the Council shall preside at each meeting of the Council at which he is present and shall be entitled to vote in case of an equality of votes, but not otherwise.

The first meeting of the Council shall be held at such time and place as may be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant.

The Council may act notwithstanding a vacancy in their number, and the quorum of the Council shall be fifteen; subject as aforesaid the Council may regulate their own procedure including the delegation of powers to Committees.

(3) The constitution of the Council of Ireland may from time to time be varied by identical Acts passed by the Parliament of Southern Ireland and the Parliament of Northern Ireland, and the Acts may provide for all or any of the Members of the Council of Ireland being elected by Parliamentary electors, and determine the constituencies by which the several effective Members are to be returned and the number of the Members to be returned by the several constituencies and the method of election.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (1), leave out from the word "administered" ["or which, by virtue of this Act are to be so administered"] to the end of the Clause, and insert

"there shall be constituted, as soon as may be after the appointed day, a Council to be called the Council of Ireland,

(2) Subject as hereinafter provided, the Council of Ireland shall consist of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland who shall be President and forty other persons, of whom seven shall be Members of the Senate of Southern Ireland, thirteen shall be Members of the House of Commons of Southern Ireland, seven shall be Members of the Senate of Northern Ireland, and thirteen shall be Members of the House of Commons of Northern Ireland.

The Members of the Council of Ireland shall be elected in each case by the Members of that House of the Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland of which they are Members, and at any contested election for two or more Members of the Council of Ireland the election shall be according to the principle of proportional representation, each elector having one transferable vote, as defined by the Representation of the People Act, 1918, and His Majesty in Council shall have the same power of making regulations in respect thereto as he has under Sub-section (3) of Section twenty of that Act, and that Sub-section shall apply accordingly.

The election of Members of the Council of Ireland shall be the first business of the Senates and Houses of Commons of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland.

A Member of the Council shall, on ceasing to be a Member of that House of the Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland by which he was elected a Member of the Council, cease to be a Member of the Council:

Provided that on the Dissolution of the Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland the persons who are Members of the Council elected by either House of that Parliament shall continue to hold office as Members of the Council until the date of the first meeting of the new Parliament and shall then retire unless re-elected.

The President of the Council shall preside at each meeting of the Council at which he is present, and shall be entitled to vote in case of an equality of votes, but not otherwise.

The first meeting of the Council shall be held at such time and place as may be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant.

The Council may act notwithstanding a vacancy in their number, and the quorum of the Council shall be fifteen; subject as aforesaid the Council may regulate their own procedure, including the delegation of powers to Committees.

(3) The constitution of the Council of Ireland may from time to time be varied by identical Acts passed by the Parliament of Southern Ireland and the Parliament of Northern Ireland, and the Acts may provide for all or any of the Members of the Council of Ireland being elected by Parliamentary electors, and determine the constituencies by which the several elective Members are to be returned and the number of the Members to be returned by the several constituencies and the method of election."

Lords Message:

The Lords do not insist upon their Amendment with which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof:

" there shall be constituted, as soon as may be after the appointed day, a Council to be called the Council of Ireland.

(2) Subject as hereinafter provided, the Council of Ireland shall consist of a person nominated by the Lord Lieutenant who shall be President and forty other persons, of whom seven shall be Members of the Senate of Southern Ireland, thirteen shall be Members of the House of Commons of Southern Ireland, seven shall be Members of the Senate of Northern Ireland, and thirteen shall be Members of the House of Commons of Northern Ireland.

The Members of the Council of Ireland shall be elected in each case by the Members of that House of the Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland of which they are Members.

The election of Members of the Council of Ireland shall be the first business of the Senates and Houses of Commons of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland.

A Member of the Council shall, on ceasing to be a Member of that House of the Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland by which he was elected a Member of the Council, cease to be a Member of the Council:

Provided that on the Dissolution of the Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland the persons who are Members of the Council elected by either House of that Parliament shall continue to hold office as Members of the Council until the date of the first meeting of the new Parliament and shall then retire unless re-elected.

The President of the Council shall preside at each meeting of the Council at which he is present and shall be entitled to vote in case of an equality of votes, but not otherwise.

The first meeting of the Council shall be held at such time and place as may be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant.

The Council may act notwithstanding a vacancy in their number, and the quorum of the Council shall be fifteen; subject as aforesaid the Council may regulate their own procedure, including the delegation of powers to committees.

(3) The constitution of the Council of Ireland may from time to time be varied by identical Acts passed by the Parliament of Southern Ireland and the Parliament of Northern Ireland, and the Acts may provide for all or any of the Members of the Council of Ireland being elected by parliamentary electors, and determine the constituencies by which the several elective Members are to be returned and the number of the Members to be returned by the several constituencies and the method of election.")

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Lords Amendment, in Sub-section (2), after the word " Lieutenant " ["the Lord Lieutenant who shall"], to insert the words " acting in accordance with instructions from His Majesty."

That is in order to provide that in appointing the President of the Council, who is to be a neutral, independent person, the Lord Lieutenant shall act on the advice of His Majesty's British Ministers.

Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, " That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, as amended."— [Sir L. Worthington-Evans.]

May I point out that this change in the constitution of the Council of Ireland is very vital? As the Council was originally proposed, 20 Members were to be appointed by the Northern and 20 by the Southern House of Commons. The result would have been a membership of 20 Unionists and 20 Nationalists I understood that that was to be done in order that an equally balanced body of that sort might give assurance to both sides, and that gradually the Council might attain the position of a Parliament for Ireland, in which neither side would have any advantage over the other. I am not now maintaining that that was the right line, but the words that we now have before us are entirely different. In the North both the Senate and the House of Commons will have Unionist majorities. Therefore it is probable that they will appoint between them 20 Unionists to the Council. In the South, although the House of Commons will be Nationalist the Senate will be, so far as one can judge, a Unionist body. The 20 returned from the South will, presumably, be 13 Nationalists and 7 Unionists, with the result that the new Council, instead of consisting of 20 Nationalists and 20 Unionists is much more likely to consist of 27 Unionists and 13 Nationalists. That entirely changes the whole basis upon which the Council was originally proposed to us. I am not going to contest the point, especially at this late period of the Session, but it it only right that it should be pointed out to the House of Commons before we effect this change how very great the change is.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 11.—(Powers of Irish Council.)

(2) With a view to the uniform administration throughout Ireland of public services in connection with railways and fisheries, any powers (not being powers relating to reserved matters) exerciseable by any Department of the Government of the United Kingdom at the appointed day with respect to railways and fisheries in Ireland and the power of making laws with respect to railways and fisheries shall as from the appointed day become powers of the Council of Ireland, and not of the Governments and Parliaments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland.

(5) For the purposes of their powers and duties with respect to Private Bill legislation, railways and fisheries, the Council shall have power to appoint such officers a6, with the consent of the Joint Exchequer Board, they may think necessary, and the salaries and remuneration of those officers, and any other expenses of the Council with respect to such matters as aforesaid, to such amount as the Joint Exchequer Board may approve shall, so far as not met by fees paid to or other receipts of the Council, be apportioned between Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland in such manner as the Joint Exchequer Board may determine, and the amounts so apportioned shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of Southern Ireland and the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland, respectively, and for the purposes of their other powers and duties. The Council shall have power to appoint such secretaries and officers as, subject to the consent of the Treasury of Southern Ireland and the Treasury of Northern Ireland, they may think fit, and the salary and remuneration of those officers and any other expenses of the Council to such amount as the said Treasuries may approve shall, so far as not met as aforesaid, be paid out of moneys provided by the Parliaments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland in such proportions as the said Treasuries may mutually agree, or in default of agreement may be determined by the Joint Exchequer Board hereinafter constituted.

Lords Amendments:

In Sub-section (2), after the word "fisheries," ["in connection with railways and fisheries"], insert "and the administration of the Diseases of Animals Acts."

After the word "fisheries" ["railways and fisheries in Ireland"], insert "and the contagious diseases of animals."

After the word "fisheries" ["railways and fisheries shall as from the appointed day"] insert "and the contagious diseases of animals."

Lords Message:

The Lords insist upon their Amendments with which the Commons have disagreed for the following reason:

" Because they consider that the Council of Ireland as now constituted will be in a position to administer the law relating to diseases of animals more efficiently than the Irish Parliaments and Governments."

I beg to move " That this House doth not insist on its disagreement to the Lords Amendments.'"

I shall have a consequential Amendment to propose.

Question put, and agreed to.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (5), after the word "fisheries" [" railways and fisheries "], to insert the words "and diseases of animals."

This is an order to give to the Council the same financial powers with regard to the diseases of animals as they have with regard to railways and fisheries.

I was one of the very few Members present when this original alteration was considered and rejected by the Government. I listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's reasons for disagreeing with this concession being made. If we are going to have fisheries and diseases of animals administered by the Council why do we not go a small step further and put the whole of agriculture under the Council? We are working forward towards unity by means of the Lords Amendments in reference to the Council, but we are going forward very short steps, and I wish that they were a little longer.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 70.—{Provisions applicable in case of either House of Commons not being properly constituted.)

(1) If the Lord Lieutenant certifies that the number of Members of the House of Commons of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland validly returned at the first election of Members of the Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland is less than half the total number of Members of that House, or that the number of Members of the House of Commons of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland who have taken the oath as such Members within fourteen days from the date on which the Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland is first summoned to meet is less than one-half of the total number of Members of that House, His Majesty in Council may, by Order, provide—

(a) for the dissolution of the Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, as the case may be, and for postponing the issue of a Proclamation for summoning a new Parliament for such time as may be specified in the Order;

(b) for the exercise in the meantime of the powers of the Government of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, as the case may be, by the Lord Lieutenant, with the assistance of a committee consisting of such persons (who shall be Members

of the Privy Council of Ireland) as His Majesty may appoint for the purpose, and of the powers of the Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, as the case may be, by a legislative assembly consisting of the members of the said committee, together with such other persons as His Majesty may appoint for the purpose;

and the Order may make such modifications in this Act in its application to the part of Ireland affected as may appear to His Majesty to be necessary for giving effect to the Order, and may contain such other consequential, incidental, and supplemental provisions as may appear necessary for the purposes of the Order, and any such Order shall have effect as if enacted in this Act, but may be varied by any subsequent Order in Council.

(2) The person holding office in the House of Commons of Southern Ireland and of Northern Ireland corresponding to the office of Speaker of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom shall, at the expiration of the said period of fourteen days from the date on which the Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, as the case may be, is first summoned to meet, send to the Lord Lieutenant a list containing the names of the Members of the House who have taken the oath as such Members, and for the purposes of this Section a Member shall be deemed not to have taken that oath unless his name is included in a list so sent.

(3) Where at the expiration of the period mentioned in any such Order in Council a Proclamation is issued summoning a new Parliament to meet this Section shall apply in like manner as it applies in the case of the first election and first summoning of Parliament.

CLAUSE 71.—{Commencement of Act and appointed day.)

(1) This Act shall, except as expressly provided, come into operation on the appointed day, and the appointed day for the purposes of this Act shall be the first Tuesday in the eighth month after the month in which this Act is passed, or such other day not more than seven months earlier or later, as may be fixed by Order of His Majesty in Council either generally or with reference to any particular provision of this Act, and different days may be appointed for different purposes and different provisions of this Act, but the Parliaments of Southern and Northern Ireland shall be summoned to meet not later than four months after the said Tuesday, and the appointed day for holding elections for the House of Commons of Southern and Northern Ireland shall be fixed accordingly:

Lords Amendment:

Leave out Clause 70.

Lords message:

The Lords do not insist on their Amendment to leave out Clause 70 with which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following Amendments to Clause 70 and a consequential Amendment to Clause 71 in lieu thereof:

In Sub-section (1, a ) leave out the words " and for postponing the issue of a proclamation for summoning a new Parliament for such time as may be specified in the Order."

In Sub-section (1, b ) leave out the words " in the meantime."

Leave out Sub-section (3) and insert a new Sub-section:

"(3) At any time within two years after the date of the Order in Council providing for the exercise of the powers of the Government and Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, as the case may be, in manner provided by Sub-section (1) of this Section His Majesty may, upon a Resolution declaring that it is expedient so to do passed by both Houses of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, issue a Proclamation for summoning a Parliament as constituted by this Act to meet for the part of Ireland affected by such Order in Council.

Provided that if the Lord Lieutenant certifies that the number of Members of the House of Commons of such Parliament validly returned at such election is less than half the total number of Members of that House or that the number of Members of the House of Commons of such Parliament who have taken the oath as such Members within fourteen days from the date on which such Parliament is summoned to meet is less than one half of the total number of Members of that House, His Majesty in Council may by Order provide for the dissolution of such Parliament.

The provisions of Sub-section (2) of this Section shall apply as in the case of the first Parliament summoned to meet for such part of Ireland, and the provisions of Sub-section (1) of this Section in regard to the exercise of the powers of the Government and Parliament of the part of Ireland affected shall continue to have effect until the Lord Lieutenant certifies in manner provided by this Sub-section, and thereafter if the Lord Lieutenant so certifies.

In Clause 71, Sub-section (1), leave out the words "House of Commons" and insert "Parliaments."

Lords Amendments, in Clause 70, Sub-sections (1, a ) and (1, b ), agreed to.

I beg to move in an Amendment to the Lords Amendment in Clause 70, new Sub-section (3), to leave out the words

"two years after the date of the Order in Council providing for the exercise of the powers of the Government and Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, as the case may be, in manner provided by Sub-section (1) of this Section, His Majesty may upon"

and to insert instead thereof the words

"three years from the first day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, His Majesty may by Order in Council unless."

There is another small Amendment after that, but perhaps that is as much as the House can take in for the present.

The Government propose to turn the resolution of both Houses in favour of renewed elections in the South of Ireland the other way round. Their Amendment is a complete denial of the course which has been put forward in the House of Lords, because by turning the proposal the other way round and make it a veto it amounts to absolutely no power at all. Originally it was proposed that either House was to have the power to hang up a second attempt at Parliamentary Government in the South of Ireland after a reasonable time had elapsed. I do not argue the point as to time. Under the Lords Amendment, after a reasonable time they were to come to the British Parliament and say, " We have been wrong in our estimate, but we want to have another attempt"; but now they are to have carte blanche for ever at any time to bring the South of Ireland Parliament into being, it may be not two years, but ten or twenty years afterwards, without any further sanction by Parliament. This new concession of the Government is valueless because it has to be passed by both Houses. Both Houses could in any case hang up the operation of the South of Ireland Proclamation by passing a single Clause Act. If the Government do not want to hang it up they will not give facilities for a Resolution of that kind being discussed in the House of Commons, and if the veto is only to be exerciseable by both Houses together it is certain that the House of Lords would be completely helpless.

We have not had great encouragement this Session to leave this matter of legislation for the South of Ireland entirely in the hands of the Government in the House of Commons. We had the promise of the Prime Minister quite early in the proceedings on this Bill— which I am sure he made in all good faith—that he was going to consult representatives of the South of Ireland. He never did consult representatives of moderate opinion in the South, and I do not think that he had any real communication with representatives of the-extremists either. It is very likely that pressure of business prevented him. Anyhow, it is only in the House of Lords; that the feeling of moderate people in the South of Ireland has been put forward. If the Government have taken up that line on the present occasion, is there not a great danger that, if this policy fails in three years' time, they will again take up the same line and will not give reasonable Parliamentary facilities for consideration of the case that may be urged by responsible opinions in the South against a further election, and that that will prolong unrest and stir up further difficulties? This concession is no concession whatever. The Government have been met to a considerable extent by the House of Lords on this particular controversy. In another place, originally, a large section of opinion wished to prevent one Parliament coming; into being unless both Parliaments came into being. They gave way about that, and that was a very large concession of principle on the part of a large number of Noble Lords. They have given way on a second point. Originally they proposed cumbersome machinery designed to prevent the Southern House of Commons coming together and refusing to take the Oath and declaring an independent Republic, thereby putting the Government over here under the necessity of having to break up that Parliament by force. They got out of that by a proposal to consult the Irish Parliaments beforehand as to whether or not they would consent to work this new constitution. I will not argue that question. I mention it only to show that the House of Lords have made a very big concession in that direction as well. It will be a great mistake to press this matter to extremes and to lose the Bill for a matter in which the Government, without any real loss to themselves and their object, could quite easily meet the other House.

The Amendment which has been sent back to us has had various unimportant husks stripped off, but the kernel remains, and the object of it is to prevent the Government going on indefinitely with what for convenience has been called Crown Colony government in Ireland. I had better put the matter plainly and say how it appears in Ireland. It it said, and will be said more and more when it comes into operation, that this Bill is a dodge for keeping Ireland under Crown Colony government for an indefinite period. It will be said that for the very doubtful advantage of indulging Ulster in a Parliament, which only a few weeks ago she was emphatic in saying she did not want, Crown Colony government is to be imposed on the South of Ireland. There have been many arguments in favour of that put forward by the Government, but they have not been accepted in Ireland, and the general feeling which we have to combat in some way is that the motive behind the action of the Government is the convenience of the British Parliament, that it is intended merely to get rid of this block of hostile Irish votes which may come over here and make hay with Government proposals. As soon as you get your appointed day, or at least after the end of the present Parliament, Irish representation, even for the Crown Colony area, comes down to that proposed in the Bill.

Crown Colony government means that there is to be no democratic representation in Ireland and only half the present democratic representation to which Ireland has long been entitled here. The policy of the Government apparently is to dragoon the country by the rigour of Crown Colony-cum-military government into accepting an arrangement which is hateful to the people concerned. Part of the method of dragooning the country is to have periodical electoral paroxysms which will lead to no peace, but will stir up much strife and will do nothing towards setting up representative government in the South of Ireland. The question, therefore, is whether you are to have Crown Colony government limited or unlimited. If the Government were content to put some limit on their power of Crown Colony government the exact machinery is a detail which could easily be devised. A time limit is very important if the South of Ireland permanently refuses the present offer. Our contention has been that the Government have not gone far enough. We believe that if we have something of this kind in the Bill, if the Government cannot get the South of Ire- land to function within two or three years, they will have to come forward over here with further and more generous proposals. What would the Government lose by acceptance? The Chief Secretary has said in effect that the murder gang is under control or shortly will be under control. Surely in that case three years is ample for his experiment to succeed; but if the Government are wrong in their belief that the South of Ireland will ever accept this proposal as a settlement, it seems entirely reasonable that they should come back in two or three years' time and justify themselves or make some new proposal. The action which has taken place in another place shows that they need have no fear from that quarter if they bring forward a more generous method of settling the question, and if the Government really feels confident that their plan is likely to succeed, if all this talk about attacking the murder gang and bringing about peace by present methods is anything but camouflage, surely they would lose nothing by agreeing to come back in reasonable time to the British Parliament, in case their present proposals fail.

Before I come to the substance of my hon. and gallant Friend's proposal I would like to refer to his statements as to what he considers our failure to redeem a promise we gave to consult Southern opinion. As he knows very well, the Chairman of the Cabinet Committee which framed the Bill was the First Lord of the Admiralty. There is no one who is more in touch with Southern Irish opinion than my right hon. Friend. He knows it thoroughly. I think I may say that he is trusted, and rightly so, by Southern Unionists. He has always been a very resolute champion of their cause, and when he was engaged in the preparation of this Bill, I know that he was in constant touch with Southern opinion, not merely with the more prominent leaders, but with others. He was in touch with them by correspondence and by personal contact.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the leaders of Southern opinion in another place were never consulted in any way as to the safeguards which the right hon. Gentleman himself had promised?

My information differs greatly from that. I understood that the First Lord took every possible step to ascertain what their opinions were. I am certain that he is the last person who would ignore Southern opinion and who would not take every step to ascertain what opinion was on all these subjects. So far as I am concerned, I wished it had been possible to meet the leaders, not only of Southern, but of other opinion in Ireland more frequently than I have been able to do. That has been owing to the very heavy pressure of work, and I regret it very much. Two or three times since these discussions came up in the Lords -we have done our best to see whether something could not be done to reconcile" their views with the proposals of the Government, and I think very great progress has been made in that direction. I have also received deputations representing other sections of moderate opinion in the South, and have done my very best as well to acquaint myself with the views of the Ulster representatives. Unfortunately, we were not able to get the opinions of Nationalist Ireland as a whole, but that was not the fault of the Government. I have repeatedly invited them to our Councils, and they have declined to join.

I come to the merits of the proposal itself. The proposal of the Lords, as it came down to us, really meant that within two years—or at the end of two years— one branch of the Legislature could abolish the Act of Parliament. The Act of 1914 is abrogated by this Bill. If their proposal in the form in which it came down from the Lords is carried, then if at the end of two years or within two years—

There ought not to be any doubt about it. As I understand the Amendment of the Lords, unless Parliament functions within two years the whole Bill is dead, and, in the two years, they have power to stop any further negotiations.

My tight hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. That was my impression, but it means that, supposing we put this Bill into operation and fail the first time, afterwards it is within the power of one branch of the Legislature practically to repeal this Bill, and there will be no other Act as a substitute for it. By that time the Act of 1914 will have disappeared, and that means basing the whole chances of this experiment being brought into operation upon the possibility of our being able to succeed, at the first go off, in inducing the South of Ireland to try the experiment. If they decline, the House of Lords or the House of Commons may practically abolish Home Rule. My hon. Friend says that what we want to do is to limit the period of Crown Colony government. It is quite the reverse, and the effect of the Lords Amendment would be that Crown Colony government might go on for ever. No doubt Parliament can do anything it likes, but still Crown Colony government might go on for ever. It would involve the bringing in of another Home Rule Bill, with all the attendant difficulties. While Crown Colony government might go on for ever in the South, Home Rule would be working in the North of Ireland. There is a prospect of it working in the North of Ireland and Crown Colony government going on indefinitely in the South, unless an arrangement can be made to bring in another Home Rule Bill with the consent of both Houses. That is not what we want.

I am not complaining of the action of the House of Lords. I think they have shown every desire to meet the House of Commons and to come to an agreement. Therefore, if we do not agree to it in this form, it is not because we complain of the action of the House of Lords, but because, as I cannot help thinking, they take a different view of our Amendment from that taken by my hon. Friend. We desire to meet them because we feel they are desirous of getting this Bill through. The proposal we make is this. We say, extend the period to 3½ years. What does that mean? It means that it will give the new Parliament to the end of 3½ years. There must be a new Parliament before the 1st June, 1924, and that gives the new Parliament an opportunity of doing what it likes. That is why we fix this date as an alternative to the date fixed by the Lords. They may like Crown Colony government very well, but then there is no appeal to the electorate, and we say the electors should be able to judge for themselves, and until then it ought not to be in the power of one branch of the Legislature to abolish an Act of Parliament carried after a good deal of deliberation in this House. If both branches agree that the experiment should not be brought into operation, then that is another matter. What the Lords Amendment means is, that owing to the division of Ireland it is inexpedient you should make another attempt to put the Act into operation. That should be for Parliament as a whole to decide, and one branch of the Legislature, whether it be the House of Lords or the House of Commons, should undertake the responsibility at the end of 3½ years. I think no reasonable man would desire to press the point to the extent of destroying this great experiment. My hon. Friend was not so optimistic about the prospect in Ireland as is my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary.

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me. I express no opinion whether the Chief Secretary is right. My point is, that if he is right, he is taking no risk in limiting the power to bring the Parliament into operation within three years. He may be able to do it in three months.

There are certain risks. We do not know what may occur within the next three, four or five months. What we are doing is to give Ireland an opportunity of electing its own Parliament, not because we are absolutely confident that that opportunity will be taken, but because it is a good thing to give the opportunity the first time. It is desirable it should be brought into operation in the North, and there must be an opportunity of bringing it into operation in the South. We may not feel absolutely confident that on the first time it will be brought into operation in the South, but it is a good thing to try it in view of the effect it may have on the population. It will begin, at any rate, to re-establish constitutional methods, and even if you only get 25 or 30 per cent, in the South to commit themselves to constitutional methods, it is an advance upon the present condition of things. It is a beginning. I do trust that the hands of the Executive will not be tied in this respect, for if we are only giving Ireland one chance, we should have to put it off for a long time, I am quite certain, if that chance failed, and that is not a desirable thing to do. It may be a very good thing to make a beginning so as to rally the forces of order in the counties where they are be ginning to be predominant. If you get a good part of Ireland rallying, you break up the forces of disorder We might not get our 50 per cent.; we might get 49 per cent., and if we do, then one branch of the Legislature can undo the whole of our work and abolish an Act of Parliament by a Resolution. I ask anybody, is that a reasonable thing to do? It is very important that the Executive, which, I think, is doing its best to restore order in Ireland—and I think with considerable success, if I may say so; the work done under the direction of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has achieved very remarkable results℄

Very remarkable.

I do not want a discussion about the methods at the moment, as I do not think it is desirable that we should complicate this question, but there is no doubt at all that there is a greater desire once more to try the experiment of constitutionalism in Ireland. There is no doubt at all about that. I am hopeful of what will happen on Tuesday next at the Trades Union Congress, when the unconstitutional methods of running the railways will be abandoned finally by the operatives. That is a beginning of the return to constitutionalism. Let the Executive have a free hand in the matter of giving the experiment a beginning in the South of Ireland, if it can, but do not penalise it by saying: "This is your last chance," and that the House of Lords- or the House of Commons might by a chance majority destroy the whole of an Act of Parliament. I should like to say—and I hope it will not be regarded as anything in the nature of a criticism of the House of Lords—that in the House of Lords majorities are more apt to depend upon conditions, personal conditions, conditions under which a discussion takes place, the opportunities for attendance, and so on; they are much more dependent on extraneous matters of that kind in the House of Lords than in the House of Commons. There is not the same direct responsibility to the constituencies, and there you might have a chance majority. There is not the same organisation, and I think the Lords will admit this.

No coupon.

My hon. Friends opposite have also got their party responsibilities and their party loyalties, and there is a certain amount of organisation with them; in fact, I think it is all organisation. However, I did not mean to be controversial. Therefore, there is a greater chance of an accident, we will say, happening which is not a deliberate decision of the House of Lords as a whole, and to allow a great experiment of this kind to depend upon a chance like that, when the Executive is perfectly convinced, and the House of Commons is convinced also, because that is what it comes to, is surely not reasonable. I do not think we are asking anything that is unfair, and I hope the House of Commons will send this back in the form we are suggesting, which is a real attempt to meet the House of Lords without establishing the possibility of an Act of Parliament being abolished by the act of one branch of the Legislature only.

1.0 P.M.

I do not think my right hon. Friend has correctly represented either the effect of the Lords Amendment or the effect of the Government's proposal. Everybody knows that all that the Government requirement amounts to is that both Houses should come to a Resolution that it is inexpedient to repeat the experiment of attempting, against the will of the people of the South of Ireland, to set up a Parliament after the model of this Bill in the South of Ireland. If all you concede is that both Houses are to agree that it is expedient, that is no restraint on the Government at all. They have absolute control of the time of this House, and they need never give time for a Resolution even to be discussed.

I am very glad my Noble Friend has raised this point, because I meant to say that it is not conceivable that, if there were a real demand in the House of Commons for the discussion, if there were a considerable body of opinion here wanting a discussion upon the Resolution of the Lords, any Government should refuse it. I do not know of any case where there has been a refusal to enable the House of Commons to discuss a subject where there was a considerable body of opinion which wanted the discussion.

Well, let us concede that you had a discussion in this House. If it were the present House of Commons, we all know that the Government, when they insist upon it, have always a majority at their command, and therefore it is purely a matter of form whether you leave it to the Government absolutely, or whether you leave it to a Resolution agreed to by both Houses. It really means that the Government have got to decide, and you are making no concession at all, and when the right hon. Gentleman says that he is trying to meet the Lords, I hope he often tries more successfully than he is doing on this occasion, for a more unsuccessful attempt to meet the Lords could not, in my opinion, be conceived; it concedes absolutely nothing. That is obviously true. Everybody knows that if the Government insists, the House is always ready to support it. The real choice is, do you want this to be decided by an Assembly which has some independence, or do you want it to be decided by the Government of the day? If the Government carry out their intentions, the House of Lords will be a reformed body before the three and a half years are over, and therefore it is not entirely the present House of Lords that is concerned. As to the argument of the Prime Minister that the House of Lords is subject to difficulties of organisation, I think he overlooks the fact that if there were a chance vote against him in the House of Lords, there would be no difficulty in repeating the Motion the next week. Under the Lords Amendment both Houses have to agree to bring the Bill into force a second time, and if the Prime Minister did not carry his Resolution by a chance, or lost it by a very small majority, of course the Resolution could be repeated in a short time. Therefore, there is nothing in that argument.

When he says that under the Lords Amendment it means giving an opportunity for either branch of the Legislature to destroy an Act of Parliament, let him consider what it will be that will have destroyed it. What will have destroyed the Act of Parliament is the vehement, contumacious, almost treasonable refusal of the people of the South of Ireland to work the Act. If the people of Southern Ireland want the Bill, let the Bill come into operation without any friction. What really stands in the way of the Bill is the dissent of the Irish people who are principally concerned. When the Southern Irish reject the Bill we cannot go on. The indefinite extension of Crown Colony government is impossible. Are you going to set it up against their will, or introduce some other scheme which might have a better chance of acceptance? The question is, are this Government, or the Government of the day, the best people to decide that question, or are the two Houses of Parliament? Is it not much more reasonable to say that the two Houses of Parliament shall decide whether you are to repeat the effort of forcing on to the Southern Parliament what they do not want, or are you to try a new scheme which is more likely to succeed? We are told that you must not trust the two Houses of Parliament, because they might be unreasonable, but neither of them have shown themselves the least unreasonable in discussing this Bill. The Amendments of the Lords have been in the main abandoned. They have given up not only those Amendments which my right hon. Friend has resisted, but also the proposal that the two Houses should be consulted before the Bill can be brought into operation at all in view of the disturbance in Ireland. They have gone at least three-quarters of the way the Government require of them, but they continue to press this Amendment. I think it is a reasonable course, and if the House of Lords were like me they would insist upon their Amendment, whether it imperilled the Bill or not.

We are certainly in a most extraordinary position. The Bill and the government of Ireland are in a most extraordinary position. We are going to set up a Northern Parliament for Ulster which they are going to accept as a judicious child accepts a dose of castor oil, because it thinks it may do it good. The Southern Irish are to be presented with a scheme which the Government know they will not accept now, painfully hoping they may accept it some indefinite number of months hence, but are quite prepared to contemplate will be rejected altogether, so that in the end we shall have this grotesque situation of Crown Colony government in Southern Ireland, which does not like it, I presume, and Home Rule in Northern Ireland, which certainly does not like Home Rule. And that is in the name of self-government, and in the interests of conciliating Ireland! I think that is a very absurd conclusion, and if that is the conclusion to which the Government have brought us, I am not inclined to trust the Government rather than the two Houses of Parliament. I think it much better, when this scheme finally breaks down, if it does break down by the rejection of the Southern Irish Parliament, both Houses of Parliament should be consulted before an attempt is made to force it on them a second time under the threat of the continuance of Crown Colony government.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Lords Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 12; Noes, 175.

Proposed words there inserted in the Lords Amendment.

Further Amendments made to Lords Amendment:

In new Sub-section (3): Leave out the words "expedient so to do" ["Resolution declaring that it is expedient so to do"], and insert thereof the words "inexpedient so to do is."

Leave out the words "issue a Proclamation for" ["issue a Proclamation for summoning a Parliament"], and insert instead thereof the words "provide for the revocation of any Order in Council made under Sub-section (1) of this Section and for the issue of a Proclamation."— [ Sir L. Worthington-Evans. ]

I beg to move as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in new Sub-section (3), to leave out the words

"Provided that if the Lord Lieutenant certifies that the number of Members of the House of Commons of such Parliament validly returned at such election is less than half the total number of Members of that House or that the number of Members of the House of Commons of such Parliament who have taken the oath as such Members within fourteen days from the date on which such Parliament is summoned to meet is less than one half of the total number of Members of that House, His Majesty in Council may by Order provide for the Dissolution of such Parliament. The provisions of Sub-section (2) of this Section shall apply as in the case of the first Parliament summoned to meet for such part of Ireland, and the provisions of Sub-section (1) of this Section in regard to the exercise of the powers of the Governmnt and Parliament of the part of Ireland affected shall continue to have effect until the Lord Lieutenant certifies in manner provided by this Sub-section, and thereafter if the Lord Lieutenant so certifies."

and to insert instead thereof:

"and if such a Proclamation is issued and an election is held in pursuance thereof, Sub-sections (1) and (2) of this Section shall apply in the case of that election in like manner as they applied in the case of the first election of members of the Parliament of that part of Ireland."

The Amendment amounts to this: that on the second election in the areas in question, the same provision about nomination shall apply if that second election does not fructify by the Members of Parliament taking up their duties.

I do not follow the right hon. Gentleman. Do I understand this to be again bringing in the test of allegiance?

No, this applies exactly the same rights to what the hon. and gallant Member calls Crown Colony government after the second election, if the second election has failed in the same way as the first has failed.

Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In Clause 71, Sub-section (1), leave out the words "House of Commons" [" for the House of Commons of Southern and Northern Ireland "], and insert "Parliaments."

Agreed' to.

It seems desirable to offer a few words of explanation of these Estimates. The items involved are substantially two. There is the contribution to the Unemployment Insurance Fund of an additional sum, in round figures, of £1,300,000, and Out-of-Work Donation to His Majesty's Forces, including merchant seamen, of a sum of £6,100,000. There are to be deducted from these figures anticipated savings of approximately £3,500,000 and Appropriations-in-Aid of about £500,000, so that the net sum I ask for is £3,500,000. Both these items are required as a result of the determination of the Government to do all possible to grapple with the evil of unemployment. There-are, I know, wider aspects of this problem,, and I understand that on Tuesday, on-, the Consolidated Fund Bill, an opportunity will be given to Members for a more general discussion. To-day we are only dealing with two items, namely, the Unemployment Insurance Act, which refers, of course, mainly to civilians; and, secondly, with the out-of-work donation, which deals with the Forces of the Crown out of work, including merchant seamen. We all know that the number of those forces out of work during the past month has, unfortunately, been fairly large— some 250,000 or 260,000. There is, I am sure, no one in this House but feels the pressure of the problem of unemployment in his own constituency: and I doubt if any of us can contemplate the coming winter without anxiety, with the grim spectre of unemployment floating over industry. The first point, then, I wish to make is that both these two items are involved in the determination of the Government to grapple with unemployment; and the second point is that they are both proper Supplementary Estimates; that is to say, they are both sums which are required by reason of recent events—events which could not be contemplated when the original Estimates were drawn up.

Let us first of all consider the Unemployment Insurance Act. Under this Act the number of insured persons is increased from 4,000,000 to rather over 12,000,000. As hon. Members are aware, that Act received the Royal Assent on 9th August last, I think it was, long after the original Estimates were drawn up. Not only does that Act largely increase the number of insured persons, but it also increases the amount required for certain administrative expenses. There are administrative expenses in connection with Section 17 of that Act in the cases where money is spent by societies acting as agents of the Treasury. An allowance is made for every completed week of unemployment. The result, therefore, is to bring these figures up to £2,615,000, which is the figure appearing in the revised Estimate, made up as follows: first, an estimated payment under Sec- tion 65 of the Act of 1911 for the period down to 18th November, 1920, and under that is paid one-third of the contribution by employers and workmen, roughly amounting to £700,000. There is also an estimated payment under the new Act under Section 5, after 8th November, 1920, on the scale of 2d. for men, l⅔ d. for women, l⅓d. for boys, and Id. for girls. That works out at £1,795,000. There also is an estimated payment under Section 17 for administrative expenses of £120,000. That works out—I think the addition is right—at £2,615,000, the Estimate appearing on the Paper.

As to the out-of-work donation. I do not intend to discuss that in detail, but most of the members of the Committee know that there have been a good many extensions of this donation, which began in November, 1918. It has since been extended once for both ex-Service men and for civilians. There was an extension in November, 1919—the first extension— which covered ex-service men and civilians, but at the end of that first extension the donations for civilians ceased, and subsequent extensions relate only to the Forces of the Crown, including merchant seamen. The original Estimate and the first extension do not come in this financial year, but the subsequent extensions do come in this financial year, and in the Vote which we are now discussing we have set out three extensions. The first extension is for a period of 12 weeks from 1st April, 1920, to 31st July, 1920; the second is from 2nd August, 1920, to 6th November, 1920, a period of 14 weeks, and the next from 8th November, 1920, to 31st March, 1920, a period of 16 weeks, which is considerably longer. The total amount of those three extensions is slightly over £6,000,000, and the main figure is clearly for the last extension, Numbers, unfortunately, of the ex-Forces of the Crown, including merchant seamen, have been unemployed for a considerable period of months, and, as I said, their numbers now amount to something like 250,000 or 260,000. (With regard to the last period of extension from 8th November, 1920, to 31st March, 1921, it is, of course, the largest Estimate, and I will endeavour to give the basis of that Estimate. It is assumed that there would probably be some 5,000,000 of ex-service men—soldiers and sailors—who could, primâ facie, qualify for the donation. Of those it was assumed that something like 1,250,000 to 1,500,000 would be in permanent employment, and therefore the total number which could be counted on as possibly producing unemployment was something like 3,500,000. In view of the situation, it is not possible to assume that the numbers will be less than 225,000 or 230,000 men, who may come on to the donation during a week. Hon. Members will see that that works out at about the figure given in the Estimate. When the donation was made it was announced that, if in March next, a very large number of these men now on the donation were still out of employment, whatever provision was found necessary at that date would be made in connection with the Unemployment Act.

This is a very large Estimate and nearly doubles the original Estimate of £6,750,000. The amount now asked for is £7,485,000. I think that my hon. Friend should show the basis of that expenditure, the additional unemployment and the causes of the out-of-work donation. My hon. Friend must really justify his figures by telling us what the range of unemployment is, and what, in his judgment, the causes of that unemployment are.

I am afraid that my right hon. Friend did not follow the case I gave him. I gave him the basis on which that very large figure was founded. The field from which it is possible to draw those who may come on the fund is roughly 3,500,000. We ruled out a certain proportion as not likely to come on the fund, and, taking 3,500,000 as the possible field, we think it is fair, in view of our present experience and the difficulties of employment which are likely during the coming winter, to estimate that the number cannot be less than 225,000 per week. If you take it at £l per week each for nineteen weeks, you arrive at the figure. It can only be an estimated figure, but I have endeavoured to show how that figure is arrived at. On the other side of the account are the appropriations represented as £500,000, or, roughly, double the original appropriations. The original appropriations of £600,000 were, of course, under Part II of the Act of 1911. These are similar appropriations under the extended provisions of the new Unemploy- ment Insurance Act. Under Section 12 of that Act power is given to the Treasury to set aside a sum not exceeding one-tenth of the income of the fund by way of appropriations for salaries and expenses. It is quite clear that when your fund increases in size, as it had to do under the extended provisions of the new Act, the tenth of the income increases too, and, therefore, the amount set aside by way of appropriations naturally has become larger. Secondly, there is a figure for saving, and it is put down as, roughly, £3,500,000. We are, of course, working on an estimate, and it can only be an estimate. It is not an easy thing estimating under present conditions.

The savings, I say quite frankly, are mainly in connection with the training side of the work. I cannot give anything like close figures, but I will give some figures under that head. These savings must be a matter of estimate and must he somewhat uncertain. Our arrangements were based on the assumption of reasonably stable trade and reasonably good trade. I am afraid we are in for a period of unstable trade and rather bad trade. Let me take an instance of what I mean. Under our training scheme in the building trade it is a regular arrangement that a trainee goes into a Government workshop for nine months and then passes out as an improver, placed in ordinary industry, starting at 65 per cent. of the full wage, and rising in the course of two and a half years to the full craftsman's wage. That plan proceeds on the assumption that there are improvers' vacancies available when the man passes out of the Government workshop. .Until quite recently we were passing men out of Government workshops at the rate of 500 per week, but, unfortunately, the improvers' vacancies have become increasingly difficult to secure. I am putting this argument to show how difficult it is to estimate closely. The principle of improvers applies to a good many trades besides the building trade. When a man has been through a Government workshop it is very difficult to find a proper place for him as an improver. What is to be done? Trainees cannot walk the streets. If they do, they will lose the advantage of their training. Therefore, arrangements will have to be made for expanding their period of training in the Government workshops until such time, we hope a short time, as the conditions with regard to improvers' vacancies is ameliorated, but, of course, that means an additional cost to the taxpayer.

Secondly, I want to emphasise that, although we have put this large sum in the accounts as savings—and quite rightly, because the money will not be expended before 31st March— it is not saving in any true sense. It is merely postponing payment. There is no question of economy here. Next year, or when the time comes, we shall come to this House for all the money required for these purposes. Now I will try to give some figures, but they must be approximate. First of all, there has been a comparatively small saving effected under the general head of travelling and subsistance allowance. It does not amount to more than about £100,000. The main saving, as 1 have already indicated, comes under the heading of training. There are two kinds of training. There is the training grant scheme for men of education, and there is the general industrial training for the ex-service man himself. With regard to the training grant scheme, there have been savings or there will be savings which we find it difficult to estimate. Under that scheme there are, roughly, two methods of training. There is professional training or training for professional avocations, such as solicitors and barristers, and there is training for commercial avocations. During the last 12 months a good many people have chosen the commercial course rather than the professional course. The commercial course is rather shorter and the cost to the State somewhat less. The training necessary for a man to hold an administrative post in a cotton mill is no? so long as the training required for a barrister or solicitor. A considerable number have chosen the commercial course and to a certain extent that has relieved the fund which has been provided by Parliament.

There is an item of £3,000,000 for the training of ex-Service men on the industrial side. As I have stated, that appears on the White Paper as a saving, but that merely means that the money will not be expended by the 31st March, but it does not indicate in any way that we shall not come to the House for the money as and when the necessity arises. The reasons for this money not being spent are two. In the earlier part of the year there was a difficulty in securing all that was required for what we call Government instructional factories. Trade was booming and factories were few, and when found were apt to be snapped up by private enterprise. In addition, it was very difficult to get labour and materials to adapt them, and even when the factories had been adapted, the machinery necessary for wood-turning or engineering, or whatever it might be, was often difficult, and in many cases, impossible, to procure. I do not say that some of the delays were not avoidable; I think possibly they were, but the large portion of the delays with regard to equipping and furnishing were undoubtedly unavoidable. But that difficulty is now over. In January there were fourteen Government instructional factories, and there are now fifty. The men in training in January numbered 2,000, and now number 7,500. Those training in other centres totalled 6,500 in January, and are now 7,500. Those training with employers in January totalled 8,500, and are now 10,000, making a total of 17,000 in training in January, and in November, 35,000. The waiting list has gone down from 27,000 in January to 17,000. There were entered in January 300 each week, and within the last week or two that had increased to 500 each week. In January, 200 left each week, and now the number is about 500. From 18th August about 21,000 have gone out. I wish the figures had been better, but I do claim that there has been a great increase in the training available and in the numbers undergoing training in recent months.

The second difficulty is this. The whole of our training schemes are based on co-operation between the Government and committees of employers and employed. In the big staple industries of the country and with a view to training in those industries we have received the. most adequate and whole-hearted assistance from technical committees of employers and employed in those trades, and the whole of our machinery is based on the co-operation of those bodies. Those technical advisory committees in each trade, or each of the main trades, have central committees in London and have local committees in each place where training is going on. Those committees have given us great assistance in connection with the syllabuses, in super- vising the training, and in indicating where the trainees can be received into the industry. As they gave us all this assistance it is quite clear we have got to accept their advice as to how far there are vacancies in any particular trade. I do not propose to discuss general dilution in the building trade. That is being considered in other ways and in other connections. But in the building trade and in the furniture trade and many other trades, owing to the quite natural anxiety involved by the industrial outlook, we are being met by the technical advisory committees with either a slackening or even an absolute refusal to allow men to come into the industry. In the building trade, for instance, the understanding was that there was to be 5 per cent, admitted up to 17,000. As a matter of fact we have 3,000 in training, and we could fill up several thousand places more at once if the sky was clear from the point of view of possible unemployment. There are also difficulties in connection with the furniture trade. Just now the difficulty about factories and equipment has entirely been overcome, and we now have a large number of places available, but there is the difficulty of the not unnatural anxiety on the part of the technical advisory committees as to the future of each trade. These Estimates are proper Supplementary Estimates because they could not have been foreseen when the original Estimates were presented. All Members of the House have, I am sure, every sympathy with the object for which the money is being asked, and I feel certain there will be nothing but reasonable criticism.

Can the hon. Gentleman say anything as to negotiations with the building trade for taking men into their employment?

At the moment I am not in a position to make the statement on that subject. There is to be a Debate on unemployment on the Consolidated Fund Bill, and in any case a statement will be made early next week on the whole matter.

The hon. Gentleman has said quite properly that these are proper Supplementary Estimates, but the items which are mentioned raise much larger questions than are indicated on the White Paper, and consequently the amount of money which is involved is so large that presumably those who wish to speak may have some greater latitude than they could have if the Estimates were much smaller. We naturally sympathise with the Government in the position in which they find themselves. It is rather difficult to have a specific problem, such as that of providing employment for ex-service men, coinciding with what we might all expect after a big war, a period of unemployment into which it is difficult. almost impossible in many cases, to fix especially trained men on the general falling market of unemployment. On the other hand, this question is so immediately serious that we ought to take, as we are taking, the first possible opportunity of dealing with it, and I hope the Government will not take refuge in the suggestion that we may have an opportunity of dealing with the question of the Appropriation Bill. We have nothing to do with that, and in any case it is not the best opportunity, because when we are discussing an Estimate it is possible to seek to reduce the amounts if the policy of the Government does not satisfy our demands, while on the Appropriation Bill we have no such opportunity of testing the sincerity of the Government by the figures in the actual Vote. The first item on the Estimate, which deals with the contribution to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, is necessarily increased, but I was not quite clear as to how much of the £2.600,000 is money which is paid in the shape of unemployment contribution, and what proportion of it is purely administrative.

Shortly, the figures are these. Under the old Act, because we had to deal with the old Act—down to 8th November it was still in operation—it was £700,000. It is estimated that under the new Act the contribution from 8th November to 29th March will be £1,795,000, and the estimated payments under Section 17 for administrative expenses will be £120,000.

2.0 P.M.

That is the figure I wanted. The bulk of the money, of course, is in the form of additional Government contribution to what the contributor himself pays, but that is severely limited in the new Act in so far as so many of these people were in unemployment when the Act was introduced, and have since been unable to draw the increased benefits of that Act until their payments have reached a certain total. So, although it appears on the Estimate that the Government are making a substantial contribution—£1,700,000 more— to this Unemployment Insurance Fund, as a matter of hard, actual fact it is not a very substantial contribution to the necessity of the unemployed who require to carry on from one week to another. In any event, the largest payment is 15s. a week for men and 12s. a week for women, and, of course, no one could support himself on that amount, and therefore it only reduces by that amount the ability of the man to carry on while he is unemployed. The second question which arises directly from the White Paper is the provision which is made for out-of-work donation. The out-of-work donation was really a palliative suggested by the Government for dealing with the ex-service men who could not get work. The ex-service man was in this position, that the Government had promised to find him employment so far as they reasonably could. I do not question the bonâ-fides of that. I have no doubt the Government at the time were quite sincere when they said so far as it could be done it would be their first duty to do it. I need not go into the reason why it was not or could not be done, but the fact remains that it was not done, at any rate to the extent that a. large contribution had to be made in out-of-work donation, and these figures on the White Paper only carry that donation up to the end of the financial year. My hon. Friend made a casual remark to the effect that the Government had given a. general promise that any further Sum that was required would be provided.

I said any further provision made would be through the machinery of the Unemployment Insurance Act.

If that is the statement, it is a much more limited statement than I gathered myself when I heard the hon. Gentleman speak, because it means—and he himself admitted it—that you have a large number of ex-service men at pre-sent out of work, and presumably a large number of them have exhausted all the rights they are entitled to.

Not under the last extension. They are all entitled to the last extension.

The hon. Gentleman means from 8th November, 1920, down to March, 1921, every man who has drawn out-of-work donation as an ex-service man is still entitled to this extra concession?

Yes.

So far, so good. That is a considerable factor in considering this sum, because the hon. Gentleman admitted himself that we are at a period of time when the bottom has fallen out of the bulk of industries.

I said only one.

Yes. The hon. Gentleman was referring to chairs, but a chair will have its legs. He admitted when talking about the building trade and the trainee system that they could not go on taking trainees because there was no specific job to which they could be sent after they were trained. I am only analysing the situation as we find it.

As a matter of fact it is so.

Industry is falling out, so that this figure of 250,000 ex-service men alone is much more likely to increase before 31st March than to decrease. That is the obvious conclusion. My hon. Friend and his Ministry will find themselves in this position, that by 31st March they will be faced with a large number of men for whom they are unable to supply training in skilled or unskilled employment to enable them to occupy a place, to whom they will still be in debt, because of the original pledges given to them, and that will be only one part of the wider field of unemployment, because I have not mentioned yet the other fact, that the general unemployment in the country is at least at this moment quite double the figure the hon. Gentleman gave for ex-service men. There is something like 500,000, and, presumably, a large proportion of them heads of families, therefore, involving a population of at least 2,000,000, who are feeling enormously the pinch of poverty and hardship because of unemployment. That is a very serious fact, and we are entitled to know what the Government are going to do and what the proposals are to meet the situation. I have a considerable amount of sympathy with any Member who put his hand to this task, because he is faced with this problem, that he is forced into what we might call palliative measures, which simply mean the payment of money in order to tide over a bad patch of unemployment, the expenditure of which money is purely charitable so far as the State is concerned, and which does nothing more than assist to maintain in physical efficiency the people who are drawing it for the time being, and second, the difficulty, however he may believe, as I think we all believe, in the provision of reproductive work for unemployment, of obtaining it. I have listened to many Debates on unemployment, and I could give from memory all the schemes we have heard of, from the reclamation of the Wash to the provision of roads from one end of the country to the other, and all the whole gamut of detail between those two extremes, and I have heard Members speaking as if the thing had only to be attempted to be done, but, as a matter of fact, any of us who have had any municipal experience of the attempt to provide employment, and, therefore, sustenance, for the unemployed on any big task, know that the machinery of doing it is so expensive that quite frequently it might be just as well to give the money provided on the machinery in the shape of the out-of-work donation benefit that you are giving to the ex-service man.

There is another Vote which follows this on the Ministry of Transport where there is a provision of £1,000,000 for local authorities in the form of a special roads grant. I think we might refer to that as one of the methods that have been suggested by the Government to meet a great immediate problem, and we might get the facts of that at the same time. There is the provision of a large sum of money for the local authorities in connection with the making of roads in order to remove the pressure of unemployment, and it would help the Committee to come to a conclusion on this Estimate if we knew how much of that money has been handed out to the local authorities. Also what schemes have been approved and what number of men have been or are being absorbed from the unemployed by means of these schemes. They are very big schemes if they are pursued to their logical conclusion. One always feels when attempts are made to deal with the pro- vision of what we call reproductive unemployment works which are limited in scope and are left when the period of pressure is over. Everybody gets the wind up at first. We begin to feel that the unemployment is growing so much and that the unemployed husband means hardship to the family and that something must be done at once, and we rush in and grant Government money to the first scheme that appeals to us. The money is laid out, and when times begin to prosper again we gradually drop things and it seems to me that we go to sleep in regard to the provision of other schemes. Therefore I think that the Government to-day— and I think there is a great advantage in having it to-day—should tell us what is in their mind for the provision for unemployment so that we may think it over before the Debate on the Appropriation comes. I notice in one of the newspapers this morning that it is suggested that the Government is prepared to give a great deal of money, millions are mentioned, with this object in view. One would like to know whether the Government are going to do it by extra donation or extra work, and to what extent. We are told that the Minister has had some interviews with regard to the position in the building trade, and it is said that 50,000 ex-service men are to be employed in the building trade. But everybody in the House knows that the difficulty with regard to the building trade is, as in other trades, that however you train the men and however efficient you make them they have no certain chance of being absorbed into that trade because of other conditions.

I do not want, in the absence of the Labour party, to go into the question of trade unions with regard to the building trade or any other trade, but I would like to say that there are a great many of us who are not Labour men in the sense that we have not the Labour label who are greatly concerned with the question of unemployment. Whether we are Conservatives, Liberals, or Coalitionists, we have the question of unemployment as much at heart, and are concerned as much with it as any Member who may have the ticket of Labour. That is why we have taken the trouble to come down and to speak on this specific Estimate, and I ask the Minister if he would give us all possible information as to the Government's intentions. By so doing we should be placed in the position between now and the discussion on the Appropriation Bill of being able to turn the matter over in our own minds as to what is the most essential thing to do. Presumably, we shall prorogue next Thursday until the middle of February, and when we come back a great deal of Parliamentary time will be taken up with urgent financial business. During six or seven hard winter weeks the House will not be sitting, and the control of unemployment will be in the hands of the Department. That is another substantial reason why my hon. Friend should give us all possible information to-day, and there is also the further advantage that if the information is given to-day it will gain wide publicity over the week-end.

I should like to know what is to be done as to the anticipated saving. The hon. Member has told us that it is not an anticipated saving in effect so much as a postponed payment; that is, that if the money is not spent by the 31st of March my hon. Friend's Department will require to ask for the same sum for the next financial year. I intended to ask how much of the £3,500,000 will be enough. I was anxious that it was not being saved on the original items dealing with the training of demobilised officers and men of His Majesty's forces, industrially or professionally. We have to bear in mind that in this respect the demobilised officer who accepts professional training is probably in a better position now than the man who is being trained industrially, inasmuch as he takes his grant and provides for his own training and can go ahead being trained professionally with the hope, more or less certain, that when he is trained the profession will be much more open, and that he will, with his extra training and his own initiative and energy, find a niche for himself. My hon. Friend said that the Committee must face, and I think we ought to be compelled to face it, if we were unwilling, the question whether we can afford to go on training ex-service men industrially, and spending State money on their training and in the maintenance of the officials and of the men, if there is a prospect that at the end of their training they scarcely have a dog's chance of getting a job in the industry for which they have been trained. We cannot go on as a nation saying to the men who have fought and have been dis- charged, " We will train you to be a mason, or a bricklayer or an electrical engineer, or whatever industry you prefer, but when we have trained you you have to take Hobson's choice. We have no way of insisting that any industrial organisation outside the purview of the Government shall be in any way compelled to give you a fair chance." One would be doing an injustice to oneself and to one's party if one made this a party issue, but I do say that something substantial should be done in view of the fact that we shall be away for six hard winter weeks. Therefore I ask my hon. Friend to consult with his chief before this Debate ends and to consider whether it would not be worth his while to give us, at any rate, a skeleton outline of the Government's proposals in view of the new situation.

Like the hon. Member who has just sat down, and like many other hon. Members, I feel that it is not absolutely necessary to be a direct representative of labour to recognise the tremendous importance of this question of unemployment and its immediate and vital urgency. Most of us who are not Labour Members represent great industrial communities, and we recognise that of all the present social questions that this Parliament will have to grapple with now and in the future, the greatest is the question of unemployment. I have not, however, risen to discuss that question, which, no doubt, will be dealt with in all its bearings on the Consolidated Fund Bill. I should like to put a few questions to the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Estimates and to elicit, if possible, information which will be of assistance to us in the discussion next week. I think the task of making provision for ex-service men is in sympathetic hands in the hands of the hon. Member. It has been my fortune or my misfortune to have charge of nearly all the grievances of the Nationalist ex-soldiers in Ireland. The hon. Member knows that he has had no more incessant importunist on behalf of these men when he was at the Ministry of Pensions than I was, and I am delighted to bear testimony to the courtesy, the sympathy, and the promptitude of the hon. Gentleman in dealing with all the claims which I presented to him on behalf of ex-service men in Ireland. With regard to the question of unemployment I have found the same sympathy, knowledge and grasp, and the same anxiety to be of service since he has been at the Ministry of Labour. That is about the biggest eulogy I have ever paid to any British Minister.

I should like to ask whether consideration has been given to the representations that were made to him by an important deputation of the men of all political parties and creeds from the city of Belfast, which waited upon him about ten days ago. The Deputation was led by the right hon. Member for the Duncairn Division, and I think all or most of the Belfast Members were present, and the representatives of the trades unions associated with the linen industry in all its branches. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has yet considered the matters put before him by that most representative deputation. If he has, I am sure that those of us who were on that deputation and who are profoundly and intensely interested in this question would be glad to hear his reply, because this question not only affects individual workers, which to me is first and vital, but it affects the whole of the linen industry, which is the twin industry of the shipping industry and those two great industries are the foundation of all the trade and prosperity upon which Belfast's greatness depends now and in the future. What do the Government propose to do in relation to those persons who were four weeks out of employment before the Unemployment Act came into operation on 8th November? I never could see why pressure was not brought to bear on the Government to recognise the importance of this aspect of unemployment. It seems not only absurd, but indefensible, to say that we will pay unemployment benefit to workers who are out of employment from the 8th November, but if by some economic or industrial misfortune they are out of employment for four weeks prior to the 8th November, when obviously they cannot pay their weekly instalments, they are not to receive benefit. Those people have my sympathy to a much larger degree than the people who have become unemployed subsequent to 8th November. The Unemployment Act is really causing tremendous indignation amongst a great mass of workers who happen to have been unfortunate enough to be out of employ- ment for four weeks prior to the 8th of November, and are therefore denied the benefits of the Act because they were unfortunate enough not to have come out of employment after 8th November. I may say in conclusion that, in dealing with the hon. Gentleman (Sir M. Barlow), it is a great satisfaction to know that he is just as sympathetic as the rest of us. We are glad we have a sympathetic Minister in the position which he occupies. We want the Government to deal with this unemployment problem, because it is the biggest problem they have to grapple with at the present time, and the most serious. I am a supporter of law and order, and on that ground also I do desire that the Government should deal with a question which is causing very serious discontent. I recognise as well as any man the danger of letting loose, in the winter months, a vast body of men home from a war in which they have played a gallant and heroic part, especially after they have been told how England, Scotland, and Ireland would be made lands fit for heroes to live in and what wonderful things would be done for them. A year and a half after the War those men are compelled to play organs in the streets before aristocratic dwelling-houses. By so humiliating them we are striking at the morale and prestige and character of our citizens. There can be no sacrifice too great in meeting this problem of unemployment. The whole mind and heart and intensity of purpose of all men with a social conscience and with a national passion for human contentment in these Islands should be devoted, apart from party, sect or class, in this House and beyond it, to the bringing in of some measure of relief and comfort to those upon whom depends the safety and future of the State.

I am glad for once to be in agreement with the hon. Member who has just spoken. Perhaps we are oftener in agreement than appears, especially in cases where feelings of humanity must be our guide. I am very sorry that before the House adjourns the Government have not told us how they propose to deal with unemployment. I cannot believe that they are not as alive as anybody else, and perhaps more so, to the increase of unemployment and to the great danger of it. It is utterly impossible to believe that no effort is to be made to meet the terrible case that will confront us this winter. The problem is brought home to us in relation to the different trades and businesses with which we are confronted daily in our own constituencies. I intend to concentrate my few remarks upon the question whether the Government have made up their minds to allow those who are out of employment through no fault of their own to come under the Unemployment Insurance Act recently passed. The linen trade of the North of Ireland is almost at a standstill, in consequence of the action that the Government felt compelled to take during the War. The Government had to turn on all the linen factories to the making of aeroplane cloth, and at the time the War ceased there were in hand orders for something like 55,000,000 yards of such cloth. That was only a very small part of what had to be done to enable that cloth to be made, for the Government had also to take in hand the control of flax and as they were not able to obtain flax from Russia or from Belgium they had to encourage the growth of flax and to give a guarantee of a high price. The result was that the moment the War was over the production of linen in the North of Ireland became so costly that manufacturers found it impossible to dispose of the goods they made. I am told that America, which is the chief customer of the trade, has not sent in a order for the ' last five or six months in consequence of the high price. The employers went on manufacturing linen in preference to dismissing their workpeople, and they have already spent as much capital as they can afford. Meanwhile they were unable to sell their stocks. Thousands had to be turned out of employment before the Act came into force on 8th November. If ever there was a body of people, men and women, who lost their employment through the necessary action of the Government during the War, it is these people. How has this affected them? Because they were not in employment for four weeks after the 8th of November, they are told they cannot come under the insurance. That is that because they took steps during the War which have turned them out of employment they cannot come under the scheme set up by Parliament. But it is even worse than that, because I have been told that the employers in all these cases are quite prepared to put up the money to stamp the cards and bring the employés within insurance, but that will not be allowed by the Government. If they had only gone through the farce of having their operatives at work one day a week for four weeks it could have been done.

bonâ-fide.

You would have to test the bona fides, and I am not sure that it would not have been bonâ-fide so far as that goes, but it would have been, I admit, farcical. When the employers say, "We will stamp the cards," the Government say, "We cannot have that. It will upset the insurance."I agree that it does upset the insurance to some extent, but, having regard to the problem which you are going to face within the next few months, that is a very small point—an almost negligible point. Therefore I do submit to my right hon. Friend that here is a practical point which will affect a great many thousands of people in this country who are in an exactly similar position and it will secure relief, not by giving these people gratuities or doles, but by bringing them under the State scheme. I hope that the Government will be prepared to make this concession. We have just passed, probably, the last day in dealing with the Government of Ireland Bill that is going to set up immediately a Parliament at least in the North of Ireland, and it will be a bad thing to start that Parliament with thousands of men and women out of employment and starving and feeling in their hearts the bitter fact that the reason they are out of employment is because, through no fault of their own, it was necessary for the Government to take steps which forced employers eventually to close down their works. Anything more disastrous at the start of a new Parliament I can hardly imagine. I know of the difficulties of money, but the Government will have to do this in the end because this country would not tolerate that these people should be idle and remain in a state of semi-starvation existing on charitable doles when they are the victims of the War just as much as any of those who fought in the field of battle; and as the Government will have to do it in the end they would gain much more credit and save a great deal of suffering if they did it now. There is one question which I asked the other day to which I would like a reply now. You have set up in this country a number of schemes of employment. Are there any of these schemes set up in Ireland? There are many large works wanted in Ireland on which numbers of people could be employed. For myself, I do not know of any of these schemes, being set up there, and I hope that we may have a satisfactory answer on this point.

I wish to explain the position of the Labour party on this matter. We have entered into a parliamentary bargain with the Government which the House naturally expects us to recognise, to have a full day on this matter next week, and hence the absence of many of my colleagues; but it is only fair to say that we join whole-heartedly in the various appeals that have been made to the Government. This House is always at its best in dealing with human subjects. It is remarkable how men, divided on all political questions, always unite on these great human questions. I appeal to the Government to do something before Christmas, because I agree with the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) that they will have to do it sooner or later. How much better it would be to do it now and, instead of always having to capitulate, recognise the justice of the claim before being forced to yield. It was a sad sight this morning coming here to see these ex-servicemen, not ashamed of their battalion, their medals, their honours, their uniform, but all of us who see them must be ashamed to see them in that position. It is becoming very dangerous. Next week we will submit to the Government our views fully on the subject. I only desire to associate myself with everything that has been said and to urge the Government at this festive season, when everyone looks forward to at least a ray of happiness, not to forget those for whom their is no happiness who are out of work.

Conscious as I am of the sense of responsibility which lies upon me with respect to the distress that has fallen upon so many of our people, I cannot allow even this precursor of the larger Debate next week to pass without saying a word. I agree fully that we should do everything in our power at this time to mitigate the hardship which already presses so grievously upon our people, and, so far as I can see, is likely to press upon them more grievously as winter proceeds. I agree it is our duty to be unceasing in our endeavours to do all that is humanly possible to mitigate these hardships, and to investigate all possible means of securing that the wheels of trade shall go round again and bring prosperity and comfort to those engaged in the workshops. That is our duty concurrently with the other. The immediate and pressing urgency of the case is to find remedies for the present distress. I would very gladly have restated our programme and the result of our continued investigations of that aspect of the search for remedies and palliatives for the present situation, but the issue raised on the Supplementary Estimate does not, I understand, under Parliamentary procedure, give a full opportunity, and, subject to Mr. Speaker, there will be such an opportunity next week under conditions which will enable us to discuss the whole matter fully.

That is why I have not, so far, intervened in the Debate, but I cannot allow the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Duncairn Division (Sir E. Carson) to pass in silence. They put very distinct points which come within this Estimate. In this Estimate we are asking for an increased sum of money on account of the Unemployment Insurance Act, which came into operation on the 8th November. The new Insurance Act brought under insurance 8,000,000 more people than were insured previously. There were 4,000,000 insured under the old Act, and there are now 12,000,000. Of those 4,000,000 who were insured under the old Act I may presume that a very considerable number are in benefit, and will carry that forward into the new Act, But the 8,000,000 who come in under the new Act have to make four weeks' contributions before they are eligible for benefit, and having made those four weeks' contribution, they are then eligible in the present year for eight weeks' benefit. The point made by my hon. Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend is that in the case of those who come under the Act for the first time, as there is a great deal of unemployment, it is impossible for large numbers of them to be employed and to make the four weeks' contribution, and therefore to qualify for the benefit. I am afraid that is the fact. It was brought to my notice in the first instance by my right hon. and learned Friend on account of the linen workers in Belfast, and it has since been brought to my notice in connection with cotton workers of Burnley, Colne, Nelson, and other places, and by a very influential deputation which waited upon me from the Labour party and from the Trade Union Congress Parliamentary Committee. I have no power under the Act to say that a person who has not been employed for four weeks is eligible for benefit. If the times were normal, that is really, from an insurance point of view, a generous provision. The old Act, which is now superseded, laid it down that there must be 26 weeks' contribution. I have studied innumerable trade union schemes, and in many of them it is 26 weeks, and many 52.

But the Executive can interpret in those cases.

The argument as to the usual procedure is not, I admit, worth very much situated as we are. What has helped is this. I am very glad there is now very much more systematic short time than there was before the War. That is the result of a growing spirit of consultation between employer and employed as to the best thing to do under the circumstances. The person who has been on short time for not more than one day a week is qualified for that week, and the employer has got to stamp his card on behalf of the employed person. But, although the short time system has helped us a great deal, I know it does not cover the whole matter. I agree that there are large numbers of people coming to insurance for the first time who have not yet qualified for the benefit, and I am afraid have little prospect during the winter of qualifying. That is the case made by my hon. Friend and right hon. and learned Friend, and directly I received those representations I placed them at once before the Cabinet Committee on Unemployment, and reinforced them with representations received from various other bodies. I am afraid I cannot carry the matter further than to say that it is receiving our urgent consideration, although in a question of such gravity as this I do not want to raise false hopes. I am afraid it is cold comfort, but I have no authority to go beyond what I have said, and I will press the eloquent representations to-day from the hon. Member for the Falls Division and the right hon. and learned Member for Duncairn to be added to the representation already made.

Will it be decided before the Debate?

I am informed that the Debate will not be later than Tuesday. With regard to the question as to schemes in Ireland, I understand that some grants for road work were made earlier in the year. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport has the details of those grants and I think I should best consult the desires of hon. Members by giving way to him to reply as to those details.

I should like in the first instance to congratulate my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry on the occasion of his first appearance on these Estimates as a Minister, upon the very clear and concise statement he has made. We know what interest he has taken in this matter as Chairman of the Pensions Committee and otherwise, and we are very glad to find that this a matter which is in his hands and in those of his chief. This is a very large Vote of £7,000,000. The nominal Vote is only £3,500,000, but it must be borne in mind that the deduction of £3,500,000 under the heading of " Savings " is only a postponed payment. When we remember that every penny of that £7,000,000 is for the purpose of meeting this urgent and pressing question of unemployment, I do not believe there is a single man in this House who will refuse to vote it, and I hope there are not many economy critics outside who will complain of us granting this money. £1,000,000 is payable in respect of the Unemployed Insurance Act and £6,000,000 on respect of out-of-work donations. These out-of-work donations have lasted a great deal longer than the House was led to anticipate in the first instance.

The out-of-work donation is for ex-service men.

3.0 P.M.

I was going to make a point of that, but, speaking generally, the out-of-work-donation has lasted longer than we had reason to anticipate, the reason being something entirely beyond the control of this or any other Government. It was due to the state of affairs in Europe, the unrest in the world, the decline which has, unfortunately, taken place in trade, and other reasons. Conditions have supervened which have made it absolutely essential that we should continue this out-of-work donation for our ex-service men and for our men who fought in the Mercantile Marine, and I think the country will be glad to know to-day that ex-service men and men of the Mercantile Marine will have their out-of-work donation," at any rate, up to the 31st March next, and, if necessary, I doubt not that this House will be willing to continue it for so long as the urgent necessity for it which now exists may continue. Therefore, speaking broadly, this £7,000,000, although a large sum, is practically an unchallenged, and must necessarily be an unchallenged, Vote, but it would be idle to disguise from our selves the fact that the money we are providing to-day only touches the fringe, I fear, of what will be a very much larger question in the immediate future. We have heard from the Minister the difficulties there are in waiving the four weeks' employment, which is at present a condition under the new Act, of men receiving the benefits of that Act, and I do not see how that can be altered, except by a short Act of Parliament or by a Resolution of the House promising an Indemnity Bill. That, however, would not go nearly far enough, because under the new Act the men only get 15s. a week and the women 12s. That would be some good, but it certainly would not meet the case of the men and women who, through no fault of their own, will, I fear, be thrown out of employment in the course of the next few weeks, or even less. Therefore, good as that remedy might be so far as it goes, we shall have to do something more. We shall have to find employment where possible, and I would venture to urge on the Government at this moment that in the forthcoming Debate on Tuesday they will, if possible, have a scheme, as fully elaborated as time permits, to place before the House, and a full explanation of it, so that this House may be in a position, not only to read the scheme, but to suggest any amendments to it which might be thought desirable. Would it be possible, before that Debate comes on, to place any further facts and figures before the House, which will enable the House to estimate the true magnitude of the problem and the methods by which you propose to deal with it? This is a matter in which, not only Members of this House, but every man and woman outside this House are most deeply interested, and we are glad to think that the right hon. Gentleman fully appreciates that fact and will do all in his power to find suitable remedies for a most urgent problem.

If I was so impertinent as to attempt to define what had been wrong with the government of the country, using the word " government " with a small " g," during the past few years, I would venture to say that it is a fact that whenever we have endeavoured to settle disputes, or the difficulties that have arisen, or the desires of any large section of the population for some measure of collective benefit, we have improvised something hurriedly, without the fullest consideration and without basing it on main principles which would result in a sound, economic, national policy. In the past year or so several trade disputes have been settled upon terms which contain in them germs for future disputes. The basis of the settlement is unfair, and consequently, while everyone at the time is delighted that the strike is ended and that the men have gone back to work, everyone who looks at it dispassionately knows perfectly well that in. a year or two the very basis of the settlement itself will call for fresh disputes. Here we are to-day as a nation with a terrible menace of unemployment, and the House is asked to vote money, and the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Transport are engaged upon schemes of temporary work, and so, both by doles and by the provision of this temporary work, we are going to try and palliate the difficulties, the hardships, and the dangers of the present situation. I want to ask the House to look at the reason why we have arrived at this situation, because if we can grasp the reason, then possibly we can find our way back, so that we may recover in an economic way a sound position.

To my mind, the whole position at the present time has arisen from the fact that the Government did not grasp, and the nation did not grasp, two years ago that we were a poor nation as the result of the War, that we had exhausted millions of our capital, and that, although we had been victorious in the War, we were relatively poor as compared with 1914. Instead of grasping that fact, instead of seeing that the only way in which we could win through in the future was by a policy of hard work, thrift and goodwill on the part of everyone, they gave the impression to the whole nation, by the measures which they introduced, by the new Departments which they started, that we were still rich, that we could go on with all manner of schemes which the wisdom of the Government, or those who advised them, suggested, and that our industry could be taxed to any extent. The result has been that, for the past two years, those who are conducting our industries have been paying over millions of pounds to the Government, and we arrive at this state of unemployment, because the capital which those businesses had has been taken from them for taxation purposes, and to-day we come here finding that all these men have been thrown out of work as the result of the Government's over-taxation, and we get the second vicious circle which the War has produced. The first vicious circle was that high prices follow high wages. The hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) may put it in which way he likes. He prefers to say that high wages follow high prices. The second vicious circle at which we have arrived is that, as the result of Government expenditure, unemployment is caused, and, directly unemployment is caused expenditure must go up in order to give doles and provide work for the people thrown out of employment.

Surely the first thing this House will do will be to see in what way we can trace our way back, in order to prevent this new vicious circle continuing. I want to suggest, in order that we may save money on this Vote, in order that the Minister of Labour will not have to pay out all these millions by the 5th April next year, that he should be assisted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not by giving him money, but by another course. There is no doubt, as my hon. and gallant Friend opposite, in his fighting speech in the Economy Debate said, that the country wants more credit in business, and it was the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which withdrew that credit from business. If some more credit could be given, there would not be this present slump in prices. The reason there is such an enormous slump in prices at the present time is that everybody is waiting to buy. The consumer says the prices are going to drop, and he does not go to the shop to buy. The shopkeeper will not go to the merchant, and the merchant will not go to the manufacturer, who cannot continue to employ men, because he has no more money at the bank to pay wages, and the warehouse is full of stock. If the whole business world could feel that credit could be created, it would immediately restart business, and people would see that this slump in prices was not going to continue, and they would be prepared to give orders. In that way you start each section over again. The manufacturer receives orders from the merchants, which will enable him to start employing again. If the Minister of Labour can get the assistance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the same way as he went to the City and asked bankers to withdraw credit and loans; if he can point out to him that we have had deflation too quickly, and that has caused so much of this unemployment; if he can persuade him by some means to devise with the bankers the creation of some fresh credit, he will find that, not only the money to be spent on this Vote will be reduced, but the other problem, which is going to be more fully debated next week, will also be lightened for him, and we shall not have during the coming few months the terrible position which so many people fear is going to occur.

The hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) rejoices that we are going to continue the out-of-work dole to the ex-service men until 31st March. That is necessary as a palliative, but the ex-service man does not want a dole; he wants work. He was told that when he came back we were going to make a place for him to live in, and a place worth living in, and various schemes were put forward by the Government for training ex-service men. But what are the men now finding? That when they have been trained they cannot get a job. I am not blaming the Government entirely for that, because I believe part of the responsibility rests on the trade unions. [An HON. MEMBER: "Wholly!"]. I will not say wholly, but to a large extent it rests upon them, because they are not prepared to do the fair thing, in very many cases, to the ex-service men, and many of the unions have turned themselves into close corporations.

Oh, no.

And they are not prepared to relax their rules and regulations in order to assist the men who have given up four or five of the best years of their lives in order to fight for the country. The sooner an arrangement is made by which the Government's scheme for the training of the ex-service men will be of real value, the sooner an agreement can be come to with all the trade unions by which the man who goes to be trained will know at the end of his training he is going to get a job, the sooner the ex-service man will be happier, because, as I said before, he does not want a dole; he wants work, so that he may be an independent man, happy and contented.

I am not rising for the purpose of making a speech, because I fully realise that my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Labour, is thoroughly alive to the gravity of the position of unemployment, and he is doing all in his power to meet it. No man or woman able to work can be allowed to starve, or suffer from want of clothing and housing so long as the country is able to provide it. What I rose to ask was a question of my right hon. Friend. He stated in his speech a few minutes ago that a Cabinet Committee was considering the question of the four weeks' contribution to the unemployment insurance. I want to know whether, if they do not reach a decision before the House adjourns, the Cabinet will be able to take action prior to Parliament meeting again.

I trust I shall not be considered as lacking in a due sense of proportion if I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, the Minister of Labour, to one of the ruder parts of the country where there is a considerable amount of unemployment. The part of the country to which I particularly refer is that associated with my own constituency. I trust the House does not consider I make too much of this, though I do not know that I need apologise for it, indeed, sometimes the parts of the country that are furthest away from the centre of government require a little more attention than those parts that are nearer. The point I wish to make is in connection with the Island of Lewis. They had a perfect system of mobilisation there. On the first day of the War every able-bodied man in the country was in the War. Consequently, there are a great number of ex-service men; and it is about them I desire to speak.

The economic conditions of Lewis are peculiar, for the inhabitants make their living sometimes as crofters and sometimes not; sometimes on the land and sometimes on the sea. I do not blame any Act of Parliament, or act of the Administration, or any legislation in this House for the present state of affairs. You cannot legislate for, or even administer any cast-iron system that will fit every variety of economic conditions which we have in this kingdom. Besides, the conditions generally in those parts are peculiar. The people are an amphibious race, and that has to be taken into consideration. But it would appear that they will not get anything from the unemployment insurance donation, any benefit, owing to the peculiar conditions to which I have referred, so that practically all these blessings which are being showered down by the present Government pass by these people. One would have thought that this out-of-work donation ought to have come into operation in the Island of Lewis. It has not done so, and from letters I have here I find that over 1,000 of the men have applied for these extended benefits under the out-of-work donation scheme. Owing to something or the other—

I think I see to what the right hon Gentleman is referring.

There is a reference here to some technical flaw. If the right hon. Gentleman will promise that he will consider that technical flaw, I shall be glad.

indicated assent.

We have a lot of people out of benefit at the present time, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to apply some of the sympathy which I know he feels to the consideration of this technical flaw in order that these hundreds of people who are at present unable to get work may be helped in whatever way is possible. We have a population of 30,000, and this island is a thickly populated part of the Highlands. There is one thing we can grow in Lewis, and that is people. Hon. Members, or at least some, know that Lord Leverhulme has bought the island. He started works, but those works have come to a dead stop The Board of Agriculture started the making of some roads some time ago, but they have come to a dead stop. Apparently the difficulty is that the Secretary for Scotland cannot get the money necessary out of the Treasury. An angel with a flaming sword guards the portals of that place. The situation is grave. The herring fishery and the curing of herring is one of the great means of livelihood for the people of that island, and probably hon. Members know that the great market for the products of that industry was Russia. That market is closed at present. Of course, I am not going into any controversial matter here. I merely wish to state the fact that the market is closed.

The Government in their wisdom gave a guarantee to those engaged in the herring fishery which kept it going last year, but now they have plainly indicated that that guarantee can be continued no longer. Therefore, those who are in authority will not engage the fishers to fish. Consequently the men and women in that island dependent upon that great trade are out of work. Some of my correspondents allege what they call bluff on the part of local extremists as a cause for delay, but I do hope if I bring before the notice of the right hon. Gentleman points in connection with the matter that are important he will look into them.

Yes, certainly.

And so confer a benefit upon these people.

I only want to make two or three brief points affecting ex-service men, arising out of the very interesting speech of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Holmes). Referring to the unemployment donation, he stated that ex-service men did not want doles; they wanted work. That is not quite a true statement of the position. It is perfectly true to say that the ex-service men do not want doles; but I want hon. Members not to forget the fundamental fact governing this unemployment donation to ex-service men, which is this: when this terrible unemployment came upon the country there were still a vast body of men, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 200,000 ex-service men, who had never been given an opportunity to get work. That is the only point I want to make in regard to that. In regard to the second point, the reason for the unemployment of ex-service men referred to by the hon. Member (Mr. Holmes), was that they had not received fair treatment from certain trade unions. There is no doubt about that.

He said the majority.

Oh, I would not say that. But there are certain trade unions that have not taken such a big view of this question as have other unions. There is no doubt about that. What the unions, as I understand it, say is this: " If we bring you inside our closed corporation then our own risks of unemployment become greater." [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"l It must be so! It is so in every profession. But what we, however, who represent ex-service men say is this: " Unless you are prepared to make sacrifices and to risk unemployment it is utterly impossible for the ex-service man to regain his place in industry because he will turn round to find every position of practical importance in the industrial and professional world held against him."

Take the Bar—one of the most crowded. There is not enough work to go round at the Bar. Could not the profession of the Bar very well say, "Oh, no, we cannot give you facilities to join our profession because there is not enough work to go round." On the contrary, they say, "We realise it will be impossible for you to get through in a certain period of time, through your service, and although there is not enough work to go round, and it may mean unemployment and starvation to some of us, we will share the risk with you."

Is it not a fact that in the legal profession those entering have to possess the necessary qualifications?

At present that is not so. They say to a man, " If you can show that owing to your service you were debarred from attending some particular examination, we will let you through without, and we will agree to admit you." My appeal is to the trade unions, whom I regard as a body of highly capable, highly sporting people, the governing characteristics of which are a sense of comradeship and camaraderie. I say to the bricklayers, " Yes, it is true that if you allow dilution of labour you increase your risk of employment, but give these men a chance. Do not make starvation possible for them and do not take a selfish course. By all means strike your bargain with the Government, but at the same time do not allow a spirit of pure selfishness to disgrace trade unionism in a way which in the past it has never been disgraced before."

The House has met on Saturday, which is a very unusual day in the week, but anybody who has listened to this Debate will agree that the time has not been absolutely wasted. This is a most important question, although it has to be further discussed on one day next week. We have day after day on this side of the House insisted that the proper time for taking these large money is not after 11 o'clock at night and what has taken place amply justifies the action we have adopted. The Cabinet is in very active consideration of this most important problem, and not before it was time. The complaint I make against the Government is that although it was evident in May last to those who were competent to observe these matters the Government waited until August before setting up. a Cabinet Committee to discuss this question of unemployment. The business of the Government is not to wait for public pressure, but to be in command of all the factors of the situation which were available to the most experienced observers a long time ago, and it is the duty of the Government to take steps before the thing assumes such large proportions as to evoke so much public interest of a kind and intensity which always causes alarm.

One of the most interesting points in regard to the condition in which we find ourselves in regard to unemployment is that some 12 years ago it would have caused comparatively little notice because there would have been organisations set up in some of the more active boroughs, and charity organisations would have dealt with the matter when the very severe weather came along, and there would have been a development of what we know as the soup kitchen. I am very glad that we have got past that state of things, and I think it is a very wise thing to do, because there is a very active revolutionary movement going on in this country and there always is in the most apathetic times. We have, however, now a very active and determined agitation, and the way to defend ourselves against a movement of that kind is not by methods of mere physical repression, but by making the soil unfruitful in which it might develop. That is the only remedy.

According to the new idea, most of us have come to this fundamental position with regard to unemployment, that there is a small minority of this country who always possess a large margin long before they are reduced to a position of penury and there is a larger minority which have a fairly large margin. Then there is the vast majority of the people whose work in the community enables those smaller classes to which I have referred to live in prosperity and to be fairly at ease, no matter what the economic stress of the country may be. The claim has long been made that when the pinch comes these unfortunate people should not be thrown into physical and mental conditions which are agonising and disgraceful to civilisation. We have all gone past that. I remember the days when the Prime Minister and others of us advocated this doctrine when it was not a popular one to enunciate, but I think that is generally accepted now. How fundamentally constitutional it is. The safety of these very favoured classes depends upon these other small classes if they only knew what is good for them, and if they had known how eagerly they would have joined this thoroughly conservative movement. The danger we stand in at the present time does not concern this country alone, and we are only dealing with part of a great world problem, and we must not neglect this opportunity. We must do something to preserve this country and to prevent Europe from passing into anarchy.

Those men in this country who seek to destroy society as at present constituted look for no better opportunity than this. When unemployment is rife, that is the chance they long for. Most of these men are sincere, and that is the danger. If they were mere rogues and ruffians you might deal with the problem much more easily. These men are sincere visionaries and they firmly believe that the present condition of society is absolutely wrong and they wish to pull it down and start again at the foundation, notwithstanding the example we have in the case of Russia. On these questions, it is so important to grasp the fundamentals and to get them firmly into our minds. Then we can deal with the details in the right way. I press upon the Government not to be content with mere passing palliatives. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is your remedy?"] That is always the sort of comment that is made, and, if it carried force, then any Opposition ought to sit down unless immediately they had some remedy to propose. The function of an Opposition is to criticise the Government, and, as long as it is done fairly, it is the right thing to do. I am urging the Government not to be content with merely a passing palliative. It is not a time to be hypercritical. If there be a fire, I do not mind who brings along a bucket of water to put it out. After next Thursday we shall have no opportunity until the House meets again—I shall not take any part in the Debate next week—and I do urge upon the Government that the right thing is not merely to raise the money which this House gladly grants them, but to see to it that the remedies which they seek and apply are rightly founded on a sound view of the true needs of the State, not only of to-day, but of the days yet to come.

As far as we on these Benches are concerned, we hope that a bigger opportunity will be given for the discussion of the whole problem next week. I want to raise one or two questions in which the right hon. Gentleman will be interested. The Act came into operation in November, and, as a consequence, a large number of men and women have had deductions made from their wages ever since. Although the unions have been compelled to ask their members to pay extra contributions to qualify under the Act, and although men and women have paid their contributions, they have not yet been able to draw the benefits, because, in the great majority of cases, the unions have adopted the policy of administering the Act under the conditions laid down in the Act. A man or woman, therefore, has to qualify to receive benefits exactly at the same time and in the same proportion as they receive State benefits, and during the past few weeks we have had considerable difficulty in dealing with our members. They have come to us for the benefits that they were entitled to receive, but, owing to the fact that we have not received authority through the Labour Exchanges, they have been unable to receive those benefits, and the position has been made worse. Men have said, " What is our money being stopped for? Why have our employers deducted money from our wages?"

The employers?

Yes, employers make deductions for unemployment insurance.

From the men's wages?

Yes, from the men's wages; and, when they come to the unions, the unions cannot pay, because the Labour Exchanges have not given authority to pay. We are trustees for the Government. We are supposed to pay out benefits, at the back of which the Government are supposed to stand. Under the new Act a man's money is deducted, and, in addition, he pays extra contribution to his union to qualify for benefit. During the past few weeks hundreds of thousands of men have been round to our offices demanding payment, and we have not been entitled to pay, because of the laxity or something that exists in the Government Department. We are paying 6s. per week for 2d. par week contribution extra, but the condition laid down is that a man shall qualify under the Government scheme. Therefore he cannot receive his benefit until we get authority to pay from the Labour Exchange. The right hon. Gentleman himself knows that is a fact.

No, I do not.

You have had plenty of complaints sent to your Department.

I understand that employers have deducted contributions from the men's wages. Therefore, the men are in employment, and they are entitled to unemployment insurance benefit. If there be any hitch and the hon. Member will let me have the facts, I will go into them at once.

The men have paid their contributions under the Act, and at present they are not receiving the benefits that they ought to receive according to the Act, and they are making complaints. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to speed up the work of his Department in giving authority to pay. A good deal has been said against the trade unions to-day as far as the ex-service men are concerned, but we are willing to pay. For 7d. per week men under the Act receive 16s. We pay 6s. for 2d., so that we give a bigger benefit, but because we adopt the National Insurance Act for unemployment, we cannot pay out as quickly as we would like to do. I would like, therefore, to ask the right hon. Gentleman to speed up his Department in giving authority to pay benefits. This delay is causing a great deal of discontent, and men. are coming to the union head offices and branches making trouble, because they are not getting their benefits as quickly as they think they are entitled to receive them.

I should like to say how cordially I agree with the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Captain Loseby). It had been my intention to say something on the same lines. I want to appeal to the House and to hon. Members on these Benches to do all they can in the way of finding work for unemployed ex-service men. There is no doubt a great number of them feel that they have not been fairly treated, and the fact that there are 250,000 out of work is some proof of the complaint they make. Some of the hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon appear to think there is some royal road by which this terrible unemployment problem can be dealt with and prevented. There is no definite cure for unemployment. The worst of all the measures we have before us for dealing with it is that they themselves tend to cause further unemployment. Every pound which we spend on these palliative measures deprives men of work because it takes money out of the pockets of the taxpayers, who are con- sequently compelled to economise. They have to dismiss people and thus cause further unemployment. To-day many of us go about in boots and clothes which we would not like to be found drowned in. That in itself causes unemployment, by reducing the consumption of these articles. Therefore, every measure of this kind, though it may do some good temporarily, can only in the long run cause additional and continued unemployment. The hon. Member for Derbyshire (Mr. Holmes) and the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. Jones) had a little spar some time ago as to whether the rise in wages caused the rise in prices or vice versa. I do not know myself, but I do know that the present high cost of living plus the high wages now paid, is causing a great deal of unemployment. At the present moment there is an enormous amount of work for the people of this country, but owing to the high wages demanded it cannot be undertaken. In the suburbs of all our big towns there are thousands and thousands of middle-class people who would willingly pay 5s. or 7s. 6d. a day to get a job done, but they cannot pay 12s. or 15s., for the simple reason that they have not the money. There are thousands of people who would employ a gardener for £2 a week, but they cannot afford to pay £4. There are thousands of people who keep small motor cars which they look after themselves, although they would willingly pay a small sum to a man to clean and wash them, but they cannot get it done for a reasonable wage.

I do not say whether all this is due to high wages or high prices. It possibly is a combination of the two, and unless something can be evolved which will mitigate the position, every winter we shall have" this unemployment, and it will gradually become worse and worse. With regard to what was said a short time ago by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire I hope that whatever happens the Government will not attempt to produce any artificial boom in trade by a further inflation, either of credit or of currency. There is going to be a great deal of temptation to do that. We are going to see men walking about the streets unemployed, and we are going to have a great deal of trouble. It would be the simplest thing in the world to produce another temporary trade boom. It could be done by doubling the issue of notes and instructing the bankers to increase their loans. That would at once increase the purchasing power of the people. They would have money in their pockets, the demand for things would go up, the factories would be in full work, and everybody would be satisfied. But it would only be for a time, and in six months we should get back to where we are at the present moment, and the situation could then only be met by a repetition of the process and by a further increase of inflation. But in the end this country would drop into the same position as Germany and Austria, and anyone wanting to purchase the ordinary necessaries of life would have to go out with bundles of notes. As a permanent solution of the trouble it is a farcical proposal. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer was here he would probably say he would not be fool enough to do such a thing, but they are not all fools in Germany, Austria, and Italy. Yet this is what they have been doing, with the results which we see at the present moment. If I were asked which is going to cause the greatest amount of dissatisfaction, unemployment or high prices, I should say in the long run it would be the high cost of living. Things have been dear enough to the consumer in this country for the last five years and we do not wish to increase the prices artificially. If we did it would be bad because it would cause a cycle of bad trade.

There are two questions which I want to ask on this vote—[HON. MEMBERS: " Oh, oh! "]—and I intend to ask them because they are very important.

If the hon. Member would not begin in such an offensive manner, he might obtain a respectful hearing. He seems quite unaware of the way in which he begins. If he will address his remarks to me personally, then perhaps he may realise what his manner is like.

Certainly. I had no intention of being offensive to you. I was only explaining why I proposed to keep the House for a very few minutes.

I would rather the hon. Gentleman addressed himself to me, so that his intention may be achieved.

I was going to address myself to you, but I was greeted by certain remarks of disapproval from hon. Members opposite. These are the questions I want to ask. In connection with unemployment, we are invited to vote £6,120,000 for His Majesty's forces and merchant seamen. I would ask if the Minister for Labour can inform me how much of this is going to the merchant seamen. The reason I ask it is that there is a great deal of unemployment at the present moment amongst fishermen and merchant seamen, and these men are not getting the unemployment benefit to which they believe they are entitled. They are getting it only on the industrial scale, and not on the same scale as ex-service men. They are getting but 15 shillings a week, whereas I submit they are entitled to 29 shillings a week. Merchant seamen actually employed by the Admiralty in vessels requisitioned by the Admiralty get 29 shillings. These other men for whom I speak took just as great risks, and they are only getting the unemployed workmen's insurance. It is the same with the fisherman. Those who took up mine-sweeping get 29 shillings, but those who remained fishing, or many of them, do not come under the same scale, and they are only getting 15 shillings. It is unfair. I venture to put it to the Committee that these merchant seamen and fishermen are not in a position of ordinary workmen, but are entitled to be treated the same as ex-service men. I understand that the Government are considering a new scheme to get over the difficulty, or, at any rate, are looking very carefully into the whole subject, and I expect that they will make a pronouncement upon it on Tuesday or Wednesday. I earnestly hope that, between now and then, they will consider the question of these unemployed merchant seamen and fisherman who do not come within the strict definition of ex-service men—although, nevertheless, everyone pays a great tribute to their services during the War and the risks that they took—and see whether they cannot be brought under some more generous scheme. Great promises were made to them. They were promised that those who suffered by the submarine campaign would have the first call on the German reparations, and we are under a distinct pledge to treat them differently from ordinary insured workmen. I do not ask for an answer now, but I should be glad if the matter could be dealt with on Tuesday.

4.0 P.M.

The other question that I want to ask is with reference to Ireland. It is a question which I have asked once or twice at Question time, but, naturally, the Minister's time then is limited, and he has not been able to reply. What is being done for the workpeople in Ireland who have been thrown out of employment by incendiary fires? I am not going into any controversial question on this, except to say that, in the case of one or two of these occurrences, it has been admitted that it has been done by the police. What is being done in that case if the people are not under the unemployment insurance scheme? A number of them are not, because they did not happen to be in employment at the time when the scheme became operative. Take the case of Balbriggan, which is admitted to have been due to the forces of the Crown. I am not entering into the rights or the wrongs of the case, except that there are 300 people, mostly women, thrown out of work in that case. Have the Government instituted any sort of relief for them? What they are doing in that direction in Balbriggan they are morally bound to do also in the case of Cork. There are many hundreds of people out of work in Cork as the result of the fires there, and, whoever caused them, some sort of relief ought to be instituted for these people, especially those who are not under the regular insurance scheme. These people number thousands in Ireland. They are not all guilty —indeed, I doubt if any of them are—and the Government are under a moral obligation to do something for them. This is a very large Vote, and I do not think that these people should be left outside of our consideration.

Question put, and agreed to.

(Unclassified Services.) Ministry of Transport

Resolved,

" That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £500,010, be granted to his Majesty, to 'defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Transport, including sundry Charges in connection with Transportation Schemes, etc., under the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, certain Repayable Advances under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and Special Road Grants to relieve Unemployment."

Miscellaneous War Services (Foreign Office)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

" That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,629,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for the Cost of certain Miscellaneous War Services."

Do I understand that the Transport Vote has been passed? I was waiting, by arrangement, for the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary, and I was talking to the Minister of Transport just five minutes ago as to what the procedure was to be. He said that the Parliamentary Secretary was going to open, and that he would reply to any observations which were made; and, naturally, I could not get up at that moment, as I was expecting my hon. Friend to do so. I do not know that there is any Parliamentary way of getting out of this difficulty, but it is most unfortunate that we have lost so admirable an opportunity for a really informative Debate, which certainly would not have occupied more than an hour, or so, and of hearing the details of this most important scheme.

I am sorry if there has been any misunderstanding on my part. I understood, earlier in the day, from the right hon. Gentleman Himself, that if I allowed, as I have done, reference to be made to the roads scheme in the discussion on the other Vote, these two Votes would be taken together, as they both deal with unemployment. That is why, on the Transport Vote, I put the question at once. I cannot undo the matter now, but I will certainly ask that proper opportunity shall be given on the Report stage on Monday, because I may have made a mistake.

I entirely agree, Mr. Whitley, with what you have said. The general question of unemployment was, of course, exhausted by the Debate that we have already had, but the idea between the Minister and myself was that the Committee wished to hear the details of his scheme, as distinguished from the general question of unemployment, and we wanted to ask some questions upon them. All that is left to us now, in the circumstances, is to get an adequate opportunity for discussion of the matter on the Report stage.

I am not quite certain what line the Committee would like me to take with regard to the Miscellaneous Vote which I have to submit for their sanction. I have come prepared to make a statement in regard to every item on the Vote, but I am not quite sure whether it will be the wish of the Committee that I should make that statement, or whether I should reserve it to be made in the event of hon. Members raising separate points. In regard to that, I am in the hands of the Committee. In the unusual circumstances of this afternoon's sitting, I suppose that most Members of the Committee will desire to get through the business as quickly as possible, and I am anxious not to inflict on the Committee anything in the nature of a speech unless they desire me to do so.

I should like to ask one or two questions on this Vote for £1,629,000, which is rather a substantial sum. With regard to Item H, which deals with the relief of prisoners of war in enemy countries, I do not suppose that any information is desired, but, in accordance with the hon. Gentleman's invitation, I am telling him the points that I desire to raise. I do not think there is anything either in Item I, which deals with compensation for injuries to merchant ships arising out of the War. I am sure, also, that there is a very good explanation with regard to Item J. With regard to Item K, however, which has. reference to money due to American meat packers, I think we are entitled to some explanation beyond the note that is attached to the Item in the Estimate; and in particular I should like to ask one or two questions about Items C and D.

Item C is for an additional sum of nearly £500,000 for the maintenance of Russian refugees. Earlier in the year we voted £400,000 for these refugees, and at that time my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) raised the question of the policy with regard to these refugees, prophesying that a larger sum would be required, as we find now to be the case. I have had opportunities of hearing about these refugees from naval officers and others recently returned from Constantinople and so on, and I understand that they are in what are practi- cally internment camps in Lemnos, Egypt and Cyprus. They are mostly people who have come from the Crimea as refugees from the Bolshevists, and they are given Army rations and what else they can get in charity from the American Red Cross. I know of actual cases in which these people have wished to go away from the refugee camps and earn their living in various ways that are open to them. One case was that of a Russian lady who was a very clever violinist. She had the greatest difficulty in getting away—I suppose for quarantine or other reasons —but she could earn her living as a musician in various capitals, and I understand that eventually she had to get away by escaping like a prisoner. That is certainly wrong. If any of these people can earn their living away from these camps, they should be permitted to do so. We are told in the explanatory note that it is hoped that these refugees will become self-supporting by going to Serbia and elsewhere. I have, however, discussed the matter with several people who know the conditions in Serbia, and I do not see how these refugees are going to earn their living there. They are not manual labourers; they are not even clerks; they are largely people who might earn their living as teachers of languages or as musicians or something of that sort, but they could not work as farm labourers. That is the only kind of work that is open in Serbia, and there is not very much of that.

I can forsee that the Government, unless they have some definite policy in this matter, will come here again with another demand next Session. They will have to do so unless they can get rid of their responsibilities to these people. I should be the last to suggest that these people should be left in the lurch. Their position is a very hard one, and it is difficult to refuse to help them. They are the White counter-revolutionists—they are the unemployed of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for War. We have just been discussing our own unemployed, who, in many cases, are walking about the streets without anything. These people, at any rate, get Army rations, medical comforts, and house room, and they are better treated than many of our own ex-service men. However much harrowed we may be by their stories, we ought to know exactly what the Govern- ment's policy is in regard to them. If it goes about that we have unlimited largesse to give to them, we shall have them on our hands in increasing numbers, because other countries are not quite so generous. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme suggested, and I repeat the suggestion, that there should be some time limit, and that they should be told that, if they cannot make arrangements to earn their living within a certain time, we cannot help them any further. We cannot afford these sums of £500,000 at a time. We ought to get into negotiation with the Soviet Russian mission in this country, or with M. Tchitcherin in Moscow—who exchanges notes with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on all sorts of subjects—to see whether some amnesty could not be offered. I am told that an amnesty has already been freely offered, and that many thousands of people in Russia of the same class as these refugees—aristocrats, or what are known as bourgeoisie on the Continent, not manual labourers—are working in Russia and getting their rations and a certain amount of pay, and that the Russian Government has offered an amnesty to any such people, of course with certain limiting restrictions, who will go back and settle down and try to repair the ruin and havoc in their country. After all, they are Russians, and if we are going to encourage them to live on our charity until the present Russian Government falls, we shall have them on our hands for a great many years. For the information of the British taxpayer, the British Government ought to give some explanation of their policy. The Secretary of State for War boasted on Wednesday of the part he had played, and the responsibility he accepted, in trying to overthrow the present Government in Russia by all the means in his power. Here are some of the results. We are asked to-day to vote nearly £500,000 for the unfortunate people who are in this terrible condition in these internment camps. Prinkipo, where many of them have been sent, used to be a quarantine station, and the conditions there are not pleasant at all. I have had first-hand evidence that the conditions of these camps are demoralising and the lot of the people is far from pleasant. Yet hon. Members cheered the Minister of War when he boasted of some of his exploits. Now they are asked to pay for them.

On the next Vote, D, I want to ask a question relating to Russia. I believe that most of this money is for the British chaplain in Moscow. We have had tributes in this House to his great services in relieving necessitous Britishers, and a claim has been put in on his behalf for £45,000. If this money has been paid out for bonâ-fide relief, I shall not resist it; but I want to ask what rate of exchange for the rouble has been considered in this case? The sum of £45,000 represents many millions of roubles, and has done so for two years. I should like to know whether the whole of this money has been paid out to the relief of genuine distress among British subjects in Moscow, caused by the Revolution and through the loss of their property and so forth, in which case we shall not grudge one penny of it. On the other hand, I should like to know whether it is money for assisting what are known as agents—political agents sent into the country for political purposes. If any of this money is due to that sort of people we have a right to know, and how much. We do not object to vote money for relieving the genuine distress of British subjects, but we do object if this money covers subsidies to these political agents. If these political agents have to be paid, it ought to corns out of the Secret Service Vote, or the Foreign Office Vote, or the Vote of the Ministry of War. We do want to know what has actually been paid, and we want to know to whom the money has been paid.

It is rather a drop down from the very high ground of policy on to which the Debate has been taken by my hon. and gallant Friend to the question of the purchase of Italian oranges under Item (J). I am not going to discuss the amount, but here is an example again of some lack of forethought and prevision on the part of the Department concerned, I agree in regard to the items (C), (D) and (H) that those are matters over which the Department concerned has not very much control; but in regard to item (J) it will be noticed that it is a claim recently preferred by the Italian Government for the expenses of transport, etc., of oranges. How does that arise and how does a matter of that kind come under this Vote? What has the Foreign Office to do with the purchase of Italian oranges?

Or ice-cream.

I am not asking in any spirit of ridicule, but I want to understand how it is that an item which arose out of a transaction in 1916–17 is being dealt with in December, 1920. In regard to item (K), payments under agreements with American meat packers, I should like some information. When the Estimates were originally introduced the Department ought to have been able to foresee that some payment would be due on so important a transaction. How is it that apparently no provision was made for it and that the whole of the sum comes upon a Supplementary Estimate? Surely it is the duty of the Department to foresee a payment of this kind, and if they have made any mistake in their calculation it would then have come in the ordinary way as a Supplementary Estimate. It must have been quite certain that a payment of this kind would arise, and it must have been formulated to some extent when the Estimates were framed, yet suddenly we are confronted with a large claim for the sum of £648,500.

I will take the two Items raised by my right hon. Friend first. The Items relating to Italian oranges and American meat packers were blockade questions, and that is why it falls to my duty to reply in connection with them. I will take the orange transaction first. At a certain stage in the War the Government came to the conclusion that it would be a good thing to buy up the whole of the Italian orange crop, particularly because we should need the oranges ourselves and with the further object of preventing the Germans getting them. I am glad to be able to inform the Committee, and it is an assurance that does not always arise in connection with Supplementary Estimates, that His Majesty's Government positively made a profit on the transaction over a period of three years. The Government bought the Italian crop in three several seasons, and we have made a net profit of £16,000. My right hon. Friend asked me why this item was not foreseen. It could not have been foreseen, because we only received the latest claim from the Italian Government Commission who had charge of its affairs in this country in September last. This particular Item relates to the year 1916, which is the close of the financial year, and, although we have made a small profit on the transaction, we have now to ask the House for this amount.

The question of the American meat packers is, as I have said, also a blockade question. I have gone very carefully into this matter, aided by the knowledge I acquired at the time when I was in a sense, acting as the Minister, and I can assure the Committee that there is probably no transaction conducted by our Government during the whole of the War that had so great an influential effect on our prospects in the War. At the time before the United States came into the War, very great quantities of Chicago products were being shipped by American packers to small neutral States in the Baltic, and there was every reason to suppose that a considerable proportion of those products slipped through the neutral countries into Germany. Our Government stopped ships conveying those products, and brought them into the Prize Court, and there ensued differences of opinion. To put it at its mildest this might have reacted very disadvantageously to our relations with the United States. Sir Edward Grey then took the matter up and negotiations were entered into—the Committee will realise that I am cutting a long story very short—with the American meat packers and an agreement was arrived at. The packers agreed that they would not send any of their products, directly or indirectly, to enemy countries; that they would not send their products to neutral countries, except under cover of a permit issued by His Majesty's Government, and His Majesty's Government furthermore obtained the power to prescribe exactly the quantities to be sent by the packers to the neutrals In return for this enormous concession— for the Committee will realise that it was an enormous concession—His Majesty's Government were called upon to pay the packers a sum of £1,141,000. Of this sum £641,000 was paid there and then in 1916. The balance was to be paid—and here I come to the explanation of why this item appears now—within six months of the of the War with interest at 5 per cent. It is a technical point whether we have arrived at the end of the War, but this is a suitable occasion for fulfilling our part of the contract. There was no warlike measure taken by our Government during the War that cost less or had a greater effect on the prosperity of our cause than this bargain with the American meat packers.

In regard to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Hull as to the Russian refugees, these refugees are very much on my mind. There were in all at one time between 9,000 and 10,000 of them. They were taken to various camps in Egypt, Cyprus, Lemnos and Prinkipo. At a time when General Wrangel's fortunes looked more favourable than they subsequently became, a great many of these people apparently went through the camps back to the Crimea and that district, but in the end we were still left with 6,500 approximately. We entered into an arrangement with the Serbian Government to take these people. It is true that a great many of them are not accustomed or suited to ordinary employment, but the Serbian Government believe that they can absorb them satisfactorily into their populations. The Committee will be aware that there is a close affinity of blood and language between the Russians and the Serbian peoples. I am sorry to say that it may become necessary for me to come to the Committee again in connection with this item. At the moment I can hardly say how that can be avoided because under our agreement with the Serbian Government we are discharging the whole of our liabilities, but in six months the situation is to be reviewed.

I should have been surprised if my hon. and gallant Friend had thought that there was any desire on the part of the Government to detain these people against their will. If he will give me more exact particulars of the case to which he referred I will cause immediate inquiry to be made. So far from the Government desiring to put any restraint whatever on the movement of these unhappy refugees in these countries, we would rejoice if every one of them could find employment and occupation elsewhere to-morrow. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be able to put me in possession of more exact details. In any case, I will inquire whether there is any sort of restraint put on the movement of the refugees. I agree that we should be able to set some time limit to our obligations in this respect. I do not see how at the moment we can fix that, but anything that I can do—and it does not appear to be very much—to relieve the finances of this country of a burden which was very generously undertaken will be done with the greatest alacrity and the greatest pleasure.

The question of our repatriated nationals from Russia is dealt with under item D. The Committee is aware that at this moment, thanks very largely in the first instance to the activities of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, almost every one of our nationals in Russia who desired to come from Russia has reached this country, or is in Finland awaiting transport to this country. The whole of this money has been spent in relief either in Russia or in Finland on behalf of the refugees. There is nothing in the suspicion to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman gave expression, that any part of this money was spent on political objects in Russia. The Committee will be aware from previous discussion on the subject that our nationals in Russia were for the most part in a condition of great penury. It may be that their situation was not appreciably worse than that of Russian subjects themselves, but that does not matter The Rev. Mr North, the British chaplain at Moscow, raised money from the better-to-do British nationals in Russia for the purpose of extending relief to those people, and this was done again by a lady who has rendered great service in Russia. Her accounts are not yet fully to hand. We are asking in this Vote a small amount in order to cover the commitments into which this lady has entered, but no part of this money has been spent on any other purpose but that of relief of our own people in Russia, and their assistance when they arrive very often in rags and without money, other than roubles of unknown value, in Finland, and generally of supporting them until they arrive in this country. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked me as to the rates of exchange of roubles.

What I want to know is, was the payment of the reverend gentleman put forward in roubles, and if so, what were the rates of exchange? I do not suggest anything unfair.

The rates of exchange which we have adopted in regard to our own people when they arrive in this country have varied, if my memory serves me rightly, from 25 or 30 roubles to the sovereign up to 4,000, according to the different period at which the rouble notes were issued. That is as I understand the question, but I cannot profess to be able to speak with any authority on the question of Russian currency today. It is a matter for regret to have to submit Supplementary Estimates, but not one of these items relates any way to orderly expenditure of the Foreign Office. We have not been extravagant. We have not been squandermaniacs. Every one of these is a war time item, and some of them date back three years. I trust the Committee will give me the Vote without delay.

I am bound to ask a little further information about these refugees. The hon. Gentleman did not deal with one suggestion of mine, but made a remark which rather alarmed me. He said that even if these people did reach Serbia, they would still be dependent on us. If we have still to provide them with an allowance, is there any time limit? The exchange in Serbia is very different from what it was before the War, and if they get a certain amount of English money in Serbia it will be worth much more to them on the spot. I believe that that was one of the inducements held out to them to go to Serbia. The hon. Gentleman has said that in spite of the hopes he held out to us earlier in the year, that the half million of money asked for would be final, he fears that he may have to ask for a further sum. Have we negotiated with the present Government of Russia on the question whether they will help towards the upkeep of these people, who are Russian nationals, or whether they will be willing to grant an amnesty and facilitate the refugees' return. My information is that the Russian Government would grant an amnesty. That has been stated in the Russian wireless messages, which also say that the Russian Government would find work for everyone who is willing to work in Russia. There is a very great shortage in Russia to-day of the intellectual or educated classes. As things are in Russia, or as they will settle down, I think the educated class, the intellectual class, who are prepared to go back, will be more and more welcome. That is the information I have from recently returned travellers like Mr. H. G. Wells and others. In view of our financial stringency, I hold that if the Foreign Office is not entering into some sort of conversation with Russia, they ought to be doing so. We cannot afford to be helping Russians and Syrians and Chaldeans when we cannot find money for our own unemployed.

Here is a sum for the maintenance of Russian refugees who are to be transferred from Lemnos, from Egypt, and from Cyprus to Serbia, where it is hoped they will shortly become self-supporting. I see no reason to suppose that they are likely to become self-supporting, but it is better that they should be on the hands of Serbia than on our hands. On what ground does the British taxpayer support Russian refugees at all? My outlook is exactly the opposite of that of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. I speak with the deepest sympathy for the Russians, for it wrings my heart to see them reduced to penury and misery, but that does not alter the fact that I am a representative of the British taxpayer and not of a ruined Russia. Why have we any responsibility in this matter? Is it humanity, as I am told in regard to the Armenians, and, if so, where does it stop? Can the humanity of the British taxpayer embrace the whole world? Though my own sympathy with the Russians is intense, why does it extend more to them than to the ruined of other nations? Will the hon. Gentleman resolve my doubts to some extent? For years I have been trying to get at the ground on which the British taxpayer feeds Russians, Greeks, Hebrews, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia.

My hon. Friend asks me plainly and bluntly why we are supporting these Russian refugees. If hon. Members will carry their minds back to a former discussion, at a time when General Denikin's forces were being driven backward by the Bolshevist Army, they will remember that our diplomatic representative in South Russia undertook to look after a number of the wives and children and others of General Denekin's forces. Whether that was a good undertaking or not the committee can judge as well as I can, but the undertaking was given and we must fulfil it. I agree that in these times of necessity, when the demands on the public purse from this country are of the most imperious character from every quarter, we should not be spending money, however honourably, on nationals of another country. The hon. and gallant Member for Hull referred again to the possibility of an amnesty. I think he indicated a course of action that might well be explored, and so far as I can influence matters I will explore it. Whether these people whom he describes, some as aristocrats and others as belonging to the bourgeoisie, will be eager to return to Russia under the present rigime, I do not feel confident, because from all the accounts we have had during the past two or three years of the fate of the bourgeoisie in Russia, it would seem that their prospects in that country are not likely to be of the rosiest kind. However, conditions have changed there, and that is a subject which I will take up and pursue as far as possible. The hon. and gallant Member said he was alarmed at my statement that I might have to come to the House again. The position is, that the Serbian Government think they can find employment for these people, but they cannot afford to take charge of them. Instead of spending money on these refugees in places like Lemnos and Prinkipo, where they would not have the remotest chance of employment, we are paying five of six pounds per month for them in Serbia until they do find employment. If they fail to find employment in six months, it is agreed that the situation should then be reviewed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.

It was agreed we should give five Votes this afternoon without discussion and that there should be a discussion on a sixth, that on War Bonuses, and that this Vote should not be taken.

The understanding was come to that we should not take the Report of a Vote for over £40,000,000 on a Saturday afternoon.

The question was as to the Votes of which you wanted the Report stage taken on Monday.

We arranged to give yon what was on the White Paper and to have a discussion on the War Bonus Vote.

That is correct. You mentioned what Votes you wished held up until Monday. In these circumstances I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

Question put, and agreed to.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

Second Resolution agreed to.

Third Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

I wish, on this Vote, to ask the Government to explain the principle on which this War bonus with the Civil Service has been arrived at, and also to inform us more fully what this arrangement will mean for the country. We have had practically no discussion on this matter except in the early hours of Friday morning, and it is one which both in principle and in detail is of great financial importance. During the War it is true that huge sums of public money were spent without any effective Parliamentary control, but it seems most improper that a matter of this kind, which will run into very many millions if it continues, can only come before Parliament as a Supplementary Estimate long after the money has been spent and when this House is inevitably committed to the principle, anyhow up to date, and probably for a considerable time in the future, unless we are to cause great injustice and great difficulty in the Civil Service. The system which has been arrived at in the Civil Service for this war bonus fluctuating with changes in the cost of living was apparently set up on the recommendation of a so-called Whitley Council for the Civil Service. We have got very little definite knowledge on the subject, but it is understood that for every five points increase in the official index figure for the cost of living there is a rise of l-26th in the first £90 on every civil servant's salary. I believe it applies to no less than a quarter of a million salaries. After the first £90, the increases go by a sliding scale, decreasing as the salaries increase; but it is a very complicated arrangement, and I would ask the Government to see whether they cannot give us on paper further details to show us what it actually means on salaries of different sizes, for instance, what in the case of a civil servant who had £1,000 a year before the War, not of course taking into consideration his normal annual increase to which he was then entitled, it means in money at the present day under this new war bonus system.

We know enough of this matter to justify us asking that the principle itself should be justified. I quite agree that it is of importance that we should have a contented Civil Service. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, when the matter was discussed in the early hours of yesterday morning, is reported to have rather laboured the point that the higher grades of the Civil Service were not overpaid. I fully agree, and I do not for one moment suggest that they are overpaid. In fact, I think recent instances of valuable and very highly trained civil servants being tempted away to private employment suggests very much the contrary. I think that probably the rewards in the Civil Service for exceptional ability are far lower than those which are offered in other walks of life, and that it would be in the public interest if we could ensure that we do not have this leakage of valuable civil servants. The grading and payment, however, of the Civil Service as a whole is such a technical matter that probably no private Member of the House is in a position to express any definite opinion as to the details, but that does not absolve the House of Commons from satisfying itself on general principles that the grading and payment of these civil servants is arranged on a sound basis and also that it is arranged by proper authority.

5.0 P.M.

As to the principle, the Government have taken a very firm stand in the last few weeks on the matter of output. They have told the coalminers that their wages must depend on the wage fund which they produce by their own efforts, and they stood so strongly—and very rightly, too— on that principle that they brought about a national stoppage in the coal industry. Is it sound to lay down that principle in the case. of the industries of the country— a principle which I do not think can be controverted—that pay must depend on output, on the financial position of the wage fund, and to ignore that altogether in other arrangements which may be come to in various other employments? Of course, it is obvious that in other industries and in such employments as the Civil Service you cannot arrange your pay entirely upon output. Indeed, in the Civil Service you cannot go by output at all, but you probably can get a different basis than that arranged for the war bonus—a basis which would get a more close comparison with the standard of pay which was received for the same kind of work by people of the same training and mental efficiency in other employments. In no case, certainly, except the Civil Service or the railwaymen, who get a State guarantee at the back of them, is it possible to make your remuneration depend on anything so simple as the cost of living alone. The community is living under very straining circumstances, owing to the War, and most taxpayers feel it in two ways. They first feel it in the increased demands of the tax collector, and, secondly, through the very heavy increase in the cost of living. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in the discussion in Committee, took some credit, I think, for the fact that civil servants are liable to pay Income Tax and Super-tax. Of course, they are.

I merely mentioned that because the question had been asked on a previous Vote, and the Minister then in charge was unable to give the answer.

I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I was rather surprised at his reference on reading the Debate, and I will not pursue that, but I will say this, that we cannot surely justify putting the civil servants in a privileged position and saying that their share of war burdens shall be limited to paying taxes, and that in all other respects they shall be indemnified against the action of those economic laws which are operating with such extreme inconvenience on every other class of the community. As a matter of fact, under this system the civil servants are actually indemnified to a great extent against taxation, because I understand that in the cost of living the price of tobacco is taken into consideration. The cost of tobacco is to the extent of about five- sixths made up by the very heavy duty on tobacco, and it seems to me that you are as directly remitting taxation when you take tobacco into consideration in fixing people's salary as if you were, in other classes, to average out the level of Income Tax and try and indemnify people against that tax by higher wages. Then, if you admit this principle, how far will you apply it? You have refused it to the miners; will you extend it to all labour in the public service, and what would be the attitude of the Treasury if the same claim were put forward by the Army and Navy? I think we ought to have some information as to how far this principle is likely to go.

And pre-War pensioners?

Yes. I should also like to know how this Whitley Council was constituted. Did it have merely advisory powers, or was it given full power to set up any settlement which the civil servants might agree upon? It is a characteristic feature of the so-called Whitley Councils for the discussion of industrial matters that both employers and employed should be represented. In the case of the Civil Service, the public were not represented, and the public are the employers. I understand that the whole personnel of this Whitley Council, which settled this very far-reaching change in the basis of payment, consisted entirely of civil servants. I come to another point on which I want information. On this, perhaps, we shall have the advantage of the knowledge of the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Labour. How is this index figure of the cost of living fixed? Formerly the figure was one of academic interest to statisticians, but it has suddenly become a very grave question of public importance, and we ought to know who fixes it, and we ought to have security that it is properly fixed. In any case, it it a very difficult matter for any civil servant who knows that the pay of himself and all his colleagues depends on his decision to fix such a figure with any satisfaction to himself and with due consideration to the interests of the public.

There was a Committee in 1918, under the chairmanship of Lord Sumner, which went into this matter, and I should like to know how far their recommendations have been carried out. They dealt with estimates of the cost of living arrived at by the Ministry of Labour and they pointed out that price measurements based on pre-War working-class budgets, with no allowance for changes in consumption, were no reliable basis of the cost of living at that time. Obviously people eat far fewer eggs at the present price than they did at the pre-War price. The same with regard to the whole scale of food consumption. I would like to know whether the Labour Ministry have in any way carried out the suggestions which were thrown out in this Sumner Report, and when the Government deal with these matters of principle I hope the Treasury will give us some indipation as to cost. I would like to know the detailed cost per year of the increases which have been brought about under this new scale. Owing, I think, to a 20-point rise in the cost of living a few weeks ago, the lowest part of each salary has jumped up by four-twenty-sixths. How much is that going to cost in a full year? It would be very useful for the purpose of comparison if we might be told what sum is represented by each one-twenty-sixth of the rate of bonus; that is to say, what is the total cost thrown on to the Exchequer for a full year by the rise in salary which is brought about by each five points rise in the cost of living? I fear that in the case of all these Supplementary Estimates the money has already been spent, and I do protest once more against this practice of treating the House of Commons as an automatic cash register with no control whatever, and only to be used as a matter of convenience when the money has long been spent and the bill has to be settled. At least, in this case, let us be told the facts, so as to be in a position to form an opinion whether the present position of the War bonus is sound and whether it should be continued in the future.

It is not likely that, having spent a great part of my life in the Civil Service, I should be in any way disposed to speak against the interests of the Service; but I speak as an old civil servant, and with all the traditions of the Service before me, when I tell the Secretary to the Treasury that I think never has a greater mistake been made, in the interests of the Service itself, than the pro- vision by the Government of this additional bonus on the lavish scale on which it has been made. It requires very grave consideration, and I say openly to the Secretary to the Treasury that I consider a grave mistake has been made, and that insufficient consideration has been given to this step. We know quite well that the resources of the nation are curtailed in every respect. We must draw in expenditure on every side. How is this to be possible if every employè of the Government is first of all to be made secure that his pay shall be advanced in proportion to the burden that lies upon the nation? What is the position of the rest of the community who are not in these comfortable places in the Civil Service? Most of us are living on an income about half what we had before the War. We are told that we must do without things, and on every side amongst the professional classes that course is being followed at this moment. The Secretary to the Treasury tells us that it is absolutely necessary to pay our civil servants adequately. I quite agree, but I would point out that pay was not the chief attraction, according to the traditions which prevailed when I was in the Civil Service. But let us keep only to that consideration. What are the advantages which the civil servant has? He has security, but with the security he must also take the ups and downs of that security. Is he to be perfectly safe against all chances that attach themselves to commercial life or to professional life, and is he, on the other side, to be able to say that if expenses increase he shall be indemnified to the full extent?

Why was this left to what is called the Whitley Council? In doing so, you strike a blow at the prestige, honour and dignity, and the best traditions of the Civil Service. It is not for the civil servants to settle their own pay. They are the last people to do it, and in days past, before you changed the whole spirit of the Civil Service by what are called the super-business men you have brought into it, that is the last thing they would have wished to do. These questions ought to have been dealt with by perfectly disinterested people acting for this House and this country, and I am perfectly certain that if, 25 years ago, you had proposed to any office or large body of civil servants that they themselves should sit in council and decide as to their own pay, they would have declined absolutely to do it. I think they would have been right, and I am sorry to see the same spirit does not prevail in the Civil Service now, and that the Government allowed the disappearance of such a tradition. I think this ought to have been settled entirely by an independent council.

I am prepared to admit that there might be cases of great hardship in the Civil Service. There may be men in the lower ranks getting pay that is hardly adequate. But the bonus is not limited to the lower grades of the Civil Service. It extends to the higher grades of the Civil Service, and the result is that many permanent civil servants are getting salaries very considerably in excess of the Ministers under whom they serve. I wonder if hon. Members are aware that Ministers who are responsible heads of Departments are being paid as much as £600 and £700 per year less than their own permanent civil servants? I do think that a certain pride, a certain independence, would make a man say: "I will keep my burden to myself: I will bear, like many of my fellows, the pressure of war conditions, and I will not come and ask that my salary shall automatically mount according to the return that is made by the Board of Trade or any estimated increase of expenditure on living." We all know perfectly well, every one of us who are living on narrow means, that we do not spend so much, or anything like so much, as 130 or 140 per cent. above what we did. We are spending much less than we did before the War. Why cannot civil servants adopt a similar course, and I speak as an old civil servant?

Have the Government increased the salaries of the judges? It is supposed that it is to the best and essential interests of the whole community that they should be in a position where they will be free from any money cares or pressure of that sort. The judges are now under the greatest pressure, and are now really receiving a smaller salary than many of these civil servants. That is really a crying wrong and a thing that requires redressing at once. I wonder how many of the clergy are getting this additional payment? They are suffering from the present condition of affairs like the rest of us. But it is no use coming down here after the money has been spent and asking us to endorse it. We are told that this is additional to meet the demands of the whole service. But it is much more easy to make those concerned satisfied and contented than in the public interest to say "No." Several hon. Members have made a suggestion that there should be a recasting of the old pre-War civil service pension. As one interested myself, I absolutely refuse to have anything to do with such proposal. Those who are occupying similar positions to what I once occupied are getting salaries very nearly double, or certainly, one third more than that which I got.

And a pension.

Yes, and a pension. But I never will be a party to asking for any increase of my pension. I do insist that the proud tradition of the Civil Service should be kept up, and if an addition on this lavish scale is to be made it should be made, not. by a Whitley Council consisting of the civil servants themselves, it should be left entirely in the hands of a Committee representative of this House and the public. I say that the Government making these advances before the assent of the House has been given here is a rash thing, and forms a very dangerous precedent.

It is material that the House should have figures in discussing this matter, and perhaps they will allow me to give a few comparative figures which have come to my notice in the ordinary way of business. It appears that boys and girls selected for the Civil Service at the age of 16 or 17 receive a starting salary of £60 a year, which is increased by the war bonus to about £153, or, roughly, about £3 per week. Again, take the candidates for the Civil Service, men and women, chosen at the ages of 18 and 19, either by selection or competitive examination. They start with a salary of £100, which is increased by war bonus to the large figure of £248 or again, speaking roughly, £5 a week. I know of no bank, insurance office, or commercial institution that pays £5 a week to a junior of 18. Nobody wants to have bad civil servants. That we all understand and endorse. Equally no one wants a lavish scale of bonuses, lavish compared with that of commercial institutions. If the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury has not got a satisfactory answer to these points I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds will go to a division, and, if so, I shall vote with him.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman in his reply would answer this question: The point has been made —properly I think—that this money ought not to have been spent before the authority of this House was obtained. If so, will he tell us what reason there was for doing that? It seems to me perfectly outrageous that this money should have been spent before the authority of the House was got, unless there was some imperative reason for doing so. And I should like to emphasise the point, too. Unless there is a good reason for spending in advance of authority it seems to me to be one of those things that the House of Commons ought not to condone, but show, by its vote, that it will not tolerate the spending of money, for a good or a bad purpose, without the leave of the House.

It may, perhaps, clear the way if I answer the question which has just been put to me by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. A. Williams), and before we come to the main subject of discussion. I would remind him that in the main Estimates this year (Unclassified Services) there was a Vote of £9,500,000, war bonus, specified, together with the officers amongst whom that bonus was distributable; at the end was a provisional Estimate for the increase in the rate of bonus that we were aware would fall due as from 1st July, and the House gave its assent to that, although I regret very much that owing to the fact that this particular Vote was not one selected by the Opposition, we have not yet had what I admit to be a most desirable opportunity of discussing the matter. If my hon. Friend looks at the words on the face of the Estimate we are discussing, he will see it is almost entirely for the provision of further increases in accordance with the automatic scale, and certain of the sums included in it are included because the anticipated savings which we had contemplated in framing the original estimate fell short by a matter of nearly a quarter of a million, which had, of course, to be made good.

Was that automatic scale approved by this House before it came into operation?

The scale itself has not been before the House until to-day. I am sure the House knows me well enough now to know that I am the last man to take advantage of any irregular procedure with regard to estimates, but I can assure my hon. Friend that in this matter there is no question of plunging into unauthorised expenditure. I will be as brief as I can, although I am afraid that this subject, now that it has been most properly raised, deserves a considered reply which must take some little time. I think it is very natural that there should be a strong feeling amongst Members, a feeling as to the amount of money that is spent, a question as to whether it is all necessary, and a very natural wonder as to why an arrangement of this kind has been made at all. I hope that I may be able to show that the Government have given very careful consideration to it, and that in very difficult circumstances the arrangement that has been come to is one that the House will endorse. I do not know how far hon. Members realise the difficulty that existed all during the War, during those times of rapidly fluctuating prices, in adjusting the salaries in the Civil Service. The same difficulty existed, and exists to-day, in every (industry in the country, and there is no greater difficulty with which employers have been faced than how to meet the rapidly changing conditions, each in his own industry. The Civil Service, which we are considering to-day, consisting of something well over 250,000 persons, is split up into innumerable grades in very many offices, and so long as you have no unifying system in dealing with their salaries, you have continuous applications from many different quarters to the Arbitration Board which was in existence during the War for adjustments of salary in the way of bonus. Every one of these applications led to a considerable expenditure of time, and necessarily, even although the business might be conducted with the utmost good will, to a considerable amount of friction as well. Friction is always exhausting, and dealing between human beings, I think it should be eliminated as far as possible, just as you eliminate it in the case of an engine. More than that, not only were you faced with the diffi- culty of adjusting scales on what I may call a rising market, but there loomed in the future, either for us or for our successors, the infinitely more difficult task of getting salaries down when the falling prices fall. About a year ago the Government decided that the schemes that were associated with the name of our distingushed Chairman of Ways and Means, and which were being put into force throughout the country, should, as an earnest of their good will, and their belief in these schemes, be referred to a Whitley Council in the Civil Service, that Whitley Council being a portion of the National Council which covered the whole area of the country.

Who represent the employers on that Council?

I am coming to that. Of course there always was this initial difficulty that, in applying the principle of Whitleyism to the Civil Service, you had not got, as you had in industry, that clearly marked line between employers and employed, although I have no doubt that, generally speaking, the view held on the staff side would be that their employers are those members of the Civil Service who hold the higher posts, and who are responsible for administration in the offices.

They are benefiting themselves by it.

In practice that is the only way it can be done. The staff side met in the position of employés, and members from the administrative side sat, and it was decided that the salaries dealt with by the Whitley Council should be those not exceeding £500 a year, although it was afterwards decided with the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the same principle might be applied, with varying amounts, of course, to the higher grades. What we value so much in the arrangement that they came to is, in the first place, it applies to the Service as a whole, and this I do call the attention of the House to most seriously, because, without this, certainly there would have been no agreement at all. Besides that, it provides for that most difficult time, the fall in prices. I am coming in a moment to the details of the scheme, but I just want to point out here that, just as rises take place in accordance with the increase in the cost of living, to use the generally understood term, so when the fall begins the bonus will fall, not only by one-twenty-sixth or by six-twenty-sixths, which we are dealing with at present, but it will fall automatically right down to the basic figure of salary. You have an immense safeguard there. If this agreement is worked in the spirit in which I have no doubt it will be worked, when the fall in prices comes you will have an automatic reduction of salaries without fighting, without complaint, without bitterness, until you get right down to the basic figure, in many cases the pre-War basic figure, assuming that prices come right down to the pre-War level. Security, in my opinion, is the great gain which we get from this arrangement—security and contentment. Having said those few words, I will proceed to give my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness) some of the detailed information for which he asks. I am going to avoid all the details which I can, because the figures are so confusing, but I want to give a few rough and round figures which I think may be useful. The total salaries of the Civil Service comprised in this Vote on the basic scale of salaries come to about £35,000,000 or £40,000,000 a year, and the total amount of the bonus up to the present date in round figures to something like £35,000,000 a year, which makes a total cost of the Civil Service in salaries, including bonus, roughly from £70,000,000 to £75,000,000. When you have that figure you have the cost of the Service. I might observe, in passing, that when you look at those figures the increase is no greater than anyone who has experience of salaries and wages in industry outside the Civil Service would expect to find.

Is the bonus Which my right hon. Friend has mentioned the bonus payable from 1st March, 1920?

All bonuses.

Are there two bonuses, because the Paper and the Supplementary Estimate refer to four-twenty-sixths increase in the rate of bonus payable from 1st March?

I am giving the House the figure as it stands to-day as nearly as I can calculate it. It includes the basic 130 per cent., the one twenty-sixth, given on 1st July, and the four twenty-sixths given on the 1st November.

When my right hon. Friend talks of the basic figure, are we to understand that it is really the pre-War level and that there have been no rises in the basic figure subsequent to the War, but that the whole of the increase is found in the bonus?

I am glad that my hon. and gallant Friend has put that point. The pre-War figure holds good through a very large part of the Service, but, with regard to large sections of the Post Office, the basic rate has been raised somewhat. It is not very much, a matter, speaking from memory, of something like 4s. or 5s. per week.

Do you know the pre-War basic rate?

Where?

For the Civil Service.

It would be very little less than that.

In very many cases there were considerable increases in the higher appointments of the Civil Service during the War.

There were increases by way of bonus.

No, in addition to bonus.

That is so quite lately in a few cases.

They have had an increase and the bonus beside.

My hon. and gallant Friend is quite correct in saying that each one twenty-sixth is equivalent to about £1,150,000 for the year. He can calculate from that what is the addition supposing the twenty-sixths are any other figure than one. It might also be of interest if at this point I just gave one more figure, because I do not want the House to feel that there is an enormous staff getting too much money. I want to remind them that the very large proportion of people who come under this Vote are in receipt of a very low pre-War wage. It may come as a matter of surprise to hon. Members as it did to me when I got out the figures. Here, again, I would only say that it would be a very laborious undertaking to get the exact figures, so I give these figures as furnished to me. They are rough figures, but they are very near the mark. Of the total numbers of men and women eititled to the bonus, roughly, about 88 per cent. have a basic wage, apart from the bonus, of £200 per year or less, and about 12 per cent. approximately have a basic wage above that figure. I said, in answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander) on this Vote the other morning, that what you may call the more highly paid men up to £500 or £600 a year number something like 1 per cent. I think those are useful figures, and will help us in the further consideration of this matter. I might at this point deal with the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. E. Cecil). This is a matter I looked into personally. I have seen comments on those figures, and I want to put this point to the House. With all respect to my right hon. Friend, I do not think that you can draw quite a fair comparison between clerks in banks, for instance, and boys and girls entering the Civil Service. I think I can show very clearly wherein the difference lies. I am sure that the House will admit that you must make the Civil Service as attractive as you can without wasting money, because you want to draw from all over the Kingdom the best brains that are coming into the employment market. I am sure that everybody will be with me there. I know myself, from my experience as chairman of a country grammar school in the old days, the eagerness with which parents in the countryside would try and get every advantage of education for their children with a view of getting them into the Civil Service. We want that desire to remain. Why do we propose at this moment to pay more for these entrants into the Civil Service than they could get if they went into such service—very admirable service—as that of a bank? I have been a director of a bank for a good many years, and I know something about bank clerks, where they come from and what are their ambitions.

When a boy enters the Civil Service the chances are very much against his being able to live at home, and if we want to keep him respectable we must see he has a basic rate of pay on which he can live. It is essential that the Government should see to that. Let it be remembered that these young people come up for the Civil Service examinations from all over the United Kingdom, and when they pass they are liable to be sent to any part of the United Kingdom. A boy who is going into a bank almost invariably starts at home. These young people are generally the children of parents who can afford to help keep them for a time, and who apply to the local branch of their bank to get them posts where they can live at home and go to their work in the office. It is a very small proportion of boys who go into that kind of business who go right away from home at the time they first start, and they are therefore able to live on a smaller salary than a boy who embraces the profession of the Civil Service. Before the War there is no doubt that the scales in the Civil Service were very low in these grades, and it was with very great difficulty that those who entered the Service were able to keep themselves if they were sent away from home. If we take the figures that have been mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aston I think the question we have to ask ourselves is, not, is it more or is it less than is paid in some forms of commercial life, but is it too much to enable the young people to keep themselves? Further, if we bring the figures mentioned by my right hon. Friend down to the present purchasing power of money and the present expense of living, and remember that all those on low incomes feel the rise in the cost of necessaries of life more than those who have the higher incomes, I think it will be felt that in terms of pre-War money they are not higher than in the circumstances of the present day we ought to offer.

I want to say a few words here on a point on which my hon. Friend the Member from Bury St. Edmunds laid some stress, and that is the index figure. I am not going, if the House will forgive me, to enter into the merits of the index figure as such, and for this reason, that the index figure is calculated by the officials of another Department than mine and the whole matter to which my hon. Friend refers, as well as the Report of the Sumner Committee, is at present under the very serious consideration of that Department. I will merely say in passing that, even if it were desirable at this moment to change the basis of the figure, I think I can show very serious reasons on the other side why now it would be a most unfortunate policy. Let hon. Members bear in mind that the index figure as at present calculated gives a relative comparison of the difference in the cost of living pre-War and to-day, and that system which has been endorsed by a good many authorities is to-day employed under agreements in the industrial world between employers and employed, covering something like 1,500,000 of men in various industries in the country. How far these calculations may enter indirectly into the adjustment of wage rates it is impossible to say, but it must be remembered that the pre-War Budget was never challenged at the time it was issued, and if we are to adopt a fresh measure of calculating the increase to-day there is no relative comparison; therefore the pre-War Budget must go and we must have a whole series of new Budgets the preparation of which will consume a great deal of time and involve a large amount of discussion before it will be possible to get the fresh basis at work. This is the real reason, to my mind, why, whatever may be felt desirable in the future, after the examination by the other Departments concerned, it is impossible and undesirable to make any change at the present moment.

These figures naturally among the unemployed have been regarded at times with suspicion. Suspicion has been in the air between employers and employed, but, with the expiration of time, I do not think I shall be contradicted when I say that this method of adjusting wages is now regarded more favourably, and the figures are looked on with confidence. It is quite possible that that confidence partly owes its origin to the fact that up till now these figures have risen, for nothing breeds confidence more than success. In my opinion, however, we are now at the peak, and I have every hope that before long we shall begin to see these figures fall. I have sufficient confidence in the employés of this country that where these agreements exist they will go down hill not less loyally than they went up hill. If no such agreement exists everybody who has had practical experience in industry knows the difficulty of the task of trying to get wages down, though prices have fallen and profits have declined. If those who are paid according to a scale regulated by the index figure, whether in the Civil Service or in industry, get into their minds any suspicion that at this moment, when we are at the peak, we are going, as they would say, to tamper with the basis, we shall put ourselves in a very difficult position. It is only by their feeling that, as the figures come down, they are selected by the same people and in the same way as when they rose, that they will have that faith in them which will carry us through the difficult time of falling prices. If for a moment those interested can say, " Oh, yes, you never bothered about these figures before, when you were all making a lot of money and did not mind what wages you were going to pay; but, now that you want them to come down, you are going to alter your basis," the whole of their confidence will be destroyed at one blow. Even if it be thought desirable to provide a fresh basis for calculating the relativity of the figures for cost of living at one period or another, I do suggest that the time for that will come when the Ministry of Labour have completed their investigations and come to conclusions, and when we are getting down to what promises to be a more stable and level condition of prices.

I have tried to give to the House the reason why the Government have endorsed this agreement that has been come to. We believe that by it we have secured content in the Civil Service—a content not secured by paying them more than we believe they ought to be paid, but by making them feel that we are able to go into these matters with an open mind, and with a desire to see that they shall have, through these times, a living wage; and they on their part show us that, while we have an agreement that helps them, and covers the whole Civil Service in meeting the times of high prices, they, in their turn, will meet us when the fall comes, and will be taking less and less with the fall of the index figure, until we get the salaries Estimate back, as I hope we may, not to pre-war figures, but to something substantially less than the figure which we have asked the House now to Vote.

Could the right hon. Gentleman give us some indication of the composition of this Whitley Council?

The Whitley Council for the Civil Service consists of about eleven Members from either side. The Chairman of the particular council that dealt with this matter was Mr. Meiklejohn, of the Treasury, and Mr. Stuart Bunning, the well-known representative of the postmen, is the vice-chairman and the leader of the staff side.

I think it is greatly to be regretted, though I suppose it could not be helped, that this particular Vote has come on at this time, when it is impossible to expect the House to give it full discussion, and to make a full examination of it. After the speeches we have heard, and especially that of my right hon. Friend, it appears to me to be a matter to which we ought to have given a great deal more attention than was possible in the circumstances. That being the case, I do not intend to transgress upon the patience of the House at any length, but I must indicate my impression of the speech of my right hon. Friend. I am not at all satisfied with the answer that he gave on one important point, which was brought forward by more than one speaker, namely, the point that this money has been already spent before the sanction of the House was either asked or obtained. My right hon. Friend, no doubt, will say that that was simply because the Opposition did not ask that this Vote should come on at an earlier date, and that, therefore, they have not been able to take it before.

6.0 P.M.

:To what Vote is my hon. Friend referring? I was referring to the Vote in the main Estimate, which, as he understands, was introduced in the summer. As my hon. Friend knows, there is not time to examine every Estimate, and so, on the allotted day for Supply, the first Vote that is put down is the one that is generally chosen by the Opposition as being the one which they wish to discuss. Unfortunately, the others have to go through at the end, either discussed inadequately or not discussed at all, and this is one of them.

I am dealing with the particular sum of money which amounts to some £2,250,000 in this Supplementary Estimate. That money, as I understand, has been already spent.

It is to last till the 31st of March.

Either it has been spent or it has not been spent. The point was raised by an hon. Member opposite, and I did not understand the right hon. Gentleman to say, in reply, that the hon. Member was quite mistaken, and that, in point of fact, not a penny of it had yet been spent. If he cannot say that, it is quite clear that some part of it, greater or less, has been already spent, and that appears to me to be an entirely wrong principle. The Treasury and the Government, and also the House, ought to take a much stronger stand upon a matter of this sort, and to compel the Government, if compulsion be necessary, to take that attitude. It would have been perfectly right in this case, if the money already voted had been exhausted by a certain date, simply to cease paying the bonus until the sanction of the House of Commons had been given to its continuance, either on the existing basis or on a larger scale. Not only was the money spent before it was sanctioned, but my right hon. Friend said that the whole system upon which it is being paid was also altered without the sanction of this House. He said that there was a system, which he described rather shortly, of automatic increases in the bonus, which we do not even now at all clearly understand. We are told that the system was introduced some months ago by the Treasury without asking the House. It may be a good or a bad system, but we are told that we have to sanction it, and to sanction the money that has been already spent in pursuance of the new system. I think that is all wrong. On the main merits of the question my right hon. Friend said that the object was to maintain a contented Civil Service. Of course that is very desirable, but it is no wonder that the Civil Service are contented if it means—and I understand that that is the system—that the Government have practically given guarantees to the whole of the Civil Service that they are to be put in the very privileged position of not, under any circumstances, suffering from the effects of the War. Everyone else in the country has suffered from them. The people whose incomes are comparable with those of the Civil Service, those who occupy the same sort of social position, are suffering very gravely. I see no reason whatever why Civil Servants, especially the upper grades, should be put in this exceptional position. Of course one of the difficulties is that, so far as I understand it, the proper distinctions between the different grades in the Civil Service are not really sufficiently clearly laid down. A large part of the Civil Service, from what my right hon. Friend has told us—we did not know it before— are really comparable with the wage-earning classes of the country. There is a considerable portion of the Civil Service who would consider themselves rather aggrieved if it was suggested to them that they were in the same position as wage earners, and they consider themselves comparable with the learned professions—clergymen, doctors, lawyers, and so forth. Why should people at any rate above a certain level—I do not know that I should lay it down for wage earners, such as letter carriers, but for those at any rate whose income is above a certain minimum, why should they be saved from all the economic and financial considerations which everyone else suffers from— the clergyman, the lawyer, the bank clerk and all the other middle classes of whom they form a part? That appears to me to be all wrong, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has made a strong defence of them.

Another point which has been specially brought to my notice is that the action of the Government does not end with their own direct employés. The consequences are that very great pressure is being put upon local authorities throughout the country who, considering the conditions of the ratepayers and the very grave objection to increasing the rates, very naturally object to paying what they do not consider it essential to pay to their employés. They are immediately met with the argument—a difficult one to meet—" We are really in the same position as those who are being employed in a similar capacity, not by a local authority, but by the Government of the country," and therefore they are bringing pressure to bear everywhere upon the local authorities that they should be put on what they call the Civil Service basis. Therefore it does not at all end with the direct Civil Service, but it is increasing the expenditure both in rates and taxes and, so far as I have heard my right hon. Friend's defence, for reasons which I consider inadequate, and under the circumstances, if my hon. and gallant Friend intends to divide upon the question, I shall feel it absolutely impossible to refuse to go with him into the lobby.

The hon. Member stated that this was hardly a very convenient time to discuss the Vote, but it is by a mere accident that it has not been passed somewhere about two or three o'clock in the morning.. What happened with regard to the Committee stage of the Vote was this. At about half-past two one morning—I am not clear what morning it was, but sometime this week —we tried to prevent the Supplementary Estimates, as a whole, being entered upon and taken. By way of a bait to the Government, I said, "Take the Committee stage of the Vote," and it was taken without any Debate at all, and the fact that we have an hour or two to discuss the most important Vote is entirely due to the fact that it was agreed that the Report stage should be taken to-day. The ineptitude of the House of Commons procedure by which these money Votes are passed could not be more clearly exemplified. Here is a matter raising a point of real principle. Why was not the authority of the House given to a great change of this kind? The Whitley Council met, and after discussion, in which the Treasury took its part, employers and employed, not the paymasters at all—this House—they settled it, and we come down here with the thing done and it cannot be undone. That is the vice of these Supplementary Estimates. I cannot imagine a more complete case for this not coming under the Supplementary Estimates at all. My right hon. Friend says truly, if you are going to raise this question it ought to have been raised at the request of the Opposition. We had twenty days to discuss a vast range of Estimates, and we took, as we are bound to take, the questions on which there was the greatest pressure brought upon us at the time. That is all an Opposition can do. But on this matter, owing to the fact that there is no political pressure about them, if it was not for that series of accidents which I have detailed this thing would never have been debated at all. The time has come when these things ought to be altered. I hope to say a word about that next week, but on the general point I heartily concur with what has been said. This thing was conceived in the spirit of the financial fool's paradise in which we were living about nine months ago, and has no relation at all to the financial position which we have to face to-day. The House is absolutely helpless in the matter. I am the last man in the world to refuse the civil servants their proper pay, but we must bear in mind that no unemployment faces them. They are secure. Anyone else out in the open, no matter whether he is an employer or is employed, has before him a prospect which everyone views with apprehension. As a protest against this matter I shall certainly vote against the Government.

I should like to say a few words, not with a view to discussing whether these Amendments are adequate or too great to give to the Civil Service, hut in order that there may be no misunderstanding why my hon. Friends and myself propose to take a particular course to-day. The right hon. Gentleman gave the fullest and fairest possible explanation that could be given as to the circumstances which in his view render it necessary that this agreement, as he called it, should be ratified by the House. I should like to say how inapt the word " agreement " is in this case. I do not take the view that it was an agreement, because there were not two parties dealing at arm's length with each other. It was a proposal adopted by the Whitley Council of the Civil Service, not constituted as a Whitley Council ought to be. In Committee the proposal went through without discussion, under the circumstances explained by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean). Some of us think that this is a case in which we have only one possible course, namely, to vote against the Government. It is not because we are actuated by the least hostility to the right hon. Gentleman or that we disagree with him as to the desirability of having a well-paid and contented Civil Service.

We recognise to the full the difficult and responsible duties of the civil servant— some of us during the War had opportunities of seeing how those duties were discharged, and how devoted the service is— but we feel that a system of this sort ought to have been submitted to the House of Commons, and that it is the duty of the Government and of Ministers to find opportunities by which it could be submitted. It is not sufficient to say that our rules require that a certain Vote shall go through without discussion. The Patronage Secretary is indefatigable in making arrangements to suit the convenience of the Opposition and everyone in arranging business, and I do hope that Ministers will be able to find a way of seeing that these matters are submitted to the House before they are approved. What the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill) has said is true. In my own city the Corporation have received the communication of a Minister, I do not say recommending, but almost directing that certain corporation officials, who in their opinion are well paid, shall have their remuneration added to in accordance with the principle that has been adopted by the Treasury in relation to the Civil Service, and adopted without discussion or approval by this House. An important member of the corporation of my city called my attention to it, and asked me, if possible, to make some protest when the occasion arose. That is one of the consequences of a system being adopted without opportunity being given to the House to approve of it. So far as we have had an opportunity of discussing it, the system is bad because the Civil Service is placed in a particularly privileged position and we have not had an opportunity of giving our approval to a method which perhaps more than most methods should have been submitted for the approval of the House.

We are asked now to vote nearly £2,500,000 for increases of salaries of civil servants. The justification for that demand is that it is really an automatic increase in virtue of an agreement which was made with the Whitley Council of the Civil Service. Who was there on this Council to represent the employers? On the ordinary Whitley Council half the members represent the employers, and there certainly was not in this case any Member of this House representing the paymasters. I do not know whether there was any representative of the paymasters.

The right hon. Gentleman told us. They are all in the office.

I did not quite follow that. It makes the position quite ludicrous because there was no one to check it on behalf of the paymaster. That seems to me to be a most serious objection to the constitution of this Council. The only way of meeting that objection is that the moment a scheme of that sort is recommended by a Whitley Council it should come before the only tribunal that can review it. That is the House of Commons itself, which has never done so up to the present. Will a copy of this scheme be laid as a Parliamentary Paper? As we are now asked to sanction this agreement a copy of the scheme should be laid on the Table so that we may know what we are doing.

I associate myself with what has been said by my hon. Friend in protesting against a sum of this kind, involving a new system of payments, being expended without reference to the House of Commons. Let me, as one who has some experience of local government, say that this sum of £2,500,000, large as it is, is only a part of the matter. The repercussion from that amount is very much greater. This Civil Service scale is adopted by local authorities practically throughout the country, and by various similar authorities, and it has come to be the recognised standard. It is essential, therefore, that the scale should be discussed and sifted in the most thorough way before it is adopted, instead, as in this case, of money being spent under it, and the House of Commons being asked to approve of it after the expenditure has been incurred. We all know the incalculable damage done to the country during the War by the 12½ per cent. bonus instituted by the Secretary of

State for War. The argument used then was that that bonus was a very small matter affecting only a few people. To some extent the same argument has been used to-day. The Financial Secretary says that larger salaries are paid in the Civil Service in order to secure a contented body of officials. Only a fortnight ago I had occasion to draw attention to the fact that one section of the Civil Service, namely, the postal servants, were apparently not contented, because they, 107,000 of them, were about to form a strike union with a strike fund. I asked the Postmaster-General whether he would take any action, and he informed me that the Cabinet considered that no action was necessary. I do not think it can be described as a contented service if a section of it proposes to form a strike fund and a strike union. I certainly hold that if Members of the House of Commons, in their discretion, are to vote these large salaries to the Civil Service, they should make it clearly understood that Civil Servants are in a position of privilege and do not require those rights which are claimed by the servants of private individuals and private corporations, and that we should have some assurance that anything like the formation of a strike union or strike fund in the Civil Service will be prohibited.

Queston put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 83; Noes, 37.

Report [2nd December]

Civil Services and Revenue Departments Supplementary Estimate, 1920–21

Resolution reported,

Class II

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £150,905, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for the salaries and expenses of certain services transferred from the Mercantile Marine Fund, and other services connected with the Mercantile Marine, including Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions and Grants to the General Lighthouse Fund and other Lighthouse and Harbour Authorities."

Resolution agreed to.

REPORT [6th DECEMBER]

Civil Services and Revenue Departments Supplementary Estimate, 1919–20

Resolutions reported,

Class IV

1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £528,600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for the expenses of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, including Grants in Aid of the Teachers' Pension Fund, Ireland."

Class V

2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March; 1921, for sundry Colonial Services, Including certain Grants in Aid."

Class Vi

3. "That a sum, not exceeding £8,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, as a Grant in Aid of the Mission of His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught to India."

Resolutions agreed to.

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 19 th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five minutes before Seven o'clock till Monday (20th December).