Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 171: debated on Thursday 27 March 1924

House of Commons

Thursday, March 27, 1924

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

Private Business

Queen's Ferry Bridge Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Bill and London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill,

Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Bill and the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, that they have power, if they think fit, to consolidate the said two Bills, or any part or parts thereof, respectively, into one Bill.—[ The Chairman of Ways and Means. ]

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL,

"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Cambridge, Darwen, Hyde, Middlesex Districts Joint Small-pox Hospital District, Portsmouth, and Stoke-on-Trent," presented by Mr. WHEATLEY; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 88.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Naval and Military Pensions and Grants

Final Awards

asked the Minister of Pensions whether it is proposed to make any amendments to the Regulations governing the issue of final awards; if so, will the amendments be of such a nature as will permit of the re-opening of cases where there is new medical evidence or a recurrence of the invaliding disability after the expiry of the award; and whether provision will also be made to enable men who have been awarded a life pension on a low degree of disablement to appeal for an increase of pension should their condition get worse?

In cases where it is shown that an award was erroneously declared final at the time it was made, owing to a definite error of fact or judgment, I am empowered, with the sanction of the Treasury, to amend the award, and this procedure is now in operation for the benefit of cases in which appeal to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal is no longer available. The question whether any amendment to the Final Awards Regulations is necessary to meet cases of error of this kind is under consideration. As regards cases of the type referred to in the latter part of the question, so far as they are not cases of error, the suggestion made, if I apprehend it aright, would involve amendment of the Act, not of the Regulations.

Can the hon. Gentleman say how long it will take to bring about that legislation?

I am afraid I cannot answer that question. It is a matter for the Government.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are at least 3,000 or 4,000 cases now awaiting revision, and that it is necessary that something should be done in order to bring these people within the Royal Warrant?

Special Grants Committee

asked the Minister of Pensions the names of the members of the Special Grants Committee and by whom they were appointed; and whether it is proposed to make any modification in the Regulations governing the issue of educational grants to the children of deceased sailors and soldiers?

I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names and dates of appointment of the present members of the Special Grants Committee, all of whom were appointed by the Minister of Pensions for the time being. I understand that the Special Grants Committee have certain modifications of the education Regulation under their consideration, which will, no doubt, be submitted to me in due course.

The following are the names of the Members of the Special Grants Committee:

Members and Date of Appointment.

Sir Reginald H. Brade, G.C.B., Chairman, September, 1920.

Colonel A. D. Acland, C.B.E., March, 1920.

Brigadier-General L. Banon, C.B., June, 1921.

Mrs. Ivor Bevan, O.B.E., November, 1919.

Sir Coles Child, Bart., J.P., D.L., August, 1917.

S. Chorlton, Esq., January, 1921.

Sir Bertram Cubitt, K.C.B., August, 1917.

Alderman Hardaker, J.P., June, 1921.

Miss E. H. Kelly, C.B.E., J.P., August, 1917.

J. H. Knaggs, Esq., April, 1922.

Mrs. Reginald McKenna, J.P., August, 1917.

W. L. Marshall, Esq., O.B.E., August, 1917.

Dame Ethel Shakespear, D.B.E., D.Sc., August, 1917.

Lieut.-General the Hon. Sir F. Stopford, K.C.B., K.C.M.G., K.C.V.O, August, 1917.

A. G. Webb, Esq., April, 1922.

Would the hon. Gentleman make representations to the Special Grants Committee, if he has any power to do so, drawing their attention to the enormous number of applications for educational grants that have been recently refused, although made on the recommendation of the local pensions committee?

I have already had a conference with the Special Grants Committee, and this was one of the subjects discussed.

Scottish Regional Council

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he intends to nominate two Parliamentary representatives to the Scottish regional council in place of the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and of Mr. Noel Skelton, both resigned?

Aylesbury Area Office

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the way in which ex-service men in Buckinghamshire are prejudiced by the new scheme under which the Aylesbury area office has been placed under Oxford; is he aware that this economy does not lead to efficiency; and will he reinstate the chief area officer with his former powers at Aylesbury?

Before the Aylesbury and Oxford areas were amalgamated on the 1st instant, the two war pensions committees concerned were consulted and their agreement obtained. The change was designed to produce increased efficiency without involving inconvenience to the pensioners, and, so-far as can be seen, this object is being realised. I am, however, inquiring further into this question with reference to the instances mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member in this House on the 21st instant.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is very widespread dissatisfaction at the inevitable delay caused by the fact that it is never possible to obtain an answer at Aylesbury, all letters and judgments having to be submitted to Oxford?

I beg to give notice that I will raise this question on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House on Monday next.

Widow's Pension (Forfeiture)

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that when anonymous letters are sent containing allegations against a war widow an inquiry officer, who is usually a police constable, is sent by the special grants committee, and the widow's pension may be stopped without any reference to or report from the local war pensions committee; and whether he will take steps to see that the widow has an adequate opportunity of meeting the charge anonymously made against her?

My hon. Friend has, I think, been misinformed. It is not the practice of the special grants committee to declare a widow's pension forfeited until she has been given an opportunity, through her war pensions committee, of meeting the charge made against her.

Re-Assessment Boards

asked the Minister of Pensions the result of the medical boards held for purposes of re-assessment during the last six months of 1923, showing the percentage of pensions increased, decreased, and unchanged, and the net result?

During the period referred to, 190,000 cases came up for medical re-examination by boards. As a result of this review, in 55 per cent. of the cases pension was renewed at the previous rate, in 21 per cent. of cases the pension rate was increased, and in 24 per cent. it was reduced. The net result of these changes was a net increase of 0·6 per cent. in the average rate of disablement.

Central Advisory Committee

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he proposes to continue the existence of the central advisory committee; and, if so, what Members of this House are members of this committee?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am now considering the appointment of Members of this House to fill certain vacancies which have arisen. I will announce their names as soon as possible.

Can the hon. Gentleman state when this committee last met? Has it met this year?

Truro Area Office

asked the Minister of Pensions if he contemplates making any change in relation to the area office at Truro; and if he has received any representations from the county of Cornwall in reference thereto?

Proposals regarding the future of the Truro area office have recently been under consideration, and, following the usual procedure, the observations of the War Pensions Committee were invited. Their observations have been received, and I have now decided to make no change at present.

Widows and Dependants (Time Limit)

asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that the amendments to Article 11 of the Royal Warrant have not resulted in a satisfactory solution of the difficulties associated with the seven years' time limit; and if he will consider the complete abolition of the time limit as the only way of satisfying the claims of the widows and dependants of ex-service men?

The amendments which the hon. Member has in mind are no doubt those made in the recently issued Warrant affecting Article 17, not Article 11. These amendments have so recently been made, after full and prolonged consideration, that further experience is required of their working before I can express any opinion on the suggestion made in the last part of the question.

Appeal Tribunals

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has received any complaints as to the treatment of pensioners at the appeals tribunal, Nottingham; and, if so, whether he will cause inquiries to be made as to the operations of this tribunal?

Since the 2nd January last, seven differently constituted tribunals have sat at Nottingham. During this time one complaint only reached the Central Office with regard to the treatment of an appellant. Inquiries showed that the appellant was suffering from neurasthenia, and the fact that he appeared mentally troubled and depressed was noted by the medical members present at the hearing.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is a very grave feeling of dissatisfaction and discontent in the area?

I was not aware of that. Of course, if any complaint be forwarded, it will be looked into at once.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the facts that pensioners from rural districts, and suffering from nervous disabilities, are at a disadvantage if unrepresented at the appeals tribunals, and that such representation is frequently impossible owing to the cost of railway fares, he will consider the possibility, in the interests of the pensioners, of decentralising the tribunals in order that courts may be set up at more convenient centres than is now the case?

I have been asked to reply. Arrangements are made for pensions appeal tribunals to sit at centres which experience has shown are most suitable, having in view the convenience of the majority of the appellants, their friends and advisers. Tribunals now sit at London, Bristol, Exeter, Plymouth, Cardiff, Wrexham, Birmingham, Nottingham, Sheffield, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds and Newcastle. The question of holding sittings at places other than those mentioned has received the careful consideration of the Lord Chancellor. Having regard, however, to the distribution of the bulk of the cases, the extra cost and the inevitable delay involved, it has been decided that no alteration is desirable. In the event of an appellant being medically unfit to attend before a tribunal, arrangements are made for him to be visited.

Government Departments

Ministry of Pensions

asked the Minister of Pensions whether, seeing that officers with service pensions of over £500 now in the Ministry of Pensions are to have their services shortly dispensed with in order to make way for others who have either a lesser pension or no pension, he will say what numbers of these officers are now employed in the Ministry; whether any such have already received notice to go and, if so, how many; whether any thus situated as regards pension have not received notice to go; what are their numbers, and what are the reasons for their retention; and how can the difference in treatment be explained?

There are 19 temporary officers now in the Ministry who are in receipt of service pensions of over £500 a year. Of these, 11 are medical officers, and of the remainder six have received warning of discharge. Some of the posts vacated will not be filled. The retention for the present of the other officers is considered necessary for the efficient carrying out of the work of the Department.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether, when redundancy occurs, only those temporary officials who are least efficient are made redundant; whether these are taken first as possible retentions in other branches of the Ministry when vacancies occur; whether the Officer's Friend Branch of the Ministry is to have its vacancies filled in this way; and, if so, if he will explain why such redundant officials are considered sufficiently capable of taking up officer's friend work, though not sufficiently efficient to warrant their being retained in their own branch, and say whether the head of the Officer's Friend Branch will be given the opportunity of refusing to take any such redundant officials whom he does not consider suitable?

Generally speaking, the answer to the first three parts of the question is in the affirmative. No redundant official is reduced in rank if there is a vacancy in another branch which he is competent to fill, but no officer so trans- feared will be retained in his rank, either in Officer's Friend Branch or elsewhere, if he is unable to do his work efficiently.

With regard to the last part of the question, has the head of the Officers' Friend Branch power to refuse any man who is redundant, and is being transferred to his branch, if he does not consider him to be suitable?

Pensioned Officials

asked the Prime Minister whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to dispense with the services of officials in Government Departments who are drawing service pensions of £500 a year or over; and whether this policy is to be confined to the Ministry of Pensions, or is to be adopted by all the Government Departments?

It is the general policy of the Government, subject to considerations of efficiency, to give preference for temporary employment to personnel not in possession of private means, in computing which account is taken of service pensions but not of disability pensions. It would be impracticable, however, to discharge all persons in receipt of pensions of the amount stated, regardless of considerations of efficiency. As regards the steps taken to carry out the general policy in the Ministry of Pensions, I would refer to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member by the Minister.

Is this policy applicable to all Government Departments in future?

Yes. The difficulty the hon. Member has in mind turns on medical men and certain technical men and others, and would be difficult to work completely at once.

If this principle is put into operation, will it not have the effect of turning out of employment of the Ministry of Pensions those distinguished soldiers who know more about the case of pensioned men than almost anyone else?

No; I do not think that would be the effect. The problem will only be solved by the reduction of work in the Department. That is the way it is working out now.

Taxes Inspectorate

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will undertake that the terms of recruitment to the newly-authorised staff of the inspectorate of taxes shall be the same for both established and temporary civil servants and that the present stipulation that temporary civil servants must pass a competitive examination whereas permanent men may pass merely by selection shall be waived?

The established classes have faced the test of written competitive examination on their original entry. I cannot adopt the Noble Lord's suggestion that another class might be admitted without at any time undergoing such a test.

Witnessed Pay-Sheets

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the system of witnessed pay-sheets has been generally adopted throughout the Civil Service; and, if not, what action he intends to take in the matter?

It is proposed to introduce legislation on this subject during the current Session.

Horatio Bottomley

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of Mr. Horatio Bottomley's valuable service in effective recruiting propaganda during the War, he will order his release or substantially reduce his sentence?

I do not think that this prisoner's antecedents afford any sufficient ground for recommending a reduction of the sentence he is now serving.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Englishmen have deservedly the reputation of being the most humane, kindly, and forgiving people in the world? After all is said and done, Mr. Bottomley—

Education

Teachers' Superannuation

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has yet been able to arrive at any decision with respect to the action to be taken on the Report of Lord Emmott's Committee on Superannuation of Teachers?

As I stated in reply to a similar question on the 21st February, the matter is receiving active consideration. But as it will not in any case be possible to establish a permanent Measure for the superannuation of teachers to take effect in the financial year 1924–25, it is my intention to introduce a short Bill prolonging the operation of the temporary Act of 1922. I have good reason to believe that this course will be acceptable to the teachers in England and Wales, who desire that ample time should be available for discussion of the provisions of a permanent Measure.

Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman will propose in his temporary Bill to continue the existing arrangement for a period of only 12 months?

I think I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to be content to wait till I introduce the Measure, as I will do in the next day or two.

Is there any provision for a widows' and orphans' pensions fund in the teaching profession?

Leaving Age

asked the President of the Board of Education how many children leave the elementary schools about 14 years of age, being in the third standard, and how many in the fourth standard, giving the numbers separately, for the county of London and for the provinces?

As the information asked for by the hon. Member could only be obtained by a special inquiry, which would cause a great deal of trouble to Local Education Authorities and Schools, I regret that I am unable to give it.

Uncertificated Teachers

asked the President of the Board of Education if it is the intention of the Board to fix a date after which no new uncertificated teachers will be appointed?

While I am very desirous of increasing the proportion of fully qualified teachers and reducing the proportion of other teachers it would not be practicable, at all events at present, to deal with the matter in the way suggested in the hon. Member's question.

asked the President of the Board of Education the approximate number of uncertificated teachers at present employed in the elementary schools?

The approximate number upon the basis of returns made by Local Education Authorities for the 31st December, 1923, is 32,000.

Bethnal Green Museum

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is prepared to open Bethnal Green Museum on a certain number of evenings for the convenience of those unable to visit it during the day?

I am anxious to do so, and if my hon. Friend will put down the question again in a sort time, I hope to be able to give him a more definite reply.

Common Jurors (Expenses)

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the loss in time and money occasioned to common jurors in the discharge of jury service; and whether he will consider the desirability of introducing legislation embodying the recommendation of the Mersey Departmental Committee as to the payment of common jurors' out-of-pocket expenses?

I sympathise with the suggestion made, but I do not feel able at the present time to recommend legislation for placing this fresh charge on public funds.

Juvenile Offenders

asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that, during the year ending 31st March, 1923, 2,987 lads, of whom 53 per cent. had not previously been convicted, and 337 girls, of whom 46 per cent. had not previously been convicted, were received upon conviction into the ordinary prisons of the country, excluding Borstal cases, and to the fact that of 1,663 of these lads who were sentenced for a month or less 40 per cent. were committed in default of payment of fines; and whether, in view of the Commissioners' statement that the experience of another year confirms the opinion expressed last year that persons under 21, if they continue to be committed to prison, should be placed in separate establishments where there are no adults at all, he proposes to take steps to establish such separate institutions?

I regret that there are no funds available at present for establishing separate prisons for offenders under 21 sentenced to imprisonment in every part of the country. In the meantime, they are separated from adult offenders so far as circumstances allow.

Can my right hon. Friend give us any hope that further action will be taken shortly in the matter?

asked the Home Secretary whether he will grant a return of the numbers of juvenile offenders sent to certified schools who have never been placed on probation and who have not come from bad homes?

Turkish Bath Attendants

asked the Home Secretary if he is aware of the long hours and low rates of pay of the men and women massagers and attendants at the various Turkish baths in different parts of the country; if he can state whether he intends bringing them within the new Factory Acts; and, if not, whether they will be dealt with under the Shop Assistants Hours Act?

I have no information as to the hours of employment in these establishments, nor have any representations been made to my Department on the subject in recent years, but I should be glad to consider any particulars which my hon. Friend can furnish. The work could not, in my opinion, properly be brought under the Factory Acts, but if a case were made out for statutory regulation, the possibility of bringing it within the Shops Acts would be considered.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that barbers' shop establishments in Turkish baths are under the Shop Assistants Act?

Child Assault

asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the increasingly numerous cases of child assault; and whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a committee, including medical and legal experts, to inquire into these matters and the ratio of convictions obtained in the cases known to the police, the best means of preventing these offences and of dealing with the offenders, and as to the adequacy of the provisions made to protect children and the provision made for the unfortunate victims?

Yes, Sir. As indicated in my reply on the 6th instant to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Portsmouth, a conference has been held at the Home Office when this matter was fully discussed. I am now considering the appointment of a suitable Committee for investigation and report. I may add that there is no evidence of any increase in the number of these offences over a period of 25 years.

Motorists (Fines and Costs)

asked the Home Secretary what are the total sums of money obtained from motorists in the form of fines and costs in police court proceeding during the years 1921, 1922 and 1923; and to what extent police funds benefited from these amounts?

I can only give the amounts paid over by Courts of Summary Jurisdiction to the Home Office in respect of penalties imposed under the Motor Car Acts, 1896 and 1903, or the Roads Act, 1920, and these are net amounts due after deductions of court and police fees. These amounts are for 1921, £31,338 1s. 10d.; for 1922, £66,092 18s. 10d.; and for 1923, £94,555 9s. 4d.; and no part of them is payable to police funds.

Will it be possible to get a return of Members of this House who have been charged?

Death from Lead Poisoning

asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the inquest on Martha Porter, 50, a china-ware cleaner, reported in the "Staffordshire Sentinel" of 5th January, 1924, where four doctors, including the certifying surgeon, agreed that death was due to lead poisoning; is he aware that it was stated iii evidence that the deceased gave up her work in 1920 and thought she was suffering from lead poisoning; and that she had been marked A1 by the certifying surgeon because from 1917 to December, 1919, she had made no complaints to him; and whether, in view of these facts, he will cause the whole system of health inspection in all processes where lead is used to be inquired into?

I am calling for a report on this case, and will give the Noble Lord a reply to his question when I have received it.

Motor Vehicles, London

asked the Home Secretary whether he has considered recently the revisal of the tariff for motor cabs in London; and, if not, will he cause inquiries to be made as to whether it is possible to reduce the existing tariff for the summer months?

I would refer the hon. Member to the replies which were given to the hon. and gallant Member for the Bilston Division on the 28th February and 6th instant.

asked the Home Secretary if he will state the present total number of motor omnibuses licensed by the Metropolitan Police for passengers to run in the Greater London area; can he state how many of these belong to the General Company (underground combine) and how many belong to other owners; and will he state how these numbers compare with those registered a year ago?

asked the Home Secretary if he will state the number of taxi-cabs licensed by the police for the Metropolitan area at the present time; what is the fee charged for registration; whether the amount has to be paid in a lump sum or if proprietors are allowed to spread their payments over a year; and will he state if the present number shows any increase or decrease on the number licensed a year ago?

In the year ended 24th March, 1924, 7,802 cabs were licensed. In the preceding 12 months, 7,273; showing an increase of 529. The licence duty on hackney carriages is £15 a year, or, at the option of the owner, £4 10s. a quarter.

Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to arrange that those taxi-cab drivers who can only afford to pay for licenses quarterly shall pay no more than an exact quarter of the annual sum demanded, and he will thereby help a deserving body of men?

Registered Clubs

asked the Home Secretary whether he has received during the present year any representations from benches of licensing justices throughout the country asking for legislation dealing with registered clubs; and if he will state the localities from which these representations have come?

During the present year 35 resolutions in the sense indicated in the question have been received from various bodies of county and borough justices. They have come mainly from Yorkshire and adjoining counties.

Will the right hon. Gentleman circulate with the reply the localities from which the representations have come, so that we may know the several licensing benches that are concerned?

Housing

Evictions (Government Bill)

asked the Prime Minister when the Bill dealing with eviction orders and other matters will be introduced?

Notice of introduction will be given as soon as possible.

Is the Prime Minister going to incorporate in the Bill the decision concerning rates, as he promised?

asked the Prime Minister whether the proposed legislation to prevent evictions will extend protection to the tenants of Government property?

The provisions of the proposed Bill will apply to all houses at present within the purview of the Rent Restrictions Acts.

In view of the fact that many houses in the possession of the Government did not come within the old Act, will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions through his Department that the spirit of the Act be put into operation?

On a point of Order. May I point out that I addressed a question to the Lord Privy Seal as to the contents of this Bill, and he said I had better await its introduction. Now the Minister of Health is giving information about the Bill.

Having regard to information which I dare say has reached him, will the right hon. Gentleman take care that provisions are made for proper protection for tenants of branches of the Labour party?

Yes—a personal explanation arising out of the question put to the Minister.

Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to make the same statement outside the House, where it can be challenged?

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether he proposes to deal with the Court of Appeal's decision as to the reduction of rents in proportion to the reduction of rates?

I have been asked whether the Bill will extend protection to Government property, and I have given a reply to that question.

Rural Workers

asked the Minister of Health whether he will take into consideration, in connection with his housing proposals, the necessity for a differentiation of design for rural workers' cottages as compared with urban houses, especially as to the provision of outhouses?

Paisley (Sanitary Inspector's Report)

asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health if his attention has been called to the report of the chief sanitary inspector of Paisley for the year 1923; if he is aware that that report calls attention to the fact that many people in Paisley are occupying houses certified as uninhabitable because there are no other houses available; that the Paisley Public Health Act of 1901, restricting overcrowding, is almost inoperative; that sometimes nine persons are found living in a single room; and that the housing conditions are described as a serious social menace; and if he will undertake that so far as possible the living conditions of Paisley shall be raised to the level of those obtaining in Poplar?

I have received a copy of the report to which my hon. Friend refers. I am hopeful that as a result of the new houses being built and to be built with State assistance under existing and future schemes the defective housing conditions in Paisley will be remedied. As regards the last part of the question, I have no information which would enable me to institute a comparison between conditions in the two places.

Uninhabited Houses, London

asked the Home Secretary whether he will arrange for the police on beat duty in the Metropolis on a given night at an early date to take a note of the number of uninhabited houses, distinguishing as far as possible those to be let and those for sale?

No, Sir, I do not think this is a task the police should be asked to undertake.

In view of the fact that this procedure is adopted once a year for statistical purposes, would not the information be very useful to the House in considering this question?

It might be useful, but we shall have to find another means of getting it.

Wrongful Imprisonment (Compensation)

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been directed to the case of John Manderson, 22, White Street, Govan, who was sentenced to 21 days' imprisonment for defrauding the Govan Employment Exchange; whether he is aware that Manderson produced medical evidence to prove that he could not have received the money nor signed the receipts; that an employé of the Employment Exchange was several months later convicted of fraud and sentenced to three years' im- prisonment; that Manderson's was one of the signatures forged by this official; that the innocence of Manderson has now been fully established and the King's pardon extended to him; and whether he can state what action the Government propose to take to compensate Manderson for the imprisonment he has had to serve, for the money he had to pay to the Ministry of Labour, and the stigma of fraud placed upon his name?

I have been asked to reply to this question. The facts are substantially as stated in the question, except that Mr. Manderson did not produce at his trial medical evidence to prove that he could not have received the money or signed the receipts. On information submitted to me by the Lord Advocate and the Minister of Labour, I was satisfied that the evidence on which Mr. Manderson was convicted in May, 1922, was false in material particulars. In these circumstances I advised that a free pardon should be granted to Mr. Manderson, which was issued on 25th February last. If he makes application for compensation his claim will certainly receive due consideration. I desire to express my regret that Mr. Manderson has, through the criminal misconduct of others, suffered the indignity of conviction and imprisonment on a charge of which he was entirely innocent.

Naval Armaments (International Conference)

asked the Prime Minister whether the House of Representatives at Washington has adopted an amendment to the Naval Appropriations Bill requesting President Coolidge to take steps for an international conference to consider the further limitation of competition in naval armaments; what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government to such a proposal; and whether he will consider retarding the British naval programme, pending the decision to call such a conference one way or the other?

As the Prime Minister has already stated to the House such a Resolution has, I understand, been passed and now I am informed that the President has made a reply. I know of neither officially.

Can we not wait until we hear officially about this before proceeding with our present naval programme?

The attitude of the Government towards any movement of the kind mentioned in the question is well known, and I have nothing to add to my reply.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that ever since the Armistice we have been laying down war vessels and then scrapping them? Is the present Government prepared to continue that policy?

asked the Prime Minister whether he has received confirmation from the British Ambassador at Washington of the report that the United States Senate has requested the President to call a conference with a view to naval disarmament; if so, whether he will await the decision of the President before placing the orders for the five new light cruisers which the Government contemplates constructing at a cost of approximately £12,500,000; and whether he will, through the usual diplomatic channels, intimate the willingness of the British nation to co-operate in any attempt to reduce armaments by at once suspending orders for all new naval vessels?

This question has not yet come before the United States Senate, and in the circumstances I can only refer to the reply to the hon. Member on the 24th March.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether inquiry has been made to His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington?

Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to delay this subject until it has come before United States?

Questions

Airship Service, India

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the inevitable delay in the commencement of an airship service to India, he will state what steps are being taken to accelerate the mail service only to and from India over the whole or part of the air route by aeroplanes; and whether this is to be taken in hand by the Royal Air Force or by commercial companies?

As I informed the hon. and gallant Member on the 20th March, research is being carried on with a view to developing types of aircraft and engines suitable for air mail work. The establishment of a heavier-than-air service to India, although desirable, would be a costly undertaking which at the present moment could not be justified, especially in view of possible airship developments. At present the second part of the question does not arise.

Does not the hon. Member know that there are many types of aircraft which habitually carry mails?—craft belonging to the Royal Air Force. Why should not they be put on this route?

Will the Under-Secretary take an early opportunity of making a statement concerning the offer made by the Daimler Company to co-operate in carrying the mails?

Air Cadets (Fees)

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what fees are charged for air cadets or air students under training for the officers' corps of the French, American, and Japanese Air Forces, respectively, reduced to sterling?

There are no air cadet colleges in any of the countries referred to. Officers entering the French Air Service pass through the Army schools at St. Cyr and the Ecole Polytechnique, and the charges made at these schools were given in the reply of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War to the hon. and gallant Member on the 25th March. In Japan and the United States of America officers are selected from the Army and Navy and undergo air training at their respective Army and Navy air training stations.

Is the hon. Member aware that in both the Japanese and American Armies and Navies no fees are charged, and therefore poor boys can go into the service, and cannot go into our Air Service?

Ex-Service Men

Air Ministry

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether steps are actually being taken to establish the temporary ex-service staff in the directorate of works and buildings or to secure a further establishment; and, if so, can he give an approximate date by which the arrangement will come into effect?

As I informed the hon. Member on Thursday last, the question of the percentage of established posts will be considered during the financial year just commencing. I am not at present in a position to state the date more precisely.

Admiralty (Clerical Class)

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that many ex-service hired writers, who are expected to sit at the forthcoming Admiralty Departmental clerical class examination, have completed over seven years' Civil Service, are 25 years of age, with responsibilities, are disabled, and are to compete with hired writers with less years' service to their credit, and who were either too young or would not join His Majesty's forces; why the claims put forward on behalf of these men by the Association of Ex-Service Civil Servants have been ignored by the Treasury; and whether he will follow the example of the South African Government by establishing these men who have already passed a Civil Service examination and served in His Majesty's forces?

I have been asked to reply, and, as the reply is somewhat long, I will, with the Noble Lord's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The reply is as follows:

There are, broadly speaking, three classes of candidates who are eligible to compete at the Admiralty Departmental clerical class examination, provided they satisfy the regulations regarding age and qualifying service:

(1) Unestablished writers, hitherto regarded as a quasi-permanent class, who were entered by Civil Service examination in accordance with a pre-War scheme of recruitment.

(2) Temporary ex-service clerks.

(3) Temporary non-service clerks.

Some of the candidates in the first category are also ex-service men, and many of them have longer service under the Admiralty than the temporary clerks who are competing.

Candidates in the second category are not strictly in competition with candidates in classes (1) and (3), the arrangement being that one-half of the vacancies will be reserved for temporary ex-service clerks, who will compete amongst themselves for the appointments, and that the remaining half will be allocated to the first and third categories. It is a matter of administrative convenience that the examination for both of these groups is the same and is to be held at the same time.

The examination was decided on in January, 1923, and the representations of all the Staff Associations concerned were borne in mind in framing the regulations for it.

The last part of the question appears to refer to a general claim which has been put forward by the ex-service Staff Associations, and which is understood to be engaging the attention of Lord South-borough's Committee. I am unable to anticipate the recommendations which that Committee will submit to His Majesty's Government in due course.

Lytton Entrants

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that ex-service men who were appointed to the Civil Service through the Lytton examination, whose average age is 33, are being paid at the rates received by men of 20 who entered the Service by this channel; and whether, seeing that the ex-service men concerned are nearly all married men with heavy responsibilities, he will take steps to re-investigate the question with a view to a substantial improvement?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave him on the 25th March.

National Debt Committee

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the appointment on the National Debt Enquiry Committee of a financial expert who has had experience in financial matters as affecting co-operation in national and international affairs?

The Committee has already been constituted, and I regret that it is now too late to consider the appointment of additional members.

National Savings Certificates

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of interest accrued on outstanding War Savings Certificates as on 31st March, 1923; and whether any provision is made annually for meeting this liability, or in what other way interest is provided for?

The amount of interest accrued on outstanding National Savings Certificates on 31st March, 1923, was estimated at approximately £65,000,000. Annual provision is made to meet such part of the liability as is anticipated to mature in the year.

Home Brewing

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will materially relax the present severe restrictions on home brewing in rural areas?

As at present advised, I am not prepared further to relax the conditions under which home brewing is allowed.

Agricultural Credits Act, 1923 (Loans)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now prepared to advise that loans under Section 1 of the Agricultural Credits Act, 1923, should be granted at 4 per cent., in view of the fact that loans under other Sections are granted at that rate?

No, Sir. I cannot admit any analogy between the loans under Section 1, which are 60-year loans, and the loans under Section 2, which are for purely temporary advances.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this Act was introduced to help farmers who were hit hard by the repeal of the Corn Production Act, and is he aware that security for a long-term loan very often is much better than the security for a short-term loan, and will he promise to reconsider the whole question?

It would be very difficult to promise that, because if the right hon. Gentleman looks at the first two Sections of the Act he will see that they are really intended to deal with cases of a different class. I will look into it, but there is very little chance of reviewing the Act.

If I bring some hard cases to the notice of my hon. Friend will he consider the matter?

Cheques (Stamp Duty)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the estimated loss of revenue, if any, consequent upon a reduction of the stamp on cheques from 2d. to 1d.?

It is estimated that the reduction of the Stamp Duty on cheques from 2d. to 1d. would involve a loss of revenue, in a full year, of approximately £1,500,000.

Spirits (Export)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the exports of British and Irish spirits during the calendar years 1922 and 1923 to China,

RETURN showing the number of Proof Gallons of British and Irish Spirits registered as exported from the United Kingdom to the undermentioned Countries during the Calendar Years 1922 and 1923.

Country of Destination.

1922.

1923.

Proof Gallons.

Proof Gallons.

China (exclusive of Hong Kong, Macao, and leased territories)

91,009

105,235

Japan (including Formosa and Japanese leased territories in China).

61,034

50,676

United States of America

3,587

3,707

Philippine Islands and Guam

24,788

22,231

Cuba

60,655

111,921

Hayti

5,581

9,261

Mexico

24,682

120,866

Canada

803,105

820,531

Bermudas

41,124

224,468

Bahamas

385,999

518,164

British West India Islands

91,459

73,105

From the 1st April, 1923, the statistics relate to exports from Great Britain and Northern Ireland only.

Registered Clubs (Duty)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the estimated amount of club duty paid by registered clubs in England, Scotland and Wales, respectively, in respect of purchases of alcoholic liquors during the calendar year 1923?

The information asked for by the hon. Member will not be available for some months.

House of Lords (Official Report)

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the many important subjects discussed in the House of Lords which deal also with questions discussed in this House, he can arrange to have the Reports of those Debates included amongst the Parliamentary Papers circulated to Members of this House?

Japan, United States, Philippine Islands and Guam, Cuba, Hayti, Mexico, Canada, Bermudas, Bahamas and British West Indies?

As the information asked for is in tabular form, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The particulars are as follow:

Copies of the OFFICIAL REPORT of Debates in the House of Lords are already obtainable by Members at the Vote Office of the House of Commons. The extent to which Members avail themselves of this facility does not lead me to think that there is any necessity for incurring the additional expense of circulating the Report to all Members.

Considering that the effect of a number of Labour Peers in the House of Lords is to add interest to the Debates in that assembly, does not the hon. Gentleman consider that the time has now arrived to adopt the suggestion which I make? Sometimes it is very difficult for hon. Members of this House to know when subjects of interest are being discussed in the other House, and they find it difficult to get copies of the OFFICIAL REPORT.

There should be no difficulty in getting copies of the OFFICIAL REPORT, but I am satisfied that the demand is so slight that the cost of providing them for all the Members of this House would not be justified.

Foot-And-Mouth Disease

asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of centres where the Ministry is dealing with foot-and-mouth disease at which lay and unqualified inspectors are in charge; how many of such inspectors have qualified veterinary inspectors serving under them; and whether he will consider the advisability of appointing only qualified members of the veterinary profession to posts dealing with matters of animal epizootics, and of transferring unqualified men from the animals branch of the Ministry to some other Department?

There are 38 staff centres in various parts of the country in connection with foot-and-mouth disease. Ten of these are in charge of lay inspectors, all senior officers with many years' service and experience. For some years past the inspectorate of the diseases of animals division has been recruited exclusively from qualified persons, and although it was found practicable to transfer some of the junior lay inspectors to other branches of the Ministry, it has not been so with regard to a certain number of senior lay inspectors. These lay inspectors do not deal with questions requiring professional training.

Northern and Western Motorway

asked the Minister of Transport if he can make any statement as to the proposed roadway from Coventry to Manchester?

If, as I assume is the case, the hon. Member is referring to the project known as the northern and western motorway, I would refer him to the answer given on 11th March to the hon. Member for Rotherhithe Division, of which I am sending him a copy.

Poor Law Administration

asked the Minister of Health whether any recent tables have been published showing the comparative cost of Poor Law administration in each of the Metropolitan unions; and, if not, whether he will consider the possibility of publishing the figures?

I may refer my hon. Friend to the table on pages 28 and 29 of Part I of the Annual Local Taxation Returns for 1920–21, a copy of which I am sending to him. The corresponding Returns for 1921–22 will be issued shortly. I am also sending my hon. Friend a statement showing the average weekly cost of maintenance, per head, in the several Metropolitan Poor Law institutions in the year 1922–23.

Tuberculosis (Sale of Milk)

asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the desirability of obtaining powers for local authorities administering tuberculosis Regulations to take steps to prevent persons suffering from infectious tuberculosis from dealing directly with the distribution and sale of milk?

Unemployment

Outdoor Relief

asked the Minister of Health if it is proposed to issue a circular to boards of guardians operating in areas suffering from unemployment, instructing them when granting out-door relief to unemployed men and women, to take into consideration the question of rent, so that the administration of out-door relief to the unemployed may be uniform in all parts of the country?

A circular was issued by my Department in 1921 in which attention was called to the powers of guardians to take rent into consideration. I do not think that a further circular is needed at the present time. A large number of boards are, I am informed, actually making allowances in respect of rent.

Cleator Moor

asked the Minister of Health if the inquiries which he promised to make into the social and industrial condition of the unemployed resident, in the Cleator Moor area have yet been completed; and, if so, what action he proposes to take to ameliorate the long-standing privation and suffering which has been and is being endured by a large number of the people resident in this area?

I have obtained a Report from which I gather that the conditions in this area are due to depression in the iron-ore mining and the iron-working industries, and I am afraid that no real amelioration can be effected except by an improvement in these local industries. In the meantime, I shall be glad to do anything I can to assist the local authorities in measures for the relief of distress

I beg to give notice that I will raise this question on the Adjournment on Tuesday night.

88. The hon. Member also asked the Minister of Labour if he can state the names of those who are said to represent the employers and employés on the Cleator Moor Local Unemployment Committee; when and by whom they were appointed; what attendances they have put in during the past six months; and is he aware that the insurance officer can, and does, cancel their decisions?

I am obtaining this information and will communicate it to my hon. Friend as soon as possible. I am also looking into the point referred to in the last part of the question.

Benefit (Certificates)

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that local unemployment committees are demanding, as a requisite for the payment of unemployment benefit, the production of a line from managers and foremen to the effect that the applicant has been seeking work, and that these lines are being refused as there is no legal obligation upon managers and foremen to supply them; and whether, in these circumstances, he will consider the advisability of issuing instructions to unemployment committees that the failure to produce such lines is not to be deemed a reason for refusing benefit?

The local employment committees have to satisfy themselves that the applicant for uncovenanted benefit satisfies the statutory requirement that he must be genuinely seeking whole-time employment and unable to obtain it. The memoranda issued to the committees for their guidance in this connection include a statement that they should call for documentary evidence only when they have grave doubts whether the applicant is genuinely seeking work and are not prepared to recommend benefit unless he can produce sufficient evidence to remove the doubt. This appears to me to be a reasonable requirement, but if my hon. Friend is aware of any specific cases in which he thinks it has operated unfairly I shall be glad to make inquiry on hearing from him.

Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest, if these managers or foremen do not give certificates, what other documents applicants can produce?

I have just said that if any case is brought to my notice in which this Regulation has operated unfairly I am willing to consider the case.

How can the right hon. Gentleman expect documentary evidence when the man has been out of work for four years? Who is to give the documentary evidence?

I do not need documentary evidence to look into any specific case which is brought to my notice. If the hon. Member will give me any specific instance of a man unfairly treated I will deal with the case at once.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the dissatisfaction arising from the administration of this particular point in the Act and the Regulations, and will he review the entire matter?

Will the Minister try to get information as to the practice that has become general of demanding documents in each case?

I am prepared, on evidence submitted, to examine any case that is put before me. I am also aware that where millions of payments are made cases in which apparent injustice is done must arise. If these cases are brought to my notice I will look into them. I cannot agree to withdraw the Regulations.

General Nursing Council

asked the Minister of Health whether he has received from the National Asylum Workers' Union a resolution protesting against the expenditure of the General Nursing Council and asking that the fees charged by the council should be reduced; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

The resolution to which the hon. Member refers cannot be traced, but I am not prepared to express any opinion on this question until I have received definite proposals from the General Nursing Council as to the scale of registration and examination fees necessary, in their opinion, to make the Council self-supporting.

Speen Parish Council (Assistant Overseer)

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that Mr. H. G. Cox was removed from his post as assistant overseer of the parish of Speen, Berkshire, by the then Minister of Health in August, 1923; that at the time Mr. Cox had been an assistant overseer in the district for upwards of 27 years; that he was removed by the Minister on seven days' notice; that the ground for his removal was that he had been on several occasions adversely reported upon by the district auditor; that he was removed by the Minister's act without an opportunity to the council to hold an inquiry into the district auditor's report; that, after Mr. Cox was thus summarily dismissed, the Speen Parish Council unanimously passed a resolution that he ought to be continued in his office; that the action of the Minister was taken in pursuance of the powers conferred upon the old Poor Law Commissioners so long ago as 1834 by the Poor Law Amendment Act of that year without any sort of independent judicial inquiry; and whether, having regard to Mr. Cox's long period of service and to his efficient service as secretary of a local housing committee and in other departments of local administration, and to the strong feeling in the district amongst members of the council which the action of the Ministry has aroused, he will cause the Report of the district auditor to be reviewed in an independent inquiry?

The serious irregularities of which this assistant overseer was guilty were fully established at successive public audits, and proved that he was unfitted to hold an office in which he had control of moneys belonging to the ratepayers. I am not prepared to re-open the matter.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this gentleman has been in the employment of the council for 27 years, and that he was dismissed in consequence of the report of an audit official without independent inquiry being granted? Is that fair?

I would rather not have to discuss the merits of the personal question in public, but I have looked into this matter with all the sympathy that might be expected in reference to a decision which has such serious consequences to an individual, and I am not prepared to interfere.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I would like to raise this question on the Adjournment.

Coal Industry

Boy Labour

asked the Secretary for Mines the number of boys, if any, under 14 years of age there are employed underground in mines, and the number so employed between 14 and 15 years of age?

Boys under 14 years of age are precluded by law from being employed at mines, whether underground or on the surface. The number of boys between 14 and 15 years of age so employed is not known; the number under 16 years of age during 1923 was 47,969.

Gartshore Disaster

asked the Secretary for Mines if he can explain the cause of the delay in issuing the Report of the inquiry held into the Gartshore mining disaster in January last; and if he will say when the Report will be published?

The delay is due to the fact that after the inquiry the Commissioner had to attend the Redding Inquiry and then to go to the United States on official business. He is expected back early in April, and will prepare the Report as soon as possible.

May I ask what my hon. Friend means by "as soon as possible"? Is he aware of the tremendous dissatisfaction in Scottish mining circles, particularly in Stirlingshire, over the delay in the publication of all these Reports?

I have given the explanation of the Department. I will bring what has been said to the notice of the Secretary for Mines.

Will my hon. Friend also bring before the Department this case as being an instance of what has been suffered for years in regard to mining—the absolute shortage of inspectors of all kinds, and the absolute inefficiency of the Mines Department, so far as numbers are concerned?

Supplementary Estimates (Northern Ireland)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what buildings are referred to in Supplementary Estimates, Unclassified Services, Vote 5, Sub-head C; where, in Northern Ireland, they are situated; and will he give this House a detailed list of such buildings?

I have been asked to reply. The hon. Member will find a description of the accommodation which this grant is intended to cover in paragraph 9 of the First Report of the Northern Ireland Special Arbitration Committee recently presented to Parliament (Cmd. 2,072). As recommended by the Committee, however, the grant, is unaccompanied by any condition as to its application to particular items.

Aliens (Naturalisation)

asked the Home Secretary whether he can see his way to concede free and early naturalisation for those aliens who served honourably in the Army or Navy during the War and who so desire it?

As the answer is long, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

It was decided in 1916, and announced publicly, that aliens who served in His Majesty's Forces for more than three months and satisfied the statutory requirements for an application for naturalisation should be eligible for the grant of a certificate of naturalisation without fee; and special facilities for such applications were given till September, 1921. The scheme was then terminated, after due public notice, on the ground that all who desired to take advantage of it had had full opportunity by that time of doing so; and it is not possible now to revive the scheme. It is, however, open to an alien who served in His Majesty's Forces during the War, and otherwise qualified, to apply for a certificate in the ordinary way. Due weight would be given to his service, and he would be entitled to have it counted as residence for the purpose of the statutory requirement of five years' residence in His Majesty's Dominions.

Women Prisoners

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that women prisoners sentenced to penal servitude who were removed from Aylesbury to Walton prison, Liverpool, as a temporary measure during the War, are still confined in one block of that prison; and whether he is taking any action for removing these long-sentence prisoners to a prison where they can have the same facilities for out-door work and exercise which they had at Aylesbury and which are granted to male prisoners serving similar sentences?

It is not possible at present to make any other arrangements for the confinement of these women. Facilities for work and recreation are given to the convicts in the garden and grounds outside the prison walls at Liverpool. It is not correct to say that the women were transferred as a temporary measure during the War. It was considered that the Aylesbury premises should be devoted to a more pressing purpose.

Mentally Deficient Prisoners

asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the statement in the Report of the Prison Commissioners for the year ending the 31st March, 1923, with regard to the presence in prison of a class of prisoners who, on account of mental retardation or mental instability, or both, are incapable of profiting by training and discipline, and to a statement by the Commissioners that there is a need for a special form of curative treatment under a specially trained staff in an environment other than that of a prison for these persons; and whether he proposes to take any steps to give effect to this recommendation?

A scheme is now being prepared by the Commissioners to collect unstable mental cases, not certifiable under the Lunacy or Mental Deficiency Acts, and sentenced to imprisonment long enough to justify transfer, in certain selected centres and to place them under the tuition of a specially trained staff and close medical observation.

Elections (Use of Motor Vehicles)

asked the Home Secretary whether, seeing the extent to which motor vehicles are now used in elections and the amount of money indirectly spent in this way on advertising a candidature as well as conveying electors to the poll, he will consider legislation amending the law under which conveyances may be used in elections?

I recognise the importance of the issue raised, but I see no hope of dealing with it this Session, unless an Amendment can be included in one of the Bills now before the House for amending the Representation of the People Act.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that there is little possibility of dealing with the Representation of the People Bill, in view of the clogged condition of legislation in Committee A?

Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration also the advisability of pooling motor cars at election times?

West Ham Police Court (Conviction of Boys)

asked the Home Secretary if he will investigate the whole of the circumstances attending the presence of Arthur Betts, aged 16, Morris Doeff, aged 17, Henry Latta, aged 16, William Jordan, aged 16, and Frederick Holmes, aged 14, at the ordinary public police court of West Ham on the morning of Tuesday, 25th March; whether he is aware that these lads were summoned for damaging a quantity of materials used in connection with road work, and that the lads were prosecuted through solicitors, they themselves having no such defence, the result of which was that sentences of six weeks' imprisonment were imposed upon two lads, three weeks upon one lad, two weeks upon another, and the younger lad remanded in custody; and whether he will remit these sentences?

Irish Political Prisoners, England

asked the Home Secretary how many Irish political prisoners are at present in prisons under his jurisdiction; how many of these have been convicted for offences committed in Ireland, and how many for offences committed in this country; what is the length of sentence and character of punishment in each case; and will he consider the advisability of advising His Majesty to grant an amnesty to all these and other political prisoners?

There are certain prisoners in this country serving sentences imposed by the Courts of Northern Ireland. I have no information as to the nature of their offences, and any question regarding them is for the Government and Parliament of Northern Ireland. As regards prisoners convicted in this country, I would point out that prisoners are not classified according to the motives underlying their offences even when those motives are known, which is by no means always the case, and I cannot therefore give the information desired. As regards the last part of the question, all I can say is that I am always ready to examine on its merits any individual case that is brought before me.

Betting Laws

asked the Home Secretary whether he will give consideration to the urgent need for revision of the Betting Laws, which at present are confused and difficult of interpretation; and will he give consideration to the suggestion that commission agents be licensed?

These questions will receive consideration, but I do not see my way at present to propose any legislation in regard to them.

Local Authorities (Necessitous Areas)

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the Government's refusal to accept the formula submitted by the representatives of necessitous local authorities for giving them special financial assistance in relief of local rates, he will consent to receive a deputation in order that they may lay the necessities of their case before him, as, without further assistance than that already outlined by the Government, it is impossible for them to meet their financial obligations in the coming year?

The case of the necessitous areas has been very fully placed before and considered by the Government. It is the hope of the Government that their policy of improving the opportunities of trade coupled with their contemplated amendment of the Unemployment Insurance Act may lead to a substantial improvement which will presumably be principally felt in the areas which have been hardest pressed. In all the circumstances I do not think there would be any advantage in the suggested re-statement of the case of the necessitous areas.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in these necessitous areas there are men who have not done a stroke of work for four years? Is it not necessary to do something for these men? Does he say that in these circumstances the Prime Minister will refuse to receive a deputation?

The further statements of my hon. Friend were taken into account before the reply was framed.

Finance Accounts (Publication)

( on behalf of Mr. BAKER)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to secure the publication of the Finance Accounts in May instead of in November, as was the case last year?

It would not be possible to collect all the details which under Statute must be included in the Finance Accounts in time for publication in May. The Public Income and Expenditure Account, which shows the more important figures, appears in April. I hope it may be possible this year to get out the Finance Accounts earlier than last year.

Arising out of the reply, of which we could not hear a single word at this end of the House, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will consider the advisability of asking the hon. and gallant Member for East Rhondda (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan) to broadcast replies?

British Empire Exhibition

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is aware that there is to be no free lavatory accommodation for the use of staffs of concessionaires and exhibitors, and such like, at the British Empire Exhibition, and that the sum of 12s. 6d. has to be paid in advance for a season ticket for the use of such lavatories; and is he prepared to see that such free accommodation is provided in each of the lavatories, in every part of the grounds, for the free use of staffs of exhibitors, concessionaires, etc?

I am in communication with the British Empire Exhibition authorities in regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend, and when I am in a position to do so I will let him know the result.

Poor Law Authorities (Treatment of Insured Persons)

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the serious hardship imposed upon Poor Law authorities when an insured person is admitted for treatment; and whether he will take the necessary steps to remove the restrictions on Poor Law authorities from receiving any benefits under the National Health Insurance Acts in respect of treatment afforded to insured persons?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 20th February to a similar question by the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle).

Works (Island of Lewis)

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, about a year ago, offered to new landholders of Reef, in the island of Lewis, £290 with which to construct two miles of road, with the proviso that payment would be made only on completion of the road; that no specification was shown to the holders; that this offer was deemed unreasonable; and that the Board of Agriculture for Scotland offered the same holders £30 with which to construct a road of 1,000 yards in length, which payment worked out amounted to a rate of 7d. a yard; and whether he will investigate these offers with a view to suggesting more favourable terms?

The offer referred to in the first part of the question related to the construction of a road of about 2,500 yards in length. The offer was that the grant would be payable on completion of the work or a pro rata proportion on completion of sections. The nature of the work was fully explained orally to the holders, and it was unnecessary to show them a formal specification. I understand that the holders refused to accept the conditions. The offer of £30 referred to in the last part of the question was made in respect of the repair and reconstruction of 300 yards of an existing road. I should explain that these sums were not intended to meet the whole cost of the works, but were grants in aid of access roads to the men's own holdings. I will investigate the position further.

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the Board of Agriculture for Scotland last winter asked the new holders in the township of Reef, in the Island of Lewis, to submit offers for the construction of a township road; that offers were tendered early in January; that receipt of the same has never even been acknowledged by the Board; that the children in that township are now without a path to the school; and will he take steps to remedy this state of affairs and impress upon the officials of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland the necessity of a prompt reply to correspondence?

I understand that a grant was offered by the Board for the township road referred to, but that in consequence of the holders' refusal to undertake its construction with the assistance offered, the Board asked them to state the terms on which they would undertake it. Their reply was handed personally to the Board's local officer, and a written acknowledgment was therefore unnecessary. I am informed that the state of the school path does not prevent the children from reaching school, but the Board have offered to contribute £177 towards the cost of its repair and reconstruction.

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the inhabitants of the township of Reef, in the Island of Lewis, have written to the chief surveyor of the Board of Agriculture asking payment for the erection of a fence last autumn; will he explain why payment had not previously been made; and why the letter referred to has never been acknowledged?

I am informed that the sum referred to was paid last month, and that the delay, which is regretted, was due to exceptional pressure in connection with land settlement and relief works in the islands.

Egypt

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the four points upon which the British Government is asked to negotiate with the Egyptian Government; whether the negotiations have commenced; whether there are to be any special negotiators; and whether, before any sanction is given to any conclusions, particularly with regard to the future of the Sudan, the findings will be submitted to the House of Commons for consideration?

The four points reserved for negotiation are defined in the Declaration to Egypt of the 28th February, 1922. No negotiations have begun, but they will be conducted through the usual channels. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the 25th February to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore).

Questions to Ministers

72. To ask the Minister of Agriculture whether his Department will consider the desirability of introducing legislation to apply the same standard to imported milk and its substitutes as is now applied to home-produced milk; and, if not, what are the objections to this policy?

No reply being given,

May I, on behalf of the hon. and gallant Member, ask for a reply to this question?

When an hon. Member is absent on the first call, his deputy is not entitled to insist on the continued attendance of the Minister.

Tramways and Omnibus Strike

Emergency Measures

( by Private Notice ) asked the Prime Minister whether he can now state if the Emergency Committee have yet met; what proposals they have so far made to the Government in order to deal with the present industrial situation in London in order to minimise the hardships which are being imposed upon the workers and the general public; whether he is aware of the threats to still further add to these hardships by stopping other essential public services; whether he can state what steps the Government propose to take to deal with this feature of the situation in order to protect the public; and whether the Government will afford full protection to those who are prepared to work in order to maintain the essential public services?

The Committee of Ministers that would be the Committee if a Proclamation were issued, has met and has formulated proposals as to how to meet the situation that would arise in the event of an extension of the dispute. I should be obliged, however—and I make the request in the public interest—if the other parts of this question were postponed till to-night. I have made arrangements to see all the interests concerned in the course of the day, and it would be a great mistake for me to say more than I have done at this moment.

Is the Prime Minister aware that under the Emergency Powers Act the Government can take power to commandeer all the trams and omnibuses and run them in the interests of the people?

In the light of that knowledge, is the Prime Minister prepared to exercise that right?

May we rely upon a full statement this evening and the opportunity of discussing it, if the necessity should arise?

Does the Prime Minister's announcement mean that the Government propose to take action to protect the public?

Can the right hon. Gentleman now give an answer to the point raised by me yesterday and to which, as I understood, the Minister of Transport made a very sympathetic reply, and will he provide the outpatients of the London Hospital with immediate facilities for getting to the hospital?

The special point raised by the Noble Lord yesterday has been under consideration to-day, and I believe we have a means of helping him. If he would be good enough to wait until a more comprehensive statement can be made on the Adjournment to-night, I should be exceedingly obliged.

Would it in any way prejudice the general negotiations to state now definitely what has been done in the case of these unfortunate people in regard to whom, I understood there was general agreement yesterday. I understood that on the part of the Government, as well as on the part of hon. Members on this side, it was agreed that something should be done to relieve them?

Will the Prime Minister make a statement to-night in the course of the Debate on the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, so that a discussion, if need be, may take place?

I was going to suggest that perhaps it might be convenient to fix an approximate time, say 9.30 o'clock, for the right hon. Gentleman's statement.

I am very anxious to do what the House would desire. I understand that I am supposed to make another speech—on the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.

I was just about to say that I should require the consent of the House. As to the hour at which I can make a statement, I can only say this: I hope negotiations on a certain offer will begin at 7 o'clock to-night, and as hon. Members who have had anything to do with the intricacies and the delicacies of a settlement such as this will understand, I really could not promise to say much before, perhaps, 10 o'clock. I am only too anxious to do everything I can, but if I were to say anything at the present moment that might be taken as a threat to either side, either to the men or to the employers, it would only make my task—I am taking the matter over myself—more difficult.

Why should we allow a thing like that (Viscount Curzon)—a man who has been convicted 15 times, a convict, who ought to be in gaol—

I would suggest that communications should be sent through the usual channels as to the time at which the Prime Minister will be in a position to make his statement to the House.

May I ask a question of detail about this matter? Have the Government considered the relaxation of the Regulations for commercial vehicles carrying passengers? Would it be possible to allow commercial vehicles to carry passengers without extra tax, as that would be very valuable to many commercial firms and enable them to carry their employés during the present trouble?

Before the Prime Minister answers that question, I would like to ask if he is aware that if such facilities as are suggested are in fact given, it will have the effect of bringing a further 67,000 people out on strike?

While I do not wish to press the right hon. Gentleman on the general question, I do wish to ask him if he cannot now give an undertaking that ambulances or some other form of transport will be provided for outpatients and, if needed, in-patients of the London Hospital?

I must inform the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) that I cannot allow these continual interruptions.

If the hon. Member persists, I shall be obliged to order him to withdraw from the House.

Do I understand from the Prime Minister that the Government will not be prepared to deal with this question before 10 o'clock to-night?

If the two sides, or the groupings of all the interests, cannot meet before seven to-night, obviously it will take them a little time to come to any conclusion one way or another. I think that half-past nine, or 10, o'clock would be about as near a time as I could say.

What right have you to insult the Prime Minister? You have been 15 times convicted in the police courts of Great Britain.

As the hon. Member for Silvertown defies my ruling, I must order him immediately to withdraw from the House.

Thank you. I am glad to do so when a thing like that insults the Prime Minister. He is a lord, I am only a labourer. He has been 14 times convicted.

The hon. Member for Silvertown thereupon withdrew from the House.

Had I known that the question in regard to the hospitals was going to be raised again this afternoon, I would have come armed with the full particulars. Yesterday we made arrangements for some ambulances—I am not sure how many—and all day to-day the matter has been dealt with by my Department, and I shall be very pleased, on the Motion for the Adjournment tonight, to give the full particulars.

Will the arrangements apply to all the hospitals in London and not only to the London Hospital? I speak for King's College Hospital.

Would it not be possible for the hon. Gentleman to ask for a volunteer fleet of motor-cars to help the hospitals in this connection? He would get it at once.

We shall do what we can for the hospitals. We have had all these matters in hand ever since I first heard of the necessity, and, indeed, I am sure that the men themselves, who are out, would be quite willing that arrangements should be made.

May I ask the Minister of Transport whether he does not think that those hon. Members who are expressing such sympathy with the patients of the hospitals might persuade their rich friends to place their motor cars at their disposal?

Business of the House

May I ask the Deputy-Leader of the House what the business will be next week?

Monday—National Health Insurance (Cost of Medical Benefit) Bill, Second Reading; West Indian Islands (Telegraph) Money Resolution, Committee; Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, Second Reading.

Tuesday—Treaty of Peace (Turkey) Bill, Second Reading.

Wednesday—We shall take the Second Reading of a Bill which will shortly be introduced to amend the Rent Restrictions Act with regard to evictions; Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, Committee.

Thursday—We shall move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on Civil Service Estimates—Class I, Votes for Public Works and Buildings, will be on the Paper.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Bill dealing with rent restrictions will be circulated?

I expect to-morrow.

Ordered,

"That the Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[ The Prime Minister. ]

London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill

Reported, with Amendments [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Message from the Lords

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law with respect to the regulation of advertisements." [Advertisements Regulation Bill [ Lords. ]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Bombay, Baroda, and Central India Railway Act, 1906; and for other purposes." [Bombay, Baroda, and Central India Railway Bill [ Lords. ]

Sittings of Parliament,—That they have appointed a Committee consisting of Nine Lords to join with a Committee of this House to consider the desirability of altering the customary period of the Parliamentary Session and the incidental changes necessary thereto, pursuant to the Commons Message of Tuesday last.

BOMBAY, BARODA, AND CENTRAL INDIA RAILWAY BILL [Lords]

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

House of Commons (Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms)

Special Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Representation of the People (Local Elections) Bill,

"to make provision for voting by absent voters at local government elections," presented by Mr. MIDDLETON; supported by Mr. Charleton, Mr. Lowth, and Mr. Romeril; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 11th April, and to be printed. [Bill 89.]

Orders of the Day

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Reparations and Security

4.0 P.M.

I wish to take advantage of the opportunity which is offered by the Third reading of this Bill to address, not in any polemical or critical spirit, a few interrogatories to His Majesty's Government in regard to the recent developments and the actual present phase of the situation in Western Europe. Both the House and the country are anxious, and I am sure the Government will acknowledge that they are entitled so far as disclosure is not prejudicial to the public interest, to have the fullest and freest information both as to the recent past and, so far as we can forecast them, as to the immediate future possibilities. We ought not to be dependent in this matter upon scraps of information doled out to us at Pleasant Sunday Afternoons by subordinate Ministers of the Crown, who seem to enjoy splashing about in the turbid and treacherous waters of international politics. The French Government have recently presented a Yellow Book. Though it contains nothing that is very new, it does usefully summarise and supplement what is already known to the world. I do not know whether the Prime Minister is in a position to hold out any prospects to us of an early laying of papers upon the Table here. I am sure that he will do so as soon as he possibly can. Meanwhile, he may be glad of the opportunity of answering the few inquiries which I am about to address to him.

In regard to the general question of Reparations, he told us about a month ago that he could say nothing until he had received the reports of the two subcommittees which have been sitting in Berlin and in Paris. Perhaps he can tell us to-day what progress has been made towards the completion of those reports, when they are likely to be presented, what is the precise procedure which is then contemplated, and how soon their contents will be accessible to the public. There is, however, apart from the general question, a new aspect of this matter of reparations which affects, in the first instance, the Ruhr and the Rhineland. The Prime Minister has probably seen, as most of us have, and read a remarkable article which appeared in the "Times" two days ago and which gives an account, or purports to give an account, of the local agreements which have been and which are being made with the industries of those occupied territories. It is suggested by this correspondent, who appears to be well-informed, and whose communication I am sure would not have been given the prominence that it has been given without careful inquiry, that while the International Committee of Experts are seeking to devise a scheme of reparation payments by Germany generally, the French organisation in the Rhineland and Ruhr are working with energy to bring to development and indeed to perfection a particularist system which would, if it were workable, and it were worked, turn the occupied territory into what I may call a special reparations preserve.

This plan, according to the writer, leaves British interests entirely out of account. In the regulations for the agreement with the metal industries, the French authorities are said to have told the industrial leaders that their new arrangements must be concluded with the body which goes by the name, or the initials, "M.I.C.U.M.," a purely Franco-Belgian body on which Great Britain is not represented at all, while all previous arrangements have been made with the High Commission, on which we ourselves have had a representative. It is further stated—I should like to know what information the Government have on this point—that the deliveries in kind provided for under these agreements are to be financed by a method which would practically ruin the industries of the occupied territory by making it impossible for them to compete with the rest of Germany, and, what is significant and important, would deprive or seriously impair the power of the Reich as a whole to stabilise its currency. This is a very serious matter, and I ask the Prime Minister—I am sure he will give us any information that he has—whether the statements which I have just summarised are a true account of what is taking place in the Rhineland, whether it represents so far as he knows the policy of the French Government, and what steps he is taking to safeguard British interests and to prevent the prospects of a general reparations settlement being imperilled. Before I pass from this particular matter, there are two other questions I should like to address to the Prime Minister. The first is this: What progress has been or is being made in the Ruhr to repatriate the deported population, and, in particular, for the release of political prisoners? The other question is this: Have any changes taken place either for better or for worse in the Palatinate since Mr. Clive's Report was received? Those are all matters about which, I think, the House will be glad to have such information as the Government can give it.

I pass to another very important area of discussion, I mean the recent meeting of the Council of the League of Nations at Geneva with special reference to the Saar Basin. Those who were in the last Parliament will remember that a year ago we had a Debate upon the astonishing decree against freedom of speech and liberty of the Press that had been enacted and was being put in force in the Saar Basin. This is a very grave matter from another point of view, because it affects the credit and authority of the League of Nations. Under the arrangements of the Treaty of Versailles, the Saar Basin—of the mines of which the French were given a lease for 15 years to compensate them for the loss which they had suffered in their own mining areas—with the prospect of a plebiscite at the expiration of the 15 years as to its ultimate destiny, was handed over in trust to the League of Nations, and its actual administration was to be carried on by a Commission of five persons, one of whom was to be a representative of the population of the Saar and to be the spokesman and custodian of their interests. The Debate which we then had, I think, left an unpleasant impression on the minds of hon. Members in all quarters of the House, because it showed that that Commission had not been operating in the interests of the popula- tion of the Saar, but that it had invoked and was exercising arbitrary powers unknown in democratic countries in an economic situation; and it showed that the whole system of administration was seriously defective. I think, considering that the Commission was a delegation of the League of Nations subject to its control, and that the League of Nations was in the last resort responsible for its actions, that it gave many people serious doubts as to whether the League in that particular area, at any rate, was doing its duty. Of course, it is not possible to ignore the fact, when as we all hope Germany will be invited to become a member of the League, that the anti-German and anti-local spirit which characterised the administration of the Commission was felt to be a serious hindrance to the attainment of that desirable object.

There has recently been a meeting of the Council of the League of Nations at Geneva of which, so far as I know the particulars, there is, except from one point of view, nothing but good to be said. The League disposed of very troublesome and delicate matters with great tact and discretion, and I think with general satisfaction. But what I think the country would like to have from the Prime Minister, in view of the allegations which have been made, and in view of a statement of his own, is what in particular was done by the representative of Great Britain'at that meeting of the Council of the League in regard to the administration of the Saar?

The other day, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, quoting the matter incidentally in the course of another discussion, observed that our representative on the Council of the League of Nations had had to struggle with "commitments undisclosed" made by his predecessor. I should like to know what those commitments were. I do not know. But if the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was made seriously and after consideration—as I suppose it was—then I think we are entitled to know in what respect the otherwise free and untrammelled action of Lord Parmoor, the representative of the British Government on the Council, was compromised and fettered by secret commitments, entered into before the present Government took office. I need hardly say that I am not associating myself with any charge either against the late Government or against the present Government. We want to know the facts.

There are two very serious questions. The Treaty of Versailles provides, as I said a moment or two ago, that the inhabitants of the Saar should be represented by one of the five members of the Commission. Some controversy seems to have arisen as to the particular person. The matter rests entirely with the Council of the League of Nations, who can appoint—and remove—any member of this Commission, and can decide as to who should be chosen for that purpose. It has been suggested—and I mention the suggestion without associating myself with it—that, in consequence of the previous arrangement, a gentleman who really would have been welcomed and regarded as representative of the interests of the Saar, by a majority of the representatives of the Saar, was not chosen, but somebody else was preferred. I am sure the Prime Minister will reassure the House and the country by telling us exactly what happened.

There is another matter, not more serious, perhaps, but more important as regards the Saar, which came up for discussion. The House knows—at least those know who are familiar with the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles— and none of them were better or more far-seeing than those made in regard to the Saar—that not only was the Saar for the time being to be neutralised, but it was provided that there is to be no military force of any kind, and that order should be maintained by a force of local gendarmerie. It is now some years since this arrangement was made. The force of gendarmerie, so far as we know, is still of a very shadowy kind. So far as any display of force is required, it is supplied by French troops. The question was raised by Mr. Branting, representing one of the Scandinavian States, who wished that the representatives of the Saar should be heard on this matter in order that the amplification and development of the local gendarmerie force prescribed by the Treaty should be brought into effective existence. We should very much like to know from the Prime Minister what part our representative took in that matter. What are the prospects at present of such a force coming into effective existence, and what support have we given, and are prepared to give now, to the proposals of Mr. Branting?

I pass to another point. I am sorry to have to address such a long series of catechectics to the Prime Minister. But this is a point of vast importance— namely, the question of security. We all know the history of this matter, but I would advise hon. Members who have not yet had the opportunity, or the leisure, to do so to study the documents of the French Yellow Book. They will find there a most remarkable Memorandum by Marshal Foch presented to the Peace Conference at Paris in the early days of the negotiations. In that Memorandum Marshal Foch insisted, in pursuance of what I may call the traditional French policy, that the Rhine should be the Western boundary of Germany, and that the intervening area should not be annexed by either France or Belgium, but should be permanently neutralised The representatives of all the Powers who were assembled—wisely, I think— rejected that proposal, not because they were indifferent in any way to the future security of France; their objection was that they thought this was the very worst way in which the security of France could possibly be effected.

What they did was, first of all to sanction a temporary occupation for 15 years of what we now know as the occupied Rhineland territory. The occupation was intended to be temporary and provisional, but it was subject to various conditions on the part of Germany which may or may not prove to be fulfilled. Apart from this temporary occupation people do not seem generally to realise that the Treaty provided—I have quoted this before, but memories are short—people do not appear to understand the kind of security given by the Treaty of Versailles to France. In regard to this matter, an all-important matter to the French, Articles 42, 43 an3 44 contain certain provisions. Article 42 is as follows: which is of much more importance—

I should like to quote something that I said—though I do not care generally to quote my own words—something I said in this House on this very subject precisely a year ago—on the 28th of March, 1923. I uttered these words, which I repeat to-day:

Perhaps the House will allow me to intervene at this stage to reply to the right hon. Gentleman, and then the various other points which may be raised can be dealt with by my hon. Friend beside me (Mr. Ponsonby). I am exceedingly obliged to my right hon. Friend for his intervention. He has raised points which are important in themselves in a very friendly way, and I am glad to be able to say one or two things regarding the questions which he has been good enough to submit to me. He began by asking me when the papers corresponding to the French papers were to be laid. They are practically ready now, and after one or two examinations and consultations they will be in the hands of the printers, so that in a very short time we hope to have the correspondence papers in our possession The French Government will have to be consulted regarding one or two of them before we can publish them.

I was asked when the Reparation Subcommittee was to report. I do not know, and if the House will allow me, I will take this opportunity of explaining the position of the experts upon that Committee, in view of a great many mischievous statements that have been published in the Press both here and abroad. It is perfectly true that when that Committee was about to be appointed our representative on the Reparation Commission consulted the late Prime Minister, the Leader of the Liberal party and myself regarding a list of names from which two or three were to be selected, not by us, but by the Reparation Commission. They wanted a guarantee that these men were men whose knowledge and ability commanded the respect of all parties in the House of Commons. That was all. The appointments were made by the Reparation Commission, and from that time until the other day I never saw one of the experts. They themselves have taken up the proper attitude that they were not the representatives of His Majesty's Government, that they were appointed by the Reparation Commission as experts to give answers to the reference that was given to them.

Therefore I want to say perfectly categorically and without any reserve that His Majesty's Government have never interfered with those experts, they have made no suggestions to them, and they have never sought to influence them, and the only effect of the interview I had with them last Saturday was that they should report to me on one or two matters, which they wished me to know about, and in no sense to ask my advice as to how they were to report or anything of that nature. I do not know when they are to report, but when they have reported the procedure will be this: They must report to the Reparations Commission, and that Commission is the proprietor, so to speak, of the Report. It will come from the Reparation Commission to all the Governments concerned, and so far as we are concerned, we shall immediately set about examining the Report, its financial implications, its political implications, and then and then only shall we be prepared to treat with the other Governments concerned to devise a common policy dealing with the questions concerned in the Report.

My right hon. Friend then went on, to ask me about those French and Belgian organisations in the Rhineland and the Ruhr of an industrial character, and their negotiations and relations with German industrial companies. I answered a question in the House the other day on this point, and I have really nothing at the moment to add to it. We have seen the agreements and we have examined them, but up to now we have not come to the conclusion that these agreements either in their terms or their operation were contrary to the Treaty of Versailles, to reparation settlements, or any provision of that character up to now.

We have met with certain attempts—I will instance one—which seem to indicate that these agreements might be made the occasion for a re-distribution of reparation settlements. If that were so His Majesty's Government would at once protest against the carrying out of such agreements. For instance, the Germans promulgated certain fiscal decrees which, in the ordinary way, would have operated in the Rhineland. Those decrees were to be presented to the Rhineland Commission, and all the Commission was to consider was whether those decrees militated against the safety or convenience of the Army of Occupation. No allegation of that kind was made, but suggestions were made that these fiscal decree's should be held up, and should be examined for reasons which the Rhineland Commissioners had no business to take, into account. We made our position perfectly clear. The result was that the decrees were registered in a proper way and we shall hear no more about them.

That enables me to refer to a matter which I think I can very properly refer to now. My right hon. Friend referred to the temporary and limited character of the Commission and Committees set up by the Treaty of Versailles. He made that reference when he spoke of the Saar Commission. There have been attempts made to get those Committees and Commissions to take upon themselves responsibilities, duties, and rights which do not belong to them. The policy His Majesty's Government has taken up firmly, rigidly and all the time has been that, in the interests of a final settlement, and a speedy settlement, these Committees and Commissions must be confined to the constitutional provisions and to the duties assigned to them, and will not be allowed to go outside those limits by the space of one inch.

In the case of the Palatinate the difficulties were very great. We had a separatist movement supported not merely from the inside, but from the outside, and we had to find a settlement of that situation. It was suggested that -certain local bodies should have extraordinary powers conferred upon them by the Rhineland Commission. All through the negotiations we took up the attitude that I have just defined, and only in one small respect—and there was a clear statement how long it was to last and how far it was to go—did we recognise that one of those local authorities should have certain powers given them to administer outside its proper constitution, and that is finished. The work is done. We Have rigidly stood by the agreement come to, the work is finished, and things are now proceeding under normal conditions. I have been asked, with reference to the Palatinate and the Ruhr, what the position of prisoners is. I have a statement here which, for the sake of brevity and accuracy, I might as well read:

"According to a German semi-official statement communicated to the Berlin Press on 11th January, the number of persons then undergoing imprisonment in the occupied areas as a result of the campaign of passive resistance was 2,021."

In the whole of the Ruhr.

"Of these, 350 were stated to be imprisoned abroad. Later, on 19th February, the Wolff Telegraphic Bureau published another communique in which it was stated that, although the French have rejected the idea of a general amnesty in favour of political prisoners, the number of such prisoners had been reduced from 5,000 to 1,500 or 1,600, 500 of the latter being political prisoners, in the opinion of the German authorities. The majority of the prisoners had regained their freedom, owing to the fact that their term of imprisonment had expired. The Foreign Office continued to intervene actively in favour of the 44 prisoners who had been removed to French and Belgian prisons, 31 of whom were stated to be at St. Martin de Re, nine in other French prisons, and four at Liege. In the French view, these prisoners are not political prisoners, but only persons convicted of criminal offences. There is no intention of deporting them."

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the figures as to the repatriation of the deportees?

I have no figures in front of me giving that, but I shall be very happy to give them in answer to a question, if it is put down. The repatriation is proceeding, and I can assure the House that, so far as His Majesty's Government is able to use any influence in that direction, that influence is being used. With reference to the right hon. Gentleman's question about the Saar Commission, he asked what was the commitment that Lord Parmoor found when he went to Geneva, and he quoted a statement I made on that subject. Just before I made that statement, there was a rather cruel personal attack made upon Lord Parmoor, and one of the chief reasons which were given to justify the attack was that Lord Parmoor supported, or, at any rate, did not oppose, the election of Count Kossmann as the Saar representative. When Lord Parmoor went to Geneva, he went with the intention of pressing that the representatives of the Saar population should be heard before the Council of the League of Nations, before the Saar representative on the Saar Commission was elected by the Council. He found that last December an agreement had been come to by the Commission by which Count Kossmann was to be appointed in place of the gentleman whose term of office had terminated. One must be very careful about either approving or condemning that action. There was no doubt whatever that Count Kossmann has been, and in a great many quarters even now is still believed to be, one of the very best representatives of the Saar people that could be selected. I have not got his public record exactly at my finger ends, but he has represented part of the district in the Reichstag, and has enjoyed extraordinary popularity. I have no doubt at all that, had the Election taken place about the middle of last year, he would have been regarded as thoroughly satisfactory as the Saar representative by the Saar people themselves. I have been informed that since those days some changes have taken place, but, nevertheless, the fact that the bargain had been come to—and it is one which we think ought to be honourably carried out—precluded the possibility of a deputation from the Saar population being received by the Council. That also explains why Count Kossmann was elected unanimously, as he was, by the Council the other day at Geneva.

Was not Lord Parmoor made aware of the arrangement at the last meeting of the Council, before he went to Geneva?

My information was that he was not, but as soon as I heard, I inquired of the Foreign Office, and the records are quite clear at the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office knew all about it. The next point is as to the gendarmerie and the French military force. It is clearly understood that the French military force ought to be withdrawn from the Saar at the very earliest possible date, but they cannot be withdrawn until a Saar gendarmerie has been substituted for them, and, unfortunately, the income of the Saar Commission is a very limited one. The gentleman who acts as a Chancellor of the Exchequer, a Canadian, reported to the Council at its last meeting that it was impossible, in view of the Saar finances, to appoint more than 200 gendarmerie, and the consequence was that practically no progress has been made, or can be made at the moment, in the substitution of the French military force by Saar gendarmerie. Lord Parmoor managed to get an addendum to the resolution sanctioning this situation to the effect that the Saar Commission should be pressed to appoint a larger number of local gendarmerie without delay, as soon as the finances justified such a step being taken. I know very well that this may mean very little more than a pious hope, but there it is. We have shown our hand in that respect, and the House may be perfectly assured that every opportunity that presents itself to us, not merely of showing our hand, but of pushing our policy, will be taken by us.

Do not the Saar people have to pay for the French troops?

I am not quite sure about that. My impression is, that it is the German Government which pays for the Army of Occupation, including the Saar. It is just one of those little points about which, when suddenly raised, one finds one rather doubtful, but I understand the German Government pays, though the Saar Budget is charged with the cost of the gendarmerie. We come to the point of Security. My right hon. Friend referred to the French Yellow Book, and reminded us once more of the security that Franca has got in Articles 42, 43 and 44 of the Treaty of Versailles, and then proceeded to explain his views of that security. I agree with what he said. I will only venture, if I venture to do anything at all, just to supplement what he has said in one or two particulars. I am quite convinced that France never can get security by any series of special pacts. It will never get countries of any importance to make those pacts. But here I disagree with my right hon. Friend. If France were to get us or America to offer a guarantee, France would be perfectly entitled to say—in fact, more—she would be a fool if she did not follow that by saying: "Give us a military agreement." What is the use of the guarantee to France, unless you tell her what armies you are going to guarantee? It is an absurdity. The House ought to know exactly what the terms of the second, third and fourth step are going to be, and not merely content itself with the first step. If France asks us for a guarantee of the nature of those discussed and explained in the Yellow Book, and we say, "Yes, we are willing to guarantee you against attack by either Germany, Japan or Ashanti," what should we think of France if she quietly accepted our sympathy, and never asked, "What Army are you going to maintain; what are to be the dispositions of your Navy; what sort of Air Force are you going to keep up?" and it happened at some moment or other, within measurable distance of time, you had to fulfil the guarantees. That is one of the most fatal objections to pursuing the aim of security by the particular method of pact and guarantee.

It is a very absurd argument to use against the League. Now we have to pursue this problem in several ways. I think I am right when I say that France herself has abandoned that policy. I think I am right when I say that she is now seeing that a guarantee cannot be a guarantee of a separate pact with only one nation or two nations, but it must change its nature and become a guarantee of some co-operative organisation of the wide scope and amplitude and moral authority of the League of Nations; that so soon as you aim at a guarantee by a body like the League of Nations you minimise and subordinate the military value of the pact and raise to a really effective standard the moral guarantees that flow from conciliation, arbitration, impartial and judicial judgment exercised by the body with which you are associated. The whole orientation of your thought, the whole outlook of your policy, the whole direction from which you get your aim changes when your mind goes away from an Anglo-American-French pact and turns to an Agreement with a League of Nations equipped, not with arms, but with all the machinery for exposing right and wrong and for explaining how things arise. It is perfectly obvious that if we are to pursue that policy two or three things must be done. One of the things that must be done, first of all, is to settle the question of Reparations. Therefore His Majesty's Government have always declined to enter into any detailed exploration of the problem of security until it has first of all had an opportunity of exploring, and settling, as I hope, the question of Reparations.

Let the House visualise the situation. We shall get very shortly, I hope—when, I do not know—but we shall get the Report from the Experts Committee and from the Reparations Commission later on. One of three things will happen. The Allies may come to an agreement of such a nature that Germany can wholeheartedly co-operate with them in carrying out that agreement. To that end it is absolutely, essential that the agreement should not be come to without every care being taken to find out what the views of the German Government are upon the large issues involved. There must be an entrance sooner or later of Germany into what one may call the negotiating nations of Europe, and if this comprehensive agreement on Reparations is going to be secured with certainty, we must understand what Germany's views are, and I am glad to say that the experts, from all I have heard, have been careful in their visits to Berlin to explore that ground. That is the first possibility, an agreement of the Allies and Germany. The second possibility is that of the Allies agreeing, but Germany being sullen, Germany feeling that an injustice has been done to it, that it has been compelled to say it can pay, but it believes it cannot pay. The third possibility—I only state it in order to cover the whole ground, because I sincerely believe it is unthinkable—is that the Allies themselves should not agree as to what settlement is to be reached. We will leave out the third and take the first two possibilities. The problem of security with a full agreement on Reparations is very small. It presents very few difficult problems. The problem of security, which is the second issue we come to, in the event of an agreement between the Allies, but a sulky Germany, is a very great problem. Therefore, why should busy men, either French or British, waste their time in discussing the details or plans of security until they have settled between themselves at all events the European conditions under which the problems of security will have to be faced?

My right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley has quite truly observed that we shall all have to make up our minds, France, Belgium and ourselves, that Germany has got to come into the League of Nations, if the League of Nations is going to fulfill the ends that a League of Nations can and will fulfill. Supposing we can clear away those immediately pressing difficulties which have created the occupation of the Ruhr, difficulties that appear in M. Poincaré's weekly speeches in the French constituencies, the economic difficulties, the difficulties of the political relations between the two countries—supposing we can clear them away and settle them, then is the time to put all our weight in behind a completed League of Nations —either toy the operation of the resolutions passed by the American Senate the other day or by the invitation which I should like very much to see signed by France, America, Italy and ourselves— an invitation issued to all the nations of the world—to come and consider the whole question of disarmament for the purpose of settling something that would seriously limit the menace to peace. This is no mere dream. I believe and I know that there is a stronger body of men in responsible official positions on both sides of the world who are only too anxious to-day to back up the Government that is working for that end than ever there was in the history of the world before. That is not only true of foreign countries; it is also true of people of all parties in this country. Therefore, whoever is at the Foreign Office, whether I stay or whether I go, whether the Government is going to last until the first stages of these negotiations have been completed or not, whoever is responsible for the conduct of these negotiations, the negotiations must be conducted by somebody, and unless they have a very clear view of a complete policy they are not going to finish the negotiations with a settlement that is going to be the foundations for something bigger and greater and more full of hope and value to the world at large. That is the position regarding Security, so far as the Government is concerned, and so far as it can express its views at the present moment in relation to the coming negotiations: reparations first, security afterwards, not in the sense that they are disconnected, because they are really aspects of the same thing, but the first side to look at is reparations, and then we turn over and face the security side.

Although my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley did not refer to another matter, that of Jubaland and the Dodecanese, may I claim the indulgence of the House to say how that matter stands? I am exceedingly anxious to get this cause of irritation between Italy and ourselves removed. No man values the friendship of Italy more than I do. If I could only manage to get that long drawn-out controversy between the two countries ended I should be a very happy man. Unfortunately it is one of those controversies that has got more and more com plicated as it has been nibbled at. It began in a very simple way. We promised Italy to rectify certain boundaries in Africa on condition that certain things would happen and we began to discuss it. In the meantime other questions have arisen in which we were interested. There was, for instance, the Dodecanese. In connection with that, a situation has arisen that has delighted the heart, I know, of my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs who has always maintained that if you have got a bargain you ought to put it down in writing, and that when you have got it in writing you ought to stick to it. What happened here was this. You have Clauses put in a Treaty which say one thing, and then, before you put the Clauses in the Treaty and before you sign the Treaty you have an arrangement that, although Clause so and so said that such and such a part of the earth was going to be handed over to such and such a Power, nevertheless the signatories agreed that when that was done it was to be disposed of in a certain way, that does not get put into the Treaty. It is very often not much more than a pledge given by word of mouth. I am not going into the details of all this long drawn-out controversy that gets worse and worse regarding Jubaland and Dodecanese.

What I think we ought to do is just a simple thing. When Jubaland began to be discussed, we were willing to give more and more of that country, on condition that our generosity in Africa would mean that things in which we were interested in the. ÆEgean would be settled in a way satisfactory to us. Then we got into the habit of saying, "We will do this provided there is a general settlement." That is an absolutely impossible policy, but, in changing that policy, I think there was a good deal to be said for it at the time. I think there was a good deal to be said for the position that Lord Milner took up when he began to extend the boundary problem which he was charged to settle with the Italian representative; but it has gone so far now that we can see that it would have been better if it had been settled in the narrower way. What we have, to do now is to begin and negotiate the whole thing afresh—either for a general settlement, if that be asked for, or, if not, a specific settlement, but in any event a settlement. I hope that, before I have an opportunity of speaking to the House again on the foreign situation, I shall be able to say that these grievances, these outstanding difficulties between Italy and ourselves, have been completely removed, and that the old historic relationship between our country and Italy—the relationship that we want to restore, and that we shall strive to restore —has, as a matter of fact, been restored.

I must say, first of all, that the speech of the Prime Minister, in so far as it is intelligible, is disappointing. I am completely at a loss, after listening with very great care to his speech, to know what his policy is upon the two or three very important matters raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith). What is the policy of the Government with regard to security? What is the policy of the Government with regard to reparations? What is the policy of the Government with regard to the Saar? And even when the right hon. Gentleman comes to a matter which he raises on his own initiative, the question of Jubaland and Italy, I have not the ghost of an idea what he proposes to do. Before I come to deal with the general statements of his speech, let me say just one thing about a point; where he was fairly specific. He was clearly of opinion that any guarantee by this country to France would be worthless unless it were accompanied by a military convention. That is a very remarkable declaration to come from the Prime Minister. Since when has the word of this country been of no value as a means of protecting countries with which it is in alliance, without giving full details of how many squadrons and divisions and fleets were to be at the disposal of those countries? There was no guarantee of that kind in the Treaty with Belgium, but it was a very effective document from that point of view. Is it to be said that when Great Britain says, "We will come to your aid, if you are invaded, with the whole of our forces," that is merely a scrap of paper unless it is accompanied by a schedule of the cavalry and the artillery, and all the means which you are going to place at the disposal of that country?

The right hon. Gentleman says, "Far better trust the League of Nations." Quite, but the Covenant of the League of Nations is a guarantee at the present moment. Is he going to apply that to the guarantee by the League of Nations? Must there be there a schedule of the number of troops, the armies, the divisions, the air squadrons which you are going to place at the disposal of France? If not, why should the guarantee of Britain be worthless while the guarantee of the League of Nations, without any schedule or annex at all, is to be absolutely sound? I think that that is a perfectly indefensible position, and, if I may say so, a very inexplicable one, coming from the Prime Minister. There was one statement that he made with regard to security which I hope I am not misinterpreting. If he indicates that I am, I shall be glad to be corrected. It is very important that it should be corrected, because he used a similar phrase in his letter to M. Poincaré. He said something which, if it meant anything at all, meant demilitarisation. He suggested it in his letter to M. Poincar6—a demilitarised area. It is perfectly true that he says it is a demilitarised area under the League of Nations. I think the House of Commons ought to know what that means. If it simply means what my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley read out to the House—demilitarisation of the left bank of the Rhine, and provisions which will prevent Germany from setting up fortresses or gathering troops on the right bank of the Rhine—what need is there for any further provision? But if it means something more than that, if it means what M. Poincaré means, what Marshal Foch means in this document which was read by my right hon. Friend, when that specific provision was put in and rejected by the Conference, what the right hon. Gentleman is proposing is to alter the terms of the Treaty of Versailles—to make it more harsh.

If it is not to be altered, what is the good of the proposal at all? It is either in the Treaty already or it is not. If it is in the Treaty already, what is the good of all this talk about proposed demilitarisation? On the other hand, if it is not in the Treaty, and the right hon. Gentleman is proposing it, he is proposing an alteration in the Treaty of Versailles to the detriment of Germany, after be has been denouncing it for years for its excessive sternness and severity to Germany. I was hoping that the right hon. Gentleman would take this occasion of the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill—which is the ordinary occasion for the purpose—to make it clear to the House what the policy of the Government is in reference to this question. I think the time has come when we should pass from vague phrases to the point where we know exactly what is meant. I would ask the Prime Minister what he means. There is a vague phrase about demilitarisation. What does he mean? He has not explained. It may mean something which will force a most violent dispute between Germany and the Western Powers. He really ought to explain it to the House before he commits us to that policy. Take the general question of security. I think we are entitled to know exactly where he stands in reference to that proposal. M. Poincaré has never once withheld from the French Parliament a full, clear and explicit statement of his views, whether on security or on reparations. We have not had it. The right hon. Gentleman talks a good deal about the moral gesture which he makes to France. What is the answer of France to that gesture? The Yellow Book—a most portentous document.

No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that the Yellow Book was projected before I came into office.

What difference does that make. [ Interruption. ] I say that, whether it was before the right hon. Gentleman came into office or after, it is a portentous document.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he did not say that the Yellow Book was an answer to our gesture?

Certainly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw !"] Not at all. I am going to make good my statement. What is the Yellow Book? It is not a document which is issued as the result of pressure from the French Parliament.

I will not withdraw. It is a document prepared by the French Government in order to make a case for a specific demand. What is that demand? My right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley has already pointed out what that demand is. The foundation of the document is Marshal Foch's Memorandum. What is still more significant is that later on M. Poincaré gives a document which he himself issued a few months afterwards supporting Marshal Foch. In the French Parliament he made a statement the other day that he was in complete accord with Marshal Foch. What does that mean? It means that at the present moment the French Prime Minister and the French Government are still of opinion that the real frontier of Germany ought to be the Rhine. He has gone beyond that. He has stated most specifically—

The right hon. Gentleman has not said anything unparliamentary to which my attention has been called.

If a Member of this House makes a statement that a certain book which has been published is a reply to something which the Prime Minister has said, and we find afterwards that that book has been published—[HON. MEMBERS: "Projected!"]—has been projected or prepared before this Government came into office, is the right hon. Gentleman who makes that particular statement to be allowed to continue without withdrawing it? [ Interruption. ]

I understand the Prime Minister has to leave for a conference of employers. If that be the case, I shall certainly not regard it as any discourtesy on his part if he is under obligation to do so. I only regret it in so far as I have to make certain necessary references to his speech. I am bound to do so and, so long as he will not complain that I make these in his absence, I shall not complain of the fact that he has had to go. The other day the French Prime Minister made it clear that, in his judgment, the French troops ought to remain in the Rhineland until France had received the whole of the money that is due in respect of reparations. If that be the case, that is practically carrying out the Marshal Foch policy of a permanent occupation of the Rhineland by means of foreign troops. I think we ought to know from the Prime Minister and the Government what their attitude is with regard to that policy. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is your policy!"] No, it is not. [An HON. MEMBER: "You proposed it!"] I neither proposed it nor did I sign a Treaty that contained it.

On a point of Order. Did not the right hon. Gentleman, when he was Prime Minister, inform—

I am not called upon to rule on what the right hon. Gentleman may have said at any time as Prime Minister.

My point of Order is this. The right hon. Gentleman has denied that a certain policy which is being carried out just now by the French is his policy. Is it not the case—

The hon. Member is putting his point, but it is certainly not a point of Order.

The policy which I approved of and sanctioned is incorporated in the Treaty of Versailles, where the occupation of the Rhineland is provided for 5, 10, or 15 years as a maximum. The proposal now is that French troops should remain in the Rhineland until the whole of the conditions of the Treaty shall be liquidated. As a matter of fact, that is a completely new Treaty. It involves practically the permanent occupation of the Rhineland. As far as I can see, there has been no protest from the Government in respect of the declarations which have been made. On the contrary, the only answer the Government have made up to the present is to set up again a military control in Germany, and to propose a new body which is not in- cluded in the least in the Treaty of Versailles, and that is the Committee of Guarantees. I think we ought to know what action the Government are taking in respect of the effort which has been made to carry out Marshal Foch's policy in the Rhineland. The right hon. Gentleman was not very clear upon that subject. What has happened there? In the Palatinate and throughout the Rhineland, separatist movements have been fostered for severing those areas from the German Reich. There is no doubt at all who fostered them. The right hon. Gentleman practically suggested it himself. But beyond that, when an attempt was made by the German police to suppress this insurrection the police were disarmed beforehand by French troops. There is no doubt that the majority of the population of the Rhineland is against these separatist movements—overwhelmingly so. It is a matter of general assent. Even French papers admit that, from the point of view of converting the Rhineland to separation, it has been a failure. Nevertheless the German Reich and Bavaria have been disabled from taking steps to suppress these insurrections by disarming the local police. M. Poincaré in the Chamber the other day said he did it in order to prevent bloodshed. How can you suppress an insurrection without bloodshed? Bloodshed is permitted on the part of the Separatists, but the German people are not permitted to utilise the necessary means for preventing these insurrections from materialising. At present, what is happening? Have the officials who have been expelled in the Palatinate been allowed to return? Is the amnesty an all-round amnesty or simply an amnesty to Separatists. Far more important, what are the decrees which are in operation in the Rhineland? The right hon. Gentleman said his whole duty was to find out whether the decrees were consistent with the security of the Allied troops.

I did not say so. The right hon. Gentleman has again misunderstood what I said. I said the Rhineland Commissioners.

I accept that at once—that the Rhineland Commissioners' duty is only to find out whether these decrees are consistent with the security of the Allied troops. But the right hon. Gentleman has a duty which goes beyond that, and that is to see that the Treaty of Versailles is carried out fairly between the parties. You cannot expect Germany to carry out the Treaty of Versailles unless it is fairly administered as far as the Germans themselves are concerned, and that is not the case at present.

Now I come to the question of reparations. What is the policy of the right hon. Gentleman on the question of reparations? [ Interruption. ] Yes, but how? I am entitled to ask. Up to the present the right hon. Gentleman's public declarations have been declarations of hostility to the whole policy of reparations. Is that still his view? What is the policy of reparations which he is going to administer? I can understand his saying, "I am not going to interfere with the experts." Quite right. I should be the last man in the world to propose that there should be any interference with the Commission of Experts. I had a good deal to do with assisting in getting it appointed. That is so, in spite of all that the right hon. Gentleman may say to the contrary, and he has only to look at the letter of the President of the United States in order to see that. Therefore, I should be the last man in the world to interfere with the Commission of Experts. But the fact of the appointment of the Commission of Experts does not prevent the French Chamber from being told exactly what the policy of their Government is in reference to reparations, and we ought to know exactly what the position of the right hon. Gentleman is. Whilst this Commission is sitting and examining evidence, the position is getting worse every day for us. It is deteriorating. I saw a statement on Sunday in a speech delivered on reparations by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, a Minister in the Department which has responsibility for the administration of this particular business. The Treasury, in conjunction with the Foreign Office, administers the whole policy of reparations. He goes down to Wales and makes a speech on reparations. [An HON. MEMBER: "To enlighten them!"] Yes, but why should not we be enlightened here in the House of Commons? It is very flattering to me as a Welshman to know that a Minister can go down and address a meeting of Welsh miners, in which he conveys to them information which, up to the present, has been withheld from the House of Commons. He makes a speech on reparations in which he lays down one or two principles. One statement he made was that French opinion was in favour of the limitation of the amount of reparations.

Does not the best opinion include the French Prime Minister? Or is the hon. Gentleman simply suggesting that the best opinion means the opinion that agrees with him But a more important declaration is this—and this is the one I want to call attention to, because he is talking now, not about French opinion, but about what he thinks is going to happen to our reparations:

"It was obvious that in the interest of our own trade the total sum was to be limited in character and in the long run probably was to be confined to such raw materials or other services as did not interfere substantially with British commerce."

That, I take it, is the policy of the Government.

The right hon. Gentleman has referred to my speech. In point of fact it is nothing more than a summary of all the discussion on reparations which has taken place, dealing purely with economic aspects, and I made it perfectly clear that I was expressing views which really summarised that discussion and did not in any way anticipate either the experts' report or the policy of the Government.

One really never knows where one is with a Ministerial declaration. We had a very important pronouncement the other day on the revision of the Treaty of Versailles. We were told that was only the individual opinion of a man who was fighting an election. Now, the hon. Gentleman says that this is not the opinion of the Government but simply a little lecture which he was giving to Welsh miners on the subject. It is a very important declaration. What it really means is this, that our reparations are to be confined to the material we get from Germany. That is what the declaration means. It means that there is to be no cash payment. I am sorry to say that there is some indication that that is the policy of the Government. They have already given away £7,000,000 a year.

They have already given away £7,000,000. If the experts find that the amount which is due from Germany or the amount which has been assessed against Germany ought to be reduced, there must be an abatement all-round. If the only way Germany can pay is by means of raw material, the same principle must apply all round. There ought not to be a discrimination against Great Britain in any arrangement that is come to. I say that advisedly, because at the present time the position is deteriorating and growing worse, whilst the Government are waiting for the Report of the experts. They are not taking the necessary steps to safeguard our interests. My right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley called attention to what is going on in the Ruhr at the present moment. It is a very serious state of things. Here, first of all, we are told that France has received three milliards of marks from the Ruhr over and above the cost of occupation. Has that been paid into the account of the Allies? Has Great Britain participated in that? Has any inquiry been made about it? Has it been paid to the account of the Reparation Commission?

Take the further point raised by my right hon. Friend, to which no answer was given by the Prime Minister. These arrangements are made with German industrialists for payment to a purely Franco-Belgian body. The old agreements were temporary, and came to an end in April. It was still within the province of the Government to say, "So long as this occupation is purely a French one, they had better make their arrangements." That is what is going on now. These are agreements made to perpetuate the arrangement between the German industrialists and the French and Belgian Governments, and we are left out of it altogether. More than that—and the "Times" calls attention to it in the very article referred to by my right hon. Friend—these arrangements include German industrialists in the British area. We do not come in. It is an arrangement with the French and Belgian body. It is going on under our very eyes. We are not participating in it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] It is a shame. We are the most heavily taxed country in Europe. [HON. MEMBERS: "As a result of the War!"] Yes, as a result of the War. That is what is going on.

In the recent agreement over the Cologne railways, these railways are only to benefit to the extent of 50 per cent. of the receipts of the traffic originated in the British zone, while the Franco-Belgians, in addition to securing 100 per cent. of the receipts of the traffic outside the British area are to obtain 50 per cent. of the traffic receipts in the British area as well. These are the arrangements which have been made with the German industrialists and the Franco-Belgian body. Arrangements of the same kind exist in the British area with the German industrialists there, while we are ruled out. In our own area we are only getting 50 per cent. of the traffic receipts and the other 50 per cent. is commandeered by the Franco-Belgian body. Who is looking after British interests? I would ask the Financial Secretary what steps we propose to take in order to see that British interests are protected and safeguarded. It is not enough to have mere general statements that the matter will be considered by the experts, and that if Germany accepts it certain things will be done and that if Germany is sulky things will be very unpleasant. What is the policy of the Government in regard to it?

The French have made it quite clear what their policy is. They have stated it over and over again. There was a very fine summary of it in the "Manchester Guardian" the other day, pointing out that the French Press, which is often much more inspired than ours, as far as official inspiration is concerned—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about your own days?"]—it was very disappointing then; I wish it had been very much better; I envied the French papers even in those days—what do they say? They say, "Britain is complaining that the unsettlement of Central Europe is interfering with her trade and that it is due to the occupation of the Ruhr. We are willing to be bought out." We are being held up. The point which the Government will have to decide, sooner or later, is whether they are going to subordinate British claims to the claims of anybody else. The French public have great ideas of loans to be negotiated here and in America. What for? In order to pay off France and Belgium. Then they will relax their hold on the Ruhr. What is the policy of the Government in regard to that?

The Prime Minister talked about a conference. I hope there will be a conference. I am not one of those who sneer at conferences. I am looking forward to the time when hon. Gentlemen on this side above the Gangway will say, "Conference, thank God! Let's have another!" They live from conference to conference. I am all for having a conference. Let them discuss this matter face to face, but unless they make clear before they go into that conference what the view of Great Britain is, they will go there at a great disadvantage. The French are allowed to believe that their claim is to be treated as a prior claim, the Belgians that their claim is to be treated as a prior claim, and we are to come in and buy them out with British finance. Unless it is made clear that we insist upon having fair and equal treatment, that is what will happen. The French when they go inside the conference will say, "Why did not you say this to us before? It is unfair to France." It is unfair to the British public, and I hope that the Prime Minister will take an early occasion to make clear to the House of Commons what his policy is. Up to the present it only stands upon his public declarations, which are hostile to the whole policy of reparation. Is that the policy he is going to carry out? [ Interruption. ] There are endless interruptions, but never an interruption which I should like to have to tell us whether that is the policy of the Prime Minister. I earnestly hope that the Prime Minister will tell us.

I am very glad about the improved relations with France. [HON. MEMBERS: "Are you?"] Certainly. We have had these improved relations before. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] Many a time. There was never a Conference which was not followed by an announcement of the improved relations between France and Great Britain. If anyone will take the trouble to read the French Yellow Book he will see that M. Poincaré refers to one interview at Boulogne and points to the improved relations between the two countries. In a very short time there was the difficulty in regard to Genoa. Nobody knows better than my right hon. Friend the late Prime Minister what happened. His party fought an election on the improved relations with France. When they came in, I remember the early raptures of those days, the cordiality, the delight at having got rid of me, the pestilential fellow who stood up for British interests. In less than two months there were proposals put forward which absolutely shattered the Entente. The French people, in spite of the fact that they may be temperamental, are pretty hard when you come to business. There is no people on earth who give away less for sentiment. [ Interruption. ] Well, there is Scotland, but France would beat either of us and both of us in that respect. The time must come when the Government must tell us what they mean. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Why should not they? The French are entitled to know what we mean. The British people are entitled to know what we mean, and I should not be a bit surprised if the Prime Minister would like to know himself what we mean.

6.0 P.M.

I hope that neither the Prime Minister nor anybody on the Treasury Bench will attempt to answer all the questions put to him by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). It is very easy to demand declarations of policy. In foreign policy it is very easy to put a whole series of questions as to what you are going to do in the future, but it is much more difficult to answer those questions without causing very serious difficulties in diplomatic negotiations, and it would be very unwise for the Foreign Secretary, who is the Prime Minister, or the Under-Secretary, to make any reply as to what is the British policy on reparations at this moment until the experts have reported. I think that it would be very unwise for us to do anything in this House at this moment to make the negotiations which must lead up to a conference more difficult. If I may say so, I think that a great mistake which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs made again and again was that he attended conferences himself, and negotiated on this, that and the other subject, without adequate diplomatic negotiations behind the scenes.

I have never believed, as the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs once believed, that you can conduct foreign affairs on the house top or even in the House of Commons. The methods of foreign policy of the union of democratic control are, I am glad to say, not being followed by the present Government and the present Prime Minister, I am glad to see, is returning to the old diplomacy and the old methods of conducting foreign affairs, because unless, before you have an international conference, you have negotiations with foreign countries on all the questions that are to be dealt with at that conference, and you know not only of these attitudes that you are going to take up on behalf of this country, but have a pretty good idea of what attitude is going to be taken up by other countries, you will never achieve results by conference, and however much we may talk about changing the diplomatic methods and diplomacy by conference those methods are not understood by the foreign statesmen and the foreign offices of the Continental countries of Europe. I am sure that you will get much further towards an agreement on the policy of reparations, on security and on limitation of armaments, not only with France, but any other country if you will deal with the Ambassadors of the two countries and through diplomacy, and, when you are speaking of foreign affairs, you announce the result of your negotiations and the results of your conference rather than make speeches which always must be in the nature of vague generalities as to what you are going to do or hope to do in the future.

I would much rather that the Prime Minister this afternoon had said nothing about Jubaland, but had come to this House, when he had concluded his present Jubaland negotiations—everybody knows that they have been going on—and had definitely announced what the result was. I am certain that if you say that we are going once again to take up the question of Jubaland or the question of the Dodecaneses and negotiate anew, you will only have it telegraphed to all the Italian papers, and you will have all kinds of suggestions made that new elements are going to be brought in, and that all kinds of old factors are going to be considered, which are going to give an opportunity for Italy or for us to raise something else. It is better to carry out your negotiations by the old approved diplomatic method, and then come down and stand on your responsibility before the House of Commons and stand the racket.

Another part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman which I thought singularly mischievous was the part in which he referred to the Palatinate. There were very difficult negotiations, and they were continuing just at the moment when the late Government fell and the new Government came into office. I happened to be in Paris at that time, during the Recess, and I know how difficult those negotiations were, and I do think that the results achieved by diplomatic representations by this country were very remarkable, and that both the late Government and the present Government deserve congratulations on what has been achieved in regard to the Palatinate. I think that it is unfortunate that the lamentable events in the Palatinate should be raked up again, now when the matter for the time being, at any rate, had been disposed of satisfactorily. But I rose more particularly to deal with two points. The first is in regard to the Saar, and the second is in regard to the conference, which was alluded to somewhat vaguely by the Prime Minister, in regard to the reduction of armaments.

First, in regard to the Saar. Last Friday the Prime Minister seemed to be in a state of some indignation on the subject of what he called undisclosed commitments by the late Government in regard to the Saar. I agree with him that the particular article in the "Times" did require an answer, and that Lord Parmoor was entitled to defence against what was written in that article. But the suggestion of the Prime Minister was that the late Government at the last meeting of the Council had committed this country to a particular appointment which the present Prime Minister would not have made, a fact of which the British representative at the Council meeting in Geneva was ignorant. There was no reason why Lord Parmoor before he went to Geneva, when he was going to raise the question of the Saar which he knew was on the agenda, should not have known what Lord Cecil had agreed to, not only with the French representative, but also with Mr. Branting, in regard to the Saar, and the criticism I make of the whole of this incident is that there is not yet, as I agree there has not been in the past, adequate co-ordination between the work of the British representative on the Council of the League and the Foreign Office. That is the conclusion to be drawn from this incident. This agreement was more than a verbal agreement. It was a signed agreement, and copies of that signed agreement were in the possession of the Foreign Office. The Prime Minister admitted that this afternoon, and none of the incidents that took place at Geneva—the apparent surprise of Lord Parmoor at the article attacking him, and the subsequent explanation which has taken place in this House— need have happened if there had been proper co-ordination of the League of Nations work in the Foreign Office.

The last and most important part of the Prime Minister's speech, I think, was somewhat premature, because he only showed that he had not really thought the matter out beyond the immediate diplomatic and foreign situation into the region of the future. In the early days of his appointment as Prime Minister, and again in the Debate in reference to the speech of the Home Secretary at Burnley, he emphasised the necessity of not speaking in foreign affairs about the distant future and the necessity of keeping himself to the immediate situation in from of him, and I am very sorry that he went so far this afternoon in regard to the methods which he has in his mind for dealing with the big questions which I admit can only follow the settlement of the reparations question. I am sure that he is right in saying that the settlement of the reparations question must come first. You cannot begin to deal with the question of security until the reparations situation is cleared, and you cannot get on to the question of the reduction of world armaments until you have dealt with the question of security. That is the order in which the right hon. Gentleman placed them this afternoon, and perfectly correctly.

In regard to security and reduction of armaments, he said that he was considering whether the matter would be the subject of a special conference to be summoned by the United States, France, Italy and Great Britain. It has been pretty clear from several answers to questions which the Prime Minister and the Under-Secretary have given in the House during the last few weeks that something of that sort has been in their minds, and that they are not going to endeavour to work the question of security and the reduction of armament through the ordinary machinery of the League of Nations, but seek an ad hoc conference. I think that that is wrong. I believe that you stand a much better chance of getting general co-operation, and even the co-operation eventually of the United States of America, if you proceed by means of constitutional machinery, namely, the Council and Assembly of the League of Nations with its subsidiary Commissions, the Permanent Armaments Commission and the like. I do not believe that you will get any greater success from an ad hoc conference, even if it is summoned by the United States of America, France, Italy and ourselves, than by taking, not as in any way final, the draft Treaty of mutual assistance prepared and sent out by the Assembly of the League for the consideration of Governments, taking that as your basis, considering that, making the necessary amendments—I am the first to admit that many amendments will be required—and making that the basis of your international negotiations.

I do not believe that you will get a world consideration of the limitation of armaments until Europe is prepared to help itself first. An essential feature of the League of Nations scheme, to which I certainly attach immense importance, is for a consideration of European military and naval armaments in connection with European security. The two go absolutely together. I do not believe that by this big world conference you will get what you could achieve more particularly from some of the on-the-map small Powers, but, in fact, very great military Powers, such as Serbia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Rumania, and such countries. If you build on the draft Treaty of mutual assistance prepared by the machinery of the League of Nations, and build on that method, you will get further in the direction of security and of a reduction of armaments than you will by your big conference. I hope that the Government will not look at that draft Treaty merely from the technical point of view. I know that they have referred it to the Committee of Imperial Defence; they have referred it to the military, naval and air experts.

The essential thing is to consider this diplomatic position in relation to Europe. After all, this draft Treaty is the result of the most careful negotiations with representatives of the French Government. The general criticism of this draft Treaty is that it gives too much to France, that in its present form it is too much a French Treaty. But as France is the great military and air power of Europe, if you are going along the road towards achievement of an all-round settlement for security and reduction of armaments in Europe, surely the method along which it would appear that the greatest military and air power in Europe seems prepared to travel is more likely to result in solid achievement than resorting to something new on your own account. That is my firm belief. The side-tracking of that Treaty by this country would be disastrous. Nobody wants to say that it is perfect in its present form, and it obviously calls for a great deal of detailed consideration. I quite agree that it is impossible to formulate any plan for European security and reduction of armaments until the definite economic situation between France and Germany, I will not say is finally cleared up, but at any rate has got to a very much further stage than it has reached so far.

The speech of the Prime Minister this afternoon ought to bring home to hon. Members opposite what a slow process this question of disarmament or reduction of armaments is bound to be. Everybody wishes that it could be speeded up. No one wants the terrific and crushing burden of taxation. But you cannot do it without security. Until that problem of European security is on a better basis, I am sure that you will not get it from countries abroad. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) need not be impatient.

The Liberal Benches have had it all their own way this afternoon. In a speech on foreign affairs one has to be particularly careful. I want to avoid using language which the hon. Member's Deputy-Leader sometimes indulges in. In intervening in this Debate I am most anxious that my main object should be to urge that the Prime Minister or the Under-Secretary, in replying to the points raised, should not feel compelled to make vague and general declarations of future policy, but should limit themselves strictly to the immediate steps, if any, that are contemplated, and more particularly should limit themselves to the immediate question of their attitude to the reparation question, in view of the expected early publication of the experts' report.

As a new Member of the House I listened with considerable astonishment to the speech this afternoon of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). A new Member looks for models to such experienced Members of the House as the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs and the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith). Yet we had the spectacle to-day of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs making a statement against the Prime Minister, a statement about which he was clearly mistaken, a statement that he ought to have withdrawn, but which he refused to withdraw, in spite of the fact that he entirely failed to justify his right to make the statement at all. It is not the sort of thing that sets an example to new Members of the House, who naturally look to the older Members to be models of the way in which Members of the House should conduct themselves. The right hon. Gentleman addressed a series of questions to the Prime Minister about his policy. He asked what was the Prime Minister's policy upon reparation, apparently forgetful of the fact that time after time, when he himself was responsible for the Government of this country, he entirely failed to make clear what was his particular policy upon this issue.

I suggest that much of the trouble from which we are suffering now is due to the fact that we embarked in the first place upon this policy of reparation because of the absolute uncertainty as to the policy of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, and because of the fact that he had no clear line to follow upon this issue. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not in his place. I could have reminded him of that famous speech delivered by him before the 1918 election. I quite admit that in that speech he did not promise definitely that he would collect from Germany £24,000,000,000, but he did at least, by a very clever statement of his case, create the impression to his great audience in Bristol, and ultimately to the country, that in some way or other £24,000,000,000 was to be collected by the Allies from Germany. I know that he very carefully qualified his statement by references to Committees which he had consulted upon the matter. For example, he referred to a Special Committee of financial experts who, he was careful to explain, were not the ordinary financiers, who usually are not experts at all. He got from them, so he said, the impression of great sums that could be collected from Germany. He went on still further in that speech to state that, after the evidence of a special Committee appointed by the Imperial War Cabinet, he believed it was possible to put to the Germans a demand for the payment of the whole of the costs of the War, and then he said that on the evidence given to him by the various Committees he believed it would be possible to recover this cost. I suggest that it is to that point, to that beginning of the mad race to collect reparation from the Germans, that we can trace most of our trouble to-day. I never discover, when I either read the right hon. Gentleman's speeches or hear him, that he has made up his mind to adopt a different course from that which he then encouraged us to pursue.

May I say a word here about the responsibility of the right hon. Member for Paisley with regard to this matter? After the speech of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs had been delivered at the Colston Hall, Bristol, the right hon. Member for Paisley was asked what was his view with regard to the payment of reparation, and he replied to a soldier who put a question to him at a village meeting in his constituency that he had read the speech of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (who was then Prime Minister) and he entirely agreed with what had been said upon the matter. In those days of 1918 both the present leaders of the Liberal party were committed to a policy—

I am quite willing, as the Prime Minister once said, in a matter in which the hon. Member for Penistone and myself were concerned, to admit that the members of my own party on certain occasions are not above making mistakes, and some members of my own party did make a mistake in this instance. They made the mistake of listening to the persuasive voices of the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Paisley and Carnarvon Boroughs, but I hope they have sufficiently learnt their lesson, never to make a mistake of that kind again. What I am emphasising just now is that the right hon. Gentlemen to whom I refer cannot complain even against the policy which the French are now pursuing in the Ruhr. I heard the right hon. Member for Paisley to-night quoting a document to the effect that the occupied territory of the Ruhr had come to be looked upon as a sort of special reparations preserve. May I remind the House that on 5th May, 1921, when this question was being discussed, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, speaking as Prime Minister, informed this House that failing payments up to the standard enforced against Germany, a scheme was to be put in operation at once by which after 12th May, 1921, the Valley of the Ruhr was to be invaded and taken possession of by military forces. On that occasion the right hon. Member for Paisley uttered no strong word of protest.

Again I say that I am perfectly willing to admit that mistakes have been made. Where mistakes have been made they should be frankly admitted, but the fact that mistakes have been made by the right hon. Gentlemen who lead the hon. Members below the Gangway, should prevent them from putting such questions as they have been putting to the Prime Minister and making such complaints against the Prime Minister as they have been endeavouring to make on this occasion. That argument of course applies all round, but hon. Members below the Gangway should press their own leaders to be frank upon these issues. I pass from the question of the responsibility of the right hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway in this matter to the other points to which the Prime Minister referred. I am in hearty agreement with what I regard as the fine stand the Prime Minister has taken on the question of security and the general question of the development of the League of Nations. I agree entirely that time has been wasted—partly by hon. Members below the Gangway—in discussing treaties of mutual guarantee and of mutual assistance, implying general pacts and implying in the long run military and naval guarantees. I agree that is not the method of approach to a satisfactory solution of these problems. The Prime Minister insists that the way out is to be found by the creation of a League of Nations which does not base its power upon military sanctions, but rather upon machinery so created as to express world opinion upon the issues and general problems confronting us. I believe that in that way and in that way alone, can any real advance be made in the settlement of international problems. I would remind the House of the position in which the League of Nations now finds itself. With regard to quarrels between small nations, where perhaps the danger in a military and naval sense is not acute, it is possible for the League to take a strong line and to lay down certain definite principles. But when it comes to a dispute in which a powerful nation is involved—for example, such a dispute as that which arose in connection with the bombardment of Corfu—you cannot, you dare not—the League of Nations dare not—take such action by force of arms as would compel a nation like Italy to adopt a particular line of policy. That sort of thing is making the League of Nations a laughing-stock in the eyes of the world. It is only able to enter into disputes where little nations are concerned, and where great nations are responsible for great crimes, such as Corfu, such as the Ruhr at the present moment, the League of Nations feels itself unable to step in and take any action.

It has not the power, and if it had the power—the military and naval power—it would hesitate as much as it does now in such cases as that which was presented by Corfu, and that which is now presented by the occupation of the Ruhr.

May I point out something which the hon. Member apparently does not know. It was entirely on the intervention of the League of Nations that the question of Corfu was referred to the Ambassadors' Conference.

I fail to appreciate that point of view. The Ambassadors' Conference pretty well disregarded the League of Nations. On the whole, the League of Nations was largely disregarded on that occasion, as it is now being disregarded in connection with the Ruhr difficulty. I agree with the Prime Minister in emphasising the point that what is wanted is a League not based upon military force but rather upon democratic machinery capable of expressing the rights and wrongs of the big issues which confront us. In that way we should make a much better advance, even with difficult problems like that of the Ruhr. The trouble with the French at the present time is that they find it very difficult to know exactly what is the world opinion of their attitude in the Ruhr. If they read the columns of the "Daily Mail" which circulates in Paris, they get an impression of British opinion, or if they read the columns of the "Chicago Tribune" and the "New York Herald," which circulate in Paris, they get an impression of United States opinion, by no means representative of that opinion which is in the best interests of the world. If we had at the present moment a League of Nations constituted as a world Parliament, in which decisions could be taken upon issues of this sort, the mere fact that a promulgation of those decisions had been made, that they be known by the French or the Italians, or whoever the recalcitrant nation might be, would do far more in the settlement of these problems than any machinery we have been able to develop hitherto. It is because I find the Prime Minister working in the direction of that policy that I support him wholeheartedly in the international work which he is carrying through, and he ought to receive in that work the support of all parties in the House.

I wish to put to the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs a question, which I was unfortunately unable to put to the Prime Minister himself, in reference to the right hon. Gentleman's statement regarding Jubaland and the Dodecanese. I gathered from the Prime Minister's statement that greater and greater concessions had been offered from time to time to get what he called a general settlement, but that no such settlement had yet been arrived at. I also understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that it was proposed to give up this idea of a general settlement, and to come to an individual settlement with Italy over the Jubaland question. This is a most important question, and I wish to ask if, in this individual settlement proposed by the Prime Minister, he intends to go back to the original offer made to Italy under the Treaty of London. The question in volved then was simply a question of the rectification of the Jubaland frontier. If the Prime Minister abandons the idea of a general settlement, is he going back to the original offer of the rectification of the Jubaland frontier under the Treaty of London, and will he in the terms of that settlement provide for whatever compensation is necessary to the firms in that part of the Jubaland area which is going to be handed over to Italy?

No one on this bench has yet taken part in the Debate, and it was not our intention to do so. We felt this was a discussion between hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway and the Government. At the same time, in view of the speeches of the Prime Minister and of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), it is well that someone on this bench should make one or two short observations. The first observation I desire to make is that so far as my own opinion is concerned, I cannot help thinking this Debate will not be of great assistance to the Prime Minister when he enters into negotiations on the question of reparations in the near future. We listened entranced and amused to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. I could not help wondering, while the right hon. Gentleman was making that speech, whether his hon. Friends behind him agreed with that John Bull attitude which he took up with reference to exacting the last penny of reparations. Apart from that, I could not help thinking that a good deal of what he said, particularly at the end of his speech, must prove embarrassing to the negotiations, the success of which we all desire, upon whatever side of the House we may sit—negotiations which are bound to be opened in the very near future.

Then there was the speech of the Prime Minister. There again it seemed to me that, at any rate, some of his statements would have been much better left unsaid upon the eve of a very difficult discussion. For instance, he said that reparations must come first and security must come second. I have always taken the opposite view. I have always thought that security should come first and that the question of reparations is subsidiary to the question of security. But whether I am right or whether the Prime Minister is right, I should have thought it would have been much wiser not to have bound oneself down to a statement of that kind and that there was everything to be said for going into a Conference with entirely free hands. Then there were the observations of the Prime Minister with reference to security, and I must say that I regretted the fact that he ruled out of court altogether the idea of any pact upon the lines of the triple Anglo-American-French pact of 1919. A pact of that kind may not be ideal. At the same time, when it was made each of the three parties concerned regarded it as a very real and substantial guarantee of peace, even though neither the United States nor ourselves added to it any specific military agreements drawn up by our respective general staffs. I cannot see why a guarantee of that kind, that at the end of the War was considered of very real value, should be brushed aside now by the Prime Minister as absolutely useless and inconceivable. There, again, I should have kept my hands absolutely free. So far as a pact of that kind goes, there are many of us, certainly on this side of the House and, I believe, on other sides of the House as well, who regard the pact of 1919 as imposing a very real obligation upon this country. It was a guarantee that we were prepared to give then, and although the guarantee may not be able to be carried out in exactly the same form as it was at that time, I think this country would be ready to give sub- stantially the same amount of guarantee, whether in that form or in some other form, and I believe that when the Blue Book is published setting out our side of these security negotiations, it will be found that we were prepared to go a very long way and to implement in spirit, if not in detail, the guarantee that, owing to the non-entry of the United States, we were unable to carry through in 1919. In any case, I think it is a great pity that the Prime Minister should have excluded that line of advance altogether.

There was another subject with which he dealt, namely, the question of disarmament, a question that interests all of us equally. There, again, how much better it would have been if he had said either more or less. As it was, he threw out a vague conception of an international conference of some kind, to be summoned when the question of reparations had been satisfactorily dealt with. Is that simply a vague aspiration, or have the Government something definite in their minds? If they have something definite in their minds, it is much better that we should know what it is. From what the Prime Minister said, I gathered that he contemplated an international conference being summoned by two or three of the great Allied Powers. If that be the case, I suggest that it is a retrograde method for summoning a conference of that kind. It is ruling out the League of Nations. I should have been inclined to think that it was better to proceed either by more restricted negotiations between one or two Powers or, if you wish to proceed upon the general line, to make use of the League of Nations as the framework in which this discussion of disarmament shall take place. When the Under-Secretary of State comes to reply, I hope he will be able to give us some more definite details in that respect. Is this conference to be summoned, as was suggested by the Prime Minister, by two or three of the great Powers, or is it to be an integral part of the work of the League of Nations and summoned under the auspices of the League?

Then there was the question briefly touched upon by the Prime Minister, and afterwards discussed in greater detail in a very interesting speech by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): Is this international conference going to rule out the investigations that have been taking place for some time on the lines of a mutual guarantee treaty—

created by the League, discussed by them at the Assembly of the League and in various committees of the League during the last 18 months, considered at great length by the last Government, and no doubt being considered by this Government as well? Are we to understand that the Government intend to brush aside the idea of a treaty of mutual guarantee, just as they have brushed aside the idea of an Anglo-French pact, and that they are going to proceed quite definitely upon the lines of an International Disarmament Conference summoned by two or three of the Great Powers? I wish to put those three questions, none of them raised by hon. Members from this side, but raised by the Prime Minister himself. If it had not been for that fact, we should not have attempted to force his hands, but as they have been raised by him, let us know exactly what he means. I hope I have made myself clear. Have the Government a definite method of procedure in their minds, and, if so, what is it?

Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will allow me to be so presumptuous as to suggest that in these disarmament negotiations it seems to me that we shall be on much stronger ground if we talk a little less about disarmament. During the recent Debates that we have had upon the Service Estimates, Minister after Minister has got up, has apologised for the national defences of the country, and has said time after time how absolutely essential it is to have disarmament. We all agree with the urgent need for the reduction of armaments and for disarmament, but I do suggest that, in any conference, our hands will be much stronger if we talk a little bit less about the extreme necessity of cutting down the expenditure upon national defences, and if we go on quietly preparing the ground for the conference, if we have a definite programme in view, if the ground of the conference is previously prepared, and if we do not go into it, as apparently the Prime Minister is going into the conference with reference to reparations, with our hands tied at every turn and with certain lines of advance definitely ruled out.

I understand that another topic is shortly to be discussed—

I venture to intervene at this juncture. As the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) said, one has to use very careful language in speaking about foreign affairs. If that is so for a Cabinet Minister and for a Foreign Minister, it is all the more so for an Under-Secretary, who is supposed generally to adopt a placid air of enlightened ignorance, and it is a very difficult thing to keep up, but I have been asked some specific questions, and I will do my best to answer them. First of all, I should like to make two definite corrections in case misunderstanding may arise from one or two of the remarks which fell from the Prime Minister. He was asked who paid for the French troops in the Saar, and I rather think he said that the German Government paid. That is not so. The French troops in the Saar are paid for by the French Government, and it is well to make that clear lest it should lead to any misunderstanding. The other point I should like to correct was referred to by the hon. Member for Stafford when he referred to Lord Parmoor not having known the decision in regard to the Saar representative before he went to Geneva. I prompted the Prime Minister wrongly when he said that Lord Parmoor did not know. As a matter of fact, Lord Parmoor was fully informed at the Foreign Office before he went to Geneva. On that point, all that need be said is that the decision was made before Lord Parmoor came into his office, and therefore, whether it was a right decision or a wrong decision, it was obviously not one for which Lord Parmoor was responsible, or for which Lord Parmoor must be blamed.

7.0 P.M.

The right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) very rightly referred to the speech of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd-George) as an extremely embarrassing speech. Whatever other people may think when they speak on foreign affairs, that right hon. Gentleman never seems to think it necessary to select his words carefully. The right hon. Member for Chelsea regretted that the Prime Minister had spoken as freely as he did, and he said that he was sorry that the Prime Minister had ruled out the idea of a pact such as that which was proposed in 1919. This also was referred to by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, and he said that when the Prime Minister regarded a pact such as that as necessarily implying some exchange of views and some guarantee with regard to armaments, and then went on to ask if the same reflection could not be brought against the League of Nations, he really seemed to be misunderstanding the function of the League of Nations altogether. Surely the function of the League of Nations is to be comprehensive, and it will be entirely comprehensive when by common consent and world opinion it gives a guarantee which is far stronger than any that can be given by armies. To return to the idea of making special pacts and special alliances, I should have thought, the history of the past would have taught was futile. It has always engendered jealousies and suspicions and brought about a division of Europe and the world into hostile camps. That system I think must be abandoned for all time. It is not the policy of His Majesty's present advisers to fall back on a method which has proved itself so disastrous in the past. The right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) asked me some very specific questions with regard to the disarmament conference and how it can be brought about. It is quite obvious that in the subordinate position in which I am I cannot possibly reply to those questions. I cannot possibly say what steps will be taken in the future in a world which is so full of uncertainty, and when month by month we cannot tell what may happen. I therefore cannot foreshadow what the Government may consider the best steps to take in the next six months or year.

Are we to understand that the Prime Minister had nothing definite in his mind when he talked about an International Disarmament Conference to be summoned by two or three of the great Powers?

I am only speaking with a knowledge of what the Prime Minister said. I suppose any disarmament conference must be brought about by an invitation from somewhere.

It may come from that body, and that might be a better way of doing it. It is not reasonable to suggest that I should lay down to-night the lines by which such a conference might be brought about. It is sufficient to know that the Government has such a conference in view. The question of how it is to be called does not seem to matter very much. It has yet to be settled. But that we should have such a conference in contemplation at all differentiates the policy of the present Government from that of former Governments.

I must contradict the Under-Secretary of State. We definitely made the announcement last year when we embarked on the increase of the Air Force that in dealing with that we certainly contemplated the possibility of an International Disarmament Conference.

I am very glad to be reminded of that, because we know we can count on the full support of hon. Gentlemen opposite on the question of such a conference. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said in regard to disarmament, because although I regard myself as an unrepentant pacifist I have always thought the right way to proceed was not to take the gun out of the man's hand but to get rid of the motive which made him want to use that gun. The Government has shown its intention of proceeding along those lines. In regard to the specific question of the hon. and gallant Member for Melton (Sir C. Yate), I think he did not quite understand what the Prime Minister said about the Dodecanese and Jubaland. The Prime Minister said these offers in Jubaland had been made before the present Government took office, and that the question of Jubaland had previously been dealt with in conjunction with that of the Dodecanese, and that it was now suggested that instead of approaching the question as a whole you should detach the question of Jubaland and deal separately with the Dodecanese. We are awaiting a reply from the Italian Government as to the lines on which they will act, and it rests with the Italian Government to inform us exactly how they wish to proceed in these negotiations.

The question I asked was that if the question of the Dodecanese was given up we should go back to the original offer under the Treaty and also give compensation to those who are displaced.

I am glad to be informed of the hon. and gallant Member's opinion on that question, but I cannot give any assurance at the present moment in regard to that. The hon. Member for Stafford rather twitted me with having wanted to negotiate on the housetops. I have never suggested that negotiations ought to be conducted in the open, but I do say that decisions ought always to be brought before Parliament.

The Government has taken steps to adopt that course, and I hope in a very short time that the hon. Member will hear from these benches some statement on that point. The League of Nations has been referred to. It is perfectly true that the League has not got the confidence and power which it should have. Supporters of the League of Nations too often confine themselves to singing its praises only and do not make any efforts to uphold it. In regard to Corfu, although the Conference of Ambassadors acted apart from the League of Nations, this idea of a League of Nations has brought into Europe an international sentiment, an international mind, an international method which I hope will grow stronger and stronger and have increasing authority with the nations. We are glad to think that in recent meetings of the Council of the League better results have been obtained than at any previous meetings of that body. With regard to the speech of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), it really was a most regrettable performance. The paragraphs that have appeared in the Press with regard to the absence of leadership of the Liberal party have had an immediate effect. We have had both of them here to-day for a short period. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs declared that he was in a fog and that he was unable to understand the Prime Minister's speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "So are we all."] I very much regret that he did not take the correction which was made by the Prime Minister with regard to the issue of the French Yellow Book. He distinctly said that the Yellow Book had been issued as a reply to the Prime Minister's policy and when the correction was made he did not accept it.

What the right hon. Gentleman said was, "That book is the answer," meaning that the answer to that is contained in the book.

I am not at all sure that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs would be satisfied with that explanation. However, we will leave it at that. I am sorry to have to refer to the right hon. Member in his absence, but I am replying at the usual time, and his speech is far too important to pass over without comment. He pretended that he could not understand what the Prime Minister's policy was. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is it?" He complained that he could not follow what was a perfectly clear statement made by the Prime Minister. He led us into a wrangle with regard to reparations. This is obviously—and I think the hon. Member for Stafford emphasised this point—not a moment to enter into a wrangle about reparations when we are within a few days of the issue of the Report of the Expert Committee. Although the Government has only been in power for seven or eight weeks, I do not believe there is anybody on the Continent of Europe who would not admit that there has been a very considerable change in the atmosphere and an improvement in the relations of Europe during this period. The former policy of pinpricks, of taking up little points here and there, and of raising all kinds of discussions, has been abandoned. There is no question of asking any nation to retire, or to repent, or to retreat, or to retract anything, but only of asking them to advance with us into a different position. The verdict of Europe as a whole would certainly be most emphatically to declare that the change from the policy of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs to that of the present Prime Minister is as a change from night to day. There was an interval of twilight when hon. Members opposite had a short spell of office. There is no doubt the dawn is coming. The support that has been given to the Prime Minister for his policy, both in this country and Europe, gives us very great hope for the future.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the statements made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury are the policy of the Government?

When the Financial Secretary to the Treasury speaks he will himself explain exactly.

I want to refer to a little incident that happened while the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was addressing the House. He was making reference to the Occupation of the Rhineland by the French, and I interrupted him to say that that had been his policy, and that he had said he had handed the document to the German Ambassador. He denied that that had been his policy, or that he had given such a document to the German Ambassador. I desire to address the Front Bench below the Gangway, and I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not in his place. I gave a sufficient intimation that I intended to raise the matter, and I, therefore, gave him the opportunity that each Member of this House, from old custom, gives any other Member when he intends raising a question in which that other Member is concerned. I intend to read to the House a quotation from the OFFICIAL REPORT of 5th of May of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, who was then Prime Minister. This is not a quotation from any document, but the word of the right hon. Gentleman. He says:

"This is the document—and I think I may read it to the Committee—which I handed this morning, on behalf of the Supreme Council, to Mr. Sthamer"—

who was at that time German representative here in London. The other part of the document, which was the part of the document which was handed to the German representative, contains certainly very specific statements as to what the Supreme Council required, or did require, the German Government to do in regard to the Peace Treaty. It says:

"( c ) To call upon the German Government categorically to declare within a period of six days from the receipt of the above decision its resolve (1) to carry out without reserve or condition their obligations defined by the Reparation Commission."

The final clause is Clause ( d ) which states:

"Failing the fulfilment by the German Government of the above conditions by 12th May"—

that is seven days later than this statement in the House of Commons—"

to proceed"—

not merely one power, but the Allies—

"to proceed to the occupation of the Valley of the Ruhr and to take all other naval and military measures that may be required."

I emphasise naval because the hon. Member opposite seemed to think that that was not in the document.

I quite agree, but I am reading the text of the document, and if the wording is wrong it is for the right hon. Gentleman who handed it to the German representative to put it right:

"Such occupation will continue so long as Germany fails to comply with the conditions summarised in paragraph ( c )."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1921; cols. 1288–1289–1290, Vol. 141.]

The occupation by the French is based upon this: The Supreme Council gave the French Government the right to occupy the Ruhr. It may be that I will be told that this is a different policy altogether. I quite understand that! This year the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway has a different leader; consequently he has a different policy.

It is of a different quality. Right hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway seem to think that their policy is the only one. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is yours?"] If I am allowed to define my policy I am quite sure I shall be able to win over the constituents that the hon. Gentleman who interrupts represents. I rose with the object of making myself perfectly clear, of putting myself in order with Members of the House for having interrupted the right hon. Gentle- man after being challenged in regard to the interruption I made. After reading what I have to the House, and the right hon. Gentleman's own statement, I think I may say I was justified in that interruption. It also justifies me in maintaining the statement that I then made.

In conclusion, I just want to say that the right hon. Gentlemen who are now leading the Liberal party are greatly concerned about the attitude that is going to be taken up by the Labour Ministry in regard to reparation, and, indeed, to the whole conduct of this nation in German affairs. It seems to me to be rather remarkable that the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway are now so gravely concerned, when for four years they were behind the great man who won the War, and was going to put Germany in order, and was going to bring about all that was necessary. I can remember the right hon. Gentleman standing at that Box when he came back with the Treaty, and when he told the House of Commons all that was going to be derived by this country from that Treaty, how everything was to be flowing upon us almost immediately. He told us of the effect of the Treaty once it was ratified, how they were going to bring to trial the great War criminal, how they were going to have the Kaiser tried in London—in London! Now the right hon. Gentleman, with four years of broken promises—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Capital Levy?"] That has nothing to do with this particular question, but I may inform the hon. Gentleman who has interrupted that it was a member of his own party who first proposed the Capital Levy to this House and the then leaders of the Liberal party walked into the Lobby and voted for it.

I am quite sure the hon. Member is not concerned with cruisers in the constituency he represents. He is more concerned with the visits of the Members from the Clyde who visit his constituency and make speeches there. I say, therefore, in regard to the policy taken up by the right hon. Gentleman and his party it seems to me that if they were occupying the position that is now taken up by the Labour Ministry they would change once again their whole view.

The right hon. Gentleman who has been making such an attack upon the Prime Minister has himself a record of the greatest and most colossal failure that ever this country witnessed as regards work done, or attempted by any Prime Minister. He was sent into this House with the greatest majority of the last 50 years. He was given almost autocratic powers by that majority. He came back upon a programme which, if carried into effect, would have made this country one of the greatest and brightest in the whole universe. He has failed disastrously and brought ruin, misery, despair, and sorrow into thousands of homes. He comes to this House to-night to taunt the Prime Minister, who has been in office only eight weeks, who has not a majority behind him in this House, with being unable to do things that he with a majority of over 100 did not or could not put into operation? I submit that a right hon. Member of this House who comes with that record, that record of things promised and things left undone, has no right to stand here and accuse others who have not had the opportunity, and expect them to do that which he thinks ought to have been done in the short time they have been in office.

Ex-Service Men

We have devoted some three and half hours to discussing the political situation which has been created as the result of the War. I want, if I may, to draw the attention of the House to a remarkable situation on this side of the Channel in relation to many of the men who took part in that War. I regret very much that there is still a necessity to discuss these matters on the Floor of the House. Some seem to regard the demands made by these men who fought as an agitation. I have never personally regarded it in that sense. I have always regarded it as an attempt on their part, and a legitimate attempt, to secure the redemption of a national pledge, which was made to them by many Members of this House, when we were recruiting them for service. I think that, though we may even ourselves criticise some of their methods, we must make very large allowance for the fact that there has been a great difference between the promise and the performance. I do not want to detain the House too long, because we have been rather cut out with the long Debate which has just come to an end, and there are many Members who wish to address themselves to this question from different angles to my own. I shall not delay the House with any lengthy summary of what has taken place. I think we ought to remind ourselves that our scheme of demobilisation lent itself to failure, and, as a matter of fact, it did end in failure, and our schemes for training disabled and demobilised men have, to a large extent, also ended in failure. I might mention that no fewer than something between 20 and 30 of their training schools and colleges have been closed down during the last year. I do not think we can claim any particular credit to ourselves for the success of the scheme which was known as the King's Roll. Indeed, so lamentable has been the results of our efforts to deal with discharged men that a Select Committee of this House, not 15 months ago, made a recommendation which was extraordinary in its nature, namely, that, owing to the failure of voluntary effort, some compulsory steps ought to be taken to employ discharged men, and that was afterwards approved at a conference in Geneva; and is, as a matter of fact, the practice in a large number of countries, including Germany, which were engaged in the Great War.

The history of this question in the House is familiar to most hon. Members, but perhaps they will allow me to remind them that the Lytton Committee made certain recommendations. It will be recollected that this Committee suggested that these men should have preferential treatment. They also suggested that there should be machinery for substitution set up, and they declared a rate of initial pay at which those men should be employed in the Civil Service, and that obtained for a short time. There was a considerable amount of agitation, followed by a Debate in this House which ended disastrously for the last Government on that particular occasion, and the Southborough Committee was set up to deal further with the situation. That Committee had remitted to it the consideration of those points, and the reference to them was as to whether the recommendations of the Lytton Committee had been carried out satisfactorily.

The Southborough Committee has functioned for some time and has made two reports. They have dealt with the question of initial pay. The House will remember that they were asked to deal with that as their first consideration, and they improved the Lytton suggestion, which was £80 per year plus the existing bonus, to £100 plus the existing bonus. Then they issued a second report which dealt with the machinery for substitution, and they improved that machinery by the creation of an independent chairman which previously had not been the case. Then we had the dissolution and that interrupted the work of the Southborough Committee.

It has recently been set to work again, and at the moment it is dealing with the question of permanency. I am reluctant to deal with a Committee which is at present performing the functions which were submitted to it, and I prefer to wait for their Report before criticising them as a Committee, and I do not want to deal with that aspect of the question. I think, however, that we ought to get right into our minds the situation as it exists, and so I will come straight away to what are the demands of a particular class of ex-service men at the moment.

We have in the Civil Service to-day some 35,000 ex-service civil servants known as "temporaries," and they have been engaged in this temporary work for varying periods of time. Efforts have been made in the past to secure permanency for these temporary ex-service civil servants by examination. The House will recollect the famous Debate we had when we discussed what was popularly known as the jazz examination which everybody agreed was a ridiculous test of a man's efficiency. That was laughed out of court, and no effort has been made since to secure permanency for a man in that particular way. But the men who are temporarily employed in the Civil Service now urge that they should be promoted to permanency, so long as they are competent, without any further examination. May I anticipate an argument which may be used by the Treasury in opposition to this proposal?

On a point of Order. I would like to ask whether it is in order for a discussion to take place in this House upon a matter which has been specifically referred to a Committee appointed under the authority of this House, which is now discussing and considering the very points that the hon. Member is raising.

It is not a matter which I can rule out of order, but it is customary to deal with these matters with discretion. May I point out that this is not a Select Committee of this House. It is what is known as a Departmental Committee, and, therefore, it is for hon. Members themselves to decide how far they will deal with these matters.

I have already taken the preliminary precaution of saying that because they have not reported on this particular point I would not say anything as to the operations of the Committee, but that does not prevent me expressing my view as to what ought to be done for these men towards whom we have a duty to perform. I was pointing out that there is a strong argument in favour of absorption without examination. It so happens that some of our Colonies have adopted that scheme. I will not read long extracts, but I will simply say that, in Canada, regulations have been approved by the Government which will enable the Commission dealing with this subject in Canada to grant permanent status to a large number of ex-service men now temporarily employed, and who for various reasons have been unable to pass the required examination, and that scheme operates in Canada at the present moment. In South Africa an agreement has also been come to by which any man employed temporarily in the public service continuously for any less time than five years before such commencement may, if he has shown special aptitude and possesses the necessary qualifications, be recommended for appointment to such a post on the establishment when a vacancy occurs. In India, in the High Commissioner's office, a similar arrangement obtains.

There is one other reason, and I mention it because it is one on which the ex-service civil servant feels very strongly, and it is that it has been the practice since 1914 in the Civil Service to absorb men and women in the service into permanency without examination. I would like to remind the House that in 1914 over 12,000 were received into permanency without examination; in 1915 there were 10,000; and from 1914 to 1918 there were practically 50,000 persons absorbed into the Civil Service permanently without examination.

The House might note in passing that, at any rate, in the years 1914 and 1915 very few of those could have been ex-service men or women. What the ex-service man who is temporarily employed feels with regard to this position is that it is rather hard lines, and certainly it is out of sympathy with the promises made by the nation, that while they were fighting there was room for 50,000 additions to the Civil Service, and now when they have come back and are temporarily employed, obstacles of all kinds are placed in the way of them becoming permanently absorbed into the Civil Service.

Then there is the question of the inadequacy of their pay. Here there is no question about the relevancy of the Southborough Committee, because that Committee increased the terms of the Lytton Committee by £20, so that the initial salary for the temporary ex-service civil servant commencing work on the establishment is now £100, plus the existing bonus. The only comment I propose to make on that is that that is the equivalent to the start in salary of the average youth of 22 who enters the Civil Service. When you bear in mind that the average age of the temporary civil servant is between 35 and 40, that he is usually a married man with a family, I do not think we can congratulate ourselves upon the generosity of those terms.

Now I come to the unequal conditions for the permanent and temporary staffs. Here is a point in regard to which I think it would be easy to remove much of the friction that obtains. It is true and I do not think it has been denied—I remember an answer given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the point—that the temporary civil servants work longer hours, have fewer holidays, and get less pay than permanent civil servants doing precisely the same class of work. I do think that if the major question cannot be solved easily, a minor question of that sort can be solved, and if you do not want to deteriorate the value of your Civil Service, the one thing you want to do is to remove all these small irritating things that help to create an unhealthy public service inside your service.

Then there is the further point of the conditions under which those temporary men are doing their work at the moment. It is true that they are working longer hours and have fewer holidays. It is true that they have less pay. Those things are bad enough in themselves, but there is one thing which is even worse, and that is the insecurity that these men feel now about their employment. I think that that is one of the most bewildering things in the experience of any man who is in work which may become irregular. A man would even be content with a smaller wage if he had the sense of security, and if he knew that what he was having would carry him and his family through for a considerable time. Those men to-day are in the throes of insecurity, and many of them are under notice of dismissal. I believe at the beginning of this month, it would be fair to say, that something between 500 and 750 were to have gone at the end of this month. I understand the Financial Secretary has been casting around to the various Departments, and has been making a praiseworthy attempt to adjust things in such a way that these dismissals may not take place. But we shall hear that, of course, when he comes to reply to the Debate.

There are still in the Service at this moment something like 18,000 non-Service people. Of those, 2,300 are men and nearly 16,000 women. I do put this point, and I think there is great substance in it, that no ex-service men should be dismissed from the Service, so long as there are those other non-Service people in the Service who have not the same claim, and who have already been declared by the Substitution Board to be what is called substitutable, whatever that ugly word may mean. Another small point which could be remedied very easily concerns ex-service men who are acting as messengers in the Service. If they fall sick, they are not, like the permanent official, entitled to sick pay. The result is that they hang on in their posts when they are not fit to continue in them, and some disastrous instances have actually occurred.

Finally, there is another small question, and that is the expense of transfer. From time to time suggestions are made by the Treasury to one of those temporary men living, let us say, in the provinces. They practically say to that man, "If you care to come to London, or agree to go to X, there is work there for you," but, before the man can take that work, he must consider the point, and, remember, he is earning not more than £3, or something of that sort, a week. He must ask himself whether he can stand the cost of removing. If he were a permanent civil servant he would get the costs of removal. It is quite obvious that the temporary man, economically hard-hit, cannot face that situation, and if and when the Treasury are able to find fresh work for men away from the place where they are now engaged in the work, surely they might provide the expenses of removal.

That, briefly, is the men's case summarised as shortly as I can do it. They have great hopes of the present Prime Minister agreeing to those proposals, because we have discussed these questions before we came here, and we have discussed them by way of questionnaires. I hold in my hand a number of pledges given by the Prime Minister to these very men whose case I am pleading to-night, and, incidentally, it it within recollection that when these questionnaires were being talked of before, the ex-Prime Minister the right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. Baldwin) stated quite explicitly that he was the one wise man in the House of Commons who never signed any questionnaires with regard to these matters that are placed before him. I have also got his questionnaires in my hand, signed on his behalf by his private secretary, at 10, Downing Street, on the 26th November. I am rather glad I have unearthed this questionnaire, because it destroys the idea that the ex-Prime Minister alone among us could not write. The Prime Minister was asked, as we were all asked, five questions. I need not read them out, because they are probably familiar to most of us. The first one raised the question I have raised with regard to permanency without examination. It was: employed. The ex-Prime Minister was much wiser in his answer in trying to avoid it, because he said: years after the Armistice, and they ask that, and that only, and I would remind this House that there is a great deal behind the motive which induces them to come with this claim. After all, the life of the average man in this country does not extend over the three-score years and 10, and out of that life he spends, at one end of it, a considerable time in training in school and elsewhere, and, at the other end, a considerable time in the declining years of his life. The average man of this country has certainly not got more than 35 to 40 years' life in which he can make good. I think all will agree with that, except my hon. Friend behind me who goes on for ever.

8.0 P.M.

These men fought four or five years before they came back. Since the Armistice they had been fighting against economic conditions over which they have no Control and of which they are the victims. Out of these men's lives we have carved at least ten years. I think that is a fair and moderate statement to make, and we have to bear that in mind when we are dealing with a problem of this sort. When they went to fight with their comrades we promised to do what we could to secure them in posts when they returned. We had a number which was at one time 60,000 or 70,000, but which is still 30,000 to 35,000, who claimed to enter the Civil Service. There has been no examination for entrants to the Civil Service for practically 10 years. They claimed that they should be entered only on competency, and the men's organisations are prepared to defeat any attempt at incompetency. If we can make that contribution to the employment of the splendid body of men who have served their country well, it is up to us to do so, and the case we have made to-night, which I have put more briefly than I would otherwise have done owing to the shortness of time, will, I hope, receive the consideration of this House.

I want to join with my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) in pressing on the Government the needs of the men to whom he referred. I have taken an opportunity of questioning the Government on this subject a great many times, and, up to the present, although I have received a nod here or a nod there from Ministers of the Government which I cannot recognise as an answer in the affirmative, still I have received those nods, which certainly impress on one that they are sympathetic to the ex-service men. On the 4th August, 1914, we entered on a Great War, and I and a great many other Members who are now in the House went into the highways and by-ways and asked those men to join, and we promised that we would look after them when they returned. That was the pledge that was given, and that pledge is just as binding to-day as it was in 1914. It is because of that that I venture to press the representative of the Government on the Front Bench now, and I have pressed previous Governments on the same point. Because we have not succeeded up to the present, that is no reason why we should not succeed now. Questionnaires have been sent to me. Whether it is advisable or inadvisable to sign these questionnaires is a question for every one to consider on their merits, but I never signed that questionnaire because I do not believe in having your hands tied. But I do believe in every man who represents a constituency looking after the interests of those who are connected with that constituency and the interests of the bulk of the citizens, particularly of the ex-service men. My hon. Friend dealt with the case of the trainees, and, he said, and said rightly, that unfortunately these training centres had not turned out as happily as many of us would have wished. However, I do not think that in all cases you have the Government to blame for that. The right hon. Member for Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara), when he was Minister for Labour, did all he could to place 50,000 ex-service men in the building trades. I attended a good many meetings over which he presided in this House, and I want to say that it was not his fault that he was not successful. We were up against, and he was up against, difficulties with regard to the trade unions, and it was because of that that he could not possibly succeed in placing the men he was desirous of placing and who by this time, if they had been placed, would have become practical builders knowing their job from A to Z.

We have to look ahead and see what we can possibly do. I think my hon. Friend was careful, and I want also to be so, in regard to the matters that are to be discussed with regard to the Southborough Committee. I am not desirous of prejudging in any shape or form the result of any Committee that has been set up. It is a Departmental Committee that is going into this matter. But I say it is our duty, if we find the weak spots out in connection with matters upon which Departmental Committees are sitting, to deal with them, and it would be a bad day if it were laid down that questions of that kind were not to be discussed in this House. If that were done, we would not have an opportunity of bringing to the notice of members of the Departmental Committees some important points to which they might direct their attention. The present salary of one of these men is £100 a year, plus bonus, which works out at about £2 17s. 9d. per week as the average wage. That is absolutely inadequate. You have men, perhaps, of 35 or 40 who have wives and children to provide for. Having passed through what was recognised as a very difficult examination for these men, a most intricate examination which it was not expected the men would have to pass through, the idea was that they were to start at £80 a year, which has been since altered to £100 a year, on the same basis as men entering the Civil Service at the age of 21 or 22. If the Southborough Committee could bring up that basis for these men to be the same as the basis of men of 26 in the Civil Service, it would go a long way to overcome the difficulty. These men are not unreasonable. They volunteered their services, and they left, in many cases, exceptionally good positions in order that they might go and defend their country. We have many of these men unestablished. I am a great believer that you very often do not get the best service out of an examination, although I do not want hon. Gentlemen to think that you cannot, in the general course of events, have anything but an examination for a Government Service; but here you have men who have been in your Service three, four, five and six years. They have proved their competency, and when you have vacancies, surely the right course would be that you should give the advantage to these people of being placed on the permanent staff. What would we do as private employers in regard to positions? Do we keep a man if he is incompetent? In the ordinary course of events you would clear him out. That is what you do in the Civil Service with regard to these temporary people if they are not satisfactory; but these men have proved that they are satisfactory. They have been able to carry out their duties in a manner which meets with the entire approval of those above them. You cannot do that with regard to the established clerks, because it does not matter what brains they have or may want, once they have been established there they remain.

With regard to the employment of juniors, the only means you have to judge is by examination, but you do not always get the best men by that means. Many of them are quite up to the work they have to do, but as soon as they have an examination paper put before them they are at sea. But if you have men in your employment and have found that they are up to what you want, surely you have got the material there, and you would say in each case, "That is the man. He has proved his capability, and I am going to give a capable man the position." On the 1st August, 1914, there were on the staff of the Civil Service 264,827, and on the 1st January, 1924, there were 243,963. You will see that there is a deficiency there of 20,862. You will say at once, "Oh, yes, we have got a big reduction of staff." But you have not. Do not run away with that idea, because I am taking the staff as it was without calculating the post-War Departments that naturally have dropped out. I find that the total personnel of these post-War Ministries is 43,421. In the Civil Service there is naturally, as in everything else, the ordinary percentage of wastage, and I think it has been larger, as naturally it would be, during the last few years than in the ordinary course. I think it has been somewhere about 13 per cent. Taking the whole of the Civil Service Departments together, including all these post-War services, I maintain that there is a shortage on the permanent staff of about 40,000. The temporaries number 35,000. These temporaries are not unreasonable. They say, "We know it is impossible for the whole of us to be established, because we recognise the necessity for the younger branches to come along in order that the Civil Service may be kept in that virile state which is necessary. We recognise that there is a certain number of us that cannot be established, and, therefore, we suggest, say, 70 per cent., leaving 30 per cent. for the youngsters who come along." That is the talk of reasonable men, and I strongly hope we shall hear to-night that it is the intention of the Government to utilise and establish a large percentage of these men.

I think my hon. Friend was wrong as to the date of the last examination. I think, speaking from memory, that the last examination took place in September, 1921. The papers that were put before these people were extraordinarily difficult, and I say that in many cases they could not possibly pass them. Take the case of a man who had been in the Army, perhaps, for three or four years, who had been through the difficulties of the trenches, and the horrors of seeing his fellow-creatures struck down around him, who had had the disadvantage, in many cases, of having suffered from shell-shock, who may have had neurasthenia, from which, indeed, he may be still suffering—is it reasonable to expect that man to be able to compete on equal terms in this examination on paper with the man who is fresh, and who, on account of his age, was never called upon to perform those duties? That man, however, has proved—I am sorry to keep on repeating it, but it is the most important point—he has proved his competency, and yet they say, "We are very sorry. Although there are vacancies, nevertheless we are not able to place you on the establishment, because it has been the rule of the Civil Service that you should pass a certain examination."

My hon. Friend referred to the figures for various years—12,189 in 1914, 9,776 in 1915, 7,505 in 1916, 6,424 in 1917 and 7,275 in 1918. Those were the numbers of temporaries who were placed on the permanent staff without any examination. That was done at that time because, in many cases, it was difficult, as we know full well it was in ordinary business, to obtain people for the Service. That is why it was done then, but surely, if it could be done in those days, it can be done now, when the men have come back from the War and when the same opportunities do not present themselves for obtaining positions elsewhere which were available during the War period. Do not let these people be penalised because they have carried out their duty. I know that some people hold different views from myself with regard to the War. I, like the great majority of the Members of this House, believe that in times of trouble and difficulty it is up to every man to shoulder his arms and fight and do what he can on behalf of his country; but, unfortunately, I find that there are people—with whom I have no sympathy and for whom I have no respect—who thought it their duty to save their skins sometimes by their conscientious objections. Those people in many cases are kept on the permanent staff in the Civil Service, and what does the man who fought on behalf of his country think when he sees that held up against him?

He and his fellows to the number of 750 were given notice to leave. We know that they have the sympathy of my hon. Friend, and, as I quite recognise, he has done what he could to save these men from being thrown, if I may use the expression, practically on to the human scrap heap in these times. That is really what it is, unfortunately. I had before me a little while ago the case of a man with a 70 per cent. disability, whose Department had shut down. He said, "All I have is my 70 per cent. disablement. I have been in that position for the last four or five years, and now I am thrown out because the Department is shut down." "Surely," I said, "it is possible for them to place you in another of the Government Departments." I communicated with the Department, and they said, "We are very sorry, but it is not possible." I asked whether he was competent, and they replied that he was, but that, unfortunately, they could not find a position for him. I worked and worked, and eventually succeeded in getting this man placed in another Department; but I say that that is not the duty of a Member of Parliament. He ought not to have to do that, because, unless a man has a Member who is able to look after him, and unless he can get in direct touch with his Member, he is handicapped. It is the duty of the Government Departments themselves to look after the substitution of these men who have suffered and are disabled. I hope my hon. Friend will give instructions that a little more sympathy shall be shown by some of these heads of Departments. Their positions are assured. Let the same measure of sympathy be meted out to these men. I am sure they will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman and to those connected with the Government if they can receive a little more sympathy and a little more care in regard to combing out and substitution.

I am very glad to see the Postmaster-General in his place, because I have a matter which I am going to ask him to look into with regard to these temporary men. My right hon. Friend may think it is a small point, but it is not a small point when you take into consideration the small wages that these men obtain. They have to put a 2d. stamp on their receipts for their wages every week where the amount exceeds £2. That is not the case with regard to the permanent man, who only has to give his receipt once a month. They have communicated with the Post Office. I quite appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman cannot look after all these points unless they are brought specifically to his notice, but a circular has been issued with regard to this matter, and it has been sent to his Department. His Department, however, has been, if one may say so, rather autocratic in the matter. They have said, "We are not going to pay any attention to this notice that we have received from another Department," and the consequence is that these men have to pay 8d., and sometimes 10d., a month for the receipts they have to give, whereas the man on the permanent staff has only to give his receipt once a month. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would give instructions to have that looked into, because it is 8d. or 10d. a month, and it all tells up.

There is another matter with regard to the points of examination. Where they go through the examinations they have to obtain 820 marks, which are divided into 400 for general and 420 for technical. Is it absolutely necessary that there should be such a strong line drawn with regard to the manner in which these 820 marks should be obtained? If a man obtains 400 general and 420 technical he passes, but if he obtains 700 general and 419 technical, he does not pass. Could not something be done to secure that there should be an adequate number of marks to be obtained for general and technical combined? If the hon. Gentleman would look into that matter, a large number of the men who have to sit for this examination would appreciate it very much. It might be possible to fix the aggregate at a higher figure, 850 or something of that sort, but the hon. Gentleman should look at it in a reasonable light and see if something cannot be done. I have endeavoured to put some points before the Government with regard to these men, for whom I have the greatest possible sympathy. I am not suggesting that the sympathy is all on one side of the House, but if our sympathies go out let us try to help these men. Let us say, "Your work is up to sample." That is all we want. During the next 15 or 20 years we shall have to scrap our old ideas with regard to everyone sitting down with a paper and pen. We have to look at the thing on a broad basis. These men came to our assistance when we wanted them. We promised that if they did their duty we would look after them when they returned. Let us do it. Do not let us make it a question of any party spirit at all. I have approached other Governments before, but because we have not succeeded in the past that is no reason why we should not succeed in the future, and if you can help in obtaining for these men what is desired and what is reasonable and fair you will indeed have rendered great assistance in helping them out of the difficulties in which many of them are placed.

Both the hon. Members who have dealt with this question of the ex-service civil servants have given the House interesting figures. To my mind the question boils itself down largely to the question whether we are prepared in the case of these men to modify somewhat, not the standard but the qualifications of the Civil Service. Our Civil Service has the highest standard in the world, and I take it that that may safely be attributed to the system of entrance by examination. Not that the system of entrance by examination is an ideal method of selection, but it excludes worse methods. There have been civil services which were hereditary castes. We are separated only by a couple of generations from the time when the Civil Service in this country was one of the fields of patronage, and patronage, owing to an amiable weakness of human nature, very quickly becomes nepotism. It was Mr. Gladstone who bearded that lion, and since his days we have relied, with the happiest results, upon examination for entry to the Civil Service. The problem of these 35,000 ex-service men is that they are for the most part men who cannot be expected to pass examinations. They are where they are as temporary civil servants because of the War, and an experience which has involved such a complete breach of continuity in the whole of our national life may very well involve a breach of continuity in Civil Service methods without any reasonable complaint arising. Apart from that none of us, I imagine, regard the examination principle in itself as in any sense sacred. We know that a good record as an examinee is no guarantee at all of general ability, any more than a flashy shop window is a guarantee of the bargains inside. I myself am an undergraduate who passed into the Civil Service, although I very soon found it was not the right place for me, and there is no doubt that many men have sat on the Treasury Bench who started life by being ploughed for Sandhurst. But it can be said in favour of examinations that they exclude a worse method of selection. These men with whom we are dealing are in many cases men who although not suitable, owing to their age, for passing examinations, are perfectly suitable as civil servants.

May I refer to one instance that I have personally investigated of a man who, 10 years ago, was in control of quite a considerable business on the other side of the world, and he did so well with it that it would be open to him to return to the business to-morrow if it were not that as the result of wounds he is permanently disabled from living in the tropics. That man is undoubtedly capable of filling a responsible administrative post, and in fact he has done so with advantage to the Service of the State. He has been thrown on the streets within the last few weeks as the result of the operations of the Disposal Board being closed down. Men such as that—and there are many—ought unquestionably to be absorbed into the permanent service in preference to clever youngsters at examinations who have not had war service. If it rests with the taxpayers of the country, I have no doubt that they would wish to say that, even at some small risk of depreciating the standard of the Civil Service, they would desire that ex-service men should be employed. That is not what the ex-service men are claiming themselves. They are claiming merely that those who have shown by their actual service their competence for employment should receive permanent employment in preference to youngsters who have not had war service. I think we are very safe in pressing that upon the House as a reasonable claim.

The business community have responded well to the appeals that were made to them. They have managed to make room for very large numbers, many thousands, of men who were not particularly well suited when they came out of the Army for the jobs they are doing to-day, but by sympathy, personal attention and forbearance they have managed, to make it possible for these men to establish themselves in life. The Civil Service, which is the servant of the State, might fairly be called upon to do the same by similar classes of men. The ex-service man in the Civil Service is not able to count upon the same degree of sympathy as in commercial life. The reason of that is that the permanent civil servants' personal interests are all directly engaged on the other side. I say that, without making any reflection upon the permanent civil servants. One has the greatest respect for their professional loyalty and the greatest admiration for their high standard, but if, as I believe, the great mass of people who constitute the State desire that these ex-service men should, as servants of the State, receive a preference, it is reasonable to urge upon the Government that they should give effect to that wish. These men have fought. In the early days of their public service in the Army they qualified under conditions which were in no way comparable to the conditions of service in Whitehall. When we are dealing with destroyers or cruisers we credit them with two years' peace service for one year's war service. Are the war years of these men to count for nothing?

I do not think we can grudge the House the Debate we are having, although I do not think the importance of the subject is reflected by the attendance. In my view this Debate is wholly premature. The considerations which have been put by hon. Members are matters to be considered by the Committee which is doing the work that it was set to do under the authority and by the consent of this House. The right hon. Member for North West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) suggested that a Debate of this kind was perfectly in order because the Southborough Committee is not a Select Committee. Technically, it is not a Select Committee, but with the exception of two women, who were appointed from outside, the Committee is wholly comprised of Members of this House. Therefore, the difference between a Select Committee and a Departmental Committee of that kind does not sufficiently justify the technical distinction between a debate and no debate on the work of such a body.

I cannot, and do not intend to, enter into the merits of the question now before the House. That matters which have been raised are subjects of serious difficulty, which will employ the talent and resources of the Committee appointed to deal with the problem, but I can safely say that, from the point of view of the Committee itself, their work will not be helped by a debate of this kind being brought into the middle of their work without, apparently, any other object than that of having the luxury of talking about the ex-service man's question without having to take any of the responsibility for settling the problem involved. The time when the House will have to settle the problem will be when the Report of the Committee is to hand. The House would have been well advised to leave this difficult and complex question to the Committee appointed to deal with it. There are many other considerations which will have to be taken into account other than those of the few simple principles enunciated by the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall), who spoke on some features of the Committee's work. We ought not to anticipate the decision that the Committee will come to or hamper the Committee in any way.

In regard to the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, I would suggest to him that while this Committee is sitting there are many men under notice of dismissal who, once they are dismissed, can never be returned to the Service. Therefore, for him to suggest that this Debate is premature is absurd. As an old serving soldier, I ask to be allowed to voice the claims of the ex-service men. It was in 1893 that I first joined the Army, and, therefore, I claim with some authority to be able to speak on behalf of the men with whom I have served and for whom I have such a profound feeling of respect. It is a great pity that the ex-service man's question has been dragged into the political arena and made a political question. It is not a political question but a national question. I have viewed the whole of the proceedings which have gone on during the last three or four years with profound apprehension and distrust. Not only can I speak as an ex-service soldier, but I have also had the honour of serving in the Civil Service in this country and abroad, and therefore I know both sides of the problem. The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. MacFadyen) alluded to the question of war qualifications. That is a very important point, because there are ex-service men with war qualifications and those without, and those without very often urge that their claims are equally important with the claims of those who have war qualifications.

In particular, let us take the case of an officer who has been mentioned frequently in this House. That may be my excuse for dragging in the name of a particular person, but this name has been mentioned so often in question and answer that I do not think some further remarks on the subject will make much difference one way or another. I allude to the case of Colonel Cobb. Colonel Cobb, according to the replies received from the Treasury Bench, is an incomparable surveyor, but this son of Mars, this fire-eater—I do not know that he crossed the seas—received an appointment worth over £2,000 a year, and 158 surveyors, architects and other experts are on the unemployed list. The Treasury assure us that Colonel Cobb has special qualifications, and among the 158 there is no other man who could possibly step into his shoes. In that connection I remember that the late Dean of Canterbury once opened a bazaar, and a lady said, "I wonder what we should do without our Dean?" The Dean, who was a garrulous personality, said, "Well, you would do without me." Suppose that Colonel Cobb had not existed, would not one of the 158 men have been sufficiently adequate? I suggest that he would.

Among those 158 were men with magnificent war records, men with many wounds and of absolute reliability. I detest bringing in a personal question of this kind, but I wish to point out that that is the sort of question that causes an atmosphere of suspicion, distrust and un-rest among the ex-service men. Again we know that frequently within the last four years or more there have been innuendoes and insinuations against people who during the War had views as conscientious objectors, and the State umbrella was held over their heads while ex-service men were being thrown on the unemployed market. In the main those suspicions were without foundation, but they were not entirely so, and that has aroused a sense of grievance and given rise to suspicions and complaints. Another cause was the fact that in certain offices women were employed, not women who have thrown up everything and shouldered the burden on behalf of their families when the War broke out, women who were carrying the burden either as widows or daughters which otherwise would have fallen upon the breadwinner who fell in France or elsewhere. Not those women, but women who were purely and simply pin-money women. That again caused feelings of distrust and suspicion among the civil servants.

Take the other side, as it is only fair to do. I have many intimate friends in the Civil Service, men of the highest integrity and genuine common sense, and when I talk to them about this question they say quite frankly: "You are an old soldier and you know the unworthiness of a certain number of these ex-servicemen." Suppose one admits that. Suppose that some of them do not give a fair day's work for a fair day's wage. Surely in the last four years, in the constant process of weeding out, those men would have gone and there would be no question whatever of the efficiency of those ex-service men now remaining in the Civil Service. If there are any of those ex-service men who are inefficient remaining in the Civil Service, then the blame is not theirs, but that of the heads of the Department who passed them as efficient when they knew quite well they were not. Equally it is inevitable in existing conditions that civil servants in permanent positions should look upon a certain number of these ex-service men as potential cuckoos in an eagle's nest, and they rather resent the position. It is only human nature that they should do so. They think, "Here is a man who may shoulder me out of my job who, when he has learned the job as well as I know it, may be far better than I." Consequently there has been tention in that way. But, above all, the great injury had been done by making this a political rather than a national question. The ex-service man, we know, has served his country loyally and well. I am not going to discuss the manœuvrings, as between the Southborough Committee, the Lytton Committee, and the Joint Substitution Board. What I do beg of the Government is that when they approach the subject they will approach it remembering one thing, that the ex-service man does not ask for partiality, but that he only asks for justice and fair treatment.

I would like to confine myself in very close detail to the real issue which is filling the minds of the temporary ex-service civil servants at this moment with grave dismay and profound anxiety. As the House has heard in the most admirable speeches of the speakers who preceded me, during and since the War the State took into its service temporarily a number of ex-service men, many of them disabled men, and the House has heard that there are now about 35,000 of these temporary ex-service men in the employment of the State. Of course the clearing-up of post-War business has caused a great deal of the work to close down. That is the trouble with which we are confronted. That is the problem which we have to put to the Treasury, and it is not easy, and they want our sympathy in their endeavour to do all they would wish to do, and respond to the pleas so eloquently made on both sides of the House. Many of these ex-service men in consequence of the closing down of the various branches of work have gone. They have gone, I imagine beyond replacement, although the situation from the Autumn of 1920 was very much eased by the Treasury and the Minister of Labour in consequence of the Joint Substitution Board. I was very glad to have a hand in the appointment of that Board. So far as I know it helped to ease the situation very substantially indeed. Again, many of these temporary ex-service men have passed already by examination into the permanent Civil Service, but, as I have said, the recent closing down of operations in the Departments has made the situation very acute indeed from the point of view of these men, and many of them are now under notice. 750 we heard were given notice to expire next Monday, the 31st March, but the Treasury—so far so good—has managed by transfer and substitution, together, no doubt, with the Joint Substitution Board, to save about half of them. If that is not so, perhaps the Financial Secretary will correct me.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to deal with that later on.

I understand that roughly half have been saved. If the number is more, all the better. I shall say nothing but "Thank you." The point raised by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) was a really good one, which I want to press. I admit that he referred to an old Regulation for the continuance of which we were responsible. There is this to be said, however—that the Treasury Joint Substitution Board has saved a proportion of these 750 men. Perhaps the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will tell us how many men are to go on Monday next. I hope he will tell us that none is to go. I am sure he will have the goodwill of the whole House if he says so. The point was raised about the transference of these men from one part of the country to the other. Being temporary civil servants, they do not get even their railway fares paid, because of an old standing order of the Treasury. Had they been permanent civil servants, transferred from one place to another, they would have had paid for them both their fares and the cost of removal. I am glad to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer present, for I know how tender-hearted he is. Would it not be worth while to say that in the case of these temporary civil servants the Treasury will at least pay the railway fares? These men are on very small wages. They have had to move their goods and their wives and families considerable distances.

I am glad that we have a two-fold representation of the Treasury present. If I succeed in my appeal to the one representative, I feel sure I shall succeed with the other. For what do these temporary civil servants ask? In the first place, they ask that, if competent, they shall be transferred to the permanent Civil Service without examination, as occasion arises. Is there any man in this House, on the Treasury Bench or off it, who would deny that claim? These men have had four or five years' service. They are competent, and can be reported so by the heads of Departments. I hope that I shall not appeal in vain for this concession. But with the staffs being steadily or rapidly reduced that concession alone will not help them, even if conceded, because there will not be vacancies before many of the 35,000 men have had the door closed upon them. Therefore, they turn to the existing staffs. From August, 1914, down to November, 1918, the State took into its service large numbers of non-service civil servants temporarily, and during that period made them permanent civil servants without examination.

There are still many non-service civil servants employed. The temporary ex-service civil servants claim that before they are turned out a very close scrutiny shall be made into the cases of the temporary non-service men, and that the non-service men should go before the competent ex-service men, and particularly before the disabled ex-service men. The principle of that claim is admitted by the Lytton Committee. It was the work of the Joint Substitution Board to comb out non-service temporary civil servants, and to give their places to temporary ex-service civil servants. There has been a good deal of substitution. But here is the defect. The Lytton Committee did not feel that it could do more than say to the heads of the Departments, "We recommend that you take these ex-service men in place of non-service men." In many cases the heads of Departments did not take that course. The substitution ought to be done more thoroughly. It should be made clear to heads of Departments that, other things being equal, it is Parliament's desire that the ex-service men should have preference. An instruction should go to them to that effect.

9.0 P.M.

I am making no charge against permanent civil servants. I owe them too much and have worked with them for too many years to do other than admire them very greatly, but, nevertheless, I think substitution should be urged upon them a little more directly, and that they should be made to understand exactly what it is that Parliament desires. With the closing down of the Departments, with the admission without examination of competent temporary men, with substitution pressed even more closely, there will still be many who will not be saved unless work is found for them. There is a vast amount of work done by writing assistants. They are women. There is a zone of writing assistants, for the work in which superior wages are paid. The work is there done by the older women. That work these men would gladly take up at the same wages, and they would do it well. Will the Government consider whether that zone shall be set free for these men? Otherwise most of the men will have to go. You cannot keep men if the work is not there. I am trying to open a new avenue for them, and I hope the Government will give a satisfactory answer. What we have to do is to adjust outside entries into the Civil Service with due regard to the necessity of absorbing all these competent temporary ex-service men. We all remember the appeal made by Earl Haig in April, 1918, when our line was heavily pressed: "Every position must be held to the last man." We know the response that the men gave. They held every position to the last man. The least we can do is to respond now to their appeal, and their appeal is: "Every position should be held to the last man." There are 35,000 of them appealing. Let our response be no less generous than was theirs.

I apologise to any hon. Members whom I may prevent from speaking by my intervention. As the House knows, a little later an important Debate is to take place, and if I am to make any statement on the points just raised I must make it now. I think no one in any part of the House will complain of the course which this Debate has taken. We are dealing with a subject in which we are commonly interested, irrespective of party, and I think hon. Members in all parts of the House recognise the tragedy which must lie behind the threatened dismissal of a fairly large number of these men. While that fact is clearly before us to-night, it is my duty to recall the history of this controversy, to put the whole matter into some kind of proportion and, finally, to tell the House what we propose to do to mitigate the difficulty with which we are now confronted. The House will recall that in 1920 and subsequently the Lytton Committee issued three Reports which dealt broadly and generally with the effort to find places in the permanent Civil Service for large numbers of the temporary staff. The House will also recall that, necessarily, during the War the Civil Service was swollen to comparatively large proportions, and of course as we approached peace conditions the Civil Service, like everything else in the State, had to be adjusted, not to normal conditions, because I do not think we 'have reached those yet, but at all events to post-War and relatively peace-time conditions.

That is the process which has been at work during the last two or three years. The Lytton Committee recommended in substance that all previous arrangements should practically disappear as regards certain classes, that the pin money women to whom one hon. Member has referred should have practically no place on the staff, and that preference should be given to different classes of men who had served—partly from the point of view of disablement, partly from the point of view of overseas service, partly from the point of view of home service, and the rest. That programme was embodied in the three Reports of the Lytton Committee, and there came after that the First Interim Report of the Southborough Committee, and the second and larger Report of the Southborough Committee, which may be taken as the last pronouncement made by a representative body on this problem. The First Report of the Southborough Committee was concerned with the comparatively narrow issue of the pay of the Lytton entrants and the subsequent Report dealt with the question of the employment of ex-service men in a temporary capacity in the Civil Service. Those reports are now in the possession of hon. Members. The Southborough Committee is now engaged in the preparation of a Third and Final Report dealing with other questions as to how far we can still make efforts in the direction of giving establishment to these temporary ex-service men. The House will recognise, in view of the fact that the Committee is now sitting and is working with all possible speed, that I am precluded to some extent from a perfectly free discussion of the whole issue, because, of course, I cannot say anything to-night which will make the work of that Committee more difficult, but while saying that, I wish also to say to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) that it does not mean I am precluded from saying anything at all in the nature of a reply to this discussion. I was referring to the wider issue which must of course form part of the Committee's deliberations. I think the points raised can be covered quite adequately and I believe to the satisfaction of hon. Members.

The statistics regarding the Civil Service and its adjustment to post-War conditions are remarkable, and I wish some of the speakers had brought them out in the Debate, because they tend to show that up to a point a very real effort has been made to find places for the ex-service men. Before the War, the Civil Service included about 254,000 people all told. At the present day the total number in the Civil Service permanent and temporary staff is approximately 299,000. I call the attention of hon. Members to the fact that of that total number of 299,000 no fewer than 140,000 are ex-service men. Let me make the point perfectly clear. That number includes pre-War civil servants who served with the Forces during the War and I do not suppose for a moment any member of this House wants to underrate the claims of these men or fails to recognise the service which they gave, and we are entitled to put up a very high number of that kind as a relevant fact in this discussion when we are asked what is the general position as regards the Civil Service.

Can the hon. Gentleman give the number of temporary ex-service civil servants who have been established?

I said that the total of the Civil Service is about 299,000, including 140,000 ex-service men, and I think it is true to say that of the 140,000 per- haps rather more than one-third have won their way on to the establishment from their service in the recent War. That, I think, is a broad summary of the situation. Everything considered it is in many ways a remarkable record. Unfortunately at the present day we have still about 55,000 temporary members of the Civil Service of whom about 35,000 are ex-service men, and it is mainly around the position of those 35,000 temporary ex-service civil servants and more particularly the position of the 750 men now under notice of discharge, that this controversy turns. We are continuing our efforts, and, of course, previous Governments made efforts, to find places in the establishment for the temporary staff, but I cannot make it too clear to the House that even if we did everything in our power by way of substitution, even if we worked the preference to ex-service men for all it was worth, we should be defeated by the closing down of Departments and by the reduction of staff due to the change from War-time to peace-time conditions. Those changes are such that I am afraid even with the best will in the world, they will make it impossible to save more than a proportion of the temporary men now engaged.

Will the hon. Gentleman give us his views about the proposal to reserve a part of the work of the writing assistants for these men?

I am coming to that point. I wish the House to see quite clearly what the position is. Before I deal with that point, may I dispose of one or two questions which have been asked regarding examinations. It will be remembered that the Lytton Committee, at all events in their first Report, and the Southborough Committee in their Report, laid emphasis on the efficiency of the Service. Over and over again we hear it said in this country, and quite rightly, that we have the finest Civil Service in the world, and it is our duty to have regard to a fact of that kind and to see that in making this adjustment to peace-time conditions we do not impair the standard of efficiency in the Service. Very large numbers of men, quite rightly, obtained a place in the Civil Service because they were ex-service men, and I do not deny—indeed, I very gladly recognise—that they have given admirable service during the past five or seven years, but quite clearly, having regard to the fact that you are really influencing the permanent structure of the Civil Service in this country, you are bound to have a test of some kind, and the Lytton Committee's Reports themselves make that point, I think, abundantly plain. As regards people before July, 1921—and that, after all, may be taken as a convenient dividing date—you have provision for this examination, and, in fact, these examinations have from time to time been held.

I know perfectly well that the examinations have been criticised in their character, and I do not take refuge in the fact that they occurred a year or two ago. All I am going to say is that the House will agree that it is notoriously difficult to arrive at any basis of examination which fits the character of this case. There is the widest difference of opinion about examinations as a whole. There are people who pin their faith to written examination, others who believe in oral examination, a very large class indeed who believe in a judicious combination of written and oral examination, and still another class who prefer to proceed either by nomination or by some system of a selection board. There is no such thing as agreement as far as the kind of examination or test is concerned. Whatever view hon. Members may take in a controversy of that kind, an examination of some description must be held.

The hon. Gentleman's Leader and his party are pledged to abolish these examinations.

Certainly, and pledges have been read out in the House. Why does the hon. Gentleman not give a fulfilment of those pledges?

The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that every pledge that was given was given subject to that question of efficiency.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman why, if those men for the last five years have been doing work incompetently and inefficiently, they have not been sacked, and why, if for five years they have been doing their job well and to the satisfaction of their supervisors in those Departments, they cannot be retained?

My hon. Friend knows perfectly well the reply to the first question, and that it is not suggested that they have done their work inefficiently. I have just paid the very warmest tribute to the work which they have done, but I have also reminded the House that, even if we did everything in our power to find places for them, the fact is that, owing to reductions of Departments, you cannot do so, and you would be compelled to use some system of ascertaining the relative merits of the men. It is idle for my hon. Friend to try and raise an issue of that kind. I know well the general pledges which have been given, but I have always made it clear that you would have to keep a thing of that kind carefully in view.

Was it not a fact that the reply was given that these men would be absorbed and taken into the permanent staff, provided they were competent and able to carry out their duties, and how are you going to tell that by other means than that these men have proved their competency by retaining their position and carrying out their duties in a satisfactory manner?

I have already replied, I think, to that very point. I take the view, frankly, that you cannot dispense with some kind of examination, and I am sure the hon. and gallant Member, if he went into all the facts of the situation with us, would agree in a course of that kind. The examination in the past has not been severe, although it may have been peculiar, but to-day and among these men themselves you must have a test, and I should be misleading the House if I suggested that large numbers can be employed without examination of any kind.

You are pledged to use some other method than examination, but you now say you are going to give examination. How do you reconcile those two positions?

You must have a test. I am calling it an examination, but quite clearly the House realises that you have to ascertain the merits and qualifications of these men. The point I am making, and must in honesty to the House make, is that a test of some kind is necessary, and I hope that hon. Members will see that there is no departure from the pledge at all. We have a definite duty to the Civil Service in this country. It is rather difficult to reply to all kinds of questions, most of them put earlier in the Debate, but I want now to pass to the question which the right hon. Member for Camberwell asked, as to whether you can allocate the higher or more responsible duty of the writing assistants to some portion of these 55,000 temporary ex-service men. I am afraid that there are very great difficulties in a proposition of that kind

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it raises, first of all, the difficulty as to the character of the employment on which these writing assistants are engaged, and it raises questions as to the scale of remuneration and the rest, which, I am afraid, in numerous instances it will be very difficult indeed to adjust to these ex-service men. These duties are very largely routine duties of filing and duties connected with indexing. The writing assistants are recruited on a permanent basis from 16 years of age at a certain rate, I think of 32s. 5d. a week—

—and it is very hard indeed to find very much opportunity in that class for the kind of substitution or preference to which hon. Members refer. Let me also say that that raises the wider and more general question of the position of women in the Civil Service. No hon. Member would deny that as regards the temporary women the preference to ex-service men has been carried very far. The Government have done a very great deal under that head. Of the 55,000 temporary people at the present time about 64 per cent. are ex-service men. The women are engaged on duties which are peculiarly appropriate to women. Moreover, it is the duty of all hon. Members to recognise that in a very large number of cases these women have suffered severely because of war condi- tions. I find, from inquiry into a considerable number of typical cases, that they have been obliged to take that employment because of the loss of brothers and other breadwinners in the homes. These homes to-day are no doubt in receipt of pensions, but pensions not sufficient to rid the home of the necessity for a contribution from the breadwinner. They have, in fact, suffered by reason of war conditions, and I do not suppose the House for a moment suggest that they are to be automatically turned out in order that we may carry to an extreme this preference for ex-service men.

I remind hon. Members of that point because it is a material factor in reckoning up the difficulties with which the Government are confronted under this head. In regard to the 750 men who are now under notice of disposal as at the end of March, the House will recall that previous Governments have been pressed to reduce post-War establishments and in point of fact, some of them, notably the Disposal and Liquidation Commission, are now being wound up. The House recognises that it cannot have it both ways. If the Departments are being wound up and the work very largely reduced, then a certain proportion of these ex-service men must lose their employment. At the moment about 750 men are immediately affected. We set out, in company with the Minister of Pensions and others, to see what we could do to save a proportion of them. In round figures about 450 are in the provinces. Under an arrangement which has been completed by the Minister of Pensions, we propose to try to offer work in London to about one half of the 200 who were serving in the Ministry of Pensions, but I cannot give the specific figures, because everything depends on the opportunities available.

As regards the expenses, the normal rule in the Civil Service is not to pay travelling expenses for temporary employés, that is, the non-establishment staff. I am not speaking of war-time conditions, but of conditions at which we have now arrived. Removal expenses are paid to permanent civil servants in this country only when transfer is at the instance of the Department. In this case, therefore, there is no differentiation at all as between temporary and permanent civil servants. I cannot make a final statement to-night as to what we propose to do in regard to the travelling expenses for the men who have been offered transfer to London from the provinces. A representation in writing was made to the Treasury only two days ago, and I have the matter under consideration. I hope to be able to indicate later whether the request can be entertained. I ask hon. Members not to press me on that matter to-night.

As to the steps being taken to try to find employment for another section of the men under notice, during the past week or two, confronted by a tragedy of this type, we have gone into every proposal before us, but the House will understand that we are tied by the inevitable reductions of the Departments. It becomes a question as to how many men by some other device we can temporarily save. In order to try to meet the situation, we have entered into an arrangement during the past few days—and a Treasury circular has now been issued to all the Departments—to try to reduce to a 42-hour week the men on the temporary clerical staff. By means of that reduction we hope to save a proportion of the men who will be affected by these discharges. What that proportion is exactly I cannot tell the House to-night, because this scheme will necessarily occupy time before we can see how far we can work it throughout the Civil Service. The general wages question is under consideration, but substantial agreement has been reached, as regards this particular proposal, so there need be no misapprehension on that point. I suggest to the House that, everything considered, a 42-hour week in present circumstances is not too much to ask of these temporary men. It certainly is a concession of a substantial character, having regard to the difficulties that confront us now. I do trust the House will realise that, while owing to reductions in Departments, a certain number of men will go, we have done everything in our power to save as large a proportion as possible. We hope to add to that proportion and, as regards the men who are dismissed and others, we will continue our efforts to find places for them.

May I thank the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for the very careful consideration which he is giving to the question of the transfer of men from the Provinces to London or to other places? I am certain I am expressing the sentiment of every Member of the House in saying that I hope he will find it possible to deal with those men who are offered a transfer in such a way that the offer of a transfer will not be merely a wholly illusory offer, but that it will be a real offer of which they can take advantage because their expenses will be found for them. With regard to the question of reduction, the reduction of hours may make a great deal of difference, but could not one perfectly simple pledge be given, namely, that so far as there is competence in the ex-service men, the non-service man shall first be discharged and the ex-service man last?

Having said that, I am free to remark that there must be a very extraordinary atmosphere which plays about the Treasury Bench. I am not quite certain whether it is six or seven weeks—I am told it is nearly two months—but say two months—there was then no more powerful advocate of the ex-service men's demand for admission to the permanent Civil Service without examination than the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury. [An HON. MEMBER: "Except the Prime Minister!"] Except, possibly, the Prime Minister. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Minister of Pensions!"] Well, put them all together. Probably there was no more potent advocate of the claims of the ex-service men to be absorbed into the permanent Civil Service without examination than all the present occupants of the Treasury Bench! But they have got into that extraordinary atmosphere. It is, of course, perfectly true that the Prime Minister, with that brilliant intellect of his, could not quite understand the question, did not quite know what it meant, and, therefore, he signed the answer. We will not worry about little details of that kind, however. We all know the subtleties of his mind. None of us can fathom them, but we all know that those subtleties are a very sure refuge in time of trouble.

Since when, however, has the Financial Secretary to the Treasury been convinced that some sort of, not a test, but examination is necessary before a competent man is taken into the permanent Civil Service? I do not want to use any invidious example, but if a simple elementary examination were the test for admission to the Treasury Bench, how many from the parties in this House could possibly fill the Treasury Bench? I want to say one thing perfectly definitely. Take any profession; I do not care which. Take the medical, or the legal profession— especially as my hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) reminds me, particularly the upper branch of that profession—how many members of these professions could possibly get into their professions to-day if they had, in three weeks, to pass the preliminary examination? I am perfectly certain that my hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich and myself would enter into a great competition for the last place in. the examination.

Be that as it may, I agree that nobody who purports, or wishes to represent, the views of the ex-service men in this House would for one moment say that you should not have a test before a temporary man goes into the permanent Civil Service. But why should that test be an examination? There is surely only one test? If you want a man in any sphere of life, you do not test him with a silly question as to what was the material of the wedding dress of the Virgin Queen, or anything of that sort. Surely there is only one test, and that is: Is the man competent to do the work which he is doing? Is he competent to do the work which you want him to do? No matter what the Southborough Committee say, one thing is abundantly clear. If you went before any tribunal of business men they would tell you that when a man has arrived at the age of 35, and is between the age of 35 and 39, there is only one test to administer, and that is, efficiency in the job which he is performing, and whether that efficiency leads you to believe that he will be efficient in the job which you are thinking of giving him.

I should have thought that the time was past when we should have to put forward in this House, or in any assembly, the suggestion of the test of an elementary examination—that that would come to be the test of efficiency for any post, no matter how unimportant it might be. I am surprised that the atmosphere in which the hon. Gentleman opposite now moves has left him so oblivious to the ordinary facts of human life. After all, the whole question is this: It may be that it is a sort of sport for a lad of 16 or 20 to enter into a competitive examina- tion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] It is a sport which he thoroughly enjoys! There is no greater sport in this world than that of thinking you have floored the examiner. Everybody knows that ideas of that kind are entirely illusory. You never floor the examiner. He is so ignorant that he usually floors you. When a man, however, has passed beyond that age; when he has the responsibilities of a home upon him, when he has lost the aptitude for dealing with purely elementary things in the way that he dealt with them as a schoolboy, then, surely, there is only one test! I think the House will be surprised to hear that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury thinks that the test of a farcical examination is a better opportunity of getting a real policy in the Civil Service than the real test of competence in the work that the man is going to perform.

I have listened with great interest to many of the speeches in the Debate, and it has given me great pleasure to realise that there are still many men who have not forgotten the ex-service soldier. I feel that this is an opportune moment to add my support to what has already been said on this subject, and to draw the attention of the House to the ever-growing feeling of dissatisfaction and resentment that is being felt all over the country by the ex-service man and his dependants at the unsympathetic treatment he has been receiving under the policy of the Ministry of Pensions of the late Government. There is no lonely hamlet where there does not reside some widow, or some broken man, who does not daily almost curse the Ministry that has caused him and his poor dependants such dissatisfaction and such misery. If you pick up the paper almost any day you will find accounts of suicides, and it is becoming quite common to read that the coroner has observed that the unfortunate man who has done away with his life is an ex-soldier, and that his pension had been stopped. In my view the care of the nation's wounded should be a first charge on the assets of a nation, and that this has not been so is not to the credit of any Government or any nation. Let us look at the story of the ex-service man. Who is he? Like my hon. and gallant Friend who spoke earlier in the evening, I differentiate between the man who served his country in the field and in the trenches and the others who have not been so fortunate as to get so far. You may ask how can you tell the difference. Those who have been through the hell of modern war know the signs, for you see a look in the eyes of such a man which you do not see in the others.

Who are these men whose cause I am advocating? I regret more than I can say that it has been left to me, after all these years, to advocate a cause which should need no advocacy in a grateful nation. Had I the tongue of a Demosthenes I would bring every man and woman in this House to their feet with a desire to end this unsympathetic treatment to the men who have made it possible for us to be sitting here to-night. But although I have neither that eloquence nor Parliamentary experience, I have the power of honest sincerity, and the consciousness that what I am saying is true. These attributes are more powerful than those of which I have just spoken, and if anything I can say to-night will help the ex-soldier to get common justice tempered with sympathy, then I shall not have spoken in vain. The policy of a Department comes from the top, and therefore I do not need, in the circumstances, to criticise the lower ranks of the Ministry, nor do I propose to criticise the present administration of the Ministry of Pensions so far as it has gone.

Let me say that in any case which I have brought before the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Pensions up to the present he has treated it with the utmost sympathy and consideration. Further, in two cases particularly, without waiting as has been the custom, the right hon. Gentleman, realising the injustice of this case, immediately gave instructions that this injustice should be righted. Almost before I had time to turn round, metaphorically speaking, I received a letter of thanks from this poor ex-soldier who had been obliged to accept Poor Law relief. Whatever else the Labour Ministry may do while in office, in this particular alone they will go down to posterity with honour.

On this question I have spoken not with the lisping accents of insincerity but I have, to the best of my ability, put the plain sound, cold facts of the position before the House, and I do not doubt that I shall have the support, not only of this House, but of every honest man and woman in England when I ask for support for the ex-service man and his dependants. I do not know whether the impression which was given by some employés of the Ministry under the late Government is one that exists now, but I was present on one occasion when I heard it stated by an employé in the Ministry of Pensions that as far as he could see his duties were, by any means in his power, to obliterate or reduce the pensions of those men who were brought before him, and when after two or three years time the last man came before him he had to see that under some circumstances or other his pension was reduced. Those words I heard with my own ears. I trust and feel certain that under the present Minister that is not going to be the case in the administration of pensions in regard to ex-service men. I do not think I can usefully add anything more on this question and I will close with the words of Portia, which appear to me to be extremely applicable—

I have had the advantage of listening to the greater part of this Debate, and it seems to me that the case of these men is so strong that it scarcely needs the eloquent words which have fallen from the hon. and gallant Member who has resumed his seat to commend it to the House. These men are receiving lower pay, they are working longer hours, they have no sick pay, and no security of employment as temporary members of the Civil Service as against all those advantages enjoyed by those on the permanent establishment of the Civil Service. When you look at the case in detail from that point of view, surely there are to be found battles cries which would serve in any strike, but unfortunately these men have no organisation at the back of them of the kind which promotes and wins strikes. As has been said in the course of this Debate, their demand is a very reasonable one, put forward in a reasonable manner with much patience. I should like to add my tribute to what has already been said about the reply of the Financial Secretary, and I wish to thank him on behalf of the ex-service men in the Civil Service for the sympathy which he has shown in a most practical fashion towards those under notice of discharge. At the same time, I must express my most profound dissatisfaction with his pronouncement on the subject of an examination for temporary Civil Servants who are seeking to pass on to the permanent establishment. He laboured the word "examination" over and over again, and insisted upon its necessity, but I could not fail to observe that under what he termed a very brisk cross-fire, he retreated from that position, and took refuge in the use of the word "test."

I ask the hon. Gentleman, after having retreated, and speaking of "tests" in place of "examinations," why he cannot apply the same methods as those which are applied by the great commercial undertakings of this country? In the great commercial concerns advancement is not determined by examination of the kind which has been applied to these men in the past. There is no trick question, there is no cleverly devised examination paper for the purpose of ascertaining their knowledge. What is done is to employ far sounder and far surer methods by ordinary inquiry from departmental heads, by judgment of a man's capacity in his present position, and by various other methods which commend themselves to any person of ordinary common-sense. It can readily be determined whether a man is fit for advancement, or whether he must remain where he is, and I do say there is no reason why exactly the same methods should not be applied in these Government Departments. In view of what has occurred, these men can no longer resist the impression that they are being singled out for discrimination, and that to their prejudice. That being the case, it is contrary, as is well known, not only to the general desire and intention of the country as a whole, but I say also contrary to the general desire and intention of this House as expressed by promises.

Tramways and Omnibus Strike

10.0 P.M.

By leave of the House, I rise to fulfil the promise I made earlier in the day that I would report at 10 o'clock the state of the negotiations, if happily there were to be any negotiations. I am very happy to say that there are negotiations. It was very unfortunate that a whole series of industrial disputes that have been maturing for months, and some of them for years, have been left over, and left over, until it becomes my unfortunate lot to meet them all at the same time. One did not mind meeting first one, and, after having recovered from the operation, meeting another, and going on steadily in that way, but, really, since the end of last year, there has been a phenomenal and simultaneous ripening of the harvest, sown very liberally, and I must say with great sincerity, by very stupid hands. We have allowed London traffic, on account of an anarchy of individual competition, to get into an impossible condition. We received from our predecessors a Bill which faced the problem. We found it drafted, and, upon examination, so far as the general outlines were concerned, so far as the general intention was concerned, we took it over without any reserve. There were one or two details which we found, on examination, would give rise to impossible conditions. So we set about changing the Bill in one or two of its details. Unfortunately, we were racing against time. Both sides knew what we were doing, and both sides prophesied with the greatest confidence that we would do something by this Bill to ease the situation so far as London traffic is concerned. But, I am afraid, the beginnings were made too late, and we found ourselves, and London found itself, in this dispute. A later stage—and I do not propose to go through all the stages—was reached last night, when it looked as though nothing could save the situation. It looked as though there was to be a very serious widening of the field of the dispute. It looked as though action would have to be taken which, instead of helping a settlement, would arouse evil feelings on both sides, and would postpone the settlement.

We were at it from early this morning. I am sorry that it happened to-day to give the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway a very fine opportunity, which he took with his usual whole-hearted disregard of circumstances and anything else. But, after prolonged attempts, we found the three executives which are concerned in meeting by six o'clock. At seven o'clock I saw the employers, and at nine o'clock both sides came together. I impressed upon both sides the necessity for a settlement. I found both sides very desirous to effect a settlement. They have met, they have had preliminary discussions, and they have adjourned till to-morrow morning, when the negotiations are to be continued. [ Laughter. ] I do not know if that laugh means anything. What is the situation? So long as new proposals are brought up, and so long as each proposal as it is made brings both sides closer together, the only laugh that I can afford to make is the laugh of supreme satisfaction. What we have to strive for is to limit the scope of the dispute. No advantage, I think, can come from an extension of the scope of the field of the dispute. That is what we are striving to effect at the present moment.

We shall do our best to advance public convenience while the dispute lasts. I am fraid we cannot make it convenient and altogether pleasant for everyone who wants to come from the suburbs into the centre, but, so far as we are concerned, we will do everything that the Government can do in that respect. The first step that will have to be taken is to issue a Proclamation that a state of emergency exists. I hope that neither side will take that as being a threat or being provocative. I do not mean either side here; I know that we understand each other sufficiently well for that. What I mean is that neither side outside, that neither of the combatants will misread or misunderstand what that means. The Government must be armed with the powers which are required should the dispute spread, or should public convenience demand some action which can only be taken under the powers given to it after the issue of the Proclamation.

There have been one or two special kinds and categories of hardship mentioned, especially during Question Time and in Supplementary Questions. There is the case of the hospitals. We have been working at that all day, and the intention is to supply every hospital with facilities for bringing to the hospital and taking away from the hospital out-patients. That scheme will be developed as quickly as possible by using all the facilities that are convenient, that are adaptable and that are available. The major public services must also be continued, and the Government, any Government, all Governments, must give protection to those engaged in their legal occupations. I want to make it perfectly clear that the Government, however, will not act merely as a strike-breaking organisation. In these disputes there are always two sides, but when the public is inconvenienced it is only one side, as a rule, that is blamed, the side of labour. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!" and "Yes, yes!"] I think I will carry hon. Members with me more heartily in what I am now going to say. We have had multitudinous suggestions as to how we are to protect the public convenience. We have had proposals that we should flood the streets with soldiers.

Did I say in this House? Let me make my statement. We have had suggestions of all kinds, of all extremes. We have had suggestions, as I said, that we should flood the streets with soldiers. On the other hand, we have had suggestions that we should commandeer all the property, all the machinery, and all the material owned by the employers.

I cannot understand why there seems to be a much greater desire to interrupt with rather pettifogging points than to listen to the statement that is being made. I never said those suggestions were made in this House. I said we had received such suggestions.

I want to explain our position. On one extreme, one set of suggestions; on another, another set of suggestions. The rule that the Government is going to adopt in putting these powers into operation, if it has to do it, is the rule of protecting public convenience: the rule of doing nothing to compel the area of the strike to be extended; the rule which emphasises this, that during a dispute like this it is quiet, calm action that tells in the end; the rule that no Government and nobody in authority ought to do anything that makes divisions broader and deeper than, unfortunately, they are when the conditions of a strike have been created. That is the position that the Government take up, and those are the principles and the ideas which will guide them in applying the powers that they will have under the Proclamation. To-morrow the negotiations will be carried on. I hope nothing will be said to-night that will make those negotiations more difficult. I must say that, although I started work pretty early this morning in no hopeful frame of mind, and although most of the day passed in a state of something like depression, I am much more hopeful after having left the chair at the 9 o'clock meeting. I am convinced that both sides are now really striving to effect an agreement which will enable us to look forward to a week-end which may, perhaps, be a little less inconvenient than, a few hours ago, it appeared likely to be.

I am sure the House has heard with great interest and with a certain sense of relief the statement which has just been made, and I only propose to say two or three words upon it. I am convinced that anyone who has been a member of a Government would agree that the right course has been taken in making the Proclamation, for this reason, that one has to look, not to what is happening at the moment so much as to possibilities, and no Government can afford to run the risk of letting anything happen that may disturb the supply of the essential foodstuffs for the people. I think that all parties in the House will agree with that. Secondly, while the responsibility mainly rests, of course, on the Government of the day, there is a great responsibility on this House at a time like this, and I am quite sure, speaking for this side of the House, we would echo one remark of the Prime Minister's, and that is that no useful purpose will be served by a prolongation of the discussion of this subject at the moment. I have had some experience myself of trade disputes, and nothing is so dangerous, in the course of a trade dispute, as irresponsible criticism from outside. We always run the risk of that here, with the best intentions in the world, and irresponsible criticism in the Press is very often a danger also. We shall await with interest any statement which the Government may be able to make to-morrow, and all I would say, in conclusion, is that, when this cloud has passed away, I hope the Government and the House may devote themselves to the consideration of what is, possibly, the most serious question this country has to face, namely, how we can get some kind of even temporary peace in industry that will give our country a chance.

I have only one or two words to add to those which have fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. On behalf of my Friends and myself, I join with him in expressing a sense of relief that, at any rate, the negotiations have not broken down, and that the Prime Minister is in a position to make a hopeful statement with regard to the proceedings to-morrow. I should also like to emphasise, as one who has had a very considerable experience in endeavouring to settle labour disputes, the very great importance of doing everything in the power of the Government to minimise the inconvenience to the public. I have not, myself, heard any of these suggestions about soldiers being used; I cannot see where soldiers would assist; but when the Prime Minister said something about commandeering, I am perfectly certain that, in order to enable the public to discharge their duties and to get to their work, if there were not sufficient voluntary assistance for the purpose, this country will face even commandeering. There will be no shrinking from any action which the Government may think necessary in order to enable all the functions of life to be discharged. The Prime Minister need not imagine that that is an extreme proposal from which any section in this House, as far as I know, would shrink if it were necessary. For reasons which are obvious, because I do not want to introduce into a discussion of this kind any disagreeable comment, I will take no notice of the remarks which he made in the early part of his speech.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Adjournment

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Mr. Spoor. ]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-two Minutes after Ten o'clock.