On a point of Order. I beg to draw attention to the fact that early this morning, when the other Orders which appeared on yesterday's Order Paper were reached, one only of those Orders was postponed to "this day." The whole of the Government Orders appearing, Nos. 1 to 7, on to-day's Order Paper were postponed to "to-morrow," and one Order only on yesterday's Paper was correctly postponed to "this day." That was the Trade Union Ballot Bill, for which I am responsible. Immediately on your leaving the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I drew the attention of the Clerks at the Table to this fact, and I wish now to call your attention to it, and to ask what should be done.

I think it is often the case, when the clock has just passed midnight, that Members are uncertain whether the correct call, in postponing an Order, is "to-morrow" or "this day," but it is always customary to put that right in cases where a Member has made a little mistake.

I beg to move to leave out "£118,000," and to insert instead thereof "£117,900."

I rise formally to move this reduction, in order to draw attention to the amazing letter to which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition referred at Question Time yesterday, and which has appeared in various newspapers, over the name of the Lord President of the Council, and purporting to be signed by him. Let me say at once that, since my right hon. Friend raised this question yesterday, I have been informed by the Prime Minister that this peculiar document was not, in fact, signed by the Lord President, but the fact that this document has appeared in the newspapers over his name, the name of a very distinguished and important member of the Government, a document advocating a policy which is utterly opposed both to the purpose and to the spirit of the great exhibition which all parties in this House are rightly pledged to support, raises a most important issue and calls for a very full explanation and, I hope, an equally full repudiation by the Government. Let us see how utterly at variance with our common purpose in this exhibition this strange document is. In the Vote now before the House, the Government are seeking, and rightly seeking, the authority of this House to appropriate a large sum of money to establish a British Government exhibit at the British Empire Exhibition, and in the notes to the Estimate the objects of this exhibit are plainly set out, as follows: British Empire is already an object of dislike to the peoples of the world—that Empire which has been the greatest guarantee of peace and security the world has ever seen. What an astounding proposition this is! Is it really to be assumed that the Dominions who, for 20 years, have been granting this country preference—preference welcomed by every party in this House—have become thereby an object of increasing dislike to other countries in the world? And is it also to be assumed that every other country with an oversea possession, whether it is the United States, or France, or any other country, which has pursued a precisely similar policy, has thereby become an object of increasing dislike to the rest of the world? It is really a most astounding document to come from a body which has as its President a noble Lord closely associated with the foreign policy of the present Government, and, I understand, its somewhat inadequate representative on the Council of the League of Nations— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—a completely inadequate representative, as results have shown. This document, having obtained the publicity that it has, is this the advice that His Majesty's Government are going to tender this House when they lay, as they have promised to lay, the results of the Economic Conference before the House?

I should be very sorry if the Debate went as wide as that. But the purpose of this document and its relation to the Government exhibit is in order.

I accept your ruling, Sir, at once. I only hope that the views of the Government have been misrepresented. But, basing itself upon this strange preliminary, the document then goes on to appeal for funds for the support of its special project. It says: And upon the faith of this prospectus the faithful are asked to subscribe their money. Really, let us see the position. On the one hand, there is the great exhibit organised by the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, for which, I am sure, this House to-day will vote the sum required. The object of that exhibit is to demonstrate, by means of models, films, etc., not how dependent we are upon other countries, but the extent and resources of the Empire. Side by side with that, if this outrage is to be committed—and I sincerely hope the authorities of the Exhibition, backed by the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary, will see that it does not take place—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I am going to say why, if it be not already apparent. Side by side with this Government exhibit, there is to be an exhibit by the society—the re-christened society—of which I hope the Lord President has ceased to be the President—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] If hon. Members will allow me to go on, I will say precisely why—side by side with the Government exhibit is to be this other exhibit of the Free Trade Union section, of which the Lord President is, or has been, the President, whose purpose is to exhibit, by models, diagrams and charts, how very important it is not to buy within the British Empire—not to show what are the great resources of the British Empire, but how dependent these little islands are on countries elsewhere. Could anything be more fatuous, more inconsistent, with the whole object and purpose of this great Exhibition, or more insulting to the Dominions and the Colonies who are coming there to show the greatness of their resources? Could anything be more unfortunate than that any person, or body of persons, should seek to make of that Exhibition a cockpit of partisan propaganda? Surely, whatever our fiscal views may be, we can all, for this purpose, agree that it is of vital importance to develop to the fullest extent the resources of the Empire, and to work together to make this great Exhibition a great success. I would say, in the words used by the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary, in reference to some other criticism that was raised: If hon. Members below the Gangway really consider it is likely to be made a success by this kind of exhibit, then I hope, before the Exhibition opens, they will reconsider their views. I do hope that this ill-timed and factious and fallacious document will be entirely repudiated by the Government. I want to ask the Prime Minister several specific questions. He was not present when I started by saying that I have already received an intimation from him that the Lord President did not sign this document, but what I want to know is, how is it this document came to be issued over the name of the Lord President? If the Lord President, as I at once accept, did not sign this document, did he know that this document was going to be sent out? Did he know that this exhibit was being authorised to take place at Wembley, and did he approve of the purpose for which this circular was sent out? Secondly, I ask the Prime Minister; does this document represent the views of his Majesty's Government, does it represent the views of Lord Parmoor, or of neither; or is this another case in which we have to draw a distinction between the collective judgment of His Majesty's Ministers and the individual idiosyncracies of certain of them?

Finally, I ask the Prime Minister if this document—as I hope it will be—is utterly repudiated by the Prime Minister, will he give to the House a further assurance that the Lord President, if he is to remain Lord President, will forthwith sever his connection with a body which is mischievously attempting—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] No one would make the suggestion if the Lord President was a private individual, but the Lord President is a member, and a very distinguished and important member, of the Government who are pledged to support the Exhibition, and who are coming to this House to ask us to vote money for it. That puts it, and puts the Lord President, in an entirely different position. Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that the Lord President, if he has not already done so, will forthwith sever his connection with a body which is mischievously attempting to thwart the object and to undermine the success of this great undertaking, which the Government is rightly committed to support, and which the whole Empire is determined to see achieve an immediate success and lasting results.

I regret very much that I was not present when my right hon. Friend opposite started this Debate, because, after the great delight with which I have listened to the part that I have heard, I find I have missed a really great treat. I commiserate him that you, Mr. Speaker, did not allow him to raise the whole question of Tariff Reform, but the exigencies of the rules of the House have lain heavily upon his shoulders. I shall not attempt to follow him in his somewhat uncontrolled wanderings, but will confine myself to the business before the House. This document into which he has read so much, and from which he has deducted so much, is a statement issued by a political organisation—by the Free Trade Union as it was and now, I think, the North-Western Free Trade Union. The object of that society is to maintain Free Trade. As such, every Minister is at liberty not only to join it, but to hold office as President, Vice-President, or in any other way to their heart's delight. We stand by Free Trade. [An HON. MEMBER: "The worse for you!"] It may be', but the experience up till now has been the other way. We stand by Free Trade, and we shall frown upon nothing that advocates Free Trade either in relation to a full-blown programme of Tariff Reform, or to the development of a system of Imperial Preference which strikes at the root of Free Trade. I may add this: there is not a single hon. or right hon. Gentleman opposite who expects any other reply from me. As I said yesterday, in answer to a query, I was taken unawares at the question put to me by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I only received the question a comparatively few minutes before I was in my place here, and gave a reply to it. My reply was, therefore, very cautious. I did not know what was in the document. I had only seen extracts, but they gave rise to suspicions in my mind, and the reply I gave, I think, was adequate in the circumstances.

Since then I have not only seen the-document, but I have had an interview with my Noble Friend Lord Parmoor. Lord Parmoor informs me that he did not sign the document, that he was Presi- dent of the Union, that a communication had been sent to his secretary in his absence and that it was very likely that his secretary's reply was of such a nature as may have led the Secretary of the Union to put Lord Parmoor's name to the document. Lord Parmoor at that time was at Geneva, where he was taking part in a meeting of the Council of the League of Nations which has been conspicuous for the great success which has attended its labours, and the very great width of the subjects with which it has dealt, but where unfortunately he has had to struggle with commitments undisclosed, made by his predecessors. It would have been quite unnecessary for rue, and I almost apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, for having seemed to go astray; but I am sure the House would have considered I was departing from my duty in not only standing by a colleague, but in my duty to stand by a colleague who is most unjustifiably attacked, if I had not made these observations about the recent meeting of the Council of the League of Nations. But let us get to business—

To what commitment does the right hon. Gentleman refer?

To the Saar.

Does the right hon. Gentleman object to that commitment?

That is another matter.

Why raise it then?

I raised it, of course, in order to make the position of my Noble Friend clear. Papers and a report are to be laid, and I hope there will be found in the report the whole story. Now about this exhibit. We have been told that the State should follow a minimum interference with trade, and upon this my right hon. Friend opposite proceeded to make some reflection upon the opinions of His Majesty's Government. Is it really the opinion of my right hon. Friend that the principles carried by His Majesty's Government are expressed by a maximum interference with trade? Is that really the understanding to which my right hon. Friend has reached?

I thought the right hon. Gentleman was still a Socialist. [An HON. MEMBER: "So he is!"]

That is exactly the point I was trying to get at. Is the right hon. Gentleman still in so much oppressive darkness that he imagines the definition of Socialism is a maximum interference with trade? If that is so I pity him, and I recommend him to invest, say, a penny on a pamphlet explaining our principles. The serious thing is that in the course of this official statement it is announced that a certain exhibit is going to be made in this Empire Exhibition. Quite seriously I regret profoundly that any sort of political differences should come in and interfere with the harmonious co-operation which we all want to observe in order to make this Exhibition a success. I stand by what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department said the other night in that admirable expository speech which he made, and which I have read. I hope hon. Members on the other side will carry out in their propaganda the same high principles which my right hon. Friend has expounded in criticising this document.

What about the space allotted? Does the right hon. Gentleman imagine that my hon. Friends around me let the space for this exhibition? Does the Opposition imagine that the Government has anything to do with the allotment of the space in this exhibition? As a matter of fact, we are as innocent of that as the right hon. Gentleman himself, and we know as much about it as he does. As a matter of fact, he ought to know a great deal more about it, and that for two reasons. First of all, the setting up of the Committee, and the machinery for the management and control of the Committee, was in their hands, and we have had to read the original documents which he provided in order to inform ourselves about these things. Among information which we have discovered we have come across a very interesting piece of information which I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame) upon having forgotten. It seems that a part of the space in which this obnoxious exhibit was to find a place was a space allotted to the control of the Cotton Textile Committee. Now who is the President of that? Who is the man responsible for the allotment of the space? Lord Derby! It was not to my absent and victimised friend Lord Parmoor, but to the right hon. Gentleman's friend who was neither absent nor victimised, that this Free Trade Union applied for space, with all its iniquities blazing on its title. There could be no deception there. I have not seen the letter, but I am sure they did not go out and buy a sheet of blank note paper with no heading upon it so that Lord Derby might be deceived. The application which was made on what I assume was a well-headed and emblazoned note paper was accepted by Lord Derby and his Committee.

No.

Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously pretending that there is no difference between the two cases when in one case the document purported to be signed by Lord Parmoor, whereas in the other case Lord Derby was acting only as President, and was not present.

That is a very sound point, but first I wish to say this, that if the explanation I made yesterday privately to the Opposition—and what I said I was prepared to make publicly in the House to-day—had been accepted, and had not been made the occasion for such a speech as we have listened to from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon, I would never have mentioned this point or continued the discussion. I should have contented myself with an explanation which was owing to the House, and the whole matter would have dropped. But that is not what has happened. We have had a full-blown attack made upon us. A pistol has been put to my head saying "You must answer this and that question!" If the Opposition have brought anything upon their heads, it is not my fault, but it is owing to the very great blunder made by my right hon. Friend opposite.

The point is that Lord Parmoor, purporting to have signed this statement, is being used to drag in the Government as the responsible agent for the allotment of space, or for some design to promote the allotment of space. For this the Government is being dragged in as a party to some design to procure an allotment of space which would disturb the harmony which has hitherto prevailed in regard to this exhibition by dragging in political opinions which divide us here, but which ought not to divide us in co-operating to make this exhibition a success. If that had not been the spirit in which this matter had been taken up, and if it had been done in a proper way, the whole thing would have gone over without myself explaining anything in a controversial manner, but I must repel the accusation. The responsibility having been placed upon us I must inform the House upon whom the responsibility actually rests.

That is not in the least the charge I made nor the explanation I asked for. The whole point of my speech was, "Does the right hon. Gentleman approve of the Lord President of the Council conducting this kind of propaganda at the exhibition?"

That is just the whole point, and I think it is amply covered by the statement that the Lord President did not issue this document. I have explained that, and I think I have gone both yesterday afternoon and this morning a satisfactory length in explaining that I regret that this thing should have been dragged in. I have done that. If it is going to remain there I am willing, but, if it is not going to remain there, then I am going to defend myself, and I am going to attack and show exactly where the blame should be placed, if there be any blame at all. I think that I have really said enough to show that the whole thing, so far as it is wrong, as alleged by my right hon. Friend, is not in our hands and not under our control, and, so far as we might have been brought in and so far as a Minister might have been blamed for signing a thing like this, as a matter of fact he did not see it, he did not sign it, he was absent in the nation's business at Geneva on the 11th March and for some days before, and he was rather surprised to find some of the things in the Press yesterday, as I was, when I read them after my attention had been drawn to them.

It was not my intention in the least to take any part in this Debate, and I certainly should not have intervened had it not been for the tone, and I am afraid I must add the temper, of the speech to which we have just listened. [HON. MEMBERS "Oh!"] The Prime Minister admitted that he had been "nettled," I think was his phrase.

No.

Apparently, I misheard him. At any rate, he was not in such good humour as he is accustomed to be. The Prime Minister admitted that he had made comparisons which he would not attempt to justify, because he thought that the tone, let me say, of my right hon. Friend's speech had been unjustified. The reason I have intervened is because I feel that the Prime Minister has altogether misinterpreted what my right hon. Friend desired to express. This is not a light matter. It is a light matter in itself; the sort of drivel which was expressed in this document is not worth a moment's consideration, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we on this side would have felt genuinely distressed if the result of this Debate had been to deprive us of such an asset as is the continued presence of Lord Parmoor in His Majesty's Government. But we are dealing here with an exhibition which is not concerned only with this country, but which is likely to affect sentiment right throughout the Empire, and it is really of the very utmost importance that no shadow of suspicion or doubt as to the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards that exhibition should be allowed for a moment to take hold of any section of Imperial opinion. The Prime Minister gave my right hon. Friend an assurance yesterday that this document which appeared over the name of Lord Parmoor had not actually been signed by him. But having been published and having been given very wide publicity, having no doubt penetrated to all parts of the Empire already. I do think that the Prime Minister ought to have been grateful to us for giving him an opportunity publicly of saying that this document did not in any way reflect the views of His Majesty's Government, that it did not reflect the views of Lord Parmoor himself as a member of the Government, and that, so far from having given any sort of countenance to a proposal which if it were carried out would be directly contrary to all the purposes of the exhibition, this was done entirely without their knowledge and consent. The Prime Minister has to-day, I hope, made clear that is so, and, so far as we are concerned, I sincerely trust that no possible misapprehension can take place in any of the Dominions. But we have seen even in the last few days how decisions announced in this House by the Government can arouse criticism in the Dominions, and I think it would be an unfortunate moment if anything further were to arise which might cause differences between us.

There was one phrase in the Prime Minister's speech which seems to me to be capable of misapprehension. I do not think that I misunderstood it in any way. I think he said, "We stand by Free Trade, and we are against any development of Imperial Preference which strikes at the root of Free Trade." I take it that those words meant that he was against any development which would strike at the root of Free Trade, and did not mean those words to apply to Imperial Preference as such. But I want to have an assurance from him that I am correct in my interpretation, and that he did not mean to imply by those words that any doubt arose in his mind as to the compatibility of Free Trade with such measure of Imperial Preference as already exists between the component parts of the Empire. I should be very glad if he would be good enough to tell me if I am correct in that assumption, and, if so, I shall personally be quite satisfied.

I developed my position in a speech which I made just before the change of Government, when I spoke from that bench about the relations between Free Trade and Protection. What I meant to say to-day was that Free Trade must not be nibbled away at its foundation by developments and applications of Imperial Preference which ultimately must undermine it altogether.

I am sure that I may rely on the indulgence which is always given to a Member who is making his first speech in this House, and I sincerely trust that I shall not trespass in any way in either the tone or the temper of my speech, although this is a subject upon which some of us on these benches feel very deeply indeed. I should like, first of all, to thank the Prime Minister for giving us some of the facts with regard to this proposed Free Trade exhibit at Wembley. Since the Free Trade movement has been attacked, perhaps I may be allowed to lay before the House the whole of the facts. There is a body which is known as the North-Western Free Trade Union, and it is important that the House should realise at the very outset that this is an entirely non-party body. The Chairman of the Executive and many of its most enlightened and important and respected members are Members of the Conservative party, who have consistently supported the party opposite so long as that party has maintained the national system of Free Trade. This North-Western Free Trade movement has its office in a place called Manchester. We have heard a good deal of another place called Glasgow, but we have not heard so much about Manchester, though Manchester, after all, is a part of the Empire. In Manchester, also, there is a branch in the British Empire Exhibition, the only provincial branch in the country. The British Empire Exhibition has its headquarters in London, and its provincial branch is in Manchester. That, again, is a noteworthy fact. It is not in Protectionist Birmingham, but in Free Trade Manchester: and it is in Free Trade Manchester, because Manchester and Lancashire have guaranteed a larger sum,. because of their Free Trade principles, to the British Empire Exhibition than any other part of the British Empire.

As we had these two offices, the British Empire Exhibition Branch and the Free Trade Union, they got into communication before the month of December and, as a result of the negotiations which took place—before the present Lord President of the Council was ever a member of His Majesty's Government, or, perhaps, even of the Labour party—a decision was come-to jointly between these two bodies that there should be a Free Trade exhibit at Wembley. Application was then made to the cotton textile industry, whose exhibits have been mentioned by the Prime Minister. The cotton textile industry will have at Wembley what will probably be the largest individual exhibit. It will cover something like 31,000 square feet, and it will display the resources of an industry which, rightly or wrongly, believes that it is based upon the maintenance of Free Trade.

Not entirely.

It seemed, therefore, to be perfectly reasonable that, as part of this exhibit—which was intended to bring before the Dominions the claims of an industry which, in our opinion, is based upon Free Trade—a Free Trade exhibit should be included. For that reason a Free Trade exhibit was arranged in this exhibit of the cotton textile industry, and the North-Western Free Trade Union became for that purpose the sub-tenant of the cotton textile industry's exhibit, of which, as we have heard, Lord Derby is the President. But the North-Western Free Trade Union, which speeches, sometimes, from the opposite side of the House, would have us believe is an entirely partisan body, felt at that time that some objection might be raised to an exhibit of this kind on the ground that it was propagandist; and, therefore, in order that there might be no misapprehension whatsoever on this point, the Free Trade Union insisted that the cotton textile industry should send their application through—though there was no reason why that should be so—to the head office of the Exhibition in London. The application, accordingly, went through to the head office, was approved by the head office, and was, I venture to say, so approved because the people controlling this Empire Exhibition are Imperialists rather than partisan politicians.

12 N.

This exhibit, as we have heard from Lord Parmoor's letter, will consist of models, diagrams and charts, and there will also be maps. It is intended to show the whole course of British trade. Trade with the Dominions will be shown, and trade with foreign countries will be shown. All that will be given will be the facts; there will be no propaganda. The facts will be displayed in maps, models and exhibits and our Dominion visitors will be allowed to draw their own conclusions. It has been said that this exhibit is going to be an insult to our Dominions. I do not want to trespass beyond the limits of this Debate, but, as the right hon. Gentleman who opened this question said that we were insulting the Dominions, I think that, from these benches, at any rate, some short reply is necessary. I venture to say that we shall not by this exhibit insult any of the Dominions, but that, so far from being a source of dissatisfaction to many of the visitors, it will be to them a matter of great interest. I do not forget that in many of our Dominions, and especially in Canada, there are large numbers of the population—who, no doubt, will be coming to Wembley along with the Protectionists—large numbers who are convinced Free Traders, and I see no reason why those people should not see our exhibit. I know it is a source of dissatisfaction to right hon. Gentlemen opposite. They are as anxious as we are that this British Empire Exhibition should be a success, but they hate Free Trade, and, seeing this Free Trade exhibit right in the centre of the British Empire Exhibition, they regard it as the Serpent in the Garden of Wembley, and they want to cast it out. I trust that we shall not do so.

This exhibit will attempt to prove by diagrams, by facts, and by figures, that, if our Dominion trade is to be retained and increased, it is necessary also to retain and increase our overseas trade with foreign countries. It will attempt to do that by showing the fact that a great part of our trade, and especially of our Lancashire trade, depends upon a triangular system of trade. We trade with the Dominions, the Dominions trade with foreign countries, and foreign countries trade with us; and it is because foreign countries trade with us that we are able to trade with the Dominions and they are able to trade with us. That is what we understand in Lancashire, whatever may be the understanding of the matter on the benches opposite; and it is in order that that fact may be driven home, that it may be shown that Dominion trade and foreign trade are inter-dependent the one with the other, and that we cannot have Dominion trade unless we have foreign trade, that we claim that this exhibit, Free Trade exhibit as it may be, is a true Imperial and British Empire exhibit.

It is somewhat strange that this one propagandist body, of all propagandist bodies, should have been selected for attack. Wembley is open to all people who are prepared to make application and to pay for space. The Tariff Reform League could have had an exhibit. Why did it not apply? The Tariff Reform League did not apply because it is dead. The Tariff Reform League has been succeeded by the Empire Development Union. The Empire Development Union did not apply. Why did it not apply? Because the Empire Development Union was asleep. Because the Tariff Reform League is dead, and the Empire Development Union was asleep, the cause of right hon. Gentlemen opposite is not to be represented at Wembley. But if this Free Trade Union was not dead, but alive, if it was not asleep but awake, and if it took these facilities with that initiative and enterprise which, after all, is the mainspring of Free Trade—if, being alive and awake, it took these facilities and got this exhibit, it seems to me that it does not altogether concert with the sportsmanship that we expect of hon. Members on the opposite side of the House that they should try to take those facilities from us.

May I be allowed to say that the speeches to which we have listened have brought us to the end of the purpose for which this Debate was specially arranged to-day. A long discussion has already taken place during this week in general relation to the Wembley Exhibition and, in view of the very heavy items of business still to be disposed of, I trust the House will proceed with the next Order on the Paper.

Am I in order if, in spite of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, I proceed to make one point on the general Debate? As a member of one of the large Central Committees on the Wembley Pageant and as President of one of the Sub-Committees I must testify that we have been in the most meticulous way endeavouring to keep contentious politics out of the Exhibition. There are not only internal politics like the question of Imperial Preference, but infinite possibilities of dangerous foreign politics, and there is even a possibility of cross-Dominion jealousies in the arrangement of the Exhibition. As far as I know all the Committees have done their very best to avoid subjects of controversy. It may lead us a little in the direction of being incomplete. It may, according to some hon. Members on the other side, leave us exposed to the accusation of being a little insincere, from what we have to leave out.

But anything is better than introducing subjects of internal strife into a great Imperial Exhibition like this, and therefore I wish to protest against the idea of this little Free Trade Union show being permitted to remain at all. The hon. Member who spoke last asked why those who were in favour of Colonial Preference did not ask for space. The answer is very simple. They are people of Imperial instincts. They are people who think of the Empire rather than of the interior politics of Great Britain, and they considered it most unwise and most petty minded. That the Free Trade Union should have asked for space and should utilise it with contentious pictures and diagrams which may or may not—I have not, of course, seen them—actually represent the economic state of England and Europe in the middle of the 19th century. I can understand. But I think it deplorable, and I hold that far the best way out of the controversy would be that whoever is responsible for this little exhibit should speak gently to the Society which is putting it up, and endeavour to get them to withdraw it. That any Member of the Government should give approval to the introduction of internal economic politics into the Wembley Exhibition strikes me as something shocking.

I desire to congratulate? my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley (Mr. P. Oliver) upon his very admirable maiden speech. While I congratulate him, may I offer my condolence to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame)? He came down shooting this morning. He was going to shoot Lord Parmoor, but he brought down Lord Derby. He demonstrated that the villain of the piece is Lord Derby. He is the president of the section which has granted this space for the purpose of exhibiting these dangerous politics. I know Lord Derby does not regard them as dangerous politics. We know Lord Derby has always been a Free Trader. He adhered to Free Trade in difficult circumstances during recent months, but in the more recent orientation of his party he is now on top, and he naturally thought that as his party had abandoned protection, when Lord Parmoor applied for space for a Free Trade exhibit, here was an opportunity of showing how complete his victory was. Knowing, as he did, the Leader of the Opposition, he knew he would walk into their trap and would come down to the House and give a further public advertisement of the triumph of Free Trade and its destruction in the ranks of the Conservative party.

As one who has for some years been connected with the North-Western Free Trade Union, I should like to say a few words on the general position. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) said that very strenuous efforts have been made to keep out of the realm of the Wembley Exhibition anything in the nature of dangerous politics. I would ask the hon. Gentleman if, in fact, it is dangerous politics to put before the people of this Empire the necessity of our realising the dependence of this country upon the whole of the countries in the world. In listening to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame), I am left in very much doubt as to whether his objection to this scheme is to the political principles of Lord Parmoor or to this exhibit at Wembley, for quite a large part of his time was spent in hurling an indictment against the principles of the Free Trade Union and against the principles of Free Trade. One object of this Exhibition, as I conceive it, is not to show that there is not ground for the development of Imperial trade, but to show—I do not think anyone in the House can controvert this statement—that at any rate at this time and for a large number of years this country must remain in close commercial trading contact with the rest of the nations of the world, for in spite of whatever views hon. Members on any side of the House may have as to the supreme importance of Imperial development, I think all must agree, and those of us who know the Lancashire cotton trade must agree in particular, that at any rate for a very long time it will not be possible for the Empire, much as one might desire it, to supply the needs of the industries of this great country.

On this second point, if this space had been allotted by those who are controlling the Wembley Exhibition, surely it is open to anyone to take a site and to use it strictly in accordance with the rules which have been laid down by those who are running the Exhibition. A binding contract has been entered into between the Exhibition and the Free Trade Union and all that the Free Trade Union seeks to do by this exhibit is to call the attention of those who go to the Exhibition, not to the necessity of cutting out the Empire, not to the necessity of so controlling our trade that we shall no longer trade with the Empire, but to the necessity of showing that there is a certain development which has taken place in the trade of this country not limited merely to the Colonies but extending to the whole of the world. If those who are keen on Empire development can give the industries of this country within the Empire all the resources which at the moment they have to get outside the Empire, the progress of the Exhibition will be assured, and it will have served an enormously useful purpose for the whole of the industries of this country. I say without the slightest hesitation that there is nothing of a partisan, political movement so far as this exhibit is concerned. It is founded upon the broadest possible principles, not of limiting the resources of this country to the Empire but of showing that we are dependent upon the whole world. If the Empire is to be able to supply what at the present moment we find it necessary to go to the rest of the world for, then surely there is no better way of its doing it than by the people coming from all parts of the Empire to the Exhibition and seeing to what extent the Empire at the present time is unable to meet the needs of our trade and commerce.

Question, "That '£118,000' stand part of the Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Resolution agreed to.

Fourth and Fifth Resolutions agreed to.

Sixth Resolution read a Second Time.

I beg to move, to leave out "£569," and to insert instead thereof "£469."

I am sorry to have to move a reduction of the additional amount of remuneration of the Lord Privy Seal, but I desire to call attention to the way in which the Lord Privy Seal has discharged his duties in one particular direction during the past few weeks. I realise that the duty of leading the House of Commons is very onerous and difficult. This Vote gives an opportunity to hon. Members, not unfairly or unkindly, to criticise the manner in which in one respect the Lord Privy Seal has carried out his duties. Hon. Member will remember that various questions have been addressed to the Lord Privy Seal as to the intentions of the Government and the powers and privileges of this House in relation to the Standing Committee now considering the Rent Restrictions Bill. This week I addressed a question to the Lord Privy Seal as to how he was going to help the conduct of proceedings in that Committee, and I regret to say that the undertaking which he gave has not been fulfilled. He gave an undertaking in this House that he would assist the proceedings of the Committee on behalf of the Government by providing legal advice in the Committee, but when we met yesterday we found that this legal advice had not been provided, and that the Lord Privy Seal had failed to fulfil his undertaking. I make this protest, not in a personal sense, against the action of the right hon. Gentleman, because in a matter like this such an undertaking ought to be strictly fulfilled, in the letter and in the spirit.

I do not think anyone can pretend that an attempt has been made to fulfil the undertakings in any respect. True, some attempt was made to prove that the undertaking had been fulfilled by the presence in the Committee room of the Solicitor-General. I suppose he was there to make some show that the undertaking of the Lord Privy Seal was in course of being fulfilled, but his presence could by no means be held to be a fulfilment of the pledge, because the Solicitor-General is not a Member of the House—there is only one Law Officer who is a Member of the House—and could not take any part in the proceedings of the Committee. It was sought to be shown that the undertaking had been fulfilled because, by some mysterious means or other, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health could, in a moment, by communicating with the Solicitor-General, acquire a vast amount of legal knowledge and be able to convey it to the Committee. That was no fulfilment of the pledge. To put the matter shortly, the Lord Privy Seal has failed to carry out the pledge he gave; he has not protected the proceedings of the Committee and has not seen that the Committee is treated with that respect and consideration which they ought to receive, and of which he is the custodian and guardian. I hope that before this Vote is given we shall have some explanation and some undertaking from the Secretary to the Treasury and if we are to resume the proceedings on this Committee the Government will fulfil the pledge which the Lord Privy Seal gave. There is an excellent opportunity now for dealing with that pledge. Yesterday at the instance of a large number of Members, not drawn from one side of the House, the Committee adjourned its proceedings in order that the pledge of the Lord Privy Seal might be redeemed. I believe that on Tuesday next the Committee of Selection meet, and I hope that the Secretary to the Treasury will be able to tell the House this afternoon that they are going to put forward the name of the Attorney-General to the Committee in order that if they see fit they will add the name of the Attorney-General.

The hon. Member must not discuss the action or possible action of the Committee of Selection.

I will avoid any such action. I hope that the Government will put forward the name of the Attorney-General and if that pledge is given, I shall be glad to withdraw this Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment.

The hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) knows that I called the attention of the Committee upstairs to what he calls the pledge given by the Lord Privy Seal. If he will take the trouble to read in the OFFICIAL REPORT what the Lord Privy Seal said he will find that the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government would put down Amendments and give legal advice when they thought it desirable.

How does the hon. Member think that the Committee can have legal advice when it is desirable in the opinion of the Government if there be no legal member on the Committee to give such advice?

That is a very different point. This is a private Member's Bill and the Government are fairly well represented now on the Committee by the Under-Secretary for Scotland and the Under-Secretary for Health, and there is no need for any protection of the Committee from the Lord Privy Seal. What we members of the Labour party on the Committee desire is protection from the hon. Member opposite because he has developed a clever way—

Is it in order for an hon. Member to discuss my hon. Friend's proceedings in Committee?

I do not think so. It would never do to have discussions on the proceedings of Committees upstairs.

The whole point of this discussion does relate to the proceedings upstairs. The hon. Member opposite says that the Committee should be protected by redeeming the pledge of the Lord Privy Seal. I only suggested that there was more protection needed by the Committee from the action of the hon. Gentleman opposite. According to your ruling yesterday there is no power in the House to instruct the Committee of Selection to place any names on this Committee, and it is the opinion of a large number of us that the less legal advice we have the better, because the last two Bills which were passed were filled with little legal quibbles, which are causing a great deal of disturbance in the country, and we are of opinion that the fewer legal minds brought into this matter the better. If the hon. Member opposite thinks that legal advice is essential on the Committee there is a legal mind on his side on the Committee. He has not made out any case that there was a definite pledge given by the Lord Privy Seal or that the right hon. Gentleman has not fulfilled his promise, namely, to give legal advice and to put down Amendments when the Government thought it desirable. It was explained to the hon. Member yesterday that the Solicitor-General was there, and if the Under-Secretary for Health required any explanation he would go to the Solicitor-General and ask for it and then give it to the Committee, but he and his fellow-members thought that that was secondhand advice and would not be of much use. But it seems to me that that would be the only kind of legal advice that this Committee would desire, if it desires any at all.

I desire in a few words to support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), on the ground of the absence of legal advice on the Committee upstairs. The hon. Member who has just sat down gave us a touching picture of Sir Henry Slesser sitting outside the body of the Committee and of the Under-Secretary for Health constantly bobbing up from his seat to consult Sir Henry Slesser and coming back and giving the answer to the legal point which might have been put to him, and then another question being raised and the hon. Member running back to Sir Henry Slesser and coming back with an answer again, thus making the proceedings of the Committee even more of a farce than they are at present.

This is not the way in which a definite pledge such as was given by the Lord Privy Seal can be carried out. The House will recollect what the answer of the Lord Privy Seal was. He said that legal advice would be afforded, not at the Committee and not about the Bill, but on the Committee, and it must be plain to anybody who can understand English that that would mean that some Member who was competent to give legal advice would be a member of this Committee. The Solicitor-General, simply because he is sitting next to the Chairman, can in no sense be said to be on the Committee. He is a spectator whom the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health has a right to consult, but that his presence there constitutes legal advice "in the Committee" can be held by no responsible Member of this House. On this whole question of the conduct of the Government with regard to this Bill, the Lord Privy Seal has been most equivocal in his declarations. I do not desire him or any Member of this House to think that this Amendment is moved or supported in order to make any kind of personal attack on the Lord Privy Seal, but at the same time it is open to us to suggest that in this matter he has shown, perhaps, less than his usual adroitness. The right hon. Gentleman announced, in words which he had ample time to prepare, the policy of the Government, and he has answered questions and supplementary questions on this point. He has entirely failed in his duty to make absolutely and unequivocally clear what is the policy of the Government. The pledge which he gave of legal advice "in the Committee" he has failed entirely to carry out.

The grounds of complaint against the Government, I must confess, seem to me rather curious. This is a private Member's Bill, to which the Government is giving general support. There is no new position. It is a position for which we have precedent and analogy. I will take one precedent. In the last Session, or the Session before that, a Bill was brought forward for the prevention of the sale of intoxicating liquors to persons under eighteen. The position of that Bill was exactly the same.

No. The position is that the Government gave a definite pledge as to what they would do in connection with this Bill. Our complaint is not that we think they are adopting any different attitude, but that they have failed to carry out a specific pledge.

The grounds upon which the Government have been attacked are that the Committee is unable to proceed in the present constitution of the Committee.

No, I do not want the hon. Gentleman to misunderstand me. I move this Amendment specifically on the ground that the Lord Privy Seal in that capacity has failed to carry out an undertaking which he gave to this House.

That is a separate ground.

It is the only ground.

The hon. Member for East Willesden (Mr. H. Johnstone) has said that as a result of the constitution of the Committee and the absence of the Attorney-General, the proceeding of the Committee is being reduced to a farce. That is not based on the ground of a pledge, but I will deal with the pledge also. There are two quite distinct points. One is that a pledge has been broken. The second is that the proceeding of the Committee is rendered impossible by the constitution of that Committee and by the absence of the Attorney-General.

No.

As I understand it, those are two distinct points. I will deal with the pledge first. The Government gave a pledge of some kind that legal assistance would be given to the Standing Committee.

In that Committee.

The Government gave a pledge of some kind that legal assistance would be given to the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Health, who is on the Committee to represent the views of the Government, both administrative and legal. In fulfilling that pledge the Government have stepped right outside the normal procedure of such Committees in their anxiety to meet the position of hon. Members. They have gone so far as to have a Solicitor-General there in order to give legal advice to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. Who ever heard, on an ordinary private Member's Bill, of a Solicitor-General being kept in a Committee hour after hour in order to give advice?

The hon. Member is forgetting that the Attorney-General was originally put on the Committee.

That merely strengthens the case which I am making. I am saying that, so far from the Government ignoring the wishes of hon. Members who have asked for special legal advice on this Committee, they have gone outside the normal procedure altogether in having a Law Officer there to advise the representative of the Government. Now that they have withdrawn the Attorney-General, they have substituted the Solicitor-General.

They have not.

The Solicitor-General is perfectly able to give the legal advice. The Government are taking quite abnormal steps to meet the wishes of hon. Members for special legal advice. Let me revert to the normal procedure.

The whole point is that the Government are not carrying out a specific pledge that they gave. If the hon. Gentleman will read the pledge and address himself to it, he will see that it is the whole point.

I submit that the Government are carrying out their pledge to have legal advice available, and the very highest legal advice in the land. The ordinary legal advice which is given for such Committees is that of a lawyer in one of the Departments. That is the only courtesy which was extended by hon. Members opposite to private Members' Bills when they were in power; they did not take the trouble to have the Law Officers of the Crown present. I was about to take the precedent established in the case in which my hon. Friend opposite, the Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), represented the Government on the private Member's Bill for the prevention of the Sale of Liquor to young persons under 18. On that occasion hon. Members opposite adopted the normal procedure. They had a representative of the Government present, advised only by his Departmental adviser. The hon. Member for Willesden talks about the Parliamentary Secretary having to jump up and seek the assistance of the Solicitor-General, and says that that would disrupt the proceedings of the Committee. I remember the hon. Member for Wood Green having to jump up every two minutes and consult the advisers who were present on intricate legal points. There is nothing new in that. The difference in this case is that you have present a Law Officer of the Crown, a high legal authority.

The Government in carrying out their pledge have gone far beyond the normal facilities which are afforded to private Members' Bills. It is something quite unheard-of for a Government to support a private Member's Bill by having high Law Officers of the Crown constantly in attendance. In fact in their desire to give facilities, they have stepped outside the ordinary normal support which a Government gives, but whether the opposition which is being presented to this Bill is normal or not is a matter on which the country will judge. Reference has been made to the state to which the proceedings of this Committee have been reduced, and I agree with the point put from the opposite benches that the procedure of the Committee has fallen into a very curious condition. Owing to that condition thousands of people are being evicted from their homes.

On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member entitled to go into this matter?

It is going beyond the rules of Order to discuss proceedings in a Committee upstairs, and to do so would be to destroy all our constitutional methods.

I bow to your ruling, Sir, and I see that I have transgressed. I was dealing with the point as to whether, in any way, the proceedings of this Committee and the difficulties which have arisen could be attributed to the action of the Lord Privy Seal, because I understand that was the point brought under discussion by the Motion for the reduction of this Vote. I was addressing myself for the moment to that point. I submit that the condition into which this Committee's proceedings have fallen is in no way due to the action of the Lord Privy Seal, but can be attributed to totally different causes, to which I will not refer, but into which the people of this country can most clearly see, and upon which I trust, in the not distant future, they will have an opportunity of giving their verdict.

The hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) has defended the Government with all the traditional enthusiasm of the pervert.

Was your father a pervert?

That is a perfectly irrelevant observation. In his enthusiasm the hon. Member has endeavoured to attribute to my hon. Friends grounds for their objections which they do not themselves take up and, which if I understand your ruling, Sir, would indeed be entirely out of order. I desire to address myself to two points which are strictly relevant to the subject. The first is, what was the pledge given by the Lord Privy Seal, and the second is, how far has that pledge been fulfilled by the action which has since been taken? An hon. Member opposite purported to quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT the words of the Lord Privy Seal, but if he will forgive me for saying so, he quoted them incorrectly, and for the information of the House I should like to read the actual words which were used by the Lord Privy Seal:

"As my right hon. Friend said in reply to a deputation, the Government are generally in favour of the Bill and are prepared to assist it in Committee with legal advice."

Will the right hon. Gentleman read the continuation? Will he read the sentence to the end—if he does not mind doing so at the moment?

If the hon. Member had not been in such a hurry to interrupt me, I was about to continue the quotation. Before doing so, I wish to call the attention of the House to the fact that the words which I have read are without any qualification whatever—

"The Government are prepared to assist it in Committee with legal advice."

The right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal went on to say—

"and by putting Amendments on the Paper, if it appears desirable."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 18th March, 1924; col. 243, Vol. 171.]

The qualification, "if it appears desirable," obviously applies to the latter part of the sentence only.

That is public school English.

Yes, that is grammar. That is the pledge given by the Lord Privy Seal, and it remains to be considered whether that pledge has been fulfilled by deputing the Solicitor-General to attend the Committee in the capacity of a spectator. It is not possible for the Solicitor-General, so long as he is not a Member of the House and of the Committee, to assist in the Committee. It is quite true that members of the committee can go to him, ask him questions, and come back and tell the answers, and it was cynically suggested by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health that, as the proceedings were taking so long, it would not matter much if more time were wasted by these comings and goings. But that is not what the Lord Privy Seal had in his mind when he spoke of giving legal advice in Committee, and I support my hon. friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) in his contention that that pledge can only be fulfilled by the adding to the Committee of the Attorney-General.

A good deal of unnecessary heat is being introduced into this discussion. The discussion relates entirely to the conduct of the business of the House by the Government, and we have to consider whether the Government, in relation to a particular Bill, is acting in accordance with the practice and traditions of the House and in the interests of public business. It is a perfectly plain question of business and any references to methods on one side or the other, and any endeavours to make political capital out of the situation, are altogether irrelevant. It is not my intention to deal specifically with the pledge of the Lord Privy Seal. Apart altogether from that pledge, there is the standard of what is regarded as appropriate on the part of a Government in relation to a Bill of this character. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley), whose progress along that bench we all admire, has dealt with the matter as if this were an ordinary private Member's Bill. There are two reasons why it is not so. The first is the complexity of the subject with which it deals. [ Laughter .] Yes, it is a, very complex subject and hon. Members with no experience of legislation in previous Parliaments may laugh, but there is no subject of legislation in recent years which has given rise to more litigation than the code of law on rent restrictions.

There is, furthermore, the urgency of this legislation. It is not appropriate that a problem which is complex and which is urgent should be left to a private Member. It is a matter for the Government. Day by day questions are put in this House as to evictions which are taking place all over the country, and it is not a private Member's Bill introduced on a Friday afternoon and taking the leisurely progress usual with a private Member's Bill through Committee upstairs, which should deal with a situation of that kind. That is the first reason why this is not an ordinary private Member's Bill. There is another reason. The Government have taken up a special relation to this Bill. The Government have not only blessed it but have said they will make this Bill their own, to all intents and purposes. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Let us be quite clear about it. I regret very much that the Lord Privy Seal is not here, because it is important he should hear this discussion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Be fair!"] I do not wish to make any point. There is no question here to-day of making an increase in the right hon. Gentleman's salary. That subject has been passed by the Committee, and no speaker in this House has questioned the propriety of increasing the right hon. Gentleman's salary, so on that point of punctilio there is no necessity for him to absent himself. We are discussing the business of the House on a vote, and I think under those conditions it is appropriate that he should be here. I have taken some interest in the proceedings of the Committee. Though not a member of it, I have been present to see what was happening, and I think the attitude of the Government is most extraordinary. If the Government are going to accept some kind of responsibility for this Bill, it is the duty of the Government not only to advise the Committee properly on legal matters, which are some of the most important matters in this connection, but they ought, without delay, to indicate—

On a point of Order. Are we discussing at the moment the Committee upstairs or the pledge given by the Lord Privy Seal? This whole speech of the hon. Gentleman's seem to be concerned with the Committee upstairs.

I think that the hon. Member was trenching on the question of procedure upstairs.

I have endeavoured to the best of my ability to avoid any reflections on the action of the Committee. I have been dealing entirely with the attitude of the Government to the Bill, and I was insisting on the obligation of the Government to make clear their attitude at once, and the only way to do so is by placing its Amendmnets on the Paper. When the Government place on the Paper Amendments to the Bill, it will be possible to know the nature of the Measure to which the Government are giving their approval. My hon. Friend the Secretary of the Scottish Board of Health interrupted me when I said the Government had given its blessing—

No, not when the hon. Member said the Government are giving their blessing, but when he said they had made the Bill their own.

We want to be quite clear. That is the object of this discussion.

It is not your object.

I think the hon. Member need not be unnecessarily offensive, if I may say so. I think I have been putting a clear case to the House and I believe that if the Lord Privy Seal could, in the course of this discussion, give an assurance that without delay, or without undue delay, the Government would place their Amendments on the Paper, there need be no further trouble.

And the Law Officers should attend.

1.0 P.M.

I do not attach so much importance to that as my hon. Friend opposite, although I regard it as an important matter, but we want to be made aware what it is the Government themselves want to pass, and what is the change in law that is required. So long as the Government do not do that, they cannot avoid the imputation of acting in a disingenuous way. It is not fair to the House, and it is not fair to the country, where so many people are affected by the conditions at present prevailing, to keep them longer in uncertainty and suspense. If the Lord Privy Seal is unable to do what I suggest, to place before us the Government's attitude on the whole subject matter of the Bill, would it not be possible for the Government to indicate that they would either themselves introduce a separate Bill dealing with the more urgent aspects of the problem? [ Interruption .] Well, I am putting a fair request. I am endeavouring to find a way out of the difficulty. There is a great deal in this Bill which is not urgent at all, and a great deal that is extremely controversial. I will give one example, and that is the general provision to reduce the permitted increases of rent irrespective of what the landlord has done in faith of past legislation. [ Interruption .] No, it is not urgent. It is a matter of grave controversy, and one which ought to be thoroughly discussed in this House before we assent to it. It is a question of good faith with people outside. [ Interruption .] The hon. Gentleman has no right to put questions to me. I say it is a matter for discussion. I put these two points: Are the Government going to put down their Amendments and let us know how much of this Bill is their own, what, in fact, the Government's policy is, not only for the benefit of the House, but for the benefit of people outside; and, in the second place, if they do not do so, are they going to introduce without delay a separate Measure which will deal with the urgent difficulties outside, and so relieve countless people in the country of the uncertainty they are suffering from at present?

Having been during the last hour or two otherwise occupied, I have not had the advantage of listening to the Debate. I rise to deal with only one point, that is the statement which I made some days ago as to this Committee upstairs having the benefit of legal advice. My words are on record. What I had in my mind at that time was advice by the Solicitor-General. I recognise, however, that the limitations in respect of that advice, in view of the Solicitor-General not being a member of the Committee, may interfere with the Committee, and evidently has impeded somewhat the business of the Committee. Before this Debate began, indeed yesterday, the Members of the Government were discussing the situation, and what I would hope would be taken for the moment as a reassuring statement by the House is a statement from me that the difficulties will be recognised, and a decision reached, and an announcement made as early as possible next week, certainly before the Committee meets again, as to the advisability of the Attorney-General taking his proper place on that Committee. No matter which party be in power, no matter what may be the subject, all of us must recognise that a technical difficulty of this kind ought not to be allowed to stand in the way of any Committee doing its work properly. I hope, therefore, to make an early announcement next week which will be reassuring to the Committee.

Will the right hon. Gentleman also state whether at the same time he will make an announcement as to the exact intentions of the Government to each Clause of the Bill, and put down necessary Amendments? That is really the more important thing.

I began my observations by saying that I could only deal this afternoon with a point of legal advice.

I think the right hon. Gentleman has gone a good way to meet what was a real difficulty. There are many of us who have not the least desire to embarrass the Government—to-day they might well be in difficulties—but we feel it is a great mistake for the Government not to shoulder both the credit and responsibility for dealing with this question, and the difficulties that have arisen in the Committee show, in my judgment, the mistake they have made. We are very much handicapped in this Debate, because it is very difficult in Supply to discuss promised legislation, but after what the right hon. Gentleman has stated, namely, that he proposes next week to make a definite statement and to make clear what the Government's position is—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That is what I understood him to mean, and it is in the light of that suggestion that I, personally, shall vote for the Government if a Division is taken on this Amendment.

While I am sure the House as a whole will welcome the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal as to the intentions of the Government, I cannot help feeling that the anxiety of the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) as to the desire of the House to know the general attitude of the Government cannot fail of having general force in various quarters of the House, and I hope, therefore, the Government will take the same opportunity early next week, and before the Rent Restrictions Bill Committee meets again, of considering whether they cannot make that point also clear.

I should like to add this word, and I should not have added it but for the remarks of the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) in regard to the constant practice of Governments on Bills of this nature. The hon. Member for Harrow said he never knew a case where a Government took the occasion of a private Member's Bill to supply the Committee upstairs with the advice of the Law Officers, and that he looked upon it as being an entirely novel and unheard of proposition. I beg leave to tell the House and the hon. Member that he is quite wrong, and I will prove it by reference to one case which happened to come within my own memory. I have just refreshed my memory, so as to make quite sure I am right. Eighteen years ago—[An HON. MEMBER: "18 years!"]—in the first year of office of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's Government, a Measure was introduced as a private Member's Bill. It was the Land Tenure Bill and was introduced by the late Mr. Agar-Robartes, and it had been fathered in previous years by the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert). It was, as I say, a private Member's Bill, but the Government of the day announced their intention on Second Reading of affording facilities for the Bill. Ultimately they did in fact "star" the Bill, and it was conducted in its subsequent stages in the House as a Government Bill, but having given that undertaking on the Second Reading, the Government first appointed the Attorney-General as a Member of the Committee upstairs. Not only so, but they went out of their way at a subsequent stage, when some questions arose with regard to Scotland, to appoint the Solicitor-General for Scotland as an additional Member of the Committee.

I mention these facts lest the right hon. Gentleman should be led away—although I think he was a Member of the House at the time—into thinking that the hon. Member for Harrow was correct in his categorical assertion that any such procedure as the addition of a Law Officer to the Committee would be an unheard-of and novel precedent. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will, therefore, take that into consideration. I am also reminded, since the age of that precedent was rather challenged when I stated it, that within very recent memory a similar practice was followed in the case of the Legitimacy Bill, which, I think, was also introduced as a private Member's Bill, and to the Committee on which one of the Law Officers was added. While I recognise that the House will receive with very proper appreciation the intimation which the right hon. Gentleman has given, I would press him on these two points: First of all, that the Government will remember the precedents which govern this matter, and, secondly, that the right hon. Gentleman will meet the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith, that it is not only important that a Law Officer should be added, but that it is equally important that the attitude of the Government and the Amendments which they desire to propose should be made clear to the Committee.

Question, "That '£569' stand part of the Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Resolution agreed to.

Seventh and Eighth Resolutions agreed to.

REPORT [20th February.]

Civil Services and Revenue Departments, Supplementary Estimates, 1923–24

Class VII

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [

"That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution, '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 1924, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Health; including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, Grants to Local Authorities, Public Utility Companies, etc., sundry Contributions and Grants in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Acts, 1911 to 1922, certain Grants in Aid, and certain Special Services arising out of the War.'"

Question put, and agreed to.

REPORT [21st February]

Resolutions reported,

Civil Services and Revenue Departments Supplementary Estimates, 1923–24

Unclassified Services

1. "That a Supplementary sum. not exceeding £730,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, for Relief arising out of Unemployment, including Grants in Aid."

Class II

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, 1924, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of His Majesty's Secretary for Scotland and Subordinate Offices, Expenses under the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1900, Expenses under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, a Subsidy for Steamer Services to the Hebrides, and Grants in respect of Unemployment Schemes."

Class VII

3. "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, 1924, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Scottish Board of Health, including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, Grants to Local Authorities, etc., sundry Contributions and Grants in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Acts, 1911 to 1922, certain Grants in Aid, and certain Special Services arising out of the War."

Resolutions agreed to.

REPORT [25th February.]

Resolutions reported,

Civil Services and Revenue Departments Supplementary Estimates, 1923–24

Class I

1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £34,500, 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, 1924, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."

Class V

2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £168,460, 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, 1924, for the Expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions, and Consular Establishments Abroad, and other Expenditure chargeable to the Consular Vote, including the transport and relief of refugees in the Near East, and the relief of distress in Japan."

Resolutions agreed to.

REPORT [3rd March.]

Resolution reported,

Civil Services and Revenue Departments Supplementary Estimates, 1923–24

Class V

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,606,504, 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, 1924, for sundry Colonial Services, including a Grant in Aid of Railway Expenditure in Kenya and Uganda and certain other Grants in Aid."

Resolution read a Second time.

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

I do not propose to continue the Debate which we had on this subject in Committee. The House will, perhaps, remember that on this Vote we had two very interesting discussions, first of all, a discussion as to the general railway policy in Kenya, and as to new construction there, and, secondly, as to the position of the undertakings in Nauru and Ocean Islands. I do not propose to say anything at length on either subject to-day. All I want is for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to be good enough to convey what I say to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. On the second item, with regard to Nauru and Ocean Islands, we asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies certain specific questions with regard to the accounts. During the course of the Debate the right hon. Gentleman gave us such information as he could get as to these accounts. It would not be fair for me to-day to press the right hon Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and I do not press him, for further information as to details of the accounts. I have no desire to do that, because I fully recognise that the partners in this undertaking are separated by many thousands of miles of sea, and, necessarily, it must be a, matter of some little time before full information can be obtained.

What I want to do to-day is to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will be good enough to give notice to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies that some time or other, before the Colonial Office Vote closes in Supply—and I assume that will not be until some time in June or July, so that there ought to be ample time for communication with other partners in the enterprise, in Australia and New Zealand—we shall expect to have from the right hon. Gentleman both the accounts and the balance sheet for the last year of the British Phosphate Commission. I am sure the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will agree that that is not an unreasonable request, having regard to the fact that, as I stated in Committee, we are putting back the profits we have received from this undertaking in the form of fresh capital in the undertaking. I think, therefore, it is not unreasonable that we should ask co have the accounts at the earliest possible date, and I hope that request will be duly conveyed by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

I need hardly say that my hon. Friend does not expect me to deal with this problem, but I will at once convey the request he has made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

I do not know whether we are likely to have the presence of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, but I think it would be most desirable that at this stage we should have some further information from the Government as to the very important pledge the right hon. Gentleman gave to the House with reference to the position in Kenya Colony, and the application of the principle of trusteeship laid down by the late Government in a very important memorandum, and the pledge which was given by the right hon. Gentleman that he would appoint a Committee, or in some other way make an authoritative inquiry as to the carrying out of the principle of trusteeship. I hope the Financial Secretary will be able to give an assurance that at a very early date the House will be given information as to the way in which the Colonial Secretary is going to carry out that pledge, which involves the whole well-being of the native population in the Crown Colonies in that part of Africa, and really involves the whole future of the Commonwealth of the Empire.

Question put, and agreed to.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed .

I want to raise a matter with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury which I consider of very great importance, namely, the fees charged to cadets at the different training establishments of the Army, Navy and Air Force. In the case of the Air Force, at Cranwell, the cadets are charged £75 a year, if not King's Cadets, and have to provide uniform. In the case of Dartmouth, the maximum as £150 a year, and only 30 per cent. get any reduction, and parents and guardians have to pay for uniform, etc. The case of the Army is still worse. Gentlemen cadets of Sandhurst and Woolwich have, I understand, to pay £200. In each case the Minister speaking on these Services has said he is sympathetic to a reduction or abolition of these fees, and I think it would be a very good thing for a Labour Government to sweep away these fees altogether, in order that no boy should be ruled out of any of those three Services because his parents or guardians cannot find the necessary money. I think that is a very democratic suggestion, and that it is necessary, in order that the Services should not be the prerogative as regards the officer corps of any one class of the community. This matter rests with the Treasury. I understand the Board of Admiralty is favourable, the Air Council is favourable and the Army Council is favourable—at any rate, that their heads are favourable. I hope, therefore, the Treasury will not object to this comparatively small expense, but that the hon. Gentleman and his officials will be sympathetic to this proposal. I did not expect it could be done in the few weeks the Labour party has been in office, but now is the opportunity, and I submit that this matter should particularly interest the Labour movement, in that it is essential that the officer corps in those three Services should be democratic, and not of only one class.

May I remind the House of an incident that happened before the War? Take the case of the so-called Curragh incident, when certain troubles arose in Ireland and there was an extraordinary movement at the Camp at the Curragh, objecting to carry out the policy of the Government of that day. I was at that time in command of a ship at Plymouth, and we actually had meetings of naval officers on active service in command of ships to decide what our action should be, if we were ordered to proceed against the Orangemen in Ulster. We were divided into three sections. It is long past, and I do not mind telling the House now how we viewed the matter. There was a small section who wanted to hoist the Orange flag, and rally themselves and their crews, if they could persuade them, on the side of the Ulster rebellion. That was actually at a meeting at Plymouth which I attended. Another section held the view that they could not mix in politics, and must carry out orders. That was the largest section. The third section, to which I am ashamed now to confess I belonged, said this: "We object to the Navy being used for police work: we are faced with a very serious German menace "—we believed so at that time in 1914, and so we were!—"we consider the Navy should only be for fighting external foes: we object to it being used in an internal dispute "—which this really was—"affairs may develop into a civil war." We wanted the Navy to be neutral in this matter, simply to carry out its functions of policing the seas, and not to be used against people with whom the Government were in disagreement. That section of it to which I belonged was absolutely wrong. Our duty was to obey the orders of the Government. I see it now, but at that time I was younger and more hotheaded than now, and I had friends with me who took that point of view. In any case, the larger section had their way, and the Navy was prepared to do its duty in that case. But that shows the danger.

Suppose we were to get an advanced Labour Government with a majority in this House which tried to carry through, by constitutional means, sweeping economic changes? There may be a propaganda to raise up the middle, the moneyed, and the upper classes, and you might get—it is quite conceivable—a Fascisti movement in this country amongst the armed forces of the Crown. I do not say it is likely. I do not say it will happen, but it is conceivable and possible. We have seen what has happened in other countries, and if you take your officers from one class for the Army, Navy, and Air Force there is always the danger, which we cannot ignore, of that class being influenced by certain political parties in this House, and outside, to hamper the arm of the Execu- tive in keeping order and carrying through the decision of this House. The best way of preventing anything of the kind happening—I do not think there is a real danger, but there is a possibility—the best way is to have a national democratic corps in all the three Services, and while these fees of £75 or £200 for the cadets are charged, it means that the bulk of poor men will be debarred. It is perfectly true that there are a number of King's cadetships, but there is the provision of the uniform, equipment, and everything else, and the most of our people are thereby debarred. That is my case. It would not be much more money for the State to pay for the uniform, equipment, and instruments. But the fees ought to be paid by the State. It is done in America, France, and Japan. There is no reason why this country should be behind these countries in this matter. There are a number of King's cadetships, but they are confined to the sons of officers who fell in the War. That is quite sound. But it may be that there is some brilliant boy, a useful and a suitable lad for the Service, whose father was not killed in the War, who is debarred, possibly by a slender purse, from entering the Service. I think the Labour Government can do a great stroke at small cost in opening the avenue of these to the officers' corps of the three Services. The only test of the entrants should be merit, character, and fitness. I would ask my hon. Friend to address himself to this matter because it is the Treasury who holds the key to the position. Howver sympathetic the Services may be, they can accomplish nothing without the aid of the Treasury.

I desire to raise a question which I raised the other night—the matter of compensation for sufferers from enemy action. The reply then was not satisfactory. The last re port of the Royal Commission did not suggest that more than a percentage should be given, and I should like to know on what principle the claims which are put in are assessed and audited? I have had a tremendous number of cases come before me, and, really, the further I go into the question the more unjust seems to be the way, that not only this Government, but the Governments since the War have regarded this question. There are cases where people have put in their claims for sums of £100 or thereabouts. There was one that lately came before me, the sum mentioned was £165. It was not an exaggerated claim. The applicant received no correspondence at all from the Reparation Claims Department until this last week when he received a cheque for £9 in final settlement of the claim. He has never been told what his claim was assessed at. He does not know whether, if he accepts the cheque and cashes it he will have any ground for bringing the case into Court where perhaps he would get no satisfaction anyhow. He does not know where he stands if he cashes the cheque. So far as I can find out, there is no chance of his appealing, indeed, there is nobody to whom he can appeal. I should like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if, in cases of this sort where a man accepts a cheque for £9—a ridiculous sum, I submit—he has any chance of appealing? Is there anybody in the Reparation Claims Department whom he can see, and before whom he can put his case, and argue as to whether the amount of £9 is right or wrong? I do protest against this way of assessing these claims. It is autocratic and has no reference to the people concerned. It is not the way in which business is usually carried on in this country.

I am not attacking the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He has only had to do with these matters for quite a short time. We are not attacking the Government up to date. When we attacked the Government before they sheltered themselves behind the Royal Commission, and the only replies we ever got were: "You must wait until the Royal Commission reports." Then we had the first Report. When we asked again we were told: "You must wait until the second Report." Then we had the second Report published. The second Report is out now, consequently the present Government cannot shelter themselves as did the others. Therefore we ask what action is going to be taken. Is this matter coming up before the Government, and when? When it does, I ask that they should sympathetically consider the claims of these people, some of whom have long since given up hope of receiving the money which is due to them.

There are a good many hard cases. I could quote the case of a trawler owner whose trawler was torpedoed and who put in a claim for £1,250. He received no communication at all on the subject of his claim until last week, when he received a cheque for £55 in final settlement of his claim. Nobody, I suppose, is going to suggest that you can buy either a new or secondhand trawler for £55. Those putting forward claims should know on what these claims are assessed and, audited. Is there some extraordinary, mysterious, majestical figure who is sitting in the Reparations Claims Department autocratically saying this claim is worth so and so, and this other claim is worth so and so less? I understand that the Royal Commission had something to do with assessing the different claims, and I should like to know, when they sit in this Department assessing and auditing the different claims do they have any regard to the local conditions and where the particular damage is done? Whether they got any local knowledge, or simply asked officials with no knowledge of the local conditions? We do not know. These people have no means of finding out, and I suggest that Members of this House have a right to demand on behalf of their constituents—this country, after all, is a democratic country—to know who settles these claims. Those concerned should have the right of appeal, and not only that right of appeal but the means of appeal, and of putting their case before a responsible authority. I go further than that. For my own district I want to know how much money is to be paid there, and how much the total of the claims amount to. We who represent constituencies which were very badly hit during the late War want some more information to find out whether we are being justly treated or not. At the present moment no such information is available. If I could find out the total amount of claims sent in, the amount which has been assessed, and the amount which is going to be paid, then I should be able to judge whether these people have been fairly treated or not.

I do not think the Government desire to give the impression to anybody that those who have suffered in this way are not being justly treated, and I think a little more light might be thrown on the question, because that would enable us to tell the people exactly the position in which they stand. I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will have something to say on this matter, because we cannot let it rest where it is at the present time, and the sooner the Government come to grips with the matter the better, because otherwise, on every available occasion, we shall continue to raise this question. Furthermore, I intend to ask hon. Members interested in this question to hold a meeting in order to bring pressure to bear upon the Government. I suggest that the Government should help us so that we can tell these people exactly where they stand.

I want to support the plea which has been made by the hon. Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) regarding the democratisation of the higher officers in the Army, Navy, and Air Force. I am one of those who believe in the thoroughly pacific intentions of the present Government, and I would not say for a moment that all Governments would not do their best to avoid all dangers of future wars. I am not claiming that the whole of the pacific intentions reside on the benches behind the Government, but whatever the intentions of the Government may be, these forces will remain in existence for some considerable time, although they may diminish in number and in terms of actual force. I favour disarmament by mutual consent, and I hope this Government will give a lead in that matter to the rest of the world. Here we have a Labour Government, and whatever may be said to the contrary it is an undoubted fact that the principles for which they stand are now being adopted by an increasing number of people all over the country. The decision taken at Westminster yesterday throws an illuminating light upon the process of development of thought so far as the minds of the people are concerned when you find a Labour representative polling 6,000 votes in a straight fight between Socialism and anti-Socialism, with the whole force of the Press on the anti-Socialist side. That is a phenomena which a few years ago would not have been thought possible.

Certainly on these benches we do not stand for the mere patching and mending with which we are compelled to be content up to the present moment. In the country we shall contend for those wider proposals with which we are associated, and we shall ask that they will be put into force. If that were not the case many of us would not trouble to retain our connection with the Labour party. We hear of sinister movements in various parts of the country, and we have heard what the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull has said about certain officers in the Navy refusing to carry out the behests of the Government. We are not blind to the fact that Socialistic forces might be used against a Socialist Government even in regard to constitutional methods.

A good deal of anxiety in this respect has been caused in the minds of very many people who support the present Government, because they have a fear that there are social and economic forces in this House that would attempt sabotage in this country. I think those forces can all be abolished by the consent of the various parties in the country, and that is why I back up the plea made by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull in regard to the democratisation of the higher officers in the Army, the Navy and the Air Service. With the growth of the democratic sentiment and the change that is coming this is demanded, and we should claim as a right that every boy who desires to enter these Services shall have the opportunity of doing so upon equal terms, and this should apply to all sections of the community. I sincerely hope that the points which have been raised will be pressed upon the Financial Secretary, and that he will see whether it is not possible within the span of life of this Government to bring about those reforms which I am sure will be welcomed by all those who care for the peaceful accomplishment of democratic ideas throughout the country.

I wish to say one or two words in support of what has been said by the hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth). Like all those who represent seaport constituencies, I have been brought into close contact with a large number of the cases mentioned by the hon. Member opposite. I do not go so far as to ask for the amount which is going to be allocated to my own constituency, but I want to know if it has been decided what steps are to be taken to settle these cases. I know that there are a very large number of people living in very difficult circumstances, which have been aggravated by the fact that their claims have not been settled. They have been waiting for the official Report of the Commission with very great anxiety, and they are even now in a state of complete uncertainty as to whether they are going to get any compensation at all out of the £300,000 which has been voted by this House as a solatium. It hardly seems to me that that sum will be sufficient to do anything for these people. Some of these cases have been waiting for years, and I do ask that some steps should be taken to come to a final decision, so that these people may know exactly where they are.

I know a case of a widow who has been told that she could have no more, because she was insured, with a private company, and who has been reminded that she should seek recompense in that direction. I am not blaming this Government any more than the last Government. I am afraid that it was the Coalition Government which got us into all this trouble. I do feel, however, that it is the duty of the Government to reexamine the whole question. I know another case of a woman who had two daughters and one son. The son and one daughter were killed, and she has not even received the expenses of burial, such as are given under the Workman's Compensation Act. I do, therefore, hope that the Government are going into the question thoroughly, and are going to reexamine it in order to give us some idea what is going to be done with the money. I have no hopes of the £300,000 covering all the claims, but it is the duty of the Government to see that due justice is done with regard to the claims that have been put in. Another man who had his son killed got a sum of £40. If the son had been killed in the mines or at the docks, the funeral expenses allowed under the Workman's Compensation Act would have been more than that sum. As I say, I do not blame this Government, because it is the Coalition Government that got us into this trouble. The last Government-was in the same difficulty, and the present Government is in a worse position with regard to this Royal Commission.

I desire to support the request which has been made that the Government should look into this matter of reparations. I happen to be a Justice of the Peace in Poplar, and I have had to sign a very large number of claims made by seamen and other people to this Reparation Commission. I learn, from time to time, that these people can go to Stamford Street, but it is very rarely that they get beyond the commissionaire. They can get no satisfaction as to their claims. How long is it going to be before they get any acknowledgment or recognition in some way or other? There are some who have had small sums advanced to them and have the idea that they are going to get more. It depends greatly upon the circumstances of the case. No one seems to go down into the district to find out whether the people are making a genuine claim or not. They seem to take it from what is sent in and then keep these people hanging about.

I know that the Commissioners issued an advertisement that reparation claims would not be considered after December, 1922, that there was a large number of claims again brought forward in 1923, and that there are claims still being brought forward. I do not know whether that is the reason the Commissioners are unable to come to any definite conclusion as to what amount these people ought to have. But I do think that the Government ought now to advise the Commissioners to issue one definite advertisement—not confined to one particular paper, but issued far and wide—that after a given date no reparation claims will be considered by the Commissioners under any circumstances. After all, most of those who have any claims to make have had the fullest time and opportunity to make them. It will then probably give the Commissioners some idea as to how much more money they will have to ask the Government for, and as to how much more money the people whose claims they have looked through and assessed are entitled to. In my own district when families were bombed out of their houses and had their homes broken up, they were helped by the local people. Poor as we are in Poplar, we got a fund together. We had the sympathy of various people and expression was given to that sympathy in a practical way by contributions. In that way we helped these people to get a little bit of home together.

Some of them have received small sums from the Commissioners, but nothing in proportion to what they lost, and they were given a promise that they were going to get some more. Others have been told, "You were insured." The Government had an insurance scheme and people paid from 2s. to 4s., and some of them have got assistance in that way. They have been told that they are not entitled to any assistance from this Reparation Commission. It is another case of imposing upon those who try to provide for themselves. Then there are others who had their children killed or injured, and there have been differences shown in the treatment of those cases. It is difficult to understand why those differences are shown, and it is causing a great deal of dissatisfaction and discontent among the people concerned. I sincerely hope that the Government will take the matter in hand and give the House some idea who set up this Commission, who the Commissioners are, what are their powers, what money they are going to distribute, and when they are going to distribute it among the people who have made claims and are entitled to some consideration.

There are four points which I would like to put before the representative of the Government. I have been concerned and interested in deputations which have recently waited upon the Minister of Health in regard to the needs and the claims of poor areas. I realise the difficulties under which the Minister of Health is working, and the little he can do for us at the moment. I put a question last week with regard to the old age pensioners of West Ham who may enter what we may call the Poor Law Hospital, and the fact that their pensions have been taken from them in respect of the cost of their maintenance. I was informed by the Minister that no coercion or intimidation has been used. While, of course, I would do nothing to detract from that reply, I was cognisant of the details of the cases to which I referred, and I knew that a certain degree of coercion had been used. I knew, further, and I felt that the Minister of Health should be informed, that in those areas the relieving officers obtained the old age pension books, and if those people stayed in the Poor Law hospital for five or six weeks, their weekly money was taken—that is to say, the weekly sheet or note was taken by the officer of the department responsible, and the old age pensioner himself or herself was not aware that the money had been taken. I was very much concerned, in the last Parliament, at a speech delivered by an hon. Member on the opposite side. It pained me very deeply, because it suggested that the old age pension was merely a form of outdoor relief. I entirely disagree with that; I look upon the old age pension as a real reward of citizenship, and I personally think that, even if there be a voluntary consent on the part of the old age pensioner, that amount of money should not in any circumstances be taken by the Poor Law authorities in respect of medical attention given to poor people.

There is a further point which I should like to put to the representative of the Treasury, whereby I think he could render our, poor areas some very material assistance. During the course of the year a fairly large number of men and women are permamently received into our Poor Law institutions—or workhouses, if we use the old term—who are over the age of 70. They are properly cared for in those institutions, and we, the local ratepayers, are maintaining those citizens, who are not receiving from their country the necessary financial assistance which they would get if they were ordinary citizens living with their people outside. I respectfully submit to the representative of the Treasury that here is a way in which he could give some assistance to local needy areas. In the Poor Law Union of West Ham, the expenditure that we incur in maintaining these old people would aggregate £10,000 a year, and I respectfully suggest that the least the Treasury could do, recognising the value of the services we are rendering to the country by looking after these poor people for the few remaining years of their lives, would be to offer us the corresponding amount of money that we are saving the Treasury. Perhaps I may put it in another way. The county borough of West Ham has a rate to-day of over 26s. in the £. Our Poor Hate is 9s. in the £. It would be but a very small contribution for the Treasury to make if it relieved us of that expenditure of £10,000 a year by, perhaps, transferring to us through the Ministry of Health this amount of money that we ex- pend to-day on maintaining these old people, who otherwise would be drawing their old age pension. I should also be glad if there could be conveyed to the Home Office the alarm that is felt by some of us on these Back Benches with regard to the dangers in London, from sheer disregard of rules and regulations on the road, in connection with the way in which omnibuses and trams are competing with one another in total disregard of the safety of the travelling public.

You want a trust?

2.0 P.M.

No, I want some sensible regulations imposed by the police whereby, say, workmen coming out of the railway stations, and wanting to enter a tramcar, should be able to do so without their lives being endangered by the immediate arrival of two omnibuses. I am not casting any reflection upon the omnibus driver; he is impelled and compelled by rules and regulations over which he himself has no control; but, if anyone comes to the borough of West Ham where I reside—if they come to Canning Town Station or to Stratford Broadway—they will see that it is almost impossible to cross the high road suggest that it is quite within the powers of the Home Secretary to lay down certain rules and regulations under which the police will do their duty specifically and see that the public is protected. I should also like to call attention to the condition of the vehicles in which the public are carried to and fro. I speak with a fair degree of experience, because all my life I have been a coach-body builder until I was elected to this House. I worked at my trade until I was elected to come here, and, therefore, I speak with some degree of knowledge. I should like to ask what special Department exists in the Home Office in order to ensure that the vehicles which are to-day on the road are in a fit and proper state. I put a question to the Home Secretary in the last Parliament with respect to the qualifications of the members of the Metropolitan police force who to-day are engaged in the Department responsible for the licensing of vehicles. I make no reflection whatever upon the men at present engaged in that Depart ment, but, when I look over the tramcars in which I am compelled to ride, I have to make up my mind, as a qualified workman, that the cars which are at the disposal of the public are neither cleanly nor safe for the public to ride in. Therefore, I respectfully suggest to the Front Bench that they convey to the Home Secretary the desire of a good many Members of this House that stricter regard shall be paid by the Department concerned to the condition of the vehicles which are at the disposal of the travelling public.

The fourth point that I want to put is again with respect to a question which I submitted to the Home Secretary, but in this Parliament. I asked the Home Secretary whether his attention had been called to the obviously spurious auction sales which take place in London. I pointed out that certain auctioneers licences are granted, and such a licence certainly implies that a certain and particular person shall use that licence. I am conscious, however, that in certain of these cases the licence issued is used by more than one person, and that is a contravention of the laws of this country. I want to call the attention of the House to certain facts. They may be treated flippantly, but I do not care whether that is so or not. We are in duty bound to protect people on the streets of London, whether they are wary or unwary people, and I am conscious that these so-called auction rooms are run for the purpose of catching people in London who are as wary as the people who run them.

They deserve all they get.

My hon. Friend assumes that, when a weaker person is attacked by a stronger person, he is entitled to all he gets; but does not my hon. Friend know that it is often the case that these sales are about on a par with the three-card trick on a racecourse? You can go there and see men and women who have just come up to visit London being trapped in this way. I want the Home Office to send responsible people who will be able to see what is done by the persons engaged by those who run these shows. They pretend to buy the goods, and you can see them come back and unload. It is simply a part of the artifices whereby the unwary portion of the British people are caught. I hope the hon. Member himself has not been caught, but, to be serious, it is our duty, if we see these things happening, to bring them to the attention of the Home Office. I do not mind how humorously hon. Members treat this, but I went into one of these rooms near the Strand some time ago.

Did you get caught?

No. When I was requested, in a very rude manner, to move nearer, I said my hearing was quite good, and I was quite satisfied to stay-where I was. A man behind me then pushed me forward, and I said to him, "If I am assaulted in this building I shall call the police." He was particularly offensive in his references to the police, and so I went to the policeman outside. I informed him that I had been assaulted. He came and asked the man connected with the auction show for his name and address, but he positively refused. He treated the forces of the law with sheer impunity. If we are perfectly serious in our assumed respect for the forces of the Crown and the Departments of this country, we should, both from the point of view of the Home Office and the Law Officers of the Crown, at least refuse to issue these licences to so-called auction rooms which are obviously spurious, and we should inform the Home Office that they have to do their duty in sending the necessary people there to take action against the sellers for misrepresentation of the goods. These details in no sense can be treated flippantly. They are very serious in their effect on the people, and we shall be doing our duty, and I have at least done mine in calling attention to them.

I hope that the hon. Member will not think I treated his references to spurious auction rooms in a spirit of levity. I quite appreciate his point, and I am sure the Home Secretary, when the matter is brought to his attention, will take some steps to see that these places, which are no more than equivalent to the booths of the three-card tricksters and thimble-riggers on a racecourse, shall be more closely inspected and that the auctioneers' licences which enable them to be carried on shall be sparingly issued, and the character of the applicants more closely inquired into.

I wish to raise a point on which I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be able to give me a hopeful answer. I did not know we should have this long time on the Adjournment Motion, and I am consequently without the papers and details I should like to have had. An examination was held not long ago—I think the results were published in the middle of last month—for administrative posts in the Civil Service for ex-service temporary civil servants. A very large number entered, 100 odd passed the examination and three vacancies were allotted to successful candidates. Can the hon. Gentleman do anything for the successful candidates who reached the necessary standard but have received no appointment? This is a point which should appeal to the hon. Gentleman because all I ask him to do is to see that these gentlemen receive appointments, not in the administrative class, but in a lower class, in the higher clerical class, which will at any rate enable them to earn a living. By doing that, he will obtain civil servants who have passed an examination fitting them to be officers in the administrative class at the price of clerical officers. That should be some consideration for the Treasury when they are thinking of economy. I believe, from what I have been told, that this would satisfy a very large number of these men, who incurred considerable expense in going in for this examination and were bitterly disappointed to find there were so few vacancies. Many of them had taken a great deal of trouble to coach themselves in their spare time and they feel that the conduct of the Government has been rather disingenuous. When they were invited to enter for the examination they were not informed of the number of vacancies, and I understand from them that they felt generally that successful candidates in this examination, the highest they could enter for, would be provided with permanent posts of some sort. That has not been done, and 98 or 99 per cent. of the successful candidates—I say nothing of the unsuccessful ones—who reached the necessary standard, have not been given permanent posts of any sort. Whereas the Government are taking steps to provide permanent posts for temporary ex-Service civil servants who have passed no examination whatever, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should take some steps to provide posts, not necessarily commensurate with the proved ability of the men but posts of some sort for these civil servants who have passed that high examination, many of whom are in grave danger of the utmost poverty and almost complete destitution. I know the matter has been brought before him before in the form of question and answer, though I have not heard the questions or the answers, and the subject perhaps is not unfamiliar to him. But very deserving cases are involved, and I should be very grateful if he could make me a hopeful answer.

I desire to call attention to the question of ex-service men who are at present serving in a temporary capacity in the Civil Service. Thousands of these men have been serving for the last four or five years and the question has been raised prominently before Members of the House, particularly before the last General Election, as to the status they were to occupy in the future. I am informed, on what I think is credible authority, that no fewer than 128 Members of the Labour Benches, including 17 Members of the Ministry, pledged themselves that these men should be admitted into permanent positions as vacancies arose. Those pledges are not being fulfilled. The question has been submitted in a general way to the South-borough Commission, but no instructions have been given them as to the basis on which they should conduct their inquiry. The proper way in which to treat these men, who have proved their qualications for their positions by many years of experience in the Civil Service, and who have been continued in the Service since the end of the War and, therefore, have presumably qualified for their posts, is to promote them to the permanent branch in preference to bringing in men from outside who do not possess the qualifications possessed by these men. As an alternative, I suggest that a fair proportion of the vacancies ought to be allotted to those ex-service men who are at present serving in the Civil Service. That proposal has the merit of equity and I justice on its face, and I hope the Financial Secretary will see that the pledges which have been given to these men are fulfilled.

There is one further matter to which I wish to call attention and that is, the state of employment in the shipbuilding and engineering trades. The position of employment in these trades at the present time is deplorable. Various promises were held out in all the constituencies on the Tyne and the Clyde and other great centres of shipbuilding industry as to what would be done to these men if the Labour party came into office. I addressed a question during this week to the Minister of Labour as to whether the Government had framed any schemes of any kind by means of which these men could hope to receive employment in their trades, and the reply was that, except that some work might be provided under the provisions of the Trades Facilities Act, and that some incidental work might be provided under the Government schemes, the only hope was for a general revival in trade. I wish to press upon the Government that that is not a fulfilment of the hopes which were held out to these men before the last General Election. At the present time 30 per cent. of the men in the shipbuilding trades are out of employment. The shipbuilding and engineering trades are basic trades in this country. No other trades have contributed more to the development of trade and commerce and the welfare and prosperity of this country. It is absolutely essential that the manual skill and technique of these men should be maintained, and that can only be done by the provision of work. It cannot be done merely by doles. If the Government have any schemes of any kind in their mind, there never will come a time when it will be more essential than it is at the present that those schemes should be put forward. I beg the Government to endeavour to put forward some proposals such as they had in their minds before the last General Election for the provision of work for men in these trades.

As a back-bench Member, who spends most of his time listening to Debate, I welcome this opportunity of bringing forward one or two points in which I am particularly interested. In regard to one point, I have been in correspondence with the Financial Secretary during the last few days. It refers to the position of the old age pen- sioner in this country who has spent a certain number of the last 15 or 20 years living in the Dominions and has not lived a sufficient time in this country to qualify for the grant of an old age pension. The Financial Secretary said that under Section 3 (2) of the Act of 1911, as amended by Section 2 (3) of the Act of 1919, it is clearly laid down that it shall be a statutory condition for the receipt of the old age pension by any person that the person must satisfy the pension authorities, if he is a natural born British subject, that he has since attaining the age of 50 years had his residence in the United Kingdom for a period of not less than 12 years.

It seems to me hard that that should be the law in these cases. If a man has been living in Australia or Canada or South Africa and he comes here at the age of 60 or 65 and he gets to the age of 70, and applies for an old-age pension, it is a hardship that because he has not spent the last 12 years in this country he should not be qualified until, I suppose, such time as he has lived here for 12 years. I asked in the question I put to the Financial Secretary whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer could tell me what were the different regulations upon this matter in the Dominions, because I am informed that we get even more than reciprocal treatment in our Dominions, and that in some Dominions Britishers who go out there are qualified to receive the old-age pension provided that they have dwelt anywhere within the British Empire. If that be the case in any of our Dominions, it is a very strong reason why we in this country should give no worse treatment. I hope my hon. Friend will look into the matter. I understand that his Department is at present finding out the law and the practice of the various Dominions, and I hope that in due course he will be so kind as to let me know whether it is true that in the Dominions they give this better treatment, and, if so, whether there will be any chance of this country extending to people who come from the Dominions like treatment.

There is one further point to which I wish to draw attention, and I am sorry that I cannot see a representative of the Ministry of Pensions present. The matter I have in mind has caused grave dissatisfaction to a great number of Service pensioners who live in the North of Buckinghamshire. We have learned that within the last few days that the office at Aylesbury, where until recently we have had a chief area officer, is now put under the Ministry of Pensions Office at Oxford. There are several reasons because of which the pensioners in Buckinghamshire can in future look for much more tardy treatment of their complaints and of their cases than has been the case up to now. In the first place, the men who are in receipt of pensions or who are claiming pensions will in future have to go to Oxford instead of going to Aylesbury if they want to interview the chief area officer, because at Aylesbury, the chief officer now is not the chief area officer, which is a technical term, but the district officer, who has no authority except to act as a channel. He has frequently to refer either to Oxford or to the Ministry of Pensions Headquarters in London before he can deal with the individual cases that come to his notice. It is no good saying that Aylesbury can still deal with cases, because Aylesbury has always to apply to either Oxford or London and that causes great delay.

As regards personnel, there is another reason why this change is not likely to benefit the service pensioners in Buckinghamshire. Do not let any hon. Member think that I am accusing the Government of economising at the expense of the ex-service man. I do not want to make this in the least a party question, but I do point out that this is an economy which will seriously affect the rights and the claims of the ex-service men who are pensioners in that part of the country.

As regards personnel, the men in my constituency do not like to feel that the chief area officer with whom they have been dealing very successfully for many months is now likely to go, and go he almost certainly will, because I understand that his salary has been cut down from something like £380 to £260. If there is a change of personnel, if the men in future have to go, say, to the chief area officer in Oxford, whom they do not know, and can no longer go to the chief area officer in Aylesbury, whom they do know, then there is not likely to be more efficiency in the future than there has been. Then there is the delay in getting replies.

Until now anybody interested in pension cases has been able to write to the officer at Aylesbury and get a reply straight away. Now the office at Aylesbury cannot send a reply. They have got to refer the case to Oxford. That means extra delay. Then on the question of geography. The man in Buckinghamshire cannot get to Oxford, unless he takes the whole day to make the journey and get back again, whereas Aylesbury is the county town, and there is every facility for getting in to see the area officer there. How much easier it is to get a settlement in these cases if you can talk over a thing than if you have to content yourself with writing.

It is curious that the Aylesbury War Pensions Committee is to be left untouched and is going to work with, although it is not under, the Oxford War Pensions Committee, for the district officer at Aylesbury is going to be the clerk of the war pensions committee. Again, before he can give an authoritative answer to an ex-service man, if he goes to him, he has to apply to Oxford; and how long is the present system of having this district office at Aylesbury going on? If there are going to be these changes, we are becoming anxious as to how much further the Pensions Ministry is going to carry these economies. May I give details of an actual case which occurred during the last week? A man came into the office at Aylesbury and applied for the commutation of his final weekly instalments. He was a commercial traveller, and wanted a certain amount of money down, in order to fit himself up for his business. He applied for this commutation, and was actually awarded by the Ministry of Pensions a commutation of £46. He went into the office at Aylesbury and said, "I have been granted £46 by the Ministry of Pensions. Here is the authority. Let me have some of it on account." He wanted £25. If he had applied three weeks ago, or a little earlier, when there was a chief area officer at Aylesbury, that officer would have had the authority and would have been able to give that man a part of the money down. Instead of that, the district officer at Aylesbury said, "I have no authority. I must apply to Oxford." He applied to Oxford over the telephone, having previously telephoned to the Ministry of Pensions, and got their sanction to make the advance, and he was told by Oxford, "We cannot accept any telephone conversation as being an authority to pay money."

That may be so, but the telephone conversation was between the district officer, an officer of the Ministry of Pensions, at Aylesbury, and his chief, the chief area officer of the Ministry of Pensions at Oxford, and if two officers both serving the Ministry of Pensions cannot telephone to each other as regards the giving of an authority I submit that the organisation and the administration of the Ministry of Pensions, at least in Buckinghamshire, requires to be looked into. The answer was, "You must write and send me the official authority." More delay occurred, the authority was sent by post, and time had to elapse before the necessary letter could be written from Oxford to Aylesbury granting the authority to pay money on account, and even then, because there was no personal touch, because the man at Oxford had not seen the individual ex-service man, who had gone into the office at Aylesbury, instead of giving the £25 asked for he granted an issue of £5. That is a case in point which shows not only that great delay occurs in these cases, but that, owing to the absence of the personal touch, no pensioner can hope for the same sympathetic treatment which he can get if he is dealing personally with a man who has the authority to deal with his case.

It all comes to this; why should the county of Oxford have a chief area officer with authority to deal with these cases while Buckinghamshire is deprived of a chief area officer? I am aware that there is nobody on the Front Bench at this moment who can answer these questions, but I do value this opportunity of putting my statement on record, because I have a question down for Thursday addressed to the Minister of Pensions, and probably I should have been forced to refer to it on the adjournment on Thursday night, or some other night. I hope now that, by drawing the attention of the Minister to this matter, when he comes to answer my question on Thursday he will have looked into the whole case, and, by his decision, have obviated any further reference by me to the subject.

I would like to take this opportunity of calling attention to a matter about which I would have spoken yesterday, only that I had not the opportunity. I refer to the administration of the Royal Air Force with respect to the engagement of chaplains. I notice that on the Estimates that there are 26 chaplains in the Air Force to be engaged for the ensuing year. I am sorry that no representative of the Air Ministry is hero. I would like to know first whether all these chaplains are appointed in competition? I do not mind what the conditions of the competition are, but I want to know whether every appointment of a chaplain is open to every applicant who cares to apply for the position, and whether these positions are advertised in the public Press, when they are vacant, so that everyone who is eligible to take such positions may have the opportunity of making an application. Then I would like to know how many of these chaplains belong to the Church of England, how many are Nonconformists, and how many belong to the Roman Catholic faith? I have no particular knowledge as to the conditions that do apply, and, being a new Member, I am simply asking for information What I do suggest is that it is in harmony with the principles of equity that these chaplains should be distributed equally in proportion to the numbers in the Air Force belonging to each persuasion.

There is another question. May we take it for granted that no compulsion whatever is put upon either boys or men to attend religious services? I want every man and boy who is in training at Cranwell and Halton to have an opportunity, if desired, of going to a religious service, and, as far as is possible within reason, to have an opportunty of attending a service in harmony with his religious convictions. Where there may be only a few men or boys of any particular religious persuasion no special provision can be made for them, but where there is, as at Halton, a total of four chaplains on the establishment, I would like to be assured that there is a fair distribution of the chaplaincies, so that men and boys can be properly served.

Then there is the question of the remuneration of Chaplains. Speaking from outside, it appears to me that the salaries paid are on the liberal side. I want a little more conservatism with regard to them. I find that a single Chaplain starts at £520 a year and ends at a maximum of £1,168. A married man starts at £571 and ends at a maximum of £1,195. I do not know whether these sums appeal to hon. Members as excessive, but that is how they strike me. In the Army a thoroughly trained medical Captain, after 10 years service, receives only £809, and a married medical Major, after 15 years' service, receives £973. I cannot see that it is in harmony with equity and fairness that a Chaplain, who has nothing like the serious duties to perform that a Major in the Army Medical Corps has to undertake, should be able to receive a higher maximum salary. If we consider the salaries paid to Chaplains outside the service we are forced to the conclusion that the Royal Air Force pays salaries very much in excess of those paid outside. A maximum of £1,195 appears to me to be an unjustified expenditure of the taxpayers' money. I wish to make my public protest with regard to it on behalf of those whom I represent. This matter should be taken into very serious consideration and should be reviewed. Unless the representative of the Air Ministry is able to bring forward cogent reasons for the continuance of such large salaries, I ask that the scale be reviewed.

I want to take this opportunity of asking the Financial Secretary to the Treasury one or two questions in regard to the Cunliffe Report. Will the findings of that Report be brought before the Committee which has just been set up? If it has not yet been brought before that Committee for review, will the House be given an opportunity at a later date of discussing the Report? It is public knowledge that there is a very great difference of opinion both as to the findings of the Report and as to the difficulties which may arise, because of the Report, if there should be a revival of trade. For instance, on the one hand we have a great banker like Mr. McKenna, who is not, so far as Press reports go, in agreement with the whole of the Report, and we have an economist like Professor Keynes, who has been attacking the findings also. There seems to be more or less a conspiracy on the part of city editors such as those of the "Times" and the "Morning Post" to prevent any real discussion of this matter of currency, because as soon as it is raised they say that it affects the credit of the country and the exchange rates.

In this country we have had for the last 18 months inconvertible paper currency. It has not been on a gold basis. America, which has attracted practically the whole of the gold of the world, is also not upon a gold basis, because it has so much gold that it has not been able to give credits to the ratio that would otherwise have been possible. It seems that there may be considerable difficulties —if we get a trade revival—due to the restriction of currency, which will automatically take place if the findings of the Cunliffe Committee Report remain in force. In view of the fact that prices are already rising in this country, and that there seems to be the beginning of a trade revival, I want to know whether or not the Government propose to take any action in regard to a review of the findings of that Report. Unless they do so, it seems to me that the trade revival may be checked at its inception by a restriction of credit.

I want to draw attention to a matter that has already been mentioned. It relates to the recent examination in connection with the Civil Service. I understand that in October last invitations were put forward to candidates to enter an examination for posts in the administrative service. I am given to understand there were 500 entrants and that they were informed that 50 per cent. of the vacancies occurring between June, 1923, and June, 1924, would be filled by those who were successful in the examination. I believe the examination was of a University standard and occupied two days, and in January last the Civil Service Commissioners interviewed 107 of the successful entrants. I am now informed that of the 107 successful candidates, only three received appointments. I suggest that when invitations of this kind are sent out, some idea should be conveyed as to the number of vacancies which are to be filled. Examinations of this kind have their usefulness and enable us to ascertain the ability which we have in the service of the State. At the same time, we should have consideration for the expense which they involve, apart from the amount of time and energy devoted to preparation for the examination. When the number of successful candidates is large and when only a few receive appoint- ments, an undesirable influence must be exercised upon those who do not receive appointments. This matter might be considered in the future and some indication given of the number of appointments likely to be made in such cases.

I should like to follow my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) by disagreeing with him in his condemnation of the Cunliffe Committee, for I think such a view was behind his remarks, but I see the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is in his place, eager to let us hear what he has to say about the Cunliffe Committee; otherwise, I would be only to ready to debate and support the Cunliffe Committee, and to pursue that subject, even to the verge of bi-metallism. I must, however, refrain from touching that particular subject and deal with another question which I have in mind. This relates to matters under the control of the British Clearing House for Enemy Debts. I am glad to have this early opportunity of calling attention to this matter. It gravely affects the interests of a large number of commercial people in this country whose minds have been disturbed, within the last few days, by a statement made in another place, that certain sums, which really form part of assets distributable among British creditors, will now be used for charitable purposes among German nationals. It is within the recollection of the House that the British Clearing House for German debts was set up under the Treaty of Versailles in order to allow British nationals to obtain, by means of the clearing-house system, the money for debts or compensation due to them from Germans before, during, and after the War, and vice versa to adjust similar debts or compensation due by British people to Germans. An amount of £44,000,000 has been already distributed, but it has taken a great deal of time. The money has been doled out in three small portions of 2s. 6d. to the £ every six months, making 7s. 6d. in the £ in all, thus far.

I have taken the trouble to look into the way in which these matters are carried out. It is true that the Government does not pay the cost of the clearing house. The British creditors pay whatever expense is incurred for running the clearing house because 2½ per cent. is taken off to cover expenses. I do not see any reason why these periods of clearinghouse distributions should be spun out to such an extent. The machinery has been going on since 1920 and even in claims which have been agreed upon between the two clearing houses, the German and the British, and in claims which have been adjudicated upon by the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal for Enemy Debts and where judgment has been given to the British creditors, the money has been doled out in these small portions of 2s. 6d. to the £ per six months. Up to the present moment not more than 7s. 6d. in the £ has been distributed to those British creditors who actually won their cases before the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal which sits in St. James's Square. It is not as though the necessary money were not here. The money is here and in the hands of the British authorities. The balance of debts still due for payment amounts to £12,000,000, and the British authorities hold £18,000,000 in liquid assets and in other assets. There is no ground whatever for the Board of Trade or the Treasury saying they cannot distribute this money because they have not got in. The Government have got it. They have in hand 30s. to the £ to meet these debts, while men in Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Bradford, London and other cities, to whom money has been owed by Germans and whose debts to British creditors have been adjudicated upon in the strictest possible way and awarded, are held up for want of the money which really lies at their disposal but is kept from them by the British authorities and the Treasury for reasons which are not explained.

How long has it been held up?

As I say, they have been paying 2s. 6d. in the £ every six months. They began to pay about 20 months ago, and I believe the British Clearing House was set up somewhere about 1920. In the four years since then we have had three dividends on what was owed to the British commercial community at the rate of 2s. 6d. a time and at intervals of six months. No business house can get on with money lying idle like that. I repeat, that no expense falls on the Exchequer for running the clearing house in Stamford Street, where the enemy debt offices are. It falls upon the British trading community. None the less, the Treasury ought to go into that policy of the clearing office, see what is being done and endeavour to speed up matters. The Treasury or Board of Trade should also issue an explanation to the public to justify their holding up of the money which does not belong to them when they have 30s. to the £ waiting to be distributed.

I pass from that side of the enemy debts question to make a further observation, and upon the subject discussed this week in another place. I would ask the attention of the President of the Board of Trade because this is within his bailiwick. We have heard that sums amounting to £4,000,000, I am not sure of the correct sum, are to be disbursed out of the assets belonging to British creditors, and solely for the benefit of certain German nationals. I believe Lord Parmoor announced in another place a few days ago that as a result of the Government having accepted the report of the Blanes-burgh Committee this is going to be done. It is an act of vicarious charity on the part of the Committee and Government. The money is not coming out of the pockets of the British taxpayer nor out of the pockets of the Committee which recommends the payment of the money to the German nationals. It is not coming out of Lord Parmoor's pocket. In plain English it is a case of being charitable with our money—the money of us British traders.

indicated dissent .

The President of the Board of Trade shakes his head, but I believe I am not incorrect in saying that in that statement of Lord Parmoor's it was made clear that not more than 2s. 6d. and not less than 2s. would be taken off the dividends payable to British creditors, in respect of compensation which has been adjudicated upon, and which is due to them but which will be reduced by the charitable donation given as a result of this Committee's Report. That diminution was undoubtedly mentioned. Can it be denied? Why should British creditors find this money? If money has to be found for these poor Germans for the benefit of the German Government, let it come from the pockets of the general taxpayer, and not out of the pockets of the creditors to whom this money is due. I make no comment as to whether it should be paid to German nationals or not. My point is, why should British creditors suffer the proposed diminution of 2s. or 2s. 6d. in the £ off what is their property? The commercial community regard this with great opposition, and, if possible, the question will be raised on the Floor of the House in order to contest the validity, or rather the right, of the Government to take money belonging to British creditors for the purpose of vicarious charity. There may be one way out of the difficulty which I should welcome, and it is this. I am aware that the German Government undertook to pay, and did pay, so much per month in cash to the British clearing house to adjust the balance of the money due to British creditors, and that money was used for distribution here. The German Government paid that money up to the occupation of the Ruhr, but since then it has ceased to provide that money for distribution. I suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that he should press the German Government, when accounts have become settled (if that is possible) as the result of the reparations examination now going on, to continue to pay to the British clearing house the amount of money by which Germany undertook to pay to settle these clearing balances, and which it discontinued to pay when it said that, owing to force majeure, the Ruhr occupation denied it the power to pay. I have drawn attention to this matter, and I hope the Government will realise that the commercial community is not going to sit still and allow this £4,000,000 to be taken out of its pocket in order that others may be charitable. I do not agree with the President of the Board of Trade, who shook his head just now, that it will not penalise British creditors. The statement that 2s. or 2s. 6d. may ultimately come out of the dividends payable to British creditors was made by the Lord President of the Council in another place two or three days ago, thus he has himself announced the diminution. I ask the Government to realise that the trading community will take great exception to charity at their expense, and, so far as we can, we shall contest it on the Floor of this House. I hope Ministers will not put the recommendation of the Committee announced by Lord Parmoor into operation until we have had further discussion here.

I would like to take advantage of this somewhat unique opportunity for private Members to say a few words on a subject which, I think, is non-controversial, that of housing in agricultural districts; and I am all the more encouraged to do so because the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary are sitting there. The coffers are now bulging with a surplus, and they will be discussing presently what they will do with the surplus which is accruing; and it is opportune to mention this matter because they have a unique opportunity of meeting a difficulty in the agricultural districts. Some years ago a large number of cottages were built in rural districts. It was at a time when materials were at their highest, and labour costs as well, and houses cost such an enormous sum that it is utterly impossible to let them at an economic rent. The Government made certain contributions and the local authorities other contribubutions, but all the same the result is that the agricultural workers in many districts are charged such excessive rents for them as are almost impossible for them to pay in view of the wages they are receiving. I know cases where a farm labourer is getting 25s. a week and the rent of his cottage is 10s. 3d. a week. I believe Members on all sides of the House will agree that it is a scandal for these men to be asked to pay such an excessive rent. It appears there is no particular machinery to enable the authorities to reduce rents. Certain parish councils can reduce the rent, but they will have to bear the loss, and the rates will go up, thus taking away with one hand what you are giving with the other. I suggest to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that in dealing with the surplus he ought to see whether he cannot do something in this matter, seeing that it is a non-controversial question and would be approved in all quarters of the House. I think he ought to deal with it somewhat on these lines, that a grant should be made from public funds, but on condition that the rent of the cottages shall be reduced to a sum which would be a fair and reasonable rent for agricultural workers to pay. If he were to think out a scheme of this kind I think I could assure him that hon. Gentlemen opposite, though we are very often in controversy with them, as well as hon. Gentlemen on these benches, would support the Government.

3.0 P.M.

I wanted to say a few words yesterday on the Air Estimates, and to express regret that the Estimates omit the £400,000 it was anticipated would be provided for the airship scheme. There are several airship stations in the country empty to-day. In my constituency there is a very large aerodrome lying idle, with a township of 50 or 60 empty houses belonging to the Ministry. These houses are being kept empty awaiting the decision of the Government, although there is a shortage of houses in the area, and the matter is causing grave discontent. The aerodrome costs the Government £6,000 a year to keep in a state of repair, which expenditure is nonproductive. I understand the Imperial Airship Company are prepared to purchase this aerodrome for half a million pounds, and it would be far better for the Government to accept an offer of this sort, when they can get it, than to have to accept later, possibly, a much lower offer. This is a matter which has been under discussion for the last five years. Under the late Government an agreement was arrived at between the Treasury, the Air Ministry and the Imperial Airship Company, and the contract had only to be put into legal language and would have been accepted. Under ordinary business conditions the whole matter could have gone through, but the change of Government threw it back into the melting pot. I see no reason why the original scheme and the contract should not be submitted to this House for its approval. If the Imperial Airship Company took over this aerodrome it would mean starting work immediately and find employment in the near future for 1,000 people, mostly skilled workmen; and what would apply to this aerodrome would apply in time to other aerodromes.

Apart from this point, this matter is of immense importance Imperially. I noticed in the "Times" of the 27th of last month that the Australians were very anxious to have definite information respecting the prospect of this airship scheme, as they were relying upon a considerable acceleration of their mail service, and only last week the Prime Minister of Australia, speaking at Melbourne, expressed regret at the postponement of the Burney airship scheme, which he described as of vital importance to Australia; also, we heard yesterday from the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) how important it would be to India, and we know that it would accelerate the service to all the Dominions. I might mention that the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) told us the other day that Cairo would be brought within two days instead of eight days of this country, that Singapore would be brought within eight instead of 28 days, that Perth would be brought within 11 instead of 28 days, and that Bombay would be brought within 4½ instead of 14½ days, which would mean a linking up of this Empire, which, however much we might consider it a necessity in times of danger, in times of peace would be of immense commercial value. Then we should consider the possibility of a passenger service with India, where, we know, there are men coming home on leave every year from the Army and the Civil Services, who spend a large portion of their time on the sea, and if they could spend it in days by air instead of in weeks by sea it would be of immense value.

I understand that the new airships are prepared to carry 120 passengers, in addition to 10 tons of merchandise, and not only that, but it is anticipated that the passenger rate will be lower than that by sea. The experiment of flying to-day is not so much a flying experiment as an experiment to make flying a commercial possibility, and whether it is a company that undertake this or the Government, the risk is the same, but it seems to me that if a company are prepared to put money into it, the risk for the Government would be far less than if the Government took it on. This country is a long way behind foreign countries in airship construction. They are building in France, in Italy, in the United States, and in Germany, and I think hon. Members will know that the Germans have just completed the "L.R. 3" for the United States. It is a Zeppelin, built by the Zeppelin Company. It is the 116th airship they have built, and they have now been constructing airships for the last 25 years. They have limited this ship in size under the air guarantee agreement, but the horse-power is over 50 per cent. greater than the horse-power that was put into their airships during wartime. It is to cross Europe and the Atlantic, and is to take passengers' baggage, with 10 tons of merchandise, and it is to have a 30 per cent. fuel reserve, is to travel at a normal speed of 67 miles an hour, and is to have a radius of 3,300 miles. When we consider that the pilot in charge of this airship is to be a pilot who has made over 800 air voyages, I think that fact alone shows the great possibilities in regard to the air.

I very much regret that the Under-Secretary of State for Air should have been so hostile last week in his criticism of the financial arrangements agreed to between the late Government and the Treasury, and it seems to me that the criticism was rather an attack on the business capabilities of the Treasury and the late Government. I also notice that the Noble Lord the Secretary of State for Air has taken his title from the aerodrome in my constituency at Cardington, and I trust the Government will not be influenced by this fact, or any such sentimental reasons, for experimenting on their own account. The Government, if they bring out one of the old airships, are bringing out something that is obsolete, and we have been told that it will cost, to put an airship of this sort into commission, £250,000 a year. I should like to ask the Under-Secretary for Air if the Government have any airship policy. I think it would be a most costly experiment for the Government to indulge in. Not only that, but in the Very near future we should hear, if the Government started building airships, that we were menacing the peace of the world, that we were offending the susceptibilities of other nations. We have heard that in reference to airships with regard to France, cruisers with regard to other nations, and Singapore with regard to Japan. I do not think it is possible for the Government to start building airships without a very hostile criticism being levelled at them. I think that with airships we ought to have a progressive policy, a policy that is not subject to party politics or changing Governments. Whenever we hear a question with regard to the protection of our Empire, we invariably have a hostile criticism, not necessarily in this House, but from other countries. I do hope the Government will decide in favour of this scheme for Imperial, strategical and business reasons.

I want to speak on a subject which, I am sure, will interest Members on the opposite side as well as those on this side, that is, the interchange of teachers within the Empire. That is a subject to which, I am sure, the whole House will listen with a great deal of respect. It seems that a decision was come to by the Board of Education, in connection with the Burnham Committee, that service within the Empire outside England and Wales should not count for either salary or superannuation, and that immediately impeded any movement of teachers. There is, of course, at the moment, the possibility of a teacher getting one year's leave of absence to go to one of the Dominions. That will count as service, but if a teacher wants to go for any period to one of the larger Dominions, to make a special study of any particular part, then that teacher will lose the time there for service and superannuation. We have been told, as a matter of fact, that the Board of Education are reconsidering this matter. There is another consideration which we shall all agree is a very serious one. Until the passing of the Act which made the South of Ireland a separate State Ireland was considered to be within the British Isles, and, therefore, the teaching service there was counted for salary and superannuation in this country. But now that a decision has been come to that it is a Dominion, it has been decided that service given in Ireland does not count for salary or superannuation in this country.

That makes a great deal of difference to large numbers of teachers in the country. There are certain county councils who agreed, in spite of the decision of the Board, to pay for service in Ireland till this year. The London County Council was one of those, but now it has decided, in view of the fact that no grant comes towards this from the Board, that it will cease the payment, and I have large numbers of cases of people who have done 10 or 12 years' service in Ireland, and 30 or 32 years' service here, and are quite old in the service of the country, who are losing as much as £160, £170 and, in one case, £212 for this year in salary. There are extraordinary cases as well. I have had three cases brought to my notice of young men who joined His Majesty's Forces in Ireland, and subsequently took up teaching in this country, and they not only lose their Irish teaching service, but four, and sometimes four and a half years' service with the Forces as well. I think the Board of Education ought to consider these grievances which large numbers of teachers have—I do not know how many there are, but I believe there are some 800 or 900 in London who have had service in Ireland, joined up, and then ultimately because the Burnham scale in England was the better scale took service here and lost the whole of their teaching service in Ireland—that that service will be recognised under the Burnham scale for salary purposes. I think if the Board of Education, in consultation with the Burnham Committee, would see not only that the Irish service should count for salary and superannuation, but that any Colonial service should count also for salary and superannuation, they would help that mobility of the teachers which would be an advantage, not only to this country, but to the world.

For only a few minutes I desire to revert to the question put to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in reference to the findings of the Cunliffe Committee, as to whether they would be put before the new Committee which has just been appointed to discuss the question of the National Debt and the Debt services. I should like to associate myself just as cordially with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burnley) as I should like to dissociate myself most entirely from the point of view expressed by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel). The speech of the hon. Member for Farnham showed that he was somewhat inconsistent, for although he said he agreed with the findings of the Cunliffe Committee his later remarks, in regard to enemy debts, to my mind showed that he was entirely in support of the view of Mr. McKenna, that eminent banker who is very much in favour of what is considered to be a quick flow of money or currency, which is certainly what has not been done by the Treasury in paying out these enemy debts. It seems in one case of which he has peculiar knowledge the hon. Member is for a free flow of currency as regards enemy debts, but not in other directions. It would be a big mistake if the findings of the Cunliffe Committee were to be brought before this new Committee and for them, in any sense, to form, so to speak, a jumping-off ground in regard to their considerations. If it were true that the Cunliffe Committee were entirely right in their opinion and that the policy of that Committe which has been carried out was a sound policy, it is a remarkable thing that we in this country, after following out that consideration, have had more unemployment and misery brought about by unemployment than any other country in the world!

It has been said by Mr. McKenna, that eminent banker, that it is not a policy of inflation at all, but of the provision of a sufficient currency to keep our industries running on full time, if you have sufficient orders to keep them. That is where, I think, the Cunliffe Committee made a grave mistake. Men like the hon. Member for Farnham talk about it as being a positive policy and the best policy—the policy which has been pursued for so long in this country—that is a policy of acute deflation, of making money dear and goods cheap. This is something like the man who has never been out of work talking to a man who is looking for a job, and saying that he cannot understand why his out-of-work friend can take a different point of view to his own. It is a very, important point, and I do think that this new Committee should, at any rate, start de novo.

It may be right to say that findings of the Cunliffe Committee are perfectly right, or it may be wrong. We have carried out one system and other countries have carried out an opposite one. From the highest test of a country's efficiency that of regular-employment I say that we in this country have failed to our after-war policy. I do not think it be very unfair indeed to trammel the new Committee, which is going to start to discuss this very important matter, because you cannot dissociate the question of finance from that of unemployment. This new Government, I feel sure, are anxious to do all they can to solve this question. Certainly we should leave the new Committee to start on entirely new ground, and not in any sense to trammel it by the findings of the Cunliffe Committee, which, to my mind, has been entirely wrong in its deductions as to the course of financial affairs in this country, and its bearings on unemployment.

The Government had hoped this afternoon that after the Report Stages of Supply had been dealt with we might have had a short Sitting, but hon. Members have exercised their right to speak on almost every possible subject during the last two hours. Under these circumstances, they will not expect me to offer any detailed reply to their speeches, because these subjects have been raised without notice of any kind, and I am mentioning this fact as an explanation of the necessarily brief answer which I must now offer to the House.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire (Captain Bowyer) raised a question with regard to the refusal of the grant to the old age pensioners who had been resident for certain periods in the Colonies or the Dominions. I have previously explained that this is a subject which can only be remedied by an alteration of the Statute. I need hardly say that that is exactly one of those anomalies and difficulties which the present Government will certainly try to remove. There is undoubtedly a very serious hardship involved in this matter, but we have it in view, and I will endeavour to deal with it later on in any legislation we may be able to introduce.

The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) and other hon. Members have argued that the Treasury should review the conditions of admission to the various Naval, Army and Air Force colleges, and that they should be made accessible! as far as possible, to students from all classes of the community. I cannot tell what is the exact position for the moment, but that and other questions raised in the discussion are all recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and they will be duly considered, not only by the Treasury but by the various Departments concerned. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull also referred to the question of the democratisation of the higher officers in the Navy, the Army and the Air Force. Of course, I cannot pledge myself or the Government on this matter to carry out his suggestion, but I will undertake to make further inquiries.

Other hon. Members have dealt with such questions as the regulation of traffic in London and the treatment of poor people. One hon. Member wound up by making an attack on spurious auctioneers who are understood to operate in certain parts of the metropolis. I think the last is a charming illustration of the variety of subjects which have been raised, varying from Army chaplains at one end of the scale to spurious auctioneers at the other. There is not the least doubt that most of the subjects raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves) will be brought to the notice of the Department concerned.

I come now to one or two questions which are specifically Treasury matters, and on which I am able to speak in rather greater detail. The hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth) and other hon. Members raised the question of the allowances to people who have suffered damage by enemy action during the War. On that point, I gave a brief answer in this House some nights ago when the question was raised on the Motion for the Adjournment. During the War every effort was made to try to get them to insure in advance against a risk of this kind, and there were open to them not only the ordinary insurances, but also certain special insurances which were peculiar to the War period. From the very beginning of this controversy, no Government in this country has ever admitted liability to the people who suffered damage in that way, but, after a very great deal of pressure, the Government some years ago made a purely ex gratia allowance of £5,000,000, which was not, of course, put forward as in any way complete compensation for the damage which these people had suffered, but only as a sum which would go so far under a scheme of allocation to that end. That was the definite proposal which was adopted by this House at the time, and under that proposal two reports have been issued, if I remember rightly, by the Sumner Commission.

The controversy boils itself down to this; that there was never any admission of legal liability on the Government's part. It was not put forward as complete compensation, but the Commission had to frame a scale of allowances within the limits of that sum, dividing the two classes of allowances into property claims on the one hand and personal claims on the other. That allocation has been carried out, and the final allocation as regards the property section of the claims was detailed in the reply which I gave a few nights ago, indicating that we were paying in full up to £250 on the first part of the claim and beyond that a lower scale of allowances in proportion to the total amount which had been assessed or fixed. That is all the information that I can give to the House at the moment, save on one point, the point regarding belated claims which has occasioned a good deal of discussion within recent times. There, again, past Governments have never admitted that they were under any liability and they pointed to the very ample notice which had been given by all kinds of publication inviting these people to lodge their applications in time. Everyone, however, must recognise that, with the best will in the world, looking to the particular circumstances and the hardship in which they were involved, many of them were prevented, for perfectly honest reasons, from so lodging applications; and one of the first questions which confronted this Government when it came into office was as to whether any additional allowance could be made in order to cover so far—not completely, but only so far—the belated claims. The Government agreed, after consideration, to make an allowance—a purely voluntary allowance—of £300,000; and, while we recognise that that will not cover in full all the belated claims which have been lodged, we submit that, on the whole, it is a generous contribution from many points of view, having regard to the £5,000,000 ex gratia already given by the State.

Has that already been spent?

No. I understand that it is in process of allocation, though I speak subject to correction. Necessarily, the Commission has had to devote a good deal of time to the investigation of the claims, and I think a tribute should be paid to the Sumner Commission for the manner in which the claims have been dealt with. The aggregate amount of the claims put forward is far in excess of any still more generous allowance than the State itself could grant, so that there is bound to be disappointment, and, I am afraid, only a proportionate satisfaction of the loss and damage which these unfortunate people have sustained. Let me add, however, although strictly speaking the matter is one for the Board of Trade, that, if hon. Members are in doubt on specific points, the Government will be willing to consider any representations, and to give any information at its disposal; but I should be dishonest this afternoon if, in reply to the questions that have been put to me, I held out a prospect of further voluntary grants from the State. I do not see any prospect of that at the moment, and I hope I have made that point perfectly plain.

I must now deal very briefly with one or two other questions which have been raised. Two hon. Members, both, I think, representing Willesden, raised the question of the recent examination for the administrative class, the highest class in the Civil Service. The facts of the situation are, very shortly, as follows. In October of last year it was decided by the Civil Service Commissioners and the Government of the day to institute an examination for a certain very limited number of vacancies in the administrative class, and that examination, if I remember rightly, was confined to men—all of them ex-service men—who were already in the Civil Service in a temporary capacity. It was made perfectly clear, in the original Circular in which the examination was called, that, at best, the number of appointments would be very small. After the examination, about 100 of the candidates obtained the right to appear before the Selection Board. The whole 600 who entered for the examination clearly understood that success in the written examination only entitled them to appear as I have mentioned; it did not automatically entitle them to appointment or to any of the vacancies in the Service. It happened that, after the Selection Board had held its meeting, only three candidates were definitely promised appointments, and I think there is a possibility of some few more—probably not more than five.

Hon. Members at once pursued me—although, of course, I had only just succeeded to my office—and said that an examination had been held to which 600 people were invited, that 100 obtained the right of appearance before the Selection Board, and that, after all this labour of mountains, only three mice emerged who were selected for appointment to this administrative class in the Civil Service. I entirely agree that, on the broad facts of that situation, it is not a very happy story, and I do not put it forward as a happy story, but I do ask the House to remember what would have happened if we had imposed any initial restriction upon the number of candidates that were admitted. The Civil Service Commissioners laid down the clearest possible warning, but if in fact they had gone so far as to say, "Do not enter, because only three will be appointed," there would have been an injustice, and a position would have been created which it would have been very difficult to defend. That is the situation regarding that examination. One of the hon. Members asked me whether something could not be done, in particular for the 100 men, as regards the executive class, that is to say, the class next lower than the administrative class in the Civil Service, or as regards the clerical classes below. I should like to look into that, and I will undertake to see whether anything along that line can be done; but I ought to say at once that it will be a matter of very great difficulty indeed, having regard to the general structure of Civil Service examinations and the peculiar difficulties under which the administrative class—the highest class in the Civil Service—is recruited. But I will certainly make inquiry on the point, as I have made it plain, in reply to questions, that I am a little unhappy personally when I consider the anxiety and the expense to which 100 ex-service men have been exposed.

As regards another and a wider question raised by one or two Members regarding the position of temporary ex-service men in the Civil Service, I think the House will agree if I defer a full statement until the Consolidated Fund Bill. I understand, through the usual channels, that an effort will be made to raise this question, and in view of the anxiety on the matter I propose then, if I succeed in getting the attention of the House, which I have no doubt will be given, to make a statement dealing exactly with the efforts the Government have made and are making in the interests of the ex-service men now under notice and others whose work in the Civil Service, because of the contraction of the Departments, may be terminated at a comparatively early date.

There remains only one question of substantial interest for the Treasury. The hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) raised the problem of the Report of the Cunliffe Committee and asked me whether it will be submitted to the new Committee which has been appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with the National Debt. The terms of reference to the latter Committee are to consider the whole problem of the National Debt and the incidence of taxation. I have no doubt whatever that a Committee of that kind, viewing a very large problem, must look to the financial experience of the country during the War and within recent years and I should say it is wellnigh inevitable, if it does itts work efficiently that it will look to all the reports, the report of the Cunliffe Committee included, without however being bound in any way by any decision which has been given. I cannot charge my memory, though on the whole it is reasonably efficient, with details of the Cunliffe Committee's Report but I remember very clearly that Report of December, 1921, and the House will see that, on the whole, it is rather divorced from the direct problem of the National Debt. That Committee dealt very largely with the problem of the dislocation of the foreign exchanges, and it laid down a policy urging the various Governments to balance their Budgets as soon as possible, to get rid of this disease of inflated currency, to encourage production, to cease Government borrowing and to take other steps in order to get back to what we might call stable financial conditions. Incidentally it also recommended, in the interests of that recovery, the freest possible interchange of commodities or goods from one end of the world to the other. That was, in substance, the series of recommendations of the Cunliffe Committee of that day. That is rather different from the direct issue of the National Debt and the incidence of taxation. I have no doubt the Report will be kept in view. A wider and deeper issue which I must not discuss now is the issue of inflation. I think any statement on that by a Member of the Government, however obscure, would be liable to misinterpretation. I cannot take an extreme line in the interests of deflation or in the interests of inflation because, in a single sentence I have always held the belief that all your questions of currency, your credit, and the rest, are dependent on the major question, the services which they have to administer in the actual interchange of commodities and the volume of trade you are carrying on. I agree, however, that conditions can arise, and did arise during the recent War, in which your currency and your manipulation of credit become very powerful factors and, even masters, of the situation. I should think that a state of affairs of that kind is a state of affairs against which any country, and certainly any Exchequer, would try to guard itself to the best of its ability, because any inflation of that kind is inevitably accompanied by an increase in prices which exposes large numbers of people to hardship and suffering and, in the long run, I think defeats any temporary boom in trade or any other accruing advantage. If I have omitted to deal with any question that has been raised it is not because I have been desirous of avoiding a reply, but merely because I am anxious that there should be still some time, if hon. Members wish to occupy it, for further discussion.

The Financial Secretary has rightly said that the Debate has covered a wide variety of subjects. It has been a very interesting Debate and by no means the least interesting has been the reply to which we have just listened. I want to refer to one subject which has been briefly alluded to by an hon. Member, that is the necessity for building houses in agricultural areas. That is a suggestion in regard to which we are in complete agreement in all quarters of the House. I should like to know from the Minister of Health whether he has come to any arrangement with the trades unions concerned, in order that more men may be admitted into those unions, especially the skilled branches of bricklaying and plastering. It is no use saying we must have more houses unless we have the means of building them. In my part of the country, I found, on inquiry yesterday, housing schemes are being held up because the Government policy is as yet undisclosed—of course one can understand the difficulties of the Minister of Health—but we have also this extraordinary state of affairs that in my district there is not a bricklayer or plasterer available. To such an extent is this the case that a bricklayer is taken off one job and put on to another job in order to appease the clients of his employer who have given orders for building. The bricklayers do one day's work here and one day's work there, because there are not enough men to carry out the work that is already going on. Has the Minister of Health come to any agreement with the unions in regard to dilution? It is absolutely dishonest to hold out hopes to the? country that you are going to build 200,000 houses a year, when you have not the men to build the houses that are in course of construction to-day.

I do not apologise for bringing this forward, because there is undoubtedly a feeling of anxiety, with this shortage of labour, shortage to a certain extent of material, and prices rising, as to the prospect which was held out by the right hon. Gentleman of 200,000 houses, which it was hoped would be built at a rent of 9s. a week. I think the right hon. Gentleman did not guarantee any figures with regard to rent, but he was working on the hope that he would be able to make the rent 9s. a week. With all the facts that I have mentioned, I would like to know how 200,000 houses per year are going to be built? What about the loss on these houses? The figure of 200,000 houses is absurd, but if you get anywhere near these figures, and go on with the work for 20 years, I should not be surprised if you have a capitalised loss of something like £300,000,000. I do not pretend to have worked out the figures very carefully, but I think that the loss will be something like that. This is another example of the wild promises held out by the Labour party at the Election as to how they were going to solve the housing problem and the-unemployment problem, and they are no nearer solution in one case than in the other. Perhaps the Minister of Health might give us some idea as to what is in his mind, and how he is going to produce these houses without materials or men, in order that the hopes of hundreds of thousands of people in this country may be realised.

I am going to deal with a subject which will elicit sympathy from all quarters of the House. I am on the Grand Council of our Dumb Friends League, and I have been for some years also interested in the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty, to Animals, and altogether I am an animal lover. I would like the House to understand the great feeling which exists amongst animal lovers as to the way, generally, in which animals are being treated. I do not wish to refer especially to Bills which have been brought into this House, but I would like to call attention to the attitude of magistrates who might perhaps be approached to impose the maximum penalty in cases of cruelty. I could give instances which would show the contrast between the methods of dealing with different cases. When I was over Holloway Prison not long ago, I came across a poor women who was sent to prison for six months. She had stolen a pair of trousers for her boy. The boy had been offered work, and she could not get him to the work unless she stole the trousers, and she was serving six months' imprisonment for a thing which she was forced to do. She was a very respectable woman and would never have done it unless she was driven to do it, and the six months' imprisonment in that case was very hard as compared with the penalties, mere fines, which are imposed on brutes who are cruel to animals.

Only the other day a cat was thrown among four or five dogs, and torn to pieces, and the men were only fined. I say that the administration in such cases is wrong, and it is time that it is looked into. Then, again, there is the case of the worn-out horses. I asked a question in the House on this subject and I was told, I think, that 3,000 of these horses had been exported during the last six months. These horses are sent over to various Continental countries for food. The horse is man's best friend, and it is about time that if horses must be exported, they should be sent over as carcases and not as living animals to be used for work when they get to the Continent. I would dearly like to see an investigation undertaken of some of these questions of general administration. I would refer also to the case of the wretched stag that swam out to sea when being hunted and was rescued and taken to France. We have no proof as to what became of it. I will read an extract from a letter showing what was an earlier part of that stag's life. I will not give the names, but the letter states:

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said he would make a statement with regard to ex-soldiers in the Civil Service. Before he makes that statement, will he see that these men are not turned out? The moment they are turned out they swell the ranks of the unemployed, and there is no hope of getting them back again. I am told that the total number of permanent civil servants in 1914 was 20,000 more than the total to-day. Yet we have new Ministries, like the Ministry of Pensions, which were not in existence before the War. That reduction may be very desirable in some ways, but we made a promise that when these men came back from the War we would do something to give them security of tenure. That is the intention of all of us. What could be worse than that a man should be haunted for years by dread, because he is constantly asking himself the question, "Am I going next week? How long is this job going to last?" If a man has been working for five or six years at a particular job, as many men are in the Ministry of Labour at Kew, he must be competent at that job. It is the lowest grade of work for men. If such men are absorbed in the Civil Servic, the examination should be waived, and they should be allowed to continue permanently the work that they are now doing temporarily.

I feel that the ex-service men, not only in this case, but in numbers of other cases, are being very hard hit to-day. Most of the younger men among the unemployed are ex-service men, and if the Government would settle once and for all the question of the temporary Civil Servants who are ex-service men they would give a lead to other employers. The King's Roll has not been a wonderful success. It is rather a disappointment and the Government should take steps at once to put as many men as possible into the permanent grade and dismiss the others and have the matter settled definitely. It should be done on the principle of putting as many of these men as possible on a permanent basis. I hope the Government will not adopt any of those methods by which men are replaced by women, and then the women are turned out in their turn and replaced by young girls who are made permanent officials, as is happening in the Savings Bank section of the Post Office. This is a matter which this Government should take up, having regard to the feelings which they have towards the lower classes about which they protest so much.

What are the lower classes?

The reverse of the higher classes.

Do they live in Richmond?

Yes, there are all classes in Richmond. The hon. Member ought to come down some day and see. Turning to another point, I wish to ask whether, when the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill which deals with 25 Acts and D.O.R.A. Regulations comes up for consideration, the Government will not consider taking away the Shops Act of 1920 which has never been debated on the Floor of this House, which has not gone through its stages in the ordinary way, but is simply a D.O.R.A. Regulation carried on from year to year under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.

Is the hon. Member discussing a bill? I rather think he is.

I was referring to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill and asking the Government to bring in proper legislation on this matter of early closing instead of this sneaking little—

The hon. Member's references are out of Order in a Debate on the Motion for Adjournment.

I do not wish to say anything more except to point out that a large number of traders find the present restrictions very irksome. The result of the election in the Abbey Division yesterday should show the power which a few small shopkeepers may have even against a great and wonderful statesman, whose defeat in that instance may I think be traced to the fact that he was Chairman of the Early Closing Association. These restrictions have continued since the War, but it is now 10 years since the War broke out, and we should replace them by sounder regulations.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four o'Clock until Monday next (24th March).