Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 180: debated on Tuesday 17 February 1925

House of Commons

Tuesday, February 17, 1925

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

Beer and Spirits Duties

I desire to present a petition on behalf of 158,000 signatories in different parts of Scotland praying this honourable House to grant a reduction of the duties on beer and spirits.

Private Business

Westlothian (Battigate District) Water Order Confirmation Bill

Considered.

Schedule

Amendments made:

In Clause 16, page 15, line 1, leave out the words "Immediately after the passing of this Order."

In Clause 16, page 15, line 5, leave out the word "the" and insert instead thereof the words "a period of."

In page 15, lines 6 and 7, leave out the words "next following the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-five."

In page 53, lines 7, 8 and 9, leave out the words "District Committee may alter or increase number and size of filters and other works," and insert instead thereof the words "Power to discharge water temporarily into streams."—[ Sir John Gilmour. ]

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [ Lords ] (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, brought from the Lords and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Blackpool) Bill [ Lords ].

Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (Special Report),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, he had made a Special Report, namely:

Ancient Monuments Preservation Order Confirmation Bill.

Special Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Oral Answers to Questions

Trade and Commerce

Tin Oxide (Imports)

asked the Bresident of the Board of Trade if he will state for each of the five years 1909–13, and 1920–24, the quantities of tin oxide imported into the United Kingdom, the average value per ton in each year, and the principal countries of origin?

Tin oxide is not separately recorded in the trade returns of the United Kingdom, and I regret, therefore, that the desired particulars are not available.

Oil Engines (French Tariff):

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the new proposed French tariff increases the duty on oil engines imported into France from this country by 400 per cent.: and whether any steps are being taken by His Majesty's Government to modify this heavy burden upon Anglo-French trade

If the French Tariff Bill of November last became law in its present form, the duties on oil engines would be increased to about four times their present figure. The Bill in question has, so far as I am aware, made no progress in the French Legislature, but His Majesty's Ambassador at Paris has been supplied with all necessary information with a view to the matter being brought to the notice of the French Government should occasion arise.

Has our Ambassador been instructed to inform the French Government that we ourselves are going to propose new duties?

Glass and China

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that foreign glass and china, like many other articles, are coming unrestrictedly into this country in increasing volume, thereby making it very difficult for such Home industries to survive, he will consider strengthening, with as little delay as possible, the Merchandise Marks Act, more especially when such industries are being worked on piecework without restriction of output?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) on the 12th February.

When does the right hon. Gentleman think he will be in a position to make a statement in regard to this important matter, which affects so many industries?

The negotiations are going on at the present time, and obviously, until I know the result of the negotiations, and also what are the prospects and possibilities of legislation, in conformity with the general legislative programme of the Government, it would be impossible for me to make a statement.

Does the right hon. Gentleman assent to the proposition in the question, that the Merchandise Marks Act is intended to have a protective effect?

British Dyestuffs Corporation

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, as the capital of the British Dyestuffs Corporation is over £9,000,000 and the annual value of its sales does not exceed £4,000,000, he will instruct the directors appointed by the Government to press for an immediate financial reconstruction to enable the Corporation to sell its productions at competitive prices?

I am not aware that the reconstruction of the capital of the British Dyestuffs Corporation would affect the selling prices of its products, but I know that this matter is having the Careful attention of the directors, and His Majesty's Government have already informed them that the Government are prepared to participate in a reconstruction of capital.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in the case of indigo dye, which is made in this country as well as abroad, the price is considered to be too high in consequence of the capital of the company?

Perhaps, if my hon. Friend wishes to ask a specific question about a specific dye, he will put it on the Paper.

Shipping Rates, Canada

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information with regard to the Report recently presented by Mr. W. T. R. Preston, the Commissioner appointed by the Canadian Government to examine the question of shipping rates; and, if so, whether he will inform the, House as to the general findings of the Commissioner?

asked the President, of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that there is a North Atlantic shipping combine directed by British capitalists; that this combine is charging freights to Great Britain as high as 700 per cent. over the rates of 1910: that it is giving preference against British trade; and that the cheapest rate to Britain quoted to one Canadian exporter is via New York and Rotterdam; if the Canadian Government has appealed to His Majesty's Government for collaboration in the steps it is taking to insure cheaper transport of its produce to Britain; and, if so, with what result?

I have seen the Press telegrams relating to this Report on Shipping Rates, but the text of the Report is not yet available in this country, and no official communication has been received with regard to it. In these circumstances it would obviously be impossible for me to make any statement at the present time. But I think there would be general agreement that charges of the kind referred to in the second question, if made on responsible authority, call for full and impartial investigation.

With reference to the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, will he give a personal undertaking to see that these charges, in so far as they vitally affect British trade, will be immediately inquired into when he gets this Report?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no shipping combine between this country and Canada?

The question was put on the Order Paper, and, therefore, I felt bound to answer it, but very much deprecate having to give an answer on a matter of this kind until full information is received and I can make a final and definite statement.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is cheaper to send goods from this country to Canada or the United States than from Liverpool to London?

Is he aware that that is not the opinion of the official adviser to the Canadian Government?

Coal Exports, Spain

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Spanish Government have appointed a Committee to consider the importation of coal into Spain with a view to curtailment by tariffs or possible prohibition; and, having regard to the present state of our export coal industry, will he consider a means of retaliation in support of the interests of our own people?

My hon. Friend no doubt refers to the Commission the appointment of which is noted on page 205 of the current issue of the Board of Trade Journal. I think I must await information as to the recommendations, if any, put forward by the body in question before considering what action His Majesty's Government should take in the matter.

Tea Market

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that proposals are being made to change the basis of the market for tea sales at Mincing Lane: and what steps he proposes to take to maintain the present free and open market for tea?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. If the hon. Member will convey to me any recent information which he has in view, I will cause inquiries to be made.

Ought not the right hon. Gentleman to be aware of the private meeting that was held last December in Mincing Lane to alter the basis of the market, and is he now aware of the agreement of the Indian and Ceylon Tea Association to withhold supplies?

The hon. Member is, apparently, more ready to impart information than to ask for it, but I am glad to have had that supplementary question. My information is that the point of the open market to which the hon. Member refers is completely safeguarded, and that there is no question of there being any departure on that head.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any means of stopping restriction of production of tea by producing companies?

Granite

asked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity of granite, unmanufactured and manufactured, imported into the United Kingdom from all sources during the year 1924: and the declared value of these imports, together with the percentage of weight and value of granite consigned from British possessions?

As the answer contains a long table of figures, my hon. Friend will perhaps allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is doing anything

Description.

Total Imports in 1924 from All Countries.

Imports in 1924 consigned from British Possessions.

Quantity.

Quantity.

Proportion of Total Imports.

Tons.

Tons.

Per cent.

Stones and Slates:

Granite, other than setts and pavement curbs and Monumental and Architectural objects.

605,971

372,806

61·5

Granite:

Setts and pavement curbs

232,718

12,047

5·2

Monumental and Architectural

3,593

70

1·9

Declared Value.

Declared Value.

Proportion of Total Imports.

£

£

Per cent

Stones and Slates:

Granite, other than setts and pavement curbs and Monumental and Architectural objects.

583,403

326,836

56·0

Granite:

Setts and pavement curbs

613,170

33,824

5·5

Monumental and Architectural

81,020

1,512

1·9

Questions

Mixed Arbitral Tribunal

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the president of one of the enemy debt mixed arbitral tribunals has been appointed to a post under the League, of Nations; and, if so, what arrangements have been made to prevent this from interfering with the work of that tribunal?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has supplied me with the following answer: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, an assurance has been given to the effect that the additional functions devolving upon the President of this Mixed Arbitral Tribunal will not be allowed to prejudice the work in his Department to encourage the production of granite in this country, as against importing it?

It does not arise here.

The following statement gives the information desired:

of that tribunal. Should it be found that this assurance cannot in practice be fulfilled, then His Majesty's Government will take the necessary steps to secure that the efficiency of the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal is not impaired.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the recommendation of the Select Committee on Estimates has been accepted, and a Third Division of the Enemy Debt Mixed Arbitral Tribunal appointed; and, if so, will he state its composition, the date on which it held its first sitting, the number of its subsequent sittings, and the total number of cases which it has so far settled?

The Third Division of the Anglo-German Mixed Arbitral Tribunal was con- stituted as from 1st February. The President is Monsieur A. F. J. Bagge, the British member, Mr. G. E. Robinson, M.O., and the German member, Dr. H. Detmold. The division is at present engaged in drawing up its rules of procedure and has not yet held any sittings to consider cases.

Can my right hon. Friend give any indication as to when the first sitting will be held?

Yes, I hope it, will sit very soon, and it is proposing to sit from day to day, and deal with cases by way of summary proceedings.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the delays caused by the German clearing office in dealing with British claims under the Peace Treaty; whether the British clearing office have any means of preventing such delays; and, if not, what action could be taken to give the British clearing office more effective power to deal with such eases?

The question of delay in the admission of British claims has received constant attention. As the result of a recent Agreement with the German Government, the work of dealing with outstanding claims has been greatly expedited. In this connection I would point out to my hon. Friend that it is open to claimants to refer their claims immediately to the Anglo-German Mixed Arbitral Tribunal for adjudication, and to apply, should they elect to do so, to have their cases dealt with by the summary process of the new Division of the Tribunal which has now been constituted.

Mercantile Marine

Coal-Carrying Vessels

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the findings of the court of inquiry which investigated the loss of the ss. "Hartley," which, carrying a cargo of coal, foundered in the English Channel in November last, the whole of the crew with one exception losing their lives; whether he is aware that there have been other similar casualties recently as regards this particular class of coal-carrying vessel and that one of these vessels, the "John Harrison," is now posted as missing; whether any steps are being taken to adopt the measures which the court of inquiry stated would in their opinion have prevented the loss of the ss. "Hartley"; and whether he will go into the general question of the alleged unseaworthiness of vessels of this type?

My attention has been called to the report in the "Hartley" case. The recommendations of the Court are being considered, and a formal inquiry has been ordered in the other case mentioned, that of the John Harrison." I am sending my hon. Friend certain papers showing what has been done recently with regard to coal-carrying vessels. These two cases show I think that the problem has not yet been solved, and every possible step will be taken to find the right solution. In the meantime the extent of the problem should not be overstated, as the very great majority of the vessels carry their cargoes safely all the year round in all weathers.

Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply as to the great majority of vessels apply to these so-called self-trimming vessels?

If he will read the Report of the special Committee which went fully into that matter he will see that that matter was dealt with and that that expert Committee expressed the opinion that there was no greater danger in those cases than in any other process. Perhaps my hon. Friend will read the Report of that Committee and then, if necessary, consult me again.

Wireless Apparatus

also asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the coal-laden steamer "John Harrison," now posted as a missing vessel, had no wireless apparatus on board, there being no legal requirement in this respect; that both in this and other maritime countries there are many 'vessels fitted with wireless though of less tonnage than that required by law, namely, 1,600 tons; and, in view of the fact that had the "John Harrison" been equipped with wireless her crew might have been saved, will he consider whether anything can be done to encourage the use of wireless apparatus in vessels which do not reach the tonnage at present prescribed by Statute?

A formal inquiry has been ordered into the circumstances relating to the loss of the "John Harrison." Many vessels below the tonnage limit do, in fact, carry wireless voluntarily, and the policy of the Board of Trade and the Post Office for some time past has been to encourage this tendency as much as they properly can.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to introduce legislation to enforce that all ships should carry wireless for the safety of the people working on them?

No, Sir. This matter has already been very carefully considered, as the hon. Member knows, not only by Committees in this country, but by international conventions

In view of the fact that there is an increasing number of vessels of this size being lost at sea, and the loss of life, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of allowing this House a day for discussing this matter; or will he consider the advisability of setting up a Committee to inquire into the question?

I should not be prepared to give any assent, without notice, to the statement the hon. Gentleman has just made, but it is always open to him or any other hon. Member to challenge the action of the Board of Trade upon the Votes in the usual way.

Alien Seamen

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, arising out of a clause in the Anglo-German Commercial Treaty, he proposes to introduce legislation to amend the law relating to alien seamen; and, if so, can he state when?

The former Enemy Aliens (Disabilities Removal) Bill, which was introduced in this House yesterday, proposes to give effect to Article 4 ( a ) of the Protocol to the Anglo-German Commercial Treaty.

Safeguarding of Industries

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many industries have applied for inquiries under the new safeguarding scheme; and whether it will be competent for representatives to be heard speaking for industries which, although not employing the article under inquiry as a material, would be adversely affected by its taxation?

The inquiries so far received from various industries relate to the nature of the procedure and the form of the evidence to be submitted, and are not definite applications. As regards the second part of the question, the committees will be instructed to report on certain specific questions as laid down in the White Paper. It will be open to a committee to receive any evidence which is directly relevant to these questions; but it is not intended that they should be invited to rove over the field of general policy.

Would the committee be enabled to hear evidence as in the case of fabric gloves from the Bolton people?

Will any limit of time be placed upon the proceedings of this committee?

No. With regard to the limit of time, obviously the committee must take such time as is necessary to make a full investigation and a fully considered report will save time in discussions hereafter. With regard to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn), the committee will hear full evidence on the matters dealt with in the White Paper, and they will not travel outside that.

My hon. and gallant Friend is well acquainted with the terms of the White Paper. We propose that the industries concerned using a product in their manufacture should he represented, but we do not propose that the committee should be invited to engage in such discursive discussions which are so dear to the hon. and gallant Member's heart.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case I have mentioned it was necessary for the Government to set up a supplementary inquiry and will that be provided for?

I am aware also that in that case the findings were that it was quite unnecessary that it should ever have been done.

That was dealt with yesterday. The hon. and gallant Member could not have heard the debate.

asked the President of the Board of Trade under what powers committees of inquiry will be set up in connection with the Government's safeguarding of industries scheme: whether evidence will be given on oath and be subject to cross-examination; and whether the proceedings of the committees will be published?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the evidence given before the committees which he proposes to set up in connection with the safeguarding of industries will be on oath and subject to cross-examination; and whether the reports of the committees will be published?

No special powers are necessary at any time to enable the Government to set up a committee of inquiry on any subject. It intended that witnesses shall be subject to cross-examination. There is no power to require evidence to be given on oath nor do I consider this necessary. The reports of committees will be published.

How many committees is it proposed to set up? Is there any limit to the number or will it be fixed by the number of industries that apply?

The number of committees will vary according to the number of industries which may make out a prima facie case.

Will the right hon. Gentleman see that no publicity takes place which is likely to be prejudicial any British industry?

That seems to be a perfectly reasonable request. It is essential that the committee should have all the information relative to the inquiry as laid down in the White Paper, but information of a confidential character, the disclosure of which would be injurious to a particular industry, may be taken in secret.

British Army

Arborfield Remount Depot and Bramley Arsenal

asked the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office will take steps to house their employs at Arbor-field Remount Depot and Bramley Arsenal, many of whom are now crowding out neighbouring villages and in some cases living in condemned cottages

Government quarters are provided at both Arborfield Remount Depot and Bramley Ordnance Depot for the military personnel employed at those places. In the case of the Bramley Depot, Government quarters have been provided for some 39 civilian employés whose duties are of a pivotal nature necessitating residence in close proximity to their work. My hon. and gallant Friend should call the attention of the local housing authorities to the latter part of the question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many War Office employés have not quarters, and will he take steps to see that they get. them?

As I have stated in the answer, all the military employés have got quarters, but the civilians have not all got quarters. I have given the civilians all the quarters that are available, and I have no more to give.

Service Pensions

27.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that any broken period of service is proportionately reckonable in calculating an airman's pension, the War Office can see its way to apply the same practice with regard to the pensions of the Army?

As I informed the hon. and gallant Member in reply to his question on the 15th December, last, I see no need to alter the regulations for the reckoning of service for Army pension. The pension codes of the three Services differ in many respects.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will give the number of service pensions now being paid; the average amount of such pensions; and how many applications have been refused to men with over 10 years' service?

There are approximately 87,000 service pensions now in payment, the average amount of which is £45 6s. 3d. a year. It cannot be stated how many applications for service pensions have been refused to men who completed more than 10 years' service. The Army pension code only provides for the grant of pensions to men who have completed 21 years' service, or who were prematurely discharged after re-engaging to complete 21 years. The majority of soldiers are discharged at the end of a 12 years' engagement with the colours and in the reserve combined, and these men are not eligible for pension.

Chatham Barracks

asked the Secretary of State for War what regiment is to take the place of the Warwickshire Regiment at Chatham Barracks; and when it is likely to arrive?

The 1st Battalion, Royal Warwickshire Regiment, will not be replaced in the Chatham Garrison. The barracks recently occupied by this unit are required for the better accommodation of the Training Battalion of the Royal Engineers.

May we ask if it is not the fact that the next regiment coming there is the regiment of B.F's?

Am I to understand that no more Royal Engineers are being sent to Chatham?

My hon. and learned Friend must give me notice if he wants the number. My answer is that the barracks are required for the better accommodation of the Royal Engineers.

Resignation

asked the Secretary of State for War whether an officer in the Army during peace time is at liberty to throw up his commission; does such a privilege remain operative right up to the outbreak of war; may a private soldier resign from the Army under similar conditions; and is it possible for officers who are disinclined to carry out duties which may be obnoxious to them to exercise the right to resign their commissions if they so desire

No officer has a right to resign his commission at any time; nor has a private soldier a right to be discharged until the period of his engagement has expired, except the right of a recruit, subject to the provisions of Section 81 of the Army Act, to purchase his discharge within three months after the date of his attestation. An officer cannot resign his commission as an alternative to carrying out duties which may be distasteful to him.

Military Offninces (Executions)

asked the Secretary of State for War how many officers were executed for offences against military law and discipline during the great War, and how many private soldiers were executed because of similar offences; and how many officers were sent home from their regiments during the same war because of shell-shock or other nervous complaints, and the number of privates returner, for similar reasons?

Two officers and 307 other ranks were executed for such offences. I am not able to give the figures asked for in the latter part of the question as the medical statistics relating to the Great War have not been extracted in detail. Such figures as are available will be found in chapter I of volume II of the Official Medical History of the War, a copy of which is available in the library of the House.

33

asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that two private soldiers of the South Lancashire Regiment were arrested in London on 18th May, 1916, for desertion in this country and were then taken to France, tried, sentenced to death, and executed there; and if he will state the reason why these men were taken to France for trial and execution in respect of a crime committed in this country?

I am aware of the facts about these two cases as stated by the hon. Member. The two men deserted at Waterloo Station from a draft proceeding to France to join their battalion. They were arrested together on the 18th May, 1916, and were sent to France because it is the ordinary practice to return a deserter to his unit for trial.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is any less prudent to shoot these men in France than it would have been to shoot them in this country?

Does my right hon. Friend think these questions do any good towards peace on earth and good will towards men?

Boys' Technical Training

asked the Secretary of State for War what is the total number of boys who have been enlisted in order to receive technical training to enable them to perform skilled work required in the Army; whether any difficulty has been experienced in obtaining the number of boys required, owing to the fact that the Army Council have been unable to give parents an assurance that the training which the boys receive while in the Army would be recognised by trades unions on the boys' discharge to civil life; and what action has been taken in the matter?

Since the introduction of the competitive examination scheme in September, 1923, 1,213 boys have been enlisted for training as apprentice tradesmen. There has been no difficulty in obtaining the required number of boys, as the number of applicants has exceeded the number of vacancies.

Is the suggestion in the question that the trade unions will not recognise them incorrect do I understand?

No, I did not say that at all. I do not know what the trade unions will do, but these boys will not come out of the Army for about 10 years. It is not useful to ask for pledges for so long in advance.

Is it not a fact that the whole idea of the scheme is that these boys should be trained in a useful occupation in which they will be able to earn their living in private life

That is not the primary object. The primary object is to secure really skilled men for service in the Army, and after 10 years service and the training they are getting they will be so skilled that I have no doubt they will easily obtain lucrative employment in civil life.

Gravesend Drill Hall (Political Meeting)

36.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office why, in view of the fact that there has been an embargo in the past upon the letting of the drill hall in Pelham Road, Gravesend, for political meetings, such a meeting was permitted on the 4th instant, and the fee paid for the use of the hall?

I am informed that the policy of the Kent Territorial Army Association not to allow the use of their drill halls for political meetings was not departed from on the occasion in question when the use of the hall at Gravesend was allowed for a dance organised by the Constitutional Association. There were no political speeches. A charge of 2s. per head was made, the balance, after meeting expenses, being divided between the clubs of the Territorial units. Other political associations have been allowed the use of the hall for purely social purposes.

Questions

Enemy Action Claims

asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the belated claims for reparation for damage by enemy action; is he aware that a great many of these claims are perfectly genuine, that the small additional sum voted does not meet them, and that injustice has been caused; and when Parliament will be asked to vote additional money?

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 12th February to the hon. Members for Cardiff East (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) and the Isle of Thalia (Mr. Harmsworth).

May we expect any additional grant should we get any reparations from Germany under the Dawes Report; and is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that, in the last Parliament, his own followers were pressing very hard for additional money for grants in hard cases that do come to light?.

asked the President. of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the case of Mr. George Durwood, of Broughty Ferry, who was mate upon the trawler "Stork," of Dundee, sunk by enemy submarine action in April, 7917; whether he is aware that, as a result of shock and exposure, this man's voice has been so impaired that the Board of Trade will not allow him to sail as mate; that he has been compelled to attend the Dundee Infirmary for three and a half years; that he claimed the sum of £500 damages, and was offered the sum of £3 on 31st December, 1924, by the Treasury; and if steps will be taken to have this case re-examined?

The answer is rather long, and, with the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

An examination has been made into this case. A claim was lodged by Mr. George Dorward on 20th October, 1920, for loss of effects, and he was paid £20 awarded by the Royal Commission on Compensation for Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action in respect of effects lost and being torpedoed in 1916. No mention was made of injury to health at that time, but on 22nd February, 1923, Mr. Dorward made a belated claim in respect of injury to health. On the principles laid down by the Royal Commission, it was only possible to award Mr. Dorward a solatium of £3 out of the £300,000 provided for belated claimants. In the circumstances, the grant to Mr. Dorward cannot be increased; and I understand that he has in fact been for some time sailing as second hand on board a Dundee trawler.

Shipbuilding Industry

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take immediate action to deal with the handicap suffered by the shipbuilding industry in competing with foreign firms by assistance in respect of local rating of business and works premises, and by representations to the Treasury to lower national taxation, especially Income Tax, but with the conditions, first, that the wage rates of the workers shall not be adversely affected in any such scheme nor yet that reserves, if any, of the shipbuilding firms be further depleted?

The reduction of national and local taxation is obviously a matter of great importance, and one to which the efforts of the Government will be constantly directed, but it would clearly not be possible to single out one particular industry for special treatment in that respect.

Wheat (Acreage)

asked the President 11 the Board of Trade the acreage under wheat in the principal wheat-growing countries for the year ending 1923, as compared with 1924?

The answer contains a table of figures, which my hon. Friend will, perhaps, allow me to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

According to information supplied to the International Agricultural Institute, Rome, by the Governments of the countries named, the acreage under wheat in the years specified was as stated below:

Country.

Area under Wheat.

1923.

1924.

Thousand Acres.

Thousand Acres.

Germany

3,653·4

3,623·4

Bulgaria

2,303·4

2,462·2

Spain

10,488·8

10,354·7

Serb - Croat - Slovene State

3,842·6

4,071·0*

France

13,672·7

13,412·4

Great Britain and Northern Ireland

1,806·0

1,599·2

Hungary

3,319·6

3,499·4

Italy

11,554·3

11,280·5

Poland

2,514·0

2,658·3

Roumania

6,648·1

7,838·6

Czechslovakia

1,506·7

1,499·5

Rest of Europe

3,239·8

2,990·7

Canada

22,671·9

22,504·7

United States of America*

39,518·0

36,438·0

Do· do†

20,141·0

17,771·0

India

30,844·0

31,178·0

Rest of Asia

2,375·9

2,322·7

Africa

8,536·7

8·350·3

Argentine Republic

17,215·7‡

17,754·8§

Chile

1,444·4‡

1,390·7§

Rest of South America

1,055·5‡

1,052·0§

Australia and New Zealand

9,681·6‡

10,970·0§

Total of above

218,034·1

215,031·1

Russi

28,121·0

Particulars not available

Other

2,397·1

Total

248, 552·2

Particulars not available

* Winter crop.

† Spring crop

‡Areas reaped partly or wholly in 1924

§Areas to be reaped partly or wholly in 1925

Territorial Army

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will state the reasons for the proposed duplication of the Territorial Army?

The hon. Member is presumably referring to the statement I recently made to the Council of County Territorial Associations, that in any war of first-class importance the Territorial Army would be required at least to duplicate itself. The reason is, as I stated, that the Territorial Army would be the sole means of expansion in time of war.

Is the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that this is one of the results of our having won the War?

Scotland

Register House, Edinburgh

asked the Secretary for Scotland what are the proposals of the Government in reference to the Register House; and whether it is intended to move any of the documents from Edinburgh?

I am not yet in a position to announce the intentions of the Government with regard to legislation respecting the organisation of the Departments in the Register House. I can, however, assure the hon. and gallant Member that the idea of removing any documents from the Record Office in Edinburgh has never been contemplated, and I am glad to take this opportunity of removing misunderstandings on that point.

Does the right hon. Baronet intend to appoint a Registrar Depute or a Curator, both of which posts are vacant?

I have said I am not in a position to announce the Government policy on the question.

Is the office not statutory, and why has it been so long left vacant?

The history of the Reorganisation Bill is well known to the right hon. Gentleman. It has been introduced more than once, but so far it has not been proceeded with. As soon as I am in a position to re-introduce it I will do so.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the history of this question is one which has not been at all satisfactory to Scotland, and that a settlement of it is urgent?

Accused Persons (Identification)

asked the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware of the evidence given by the governor of Duke Street prison at a recent murder trial in Stirling in which reflections were made on the police methods of identification of the accused person; and whether he will cause an impartial inquiry to be made into this matter?

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the evidence given by the governor of Duke Street prison, Glasgow, on 27th January, in which he referred to the means adopted by the police for the identification of a prisoner, subsequently charged with murder; whether he is aware that the governor formed the opinion that the police prompted a witness in regard to identification, and that the governor was so impressed with this that he reported the matter to the Prison Commissioners; and whether, if he has not already done so, he will cause a searching inquiry to be made into the governor's statement regarding the action of the police in regard to their treatment of Mrs. Russell?

The answer to the first part of these questions is in the affirmative. The learned Judge, in his charge to the jury, as reported, expressed the opinion that the allegations made against the police in connection with the identification of the accused were based upon suspicions which were groundless. I do not consider that further inquiry is necessary.

Is the right hon. Baronet aware that this is not the first occasion on which serious allegations have been made at murder trials against the methods of the police of identification, and in view of the interest taken in Scotland on this question, will he not make some inquiry and some definite pronouncement.

I am satisfied that in this case the matter was very carefully gone into, and I have no reason to reopen it.

Is it not the case that the remarks of the Judge upon the police methods of identification were based upon a statement that had been made, or a suspicion by the Governor of the prison, and not on the methods adopted generally, and the question, as I understand it, is, will he take steps to see that a better method of identification is adopted, and will he institute an inquiry to get the best method to set it up?

All I can say is that unless I have some further evidence produced—I am dealing with this case—I see no reason to suppose that what the Judge said was not well founded.

I beg to give notice that on the first opportunity I will raise the question on the Adjournment.

Criminal Appeal Court

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is prepared to consider the institution of a Court of Criminal Appeal for Scotland?

I have appointed a Committee to consider whether it is desirable that further provision should be made for appeal in criminal cases in Scotland. I must await the Report of that Committee before reaching a conclusion on the subject.

Why is it necessary to set up such a Committee when you already have a Court of Criminal Appeal in England? Is there any difference in Scotland which necessitates a Committee being set up to see whether it is necessary?

Land Settlement (Highlands)

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has considered the appointment of a committee of inquiry into the questions of land settlement, transport, and postal facilities in the Highlands of Scotland; and, if not, whether, in view of the depopulation of that portion of the country, he will appoint a committee to go fully into these matters?

In view of the inquiries which have been made within recent years into the questions of land settlement and of transport facilities in the Highlands there does not appear to me to be any necessity for the appointment at the present time of a committee of inquiry into those questions. I am, however, examining the whole situation in the light of the existing information. The question of postal facilities is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General.

Will the right hon. Baronet submit the results of those inquiries to the House in a report?

Smallholdings, Terregles

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that there is dissatisfaction among certain of the smallholders of Terregles, near Dumfries, with regard to their condition as to rent, equipment, etc.; and whether any action can be taken by him to improve those conditions?

I am aware that there is dissatisfaction on the part of some individuals among the smallholders at Terregles, but I do not consider that there is any legitimate ground for it. Concessions have been made in proper cases with regard to rents and building annuities, after a hearing by the Land Court, and also in other respects and in my view these have reasonably met the situation. I do not, therefore, see any ground for action on my part.

Education Act Amendment Bill, 1918

asked the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that there is a demand on the part of education authorities for the re-introduction of the Education (Scotland) Act Amendment Bill, 1918, which was introduced by the Member for South Aberdeen in 1923; and, if so, will he state what action, if any, he proposes to take to meet this demand?

I have arranged to meet a deputation from the Association of Education Authorities at an early date. The Bill to which the hon. Member refers is one of the matters to be discussed.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of the education authorities are as strongly opposed to the Bill as it came from another place?

Is it not a fact that there was absolute unanimity on three sections——

I am putting the question to the right hon. Gentleman. Is it not a fact that there was absolute unanimity on three Clauses of the Act, and that it was only on one Clause, dealing with school management committees, that there was any dissatisfaction?

Housing

asked the Secretary for Scotland how many houses have been built by the county council of Midlothian in the Gala Water district under the various Housing Acts; how many have been built to let; if he knows there is great demand in that area, particularly the Gorebridge district, for houses to let; and what action, if auy, does he propose to encourage this county council to meet the demand for better and more housing accommodation?

Under the Housing Acts no houses have been built in tie Gala Water District by the County Council of Midlothian. According to a return made by the local authority in 1919 the shortage of houses in the district was estimated at 76, 50 of which were for Gorebridge I have no information as to the present shortage, but I am having inquiry made, and if the result so warrants I shall urge the local authority to take the appropriate steps to relieve the shortage by promoting a scheme or schemes under the Housing Acts of 1923 and 1924.

asked the Secretary for Scotland how many houses have been erected in Scotland under the various assisted housing schemes; and how many houses under those schemes are in course of construction?

As the answer includes a tabular statement, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

No. of Houses completed.

No. of Houses under construction.

Housing, Town Planning, etc. (Scotland) Act, 1919

23,601

1,858

Subsidy to Private Builders under Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919.

2,324

Schemes for the Improvement of Insanitary Areas

962

2,571

Housing, etc., Act, 1923:—

( a ) Houses erected by Local Authorities) Houses erected by Local Authorities

209

2,068

( b ) Houses erected by Private Enterprise) Houses erected by Private Enterprise

1,403

3,422

Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924:—

Houses erected by Local Authorities

690

Totals

28,499

10,609

Undersized Fish

asked the Secretary for Scotland if he can do anything to stop the destruction of undersized fish on the east coast of Scotland, which is doing serious injury to the fishing for larger classes of fish?

It is difficult for me to give a definite reply to the hon. and gallant Member's question in the absence of further particulars as to the circumstances. If he will be good enough to send me information as to the kind of fish, and the locality concerned, I shall be glad to make further inquiries and to send him a reply.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the larger sort of Scottish fish very often fall upon and rend these smaller fish?

Medical Officers of Health

asked the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that the grant given by the Government towards the salaries and expenses of medical officers of health and sanitary inspectors in Scotland is less than the grant given towards these officers in England; and will he see that Scotland gets a grant equal to that given in England for this purpose?

The difference between Scotland and England in the matter referred to by the hon. Member arises from the fact that in. Scotland the statutory provisions which regulate the distri

Following is the answer:

At 31st January, 1925, the position of progress with building under the various State-assisted housing schemes in Scotland was as follows:

bution of sums paid into the Local Taxation Account appropriate a fixed annual sum of £15,000 in aid of the cost of medical officers and sanitary inspectors, whereas under the corresponding provisions for England a grant of 10s. per on approved expenditure is paid. A revision of the Scottish scheme of distribution so as to secure a large appropriation to this service would involve reduction of the grants to other services and could only be effected by legislation.

Land Court Report, 1924

asked the Secretary for Scotland when the publication of the Land Court Report for the year 1924 can be expected; whether it may be available at an earlier date than was the case of the Report for the year 1923; and whether he will consider the advisability of reverting to the practice of having the Report printed in full?

It is not possible at this stage to state definitely when the Land Court Report for 1924 will be ready; it is hoped that it will be available at a much earlier date than the 1923 Report. As regards the last part of the question, if the hon. Member refers to the question of printing, the detailed appendices which at present are neostyled, I have no evidence of any public dissatisfaction with the present arrangements, which have greatly reduced the cost of this volume to the taxpayer.

Whaling Licences (Shetland)

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has before him an application from those interested in the herring fishing in Shetland asking for the concellation of licences for whaling in the county; and whether he is prepared to give a decision in the matter at an early date to permit of arrangements being made for the coming season?

I recently dealt with an application made by the Shetland White Fishing and Herring Protection Association to the effect stated in the first part of the question. After carefully considering the question, I intimated to the applicants that I was not prepared to give effect to the application. No outstanding application is therefore before me.

School Accommodation, North Uist

asked the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that no school has been provided for the children of the small landholders on the new settlement of Newton, North Uist: and, in view of the fact that there are 23 children, of school age, in this new township, what steps does he propose to take to provide the necessary facilities for education?

The provision of accommodation rests primarily with the education authority, and I understand that they are faking active steps in the matter.

Lochboisdale Pier, South List

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is now in a position to state when Lochboisdale pier, in the island of South Uist, will be reopened for traffic; and, if not. whether, in view of the inconvenience, and loss caused to the traders and general public, he can say how much longer the people of that island are to be deprived of reasonable means of communication with the mainland?

The pier is closed by the instructions of its owner, and I am not in a position to state when it will be reopened nor to add materially to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member's question on the 18th of December.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the people living on that island are at present being deprived of the only means of communication with people on the mainland, and that it is the duty of the Government to govern and provide these means of communication?

This pier is private property over which we have no control, but the whole matter is receiving careful consideration.

Is it not the duty of the Government to see that the people living there, irrespective of any landlord, are provided by the Government with the means of living there?

Offences Against Children

asked the Lord Advocate if he is aware of the continued increase of criminal offences against children in Scotland, and especially of the assault on Thursday, 5th February, upon a child aged three years in the Possil district of Glasgow; and will he consider the introduction of legislation to increase the penalties for this form of crime?

The information in my possession does not warrant the view that there is a continued increase in the offence referred to by my hon. Friend Inquiry is at present being made into the Glasgow case mentioned. With regard to the latter part of the question, I would remind my hon. Friend that a Departmental Committee recently appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland is at present inquiring into the subject of such offences.

Has my right hon. Friend referred to the Return given to this House by his predecessor?

I am aware of the Return to which the hon. Member refers, but it is somewhat misleading in respect of the first column. It does not give the number of cases in which evidence can be got to justify proceedings, but simply the number of cases reported to the police, and it is well known that in some of these instances there has been found no real case at all.

Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the Departmental Inquiry which ho is setting up will consider net only the question of sentences but also the social conditions from which this crime arises?

Unemployment

Tottenham and Other Areas

asked the Prime Minister whether he has received a copy of a resolution upon unemployment passed at a town's meeting in Tottenham; and. in view of the amount of unemployment and consequent misery prevailing in Tottenham and other large industrial areas, whether these and similar representations are receiving the attention of the Government?

I have been asked to reply. I have seen the resolution mentioned in the question, and I can assure the hon. Member that the whole matter of unemployment is receiving the continuous attention of the Government.

National Fund (State Advances)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the sum of money advanced by the State hitherto to the National Unemployment Fund, indicating how much has been repaid; and what sum is still, owing?

I have been asked to reply. The debt of the Unemployment Fund in respect of advances by the Treasury was at its highest point on 10th March, 1923, when the amount was £17,060,000. The amount now owing is £6,240,000.

Questions

Cologne (Evacuation)

asked the Prime Minister whether any steps are being taken to expedite the evacuation of Cologne; and whether this step on our part depends on anything, such as the ratification of the Protocol or other measure of security and guarantee, in addition to the stated disagreement on the adequacy of German disarmament?

I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull. The evacuation of Cologne depends solely upon the fulfilment by Germany of the conditions imposed on her under Article 429 of the Treaty of Versailles.

Are we to understand that this question is not being mixed up with the question of security?

Will the five years' period be held to have been completed as soon as the conditions with regard to disarmament have been fulfilled, or will they be held not to have begun to run?

Electoral Reform

asked the Prime Minister if it is the Government's intention to bring in a Measure for electoral reform, so that this House may more faithfully represent the opinion of the electors as expressed at the polls?

asked the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill conferring the franchise on men and women on equal terms?

The Government do not propose to make any statement on this subject until the Private Member's Bill, which is down for Second Beading on Friday next, is being considered by the House.

Is it possible for the Prime Minister to say whether the Government are generally favourable to the proposal?

Will the Prime Minister remember that many of his supporters are pledged to this?

Is there any demand for such a change of the law at the present time?

Old Age Pensions

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the hardship caused to working-class families under the Old Age Pensions (Amendment) Act, 1924, by which the earnings of either the husband or wife were penalised against other forms of income; and will he introduce a Bill to remedy this?

I can add nothing to the indication of the Government's policy in regard to Old Age Pensions which has been already made.

Gold (Export Prohibition)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the Act prohibiting the export of gold comes to an end on the 31st December of this year unless otherwise determined by Parliament, His Majesty's Government intend to renew it or to ask Parliament to repeal the Act at an earlier date?

I cannot at present add to the statement which I made on this subject on Thursday last.

Scotland and England (Financial Relations)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that no White Paper bearing upon the financial relations between Scotland and England has been issued since the 4th August, 1921; and whether, in view of the bearing of these returns upon the demand by large bodies of opinion in Scotland for self-government in Scotland, he will arrange for the more frequent publication of the returns in question?

Figures of the contribution of Scotland to the National Revenue and of the cost of Scottish services to the Exchequer in the financial year 1923–24, the latest period for which complete figures are available, were given by the right hon. Gentleman, my predecessor, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for South Aberdeen on the 4th August, 1924. I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the population of Wales per head contributes more to the Exchequer than Scotland does?

Income Tax

Irish Securities

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the hardship suffered by British investors in Irish securities by the deduction of double Income Tax to the amount of 9s. 6d. in the £, and of the difficulties and delay attending the repayment of the Irish portion of the tax, and of the further loss sustained by such British investors by reason of the consequent depreciation in the value of Irish securities; whether any representation on the subject has been made to the Free State Government; and, if so, can he see his way to give an assurance of an early mitigation of the hardships in question?

I am aware that the existence of double taxation between this country and the Irish Free State, which is an inevitable result of the establishment of the Free State as a separate Dominion, is causing inconvenience to taxpayers and I have heard of complaints of delay in obtaining repayment from the Free State authorities. I understand, however, that the Free State authorities are making every effort to cope with this question and my hon. Friend may rest assured that we on our side are to-king all possible steps to help taxpayers.

Assessment and Collection

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider an alteration of the present assessment and collection of Income Tax and Super-tax whereby both returns can be made on the same form and for the same corresponding period, and assessed by the same authority?

It would be impossible to explain within the limits of question time the many reasons which render the proposal of my hon. and gallant Friend impracticable.

Reduction of Tax (Cost)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the estimated loss to the Exchequer caused by a reduction of 6d. in the £ in the Income Tax in the first year and in a full year, respectively?

I regret that the material required for the Estimates in question for next year is not yet available. For the current year, 1924–25, the estimated loss of Income Tax that would have arisen from a reduction of the standard rate by 6d. in the £ would have been £29,000,000 in a full year and £18,000,000 within the financial year 1924–25.

Regimental Associations

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the action of inspectors of taxes in refusing a refund of Income Tax on funds of regimental associations, such refunds having hitherto been allowed; can he say why the practice has been departed from; and is it his intention to allow refunds in future?

A regimental association, in order to obtain the relief afforded to charities under the income Tax Acts, is required to show either that it is established for charitable purposes only, ur that the funds in respect of which exemption is claimed are legally applicable and applied to charitable purposes only. I understand that with regard to certain of these associations it has recently been found that neither of these legal tests was satisfied. In these circumstances, the associations concerned have been advised that if the Income Tax relief is to be continued, it is essential that the income shall be made subject to a binding trust for charitable purposes only. I am informed that in a number of instances the necessary steps have been taken to put matters upon a proper footing and the desired relief has thereupon been granted.

Is it a fact that other associations with identically the same rules have had the refund which has been denied to these men?

I think not. The rules vary very considerably. The Inland Revenue will give advice as to how to conform with the law.

Questions

French Loans

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money France has loaned to European nations in the six years since the armistice; and whether the fact of these loans were taken into consideration by him in the recent Paris Financial Conference?

Complete figures of the amounts advanced by the French Government since 1919 to other European Governments are not available. But credits amounting to 800 million francs in all were voted by the French Parliament in 1923 for war material for Poland, Roumania and the Serb-Croat-Slovene Kingdom. I understand that the loan to Roumania (100 million francs) was not in fact made. The recent Financial Conference at Paris dealt with the distribution of the Dawes Annuities, and not with inter-Allied debts. When the latter question is dealt with, all the relevant facts will, of course, be taken into consideration.

Duke and Duchess of York (Visit to Kenya)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any public money has been expended in any way in connection with the visit of His Royal Highness the Duke of York and Her Royal Highness the Duchess of York to East Africa?

The visit of His Royal Highness the Duke of York to Kenya Colony, although of undoubted value in the public interest, was intended from the first to be unofficial in its character. In this respect it differs from the official journeys of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, which are measures of State policy undertaken at the wish, and upon the responsibility, of the Government of the day. No charge, therefore, falls upon the Exchequer in the present case. However, when His Royal Highness the Duke of York arrived in Kenya, the Legislature (including all the Elected Members) spontaneously expressed the wish to entertain His Royal Highness as their guest. In these circumstances His Royal Highness gratefully accepted their kindly offer.

Cyprus (Turkish Debt Charges)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government collects from the people of Cyprus any sum towards the Turkish debt charges; and, if so, what is the amount?

The Cyprus Government makes an annual payment towards the service of the 1855 Ottoman Guaranteed Loan of £92,800. On the other hand, a grant-in-aid of £50,000 a, year is made to Cyprus from the Vote for Colonial Services.

Debts to United States (Funding)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the countries that have funded their debts to the United States; and if the terms are the same as the funding of the British debt?

I understand that Finland, Hungary, Lithuania and Poland have funded their debts to the United States Government on similar terms to those on which the British debt was funded.

Gold Standard (South Africa)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any information whether the gold standard is being restored in the South African Dominion on 1st July when the non-convertibility of the gold certificates lapses?

As announced in the Press early in January, the Union Government have decided not to introduce legislation postponing the resumption of gold payments by South Africa beyond 30th June next, when the existing South African legislation expires.

Government Departments

Customs and Excise Officers (Open Examination)

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when the last open competitive examination for the situation of officer of Customs and Excise was held; and if he can state when this method of recruitment is likely to be resumed?

The last open competition for appointments of officers of Customs and Excise was held in March, 1915, since when three examinations, confined to ex-service men, have been held under the reconstruction scheme. Recruitment is at present suspended as the establishment is in process of reorganisation, and I regret that I am unable to state when open competitions will be resumed.

Civil Service (British-Born Entrants)

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the hardship caused to certain young men who desire to enter for the Civil Service examinations by the proviso which lays down that both the entrant and his father must be British born; whether he is aware that young men who wet e too young to serve in the War, but whose father, although not of British birth, did so serve are debarred from entry by this proviso; and whether he will have the Regulation amended?

I am aware that the effect of the present Civil Service Regulations is to exclude the persons mentioned, but I do not consider that the present is an opportune time to consider relaxations of the Regulations as regards nationality of civil servants.

Dockyard Storebousemen

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when it is proposed to hold the next examination for the position of dockyard storehousemen?

I have been asked to reply. An examination will probably be held in about four months' time.

Questions

PUBLIC CONTRACTS (IMPERIAL PliEFETIENCE)

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether His Majesty's Government adhere to the Resolution adopted by the Imperial Economic Conference, 1923, on the subject of Imperial Preference in public contracts?

Arcos, Limited (Advertisements)

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how much was received in the year 1924 from Arcos, Limited, of Soviet House, for advertising on Government publications issued by His Majesty's Stationery Office; and whether any contracts are still running with this company?

The space in Government publications occupied by this firm's advertisements for the period June-December, 1924, was let for £62 loss. There were no advertisements from this firm in Government publications prior to June, 1924. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. The existing contracts will terminate on or before the 25th June next.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware why the Government decided not to renew the contract last year, and is he aware that the goods advertised are required for British trade?

The firm in question advertised itself as the sole selling agent for the Russian Government. Until the principals meet their obligations, obviously the same system must apply as in all other cases.

May I press the right hon. Gentleman for a reply to my question Who decided not to renew the contract, in view of the fact that the goods are required for British trade? Does it matter what anybody else says?

Ex-Service Men (Civil Service)

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the difference of opinion as to the value to these men of the so-called ex-service civil servants' agreement and also with regard to its effect on conditions of work in the Civil Service itself, he will abstain from putting any such settlement into operation until the House has had an opportunity of considering the problem in all its aspects and expressing its views in an ad hoc Debate?

I understand that if there is any general desire for discussion of this subject, an opportunity will be afforded if arrangements are made through the usual channels, in the course of the Debate on the Vote on Account for the Civil Service and Revenue Departments or, failing this, by the Debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill. In the meantime, no final action will have been taken on the agreement. I should perhaps add that the undertaking that the findings of the Southborough Committee would be debated in the House of Commons was given last October to the Association of Ex-Service Civil Servants and that the conclusion of an agreed settlement makes it unnecessary, so far as that association is concerned, to give effect to the undertaking then given. The present position is that the Government, having arrived at this settlement, have announced that they propose to put it into operation subject only to discussion in the House of Commons, should the House so desire.

Dublin Metropolitan Police Pensioners

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if the Dublin Metropolitan Police pensioners have received any increase in their pre-War pensions to meet the increased cost of living?

I understand that all pre-War pensioners of the Dublin Metropolitan Police are receiving the increases of pension for which they are eligible under the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920.

If I bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman cases in which the increase of pension has not been given, will he take steps to see that it is given?

I will certainly go into the matter gladly, but the difficulty is that the responsibility for dealing with the Metropolitan Police was transferred to the Irish Free State, and I should have to see how far we have any power.

Was it not on the distinct understanding that these pensioners should be treated on all fours with their colleagues in this country that they were transferred to the Free State without their own consent?

There was certainly no agreement as to extending to them subsequent legislation, but I would be glad if the hon. Gentleman will let me have any particulars which he desires to bring to my notice.

Is it a fact that other pre-War pensioners have not yet received the increases to which they are entitled?

Coal Industry

Subsidences

asked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware of the great and increasing damage caused by subsidence owing to coal-mining operations, particularly in the South Yorkshire area; and if he can state what is the policy of the Government with regard thereto?

The Government are fully alive to the importance of this question. It is at present being investigated by a Royal Commission specially appointed for that purpose and the Government must await their Report.

May I urge the hon. and gallant Gentleman to expedite the Report of the Commission, in order that something may be done?

It is not in my power to expedite the Report, but I hope the Commission will report as soon as possible.

Retail Prices

asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can now give some definite indication of the Government's plans to deal with excessive coal prices to the consumer?

Since taking up my office I have had several interviews with representatives of the coal merchants, and have discussed with them the dissatisfaction of the public with the retail prices of coal. They explained to me the position from their point of view and gave me an analysis of their items of cost which I shall be glad to communicate to the House if asked for. I shall continue to watch the situation closely, and shall make proposals to the House if necessary, but do not intend to do so at the moment. I do not anticipate any serious rise of retail prices this winter.

Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that the serious rise has already occurred, and will he do something more than his predecessor who, having collected all the necessary facts, did nothing?

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that coal is now put free on board on the Tyne and Wear for 20s. a ton, and that here in London it is nearly £2 16s. a ton?

I was not aware of the rise to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded, but I will inquire into it. In reply to the other question, I will go into the whole matter if the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Richardson) will bring the details before me.

Questions

Cycles (Rear Lights)

asked the Minister of Transport whether there are any figures available to show the number of accidents to cyclists caused by motor vehicles at night; and if there is any evidence as to whether any such accidents could have been avoided if the cycles had been provided with rear lights or reflectors?

Statistics of road accidents giving the information sought in the first part of the question are not available. As regards the second part of the question, it must always bea matter (.4 personal opinion whether in any particular case an accident to a bicyclist might have been avoided by the provision of a red rear light or reflector, but there certainly have been a few cases among those inquired into by officers of my Department during the past three years, where an accident would probably have been prevented had some such precaution been adopted. My attention is also drawn from time to time by His Majesty's coroners to fatal accidents which, in their opinion, or in that of the jury, might have been avoided by the same means.

Will my right hon. Friend take steps to introduce legislation requiring either a red rear light or reflector to be carried on bicycles?

Will the right hon. Gentleman reflect, before he does that, that more people use bicycles than use motor cars?

If and when legislation is introduced, I shall certainly deal with this subject.

Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919

asked the Minister of Transport whether he contemplates making an Order under Section 15 of The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, to enable an electricity company to abstract a large quantity of water for condensing purposes from one of the storage reservoirs of the Metropolitan Water Board; whether he is aware that the water which it is proposed to abstract has been stored and partially purified in such reservoir specially constructed for the purpose at considerable expense by the water consumers of London; and whether, in view of the far-reaching nature of the proposal, he has considered the possible injurious effect thereof upon the purity of water supplies generally?

An application for the issue by me of such an Order has been made by the North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Company, and on the 1st December last I caused the customary notice of my intention to make the Order to be issued so as to give an opportunity for the lodging of objections. An objection has been lodged by the Metropolitan Water Board, and no action towards the issuing of an Order will be taken until an Inquiry has been held. At the moment, however, I am considering certain legal questions which have been raised.

Notices of Motion

Subversive Propaganda

I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to Subversive Propaganda in Great Britain and the Empire, and move a Resolution.

Fishing Industry

I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to 'the state of the Fishing Industry, and move a Resolution.

Road Fund

I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to the Administration of the Road Fund, and move a Resolution.

Electoral Reform

I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to the question of Electoral Reform, and move a Resolution.

Bills Presented

William Preston Indemnity Bill,

"to indemnify and relieve William Preston, esquire, from any penal consequences which he may have incurred or suffered by sitting or voting as a Member of the House of Commons during a time when he was executing, holding, or enjoying a contract, agreement, or commission made or entered into with the Postmaster-General; and for purposes incidental thereto," presented by Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL; Supported by Mr. Solicitor-General; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 65.]

Motor Races Bill,

"to provide for the authorisation of races with motor cars," presented by Sir PHILIP DAWSON; supported by Lieut.-Colonel Pownall, Mr. Benjamin Smith, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy Gaunt, Mr. Hannon, Sir Grattan Doyle, Sir Robert Bird, and Sir Edward Iliffe; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 66.]

Housing (Additional Powers) Bill

I beg to move issues of the housing problem. To-day we are to consider smaller but at the same time important issues. Last week it was admitted that the housing question was so urgent that no steps would be omitted to deal with it; every avenue must be explored to get more houses. It is extraordinary that in these days we should not be utilising to the fullest extent the housing facilities that exist. Every year we allow dozens of houses to be put out of use either by demolition or by conversion to other purposes, I understand that the figures for the whole country are not available. Therefore, the House will pardon me if I refer to my own town. In the last two years between 30 and 40 houses in Middlesbrough have been turned to other purposes, either as motor garages, offices, workshops or clubs. It may seem to some that 30 or 40 houses are not many in one town, but I submit that to the thousands of people who are homeless that number is 30 or 40 too many. It is the height of folly to allow a single existing dwelling-house to be turned from its present use.

The Bill which I have the honour to ask leave to introduce seeks to restore the powers given in the 1919 Act. I follow word for word the text of that Act, which prohibits the conversion of an existing dwelling house to any other purpose without the consent of the local authority. Members who were present in the 1919 Parliament will recollect that the Measure then met with general support, but for greater accuracy I 'have refreshed my memory by turning to the records, and I find there was not a single adverse criticism of that proposal, which was car ried unanimously through the House. Unfortunately the days of 1919 were days of great faith, and great expectations, and it was then anticipated that long ere this the housing shortage would have been relieved to a considerable extent. In consequence, those powers were only for a limited period, and they have lapsed, but I submit that in the light of the Debates of last week, and of what we know, the housing conditions to-day are as bad as, if not worse than, they were in 1919. In some districts they are appalling.

I wish to give the House one or two illustrations from my own town which are typical of many industrial areas.

Only last week-end the following cases were brought to my knowledge. In a house of six rooms and two attics, not a slum house, but one situated in an artisan quarter of the town, were living six families, or twenty-six people. In one room lived father, mother, two boys aged 18 and 12, and two girls aged 15 and 10. All these people were herded into one room and lived and had their whole being within those four walls. It was not a case of poverty, because they were paying 10s. 6d. a week for the use of that one room. In an attic in the same house lived father, mother, and three children, and another child was about to be born. I ask the House to think of this appalling state of things—human beings at every stage of existence, from the beginnings of life right to death confined within the same four walls. I give one case from a slum quarter, because it was officially reported by the relieving officer to the local authority, and it is not, therefore, a matter of hearsay, but of official record. In one room was a man fast passing away from consumption, with his wife and three children, and they shared that room with another family consisting of the parents and five children. Thus there were 11 people, four adults and seven children, living and having their meals in the same room. That man, fortunately or unfortuately died, and for four days the corpse remained in the one room, which was the living room of two families.

In the face of those conditions, is it not criminal folly to allow a single house which is now in existence to go out of use? We ought to use the powers we possess in order to conserve whatever facilities may exist. What is the effect on the minds of people such as I have described, when they see existing houses turned into clubs and garages or converted to other purposes, and scores of other houses which might be utilised, standing empty. That brings me to the second Clause of the Bill. It seeks to re-enact Section 1 of the Housing Act. (Scotland), 1920, which empowered local authorities to hire any house, suitable without reconstruction, which had been empty for three months or more. A similar Clause passed through this House in the Miscellaneous Provisions Act of 1920, but unfortunately it was rejected in another place. The Clause in this Bill borrows word for word the official Clause adopted by the Ministry of Health in 1020, and I hope the Government will look with a friendly eye on this resurrection of its own off-spring. At that time no exception was taken to the principle, but a doubt was expressed as to the number of houses empty. Again, I fear there are no figures for the whole country, and I can only speak of what I know. In my own town of Middlesbrough in December there were 113 empty houses, 109 of which were of a rateable value of £25 or less. Think of the effect upon thousands of homeless people of seeing scores of houses standing idle instead of being used for the purpose for which they were intended.

Whether the number be large or small, the responsibility is ours to see that not one house is allowed to remain empty which can be used for housing purposes. I do not propose to deal with the larger question of the bigger houses which require conversion, but where there are houses of a rateable value not exceeding £40, which can be utilised forthwith, without structural alteration, it is incumbent upon us to see that such houses are put to use. The Act passed for Scotland has been, we are told, a dead letter, because no considerable action was taken under it, but the purpose of this legislation is not that local authorities should require the houses. The fact that they have the power to act is a deterrent and prevents people withholding the houses from occupation. The Minister of Health in 1920, told us of a certain Lancashire area where there were 170 empty houses, and after the Bill was introduced 120 were let within a fortnight. I appeal to the Government and the House to look favourably upon this proposal, to think of the thousands of people without homes, and to think of the feeling caused among these people when they see houses withheld from occupation. I appeal to the Government' to take steps to see that dwelling-houses are not converted to other purposes, and that no houses capable of use as dwelling-houses are allowed to remain empty. There is no more fruitful cause of social unrest and discontent than the grievances of those who are de-housed, and I submit with confidence that these proposals will do something to increase housing facilities.

Question, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent any reduction in the existing facilities for the housing of the people," put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Trevelyan Thomson, Viscountess Astor, Captain Wedgwood Bonn, Major Crawfurd, Mr. Harris, Captain Garro-Jones, Lieut.-Commander Konworthy, Mr. MacKenzie Livingstone, and Mr. George Thorne.

Housing (Additional Powers) Bill,

"to prevent any redaction in the existing facilities for the housing of the people," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 67.]

Trusts and Combines

4.0 P.M.

I beg to move really not in need of being convinced of the necessity for bringing in this Bill. I might, however, remind hon. Members, very briefly, what are generally the objects of a trust or combine. One could write a book on the subject, but I will put three short points. First, they exist to create restrictions in trade in order ultimately to acquire a monopoly; secondly, they exist to limit supplies by reduced production, and, having regard to all we hear in this House and in other places about workmen reducing production, I might remind the House that if there be any psychology amongst workmen which tends to ca'canny, that psychology has been acquired from these capitalist combines; thirdly, they exist to fix standard prices with a view to controlling prices, and, when they have controlled the price, they increase it to the public. To secure for oneself a monopoly is nothing new. I think it was Aristotle who said that to secure for oneself a, monopoly is a general principle of finance, and, judging by the financial combinations of the last few years, there must be a great many ardent students of Aristotle in the United Kingdom.

Before the War, one could say that the great trusts could be numbered on the fingers of both hands. There were the cement, salt, oil, and tobacco trusts, but very few really large trusts. [An HON. MEMBER: "Before the Co-operative Movement."!] Anyone who refers to the Co-operative Movement as a trust surely does not know anything about the movement. The Co-operative Movement does not exist to secure a monopoly; it says to all the public, "come inside and share the benefits of collective organisation." [An HON. MEMBER: "Does it pay Income Tax? "] We will deal with that question some other time. I will not he drawn away from the objects of the Bill. Before the War, that was the position. During the War all that was changed. Professor Levy in his book on Monopoly and Competition had concluded that the conditions in the United Kingdom were not favourable to the formation of Trusts before the War, and the main reason why that was so was the almost complete absence of tariffs in this country. But during the War the very conditions which are usually set up by tariffs obtained from other causes. First, we had men taken from industry and put into warfare; secondly, we had ships that were carrying commerce devoted entirely to the carriage of war materials; and, thirdly, we had grave danger to our commerce arising from the submarine campaign. Therefore, the restriction of supplies which usually follows high tariffs happened to us in war time. What was the result? The Standing Committee on Trusts reported in 1919 that the whole position had changed and that almost every important industry was in the hands of a trust or combine or trade association, and Mr. John Hilton, the Statistical Officer of the Ministry of Labour, reporting to that Committee, said that there were over 500 large capitalist combines operating in such a way as to exert a substantial influence on the flow of industry and upon prices. I would like to say a great deal more about that matter, but I have not time.

I want to give two classical examples of how the war-time trusts operated. Take the case, first, of electrical lamps. The Committee, in its report, gives an instance where 1,250,000 half-watt lamps were bought in Belgium at 3s. per lamp, and—because of the controlled price made possible by the operations of the trust—were sold to the public at 12s. 6d. per lamp. On that one transaction at least £280,000 was taken from the consumers which was absolutely without justification. Then take the classical example of the great soap trust which controls 80 per cent. of the trade. The Central Profiteering Committee reported that on a rising market in raw materials they always immediately increased the price of the finished product to the consumer, but on a falling market they never reduce the, price until they had liquidated the stock of raw materials bought at the higher rates. As a consequence, right throughout the War the soap combine were getting from a ld. to 1½d. per pound more than was justified on the average coatings of that particular industry.

I want to draw attention to two other points. I want, first, to call attention to the great danger arising to the consumer from the price-fixing associations, and the Government ought to pay attention to this matter because they want to see the costs of production cone down. There is an association called the Proprietary Articles Association, under which there is an agreement between manufacturer, wholesaler, and retailer that no retailer shall be supplied unless he agrees not to sell at less than a certain price. That is an absolute restraint of trade and a menace to the consumer, and it becomes all the more serious when it is going to be extended from such proprietary articles as drugs, medicines, and so on to packed grocery goods. I suggest that the Government should ask the Royal Commission on Food Prices to take the evidence of those two price-fixing associations as early as possible, Then I want to refer to the kind of evidence that is being given before the Royal Commission on Food Prices. There has been evidence given by a representative of the Meat Trust, Lord Vestey. One would think to read the Press reports that the Meat Trust never made any profits. I would remind the Committee that Lord Vestey, then Sir William Vestey, in 1919–20 gave evidence before the Royal Commission on Income Tax and confessed that he had removed his organisation lock, stock, and barrel from this country in order to escape his proper share of Income Tax in the war time when we were asked to produce silver bullets to feed the guns, and he offered before that Royal Commission to bring his organisation back provided that we did not charge them more than £100,000 a year in Income Tax. These are the people who come before the Royal Commission and say that there are no profits and that is the kind of leader of trusts to whom, subsequent to that evidence given before the Royal Commission on Income Tax, political honours were given.

We have had evidence upon tea. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade told me to-day that he did not know of an attempt to close Mincing Lane market in such a way as to make it other than a free market. Perhaps the danger has passed, but there was a deliberate attempt to make it open only to a select ring of licensed brokers, so that the price of tea might be what they fixed and not the economic value of the tea itself. The same thing applies to dried fruit, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to suggest to the Royal Commission that they should take evidence from the close ring of dried fruit buyers in that respect. The whole operations of trusts and combines in this country is such as to lead us to say, with Goldsmith:

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. A. V. Alexander, Mr. Barnes, Captain Wedgwood Benn, Mr. Dalton, Mr. Pethick - Lawrence, Lieut. - Commander Kenworthy, and Mr. Robert Morrison.

Trusts and Combines Bill,

"to provide for the collection of information with respect to trusts and combines and to restrain abuses thereof," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday, 2nd March, and to be printed. [Bill 68.]

Selection (Chairmen's Panel),

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had selected the following Nine Members to be the Chairmen's Panel, and to serve as Chairmen of the Six Standing Committees appointed under Standing Order No. 47: Major Barnett, Mr. James Brown, Sir Cyril Cobb, Sir Robert Hamilton, Mr. William Nicholson, Mr. Samuel Roberts, Sir Robert Sanders, Mr. Short, and Mr. Turton.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Selection (Standing Committees)

Standing Committee A

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on Standing Committee A: Colonel Acland-Troyte, Major Ainsworth, Mr. Albert Alexander, Mr. Barker, Captain Beamish, Mr. Beckett, Captain Bourne, Mr. Briggs, Major Clifton Brown, Mr. Clayton, Mr. Cluse, Mr. Ernest Craig, Brigadier-General Sir Henry Page Croft, Major George Davies, Mr. Dennison, Mr. Hugh Edwarls, Captain Fairfax, Sir Bertram Falle, Mr. David Grenfell, Mr. Grotrian, Captain Gunston, Captain D'Arcy Hall, the Marquess of Hartington, Colonel Henderson, Mr. W. Hirst, Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy, Brigadier-General Makins, Mr. March, Mr. Wardlaw-Milne, Mr. Foot Mitchell, Mr. Hugh Morrison, Mr. Nuttall, Mr. Basil Peto, Major Ropner, Mr. Sandeman, Mr. Rennie Smith, Mr. Smithers, Mr. Somerville, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Luke Thompson, Mr. Trevelyan Thomson, Mr. Tinne, Mr. Waddington, Colonel John Ward, Brigadier-General Warner, Sir Francis Watson, Dr. Watts, Mr. Wignall, Commander Charles Williams, and Dr. John Williams.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Agricultural Rates (Additional Grant) Continuance Bill): Mr. Blundell, Mr. Buxton, Sir Henry Cautley, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, Mr. Lamb, Major Alan McLean, Sir Douglas Newton, Major Sir Archibald Sinclair, the Marquess of Titchfield, Colonel Wedgwood, Major Wheler, Mr. Thomas Williams, Mr. Cecil Wilson, Mr. Edward Wood, and Sir Kingsley Wood.

Scottish Standing Committee

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That the following Members representing Scottish Constituencies are appointed to serve on the Standing Committee for the consideration of all Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland and committed to a Standing Committee:—Mr. William Adamson, Sir William Alexander, the Duchess of Atholl, Sir John Baird, Mr. Barr, Captain Wedgwood Benn, Sir George Berry, Mr. Boothby, Mr. James Brown, Mr. Buchanan, Sir Samuel Chapman, Brigadier-General Charteris, Commander Cochrane, Sir Godfrey Collins, Mr. Couper, Mr. Dugald Cowan, Sir Henry Craik, Colonel Crookshank, the Earl of Dalkeith, Captain Elliot, Commander Fanshawe, Mr. Fleming, Mr. Ford, Sir John Gilmour, Mr. Duncan Graham, Mr. William Graham, Sir Robert Hamilton, Mr. Hardie, Mr. Barclay-Harvey, Mr. Thomas Henderson, Admiral Sir Arthur Henniker-Hughan, Sir Harry Hope, Sir Robert Horne, Lieut. - General Sir Aylmer Hunter-Weston, Mr. Clarke Hutchison, Sir Robert Hutchison, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Thomas Kennedy, Mr. Kidd, Mr. Kirkwood, Major Lindsay, Mr. Livingstone, Major MacAndrew, Sir Murdoch MacDonald, Mr. Robert MacDonald, Mr. MacIntyre, Mr. Neil Maclean, Mr. Macpherson, Mr. Macquisten, Mr. MacRobert, Mr. Maxton, Mr. Rosslyn Mitchell, Mr. Stephen Mitchell, Mr. Murnin, Mr. Robertson, Mr. Rose, Mr. Scrymgeour, Colonel McInnes Shaw, Dr. Shiels, Major Sir Archibald Sinclair, Mr. Skelton, Mr. Robert Smith, Sir Alexander Sprot, Mr. Stephen, Mr. James Stewart, Mr. James Stuart, Mr. Templeton, Mr. Frederick Thomson, Mr. McLean Watson, Mr. Weir, Mr. Welsh, Mr. Westwood, Mr. Wheatley, and Mr. Wright.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Bill: Lord Balniel, Mr. Bethell, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Charleton, Mr. Cove, Mr. Crawfurd, Mr. Dunnico, Captain Donald Howard, Mr. Morgan Jones, Sir William Lane Mitchell, Mr. West Russell, Mr. Simms, Major Strang Steel, the Lord Advocate, and Captain Wallace.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Performing Animals Bill

Order for Second Reading upon Friday, 27th March, read, and discharged:—Bill withdrawn.

Orders of the Day

Supply

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Civil Services and Revenue Departments Supplementary Estimates, 1924–25

Class VII

Ministry of Labour

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £422,000, he granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour and Subordinate Departments, including the Contributions to the Unemployment Fund, and to Special Schemes, and Payments to Associations, Local Education Authorities and others for administration under the Unemployment. Insurance and Labour Exchanges Acts; Expenditure in connection with the Training of Demobilised Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers and Men, and Nurses; Grants for Resettlement in Civil Life; and the Expenses of the Industrial Court; also Expenses in connection with the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations); and certain Grants-in-Aid."

I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.

On Friday I put some questions to the Minister of Labour in connection with this Vote, and I would like to recapitulate one or two of those questions. I put a series of questions with regard to the additional staff to deal with the claims for a rebate in connection with the Unemployed Insurance Act. I would like to know the number of the claims and whether the Minister could not make it possible for each Exchange to issue to every individual who is over 50 years of age the necessary form for making application under the Act. I also ask for information with regard to Subhead 9 relating to the industrial training of ex-service men, and I would like to know whether this increase is due to the Minister giving a greater amount of latitude in administration. I put to him the question whether this evident extension covered the case say of a man where the doctors stated that the lifting of a certain weight did not come within the course of his former employment although hid former employer and his trade union branch stated that the lifting of such a weight was incumbent upon the man if he were employed in his pre-War occupation. I also asked a question with regard to a neurasthenia case. I should like to know whether provision is made under this Vote for giving greater latitude with regard to the claims for training, so that I may know whether it is worth my while putting those two eases before the right hon. Gentleman for his reconsideration. Then I would like to know what numbers of men have been placed in employment in connection with this work of the British Legion, how many of those who have been so placed were officers, and how many were private soldiers or of non-commissioned rank in the War. These questions are of some importance in connection with the administration of the Department, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is going to deal very generously with the types of cases that I have mentioned.

If I can succeed in keeping within your good graces, Mr. Chairman, I want to second this Amendment.

I cannot understand why the Minister of Labour is asking for this Supplementary Estimate. If the administration of the Labour Department continued to the end of the financial year as it began, one could have understood the Minister asking for this extra money, but the tightening up of the administration makes that unnecessary, in my opinion. There has been, during the last few months, a real tightening up of the administration of the unemployment insurance benefit., which warrants me in saying that we ought not to grant this Vote. We want to oppose the tightening up of the administration, and I have a suspicion that the Minister has been listening to the Press campaign that has been pressing for the tightening up of the administration of the unemployment insurance benefit. One noticed only last Friday that the Press was expressing its pleasure that the Minister was really tightening up his administration, and——

How does the hon. Member connect his argument with any one of the increases asked for? Is any one of the increases for the purpose of tightening up the administration?

I am trying to argue that it is not necessary to grant a Supplementary Estimate, and my reason is that there has been such a tightening up that more money will not be needed now to the end of the financial year. Let me give at least one case. When we passed the Unemployment Insurance Act we believed that, by putting certain words into the Act, men who were not genuinely seeking work would not get benefit, and we thought that that was fair and reasonable, but, in working it out, we find that the administration of the Fund is putting quite a different construction upon those words, and is using them to prevent hundreds of men from getting unemployment benefit. The Minister said only yesterday, in answer to a question, that three months ago there were 130,000 miners who were receiving unemployment benefit, but that to-day that number had been reduced to 100,000. I confess that we cannot follow the Minister in that argument, and that we cannot understand that reduction.

I am afraid the hon. Member is really trying to start a discussion on policy. If the whole of this sum were rejected, it would not mean a more liberal administration. The hon. Member is trying to oppose the increases, apparently, on the ground that the administration of the Department has been more rigid than he would wish, and that is a matter not appropriate to these items, but to the salary of the right hon. Gentleman, and no doubt he will be afforded an opportunity an the Vote on Account to make his point.

I think not, because it is not a relevant argument with regard to any one of these particular items.

On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member not quite entitled, on a Motion to reduce a Vote, to show reasons why the money that has been asked for by the Government is Lot required, and that consequently the Vote ought to be reduced, even should those reasons take him into certain savings that he thinks are being effected by the Department? Is the hon. Member not quite in order?

No, I think not. He is bringing forward arguments which are not relevant to the particular items of increase. It is evident that he wishes to open a Debate on the general policy of the Department, and for that he must wait for the Vote on Account.

On a point of Order. Is it not in order for an hon. Member to call attention to the expenditure on any me of the particular items contained in the Vote, and to point out to the Minister that that money would be much better expended in other directions

That opens up an endless vista, for if every Member were to be allowed to say how any one item could better he expended elsewhere, we should never finish.

I have no desire to argue on the general policy. All that I want to do is to give one or two arguments why we should not vote this large Supplementary Estimate, because it is not necessary, and surely I should be entitled to give some reasons why we should vote £100 less. I was just going on to point out that there is a large filmier of men being put off the Unemployment Insurance Fund because of the reason given that they are not genuinely seeking work. It was said last week that there had been 71,000 men up to the end of July put off the fund because they were not genuinely seeking work, and I would like the Minister to tell us how many men have been put off for that reason up to date. I received a letter yesterday from a man, who relates an extremely hard case of being put off for that very reason. The letter says——

The logical result of that argument would be that the grant ought to be further increased. The hon. Member will only have to wait, possibly, quite a short time when he can develop his argument in perfect order.

On Item A (iv) of this Vote, I wish to raise the question of the engagement of additional temporary staff at Employment Exchanges, and I would like the Minister to take an opportunity of re-assuring the country generally in regard to the attitude of the Ministry in defining the work on which these men are to be engaged. In the constituency from which I come, we are finding every day a very great activity at the Employment Exchanges, and on the part of those employed there, in finding work for our unemployed people who have no particular skill at places often many miles away from their homes. To give an instance, this staff, who, for all I know, may be some of the temporary staff engaged for the purpose, are offering quite ordinary typists work 50 or 60 miles from Gateshead, in places where we know there are many hundreds of unemployed typists already, and why it should be necessary to send unemployed typists from Gateshead to Morpeth, when there are many unemployed typists nearer Morpeth than Gateshead, and then to strike the typists' allowances off because they are unable to travel that distance, seems to be the kind of attitude which arouses very grave concern in the country.

We appreciate two kinds of hon. Members opposite. There is the kind of Member who is represented in the questions asked by the hon. Members for Bosworth (Captain Gee) and Moseley (Mr. Hannon) earlier in the week, and perhaps a more generous type of administrator, but a large section of the Press of this country, combined with this kind of questions, have spread the general idea that the Ministry of Labour is busily engaged in using perhaps temporary employés in order to strike wholesale unemployed people off those receiving the grants of money amongst which, I presume, this £375,000 in the Vote would be included. It is alleged that a circular has been sent out urging this course of procedure. I do not believe it. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman would lend himself to any such procedure, but what I would like to remind him is, that the staff whom he employs, and who apparently he is thinking of employing, may think that this kind of treatment would be highly acceptable to a Conservative Minister, and I would like to have some assurance from him that the staff whom he intends to employ and the money which is now going to be granted to him will not be used for any such purpose, and that he will take an early opportunity of making known to all these people in his employment, and to all the Committees working on these schemes, that he does not desire that kind of conduct.

If I may give one more instance from my own constituency, we have found a tremendously increased activity amongst those who are employed at the employment exchanges in reducing and taking away the benefits of men and women who, from every moral point of view, are entitled to them. This got so bad that a deputation composed of a number of the leading citizens—two aldermen and many of the public representatives were ineluded—went to interview the employment exchange manager with regard to this ruthless taking away of benefits from people who were unemployed. They asked if they could be told what a man ought to do in order to prove that he was unemployed, and they were told that no definition could be given, and, in spite of the fact that additional staff are being engaged, it seems impossible for many of the officers controlled by the right hon. Gentleman to give any fair definition to unemployed men and women as to what they are to do to prove that they are legitimately looking for work and entitled to benefit. I hope the Minister is going to make it widely known that that kind of mean and immoral treatment is not with his sanction, and that employés of the Ministry of Labour and Committees appointed by the Ministry will not be pleasing a Conservative Minister of Labour by carrying out that kind of thing, even if the Conservative Press tells them to do it. I hope he will be able to do this, and that he will not allow public money to be used in engaging staff and in supplementing funds, not used for the benefit of people who are genuinely looking for work, but used in a general cheese-paring campaign throughout the country.

Perhaps I might be allowed, at this early stage, to make one or two remarks, and I do so partly to answer one or two questions put to me by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), but partly because I think it really may be for the convenience of the Committee. I recognise that hon. Members may, quite naturally want to traverse the larger question, and I think the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Beckett) has really done so in regard to the general administration, but if he will excuse me, I will not follow him. I am quite convinced that I should be out of order if I did. I should be quite ready to deal with the question of the typists on the proper occasion.

I may have given a wrong impression. The right hon. Gentleman would be in order in saying how this new staff is appointed, and if it is being properly instructed, and whether it is carrying out its duties properly.

On a point of Order. Would it not be in order for the Minister to explain for what purpose this new staff is employed, and would it not be in order for hon. Members who are criticising the Vote to suggest the manner in which the new staff could be employed?

The hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Beckett) was in order, and I wanted to explain to the Minister that he would be quite in order in replying to the point raised by that hon. Member.

I did not wish to raise the question whether the hon. Gentleman was in order or not. I did not want anyone to think I was obstructing, but there is going to be an occasion, I understand, arranged through the usual channels to debate the whole question on the Vote on Account in a very few days. I only mention that because, if anyone wishes to debate the question of general policy, it is well it should be known that there will be this early opportunity of doing so. The whole increase of these salaries at these outstations, as at Kew, is due to one or two perfectly simple reasons. It is due partly to the claims for compensation. I think I am right in saying about 570,000 have been received. The total which will be received in the end will probably be something over 1,000,000. Those which had been received by the middle of November were about 350,000, and rather more than that number have been already dealt with. That is the first of the reasons. Perhaps I night say to the hon. Member, I do not think there is really any need to issue notices to each person. It would cause a great deal of extra expense and a great deal of extra work, and the fact, indeed, is so widely known, that some of his own colleagues have complained to me that it is almost too widely known, and too wide expectations have been raised, so that they are inundated with letters. I think that at least goes to show that it is really not necessary to send a special communication to each person, and, on the other hand, there is a, provision that claims may be made for quite a number of years, so that there is no likelihood of anybody really suffering hardship.

The right hon. Gentleman says that years are given for claims to be made. Will it not be impossible for a claim to be made for this compensation after July of this year?

My belief is that it is a matter of four years. The Act reads thus:

"If in any case where there is a failure to make any such application within the period of 12 months after the date on which this Section conies into operation, it is shown to the satisfaction of the Minister that there was good cause for the failure, the Minister may allow the application to be made at any time within four years after the expiration of the said period."

The hon. Member may be perfectly sure that there is no wish on the part of anyone to interpret a matter of that kind rigidly or unfairly.

It locks as if there will be a little more continuity in the post now, a little less kaleidoscopic change in the occupancy of this bench, and I take advantage of the hon. Gentleman's kind expression to assure him that, perhaps, he need have no such great apprehension. The other reasons for the increase under this head are the change in the three days' waiting period and the larger number on the live registers. Those are really the three reasons for this increase, occasioned simply and entirely by the Act of my predecessor.

I did not suggest that the Minister had issued such a circular. I distinctly said I refused to believe that. I asked him to issue a circular checking the attack upon benefits.

I am trying to clear away an impression which a good many seem to have. Let me take one or two other points. With regard to training and the increase in that item. It is due to one or two quite simple facts. It is impossible, generally, to anticipate precisely how many men may come forward from the convalescent centres. That is responsible for the greater part of the increase under the head of training. The number we have placed in training has been just over 4,000, instead of 2,800 as estimated, chiefly because people have come forward from the convalescent centres rather more quickly than we had anticipated. Some of the courses also have been longer, partly because they have been more difficult, and partly because the standard has not been quite so high physically or mentally. Between the two, the whole of the expense is accounted for, and a little saving has been made which has reduced the sum to £244,000, because great attempts have been made to enable men to be given improver-ships. These attempts have been attended with considerable success, so that the sum of £244,000 is not so large as otherwise might have been the case. With regard to individual eases, I have in the three months mastered, as far as I can, the machinery of my Department, but, as the hon. Member knows quite well, I could not give an opinion about a special case, but if he will send any special case, which I think he is not unaccustomed to do, he will realise that, as usual, I will see that good care is taken to go into it.

With regard to the question raised as to grants to associations under the Labour Exchanges Act, that is really a very small matter. It does not touch the whole of the provisions for mentally defective children. It is only a small chance item. The London County Council did not exercise an option it had therefore, one or two arrangements which it had previously made for the assistance of mentally defective and blind and crippled children have been transferred to the Ministry of Labour. That applies to the item of £3,800.

With regard to the grant to the British Legion, I am speaking from memory, but I think I am correct in saying that the cases that have been dealt with by the Appointments Department have numbered between 70,000 and 80,000 and since the first of April last year the number placed Was just a case or two under 2,600. They diminish very gradually, and, at the present moment, there are something like 1,880 outstanding. I cannot tell the hon. Member offhand, but I will give him, if he wishes, the number of commissioned and noncommissioned ranks. The fact is, it was always contemplated that the work of the Appointments Committee should ultimately be transferred, as has now been done, when the numbers had sunk to a sufficiently low level. That is being done by agreement this year. A lump sum of £10,000 is being handed over to the British Legion, and that accounts for this Grant-in-Aid.

There are one or two things I should like the Minister to explain. With regard to the item, "Training of Ex-Service Officers and Men—Industrial," there is a Vote here for £244,000, additional sum required, and the Minister said that the reasons for the increased Vote were the rapidity with which cases were coming from the convalescent centres, and also the longer periods of training that the inmates of these centres were receiving, and that another cause of the increase was the activity of the canvassers in endeavouring to get improverships for those ex-service men who were sufficiently well forward with the trade to pass out of the centres.

There is one point I want to bring out with regard to these training centres. Some time ago I sent a letter to the Minister regarding the transfer of large number of men from the training centre at Cathcart to a training centre in England. Fully 20 men, most of them married, with their homes in Glasgow, had been taken away from the centre at Cathcart, which was not only adjacent to their homes, but also a place at which they had spent considerable time in receiving the training which can be obtained at that centre. I have been through that training centre on several occasions. When I visited it two or three years ago the method of training was very good indeed, and was one for which the men were greatly indebted for considerable training in new vocations they were taking up. I am really very much concerned when we find votes for this amount, and when we know of men being transferred from one place to another, and the additional cost there must he if you are going to maintain those men whom you are transferring from Glasgow to the North of England. Some of that expenditure, I imagine, will be included in this increased sum you are asking to-day. I may say in passing to the Minister of Labour that although I sent a letter to him some time ago, as soon as ever I got it from the people in Glasgow, about this transfer, I am still awaiting an acknowledgment from the right hon. Gentleman. I am going to say quite frankly that that is not my usual experience; that not only an acknowledgment but also a reply invariably comes very expeditiously from the Minister's office. Because the date that these people were to be transferred was 4th February I was very much concerned, and quite a number of others were very much concerned, and that was why I wrote and demanded an immediate reply; up to today I have not even received an acknowledgment of that letter. I hope that the matter will be looked into, and that the men will be kept where their relatives reside. I trust, too, that the information that is given to the Department will be satisfactory to me and to those on whose behalf I am speaking.

I want to suggest to the 111, nister that this sort of thing ought not to be taken in hand lightly by the Minister—I mean the transfer of men from one training centre to another training centre. It will throw increased cost upon the Departments. Unless the Minister is satisfied very seriously in his own mind that the men are going to be taught some other trade that they cannot be taught except at the new instructional centre they ought not to be transferred. In such cases I am quite prepared—given the consent of the men themselves—that the men should be transferred. Assuming, too, that there is further training then there may be something in the matter. But it is one that should be taken very seriously into consideration before made effective. There is also the question of the salaries, wages and allowances [Item A., page 481. An explanation of this is given at the top of page 50.

Page 50. I charge nothing for the information: not being a lawyer but only a Labour man I give it gratis. Page 50 tells us that provision is made for additional temporary staff to deal with claims for refunds and compensation under Section 9 of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1924. The increase of salaries has been ex- plained by the Minister as due to certain things that have taken place, mainly, I think, he said the large number of applications that have been received for a refund of the money that has been subscribed in contributions towards out-of-work pay. What I understood him to explain was that there would be an additional 500,000 applicants on this fund before he is able to go on with the work.

There is one thing—I do not know whether it has been brought to his notice, but I hope it has, and that he has taken action—he replied to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy—and that is the particular position of the contributors to the Unemployment Fund. It was suggested that it was very well known already that they could have this refund if they were qualified and could meet the conditions laid down in the Act of 1924. There is one thing that I think the Minister omitted to say. Probably he does not know. That is that a number of newspapers in their endeavour to make matters clear to their readers in regard to the claims for refund are simply muddling the whole position. I am speaking personally, and I know I speak for a number of my Scottish colleagues, that we are being inundated with letters which show that the individuals who are making applications do not understand the circumstances and the qualifications required. When we reply to these people we get back letters from them enclosing cuttings from a London Sunday paper or a Scottish weekly paper pointing out that these papers are explaining the matter and maintaining their explanation of the circumstances and qualifications. But the circumstances and what are the qualifications are misleading, so misleading indeed that they are an absolute travesty of that section of the Act passed last year. The consequence is that. Members of this House aro being inundated with these replies which endeavour to point out that because the statement appears in, say, the "News of the World" or some other newspaper in Scotland, that these papers are bound to be correct. When we send on our interpretation of the Act we are told we are wrong. Then when these people make application to the Employment Exchange they found it is the newspaper that is wrong. They then believe they had a grievance against Parliament because Parliament has not done what the newspapers say has already been done. I hope the Minister will address himself to this matter and issue a concise statement of the qualifications that a man must have before he receives a refund from the Unemployment Fund. That would save a great deal of annoyance, and at the same time would remove a great many misconceptions that seem to be in the minds of a large number of people. They read some journal and, rightly or wrongly, believe that they have a right to claim the money that they have paid into the Unemployment Insurance Fund. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will address his activities to this matter, for it only requires a very concise notice, and I am certain that tie Press of the country will be favourable to publishing it broadcast, in order that these misconceptions may be removed.

There is one other item to which I should like to refer, and that is the contributions to the Unemployment. Fund and to special schemes. I take it that the contribution to the Unemployment Fund is to be increased by £375,000 due to the fact that the amount of the contributions by the employers and employés are expected to be larger than was originally anticipated, and in consequence there will be an increased contribution in like proportion by the Government. I listened to-day to the reply by the Minister to a question addressed to him about the debt on this Fund. The debt on the Fund in 1923, as I understood his answer, was approximately £20,000,000. By this year that had dropped £6,000,000. It is quite evident, therefore, from these figures—and it is admitted as well in the explanation given for this increased sum of which I am speaking—that the contributions from all sources—employers, employés, and the State—have materially increased the income of the Fund. If that is so, and from figures given to-day it is quite evident it is so, I would suggest to the Minister and to the Parliamentary Secretary some change in the regulations of the Fund itself and in the administration of the Fund, and a somewhat better method of conducting things, instead of the tightened methods which seem to be adopted, and as has already been pointed out by my colleague on the second bench—I refer particularly to the amazing cases that we are having of men over 65 years of age being turned down religiously by——

The hon. Gentleman up to the present has kept with exemplary accuracy within the ruling of the Chair, but he is now verging upon disorder.

These are matters, Mr. Hope, in which it is not always quite possible for one to discover the lines in which one must play. Probably the bad weather we have been having has somewhat obscured the merits of the playing, pitch. I should have thought that I would have been within the limits of debate pointing out what has been done, not as a general policy, but under the Regulations issued by the Ministry, and as you see in the part of this reference to the head office of the Ministry it also refers to the additional sum to be voted by the Government for the year, as I understand, For the payment of claims for unemployment benefit: in consequence, I should imagine, sometimes—although, of course, I submit to your ruling—in regard to the Regulations issued for the administration of this Department, I would be in order in pointing out a Regulation that has been issued and the manner in which it operates in relation to the payment of the funds. I should like to ask your ruling upon that point?

The hon. Gentleman is quite in order in asking questions as to the administration by the officers of the extra sum requred, but he is not order in using this particular grant as an opportunity for criticising the Regulations and policy of the Department. He must confine himself as to whether or not these particular officers are or are not doing their duty.

5.0 P.M.

I should like to ask the Minister whether it is the case that his officials have issued instructions to the Employment Exchanges in the country instructing the officers in such local exchanges to call before the committees the old people who are over 65 years of age so that their cases may be gone into in order that these people may he removed from the benefit they are receiving on the ground that they are not likely in the future to be employed in what are known as insurable occupations. I should like to ask whether it is a fact that 66 out of 95 people who are over 65 years of age and who have been refused benefit in the City of Glasgow, that 66 out of the 95 come from one exchange, that is Govan Exchange, situated in the constituency I represent? Is that because in that centre many people who have been employed for 30 or 40 years in one industry, and in many cases in one shipyard, have now, in consequence of the depression in shipbuilding, he unemployed for a year, or for two years, and that when these instructions come down to the exchange these people find themselves not only unemployed but struck right off benefit—because of a Regulation coining from officials of the Ministry instructing rota committees to call these people before them and remove them from benefit?

Another question I would like to ask is whether it is the case that instructions have been issued by officials in London that no case which has been before a rota committee will be heard again, or called before that committee, for a period of six months? Has that Regulation been sent down to the Exchanges within the last two or three weeks. I should also like to knew whether a Regulation has gone forth that any man who by reason of the fact that he has been unemployed in this country—or who may have been horn in this country but is of Irish descent—and who, finding it impossible to get employment in this country, has crossed over to the Free State and joined the Army there, will not be paid unemployment benefit when he comes hack to this country after his period of service in the Army until he has found work and worked in that employment for six months?

I find it difficult to connect this question with the particular item in regard to which an increase is now being proposed. It has no connection with the general Vote, nor with any extra sums we are now asked to vote.

I am pointing out that the fact of these Regulations coming forward partly accounts for the increase in the staff here in London, and I am following your suggestion—subject to your ruling, of course—that Regulations made by the Department—not issued by the Minister himself, but issued by the Department—would come within the scope of this discussion. All the Regulations I have been quoting come, not from the Minister, but from the Department in London. I have just one further matter to refer to, and then I have finished. There is one Regulation which says that the Committee should be satisfied that elderly claimants who are passed for payment will be likely to compensate the fund by obtaining steady employment afterwards. Finally there is a Regulation that there shall be no appeal from a rota committee's decision. Have these Regulations been sent down from officials in the head office in London? I should like to know. A large number of us who are in our constituencies during the Recess, and also in the week-ends that we are able to spend at home, are constantly meeting people who come to our houses with their complaints, and we would like to know these things, because we find there is great hardship. I trust the Under-Secretary, or the Minister, or whoever it may be who, in reply, deals with this part of the Debate, will give some satisfaction to us in regard to some of the points I have put to him.

I have one or two points to put to the Ministry with reference particularly to an item of 13,800 for the placing of juveniles and their after-care. Is the Minister quite satisfied, is he quite happy, about that after-care, and the methods adopted by these people in carrying out this duty? I had hoped that when the linister spoke he would have given us some explanation as to the methods adopted, so that we might know that what we are paying for is being carried out effectually and to the advantage of these young people, who, with all the handicap upon them, are placed in employment at this time. He might have told us, too, how they are placed, what kind of occupations have been found for them, and whether employers are showing any more sympathy towards the employment of such labour than they have shown in the past. We had hoped the Minister would have told us a little more about this question of juveniles, and not left it after just reminding us of the Act of Parliament which allows education authorities in some cases to undertake this work. I feel anything but comfortable as to the methods adopted, and as to whether these children, these young people, are having that which the best-intentioned people in this country desire they should have.

I want to join with the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) in the point he raised with reference to refunds, about which I am having correspondence not only from my own constituency but from various other parts of the country. People who have made their application for a refund are receiving anything but satisfaction from the Ministry. Many of them are people who can make calculations for themselves, some of them being in occupations where they are engaged in making calculations, and they have striven hard to understand the methods of the Ministry of Labour in calculating the amount which has to come to them as refund. In no case that I have come across up to the present can they make out why there is such a difference between the calculation as made by themselves and that made by the Ministry of Labour, which is always a long way below the amount the man has claimed that he is entitled to.

I would also like to know whether special instructions have been sent out to the various Employment Exchanges in connection with that desire to tighten up which I have heard a good deal of since entering this House, and which is being carried out in such a way that many of the people are afraid even to appear before the committees. The other day we had a question in this House respecting Rochdale, the idea underlying the question being that a great many people had been receiving benefit improperly. I think it is under this special instruction which we hear has been sent out that this extra staff is endeavouring to case the number of benefit-receiving people, and that this is responsible for the hardships we find in various parts of the country. I am quite sure no one can suggest that anyone in the Rochdale division did receive any benefit improperly. I trust the Under-Secretary will give a reply with regard to these juveniles, and the methods by which benefit is calculated.

I want to raise a point which I do not think has been touched on so far, but which is of considerable interest to the House and to numbers of people outside. It is generally said when we are raising any question on a Ministry of Labour Vote that it always concerns first of all applicants for unemployment benefit, and I think it is right that it should be so. I want, however, to raise another point that in the past has never been given anything like the same attention. I see in these Votes a reference to outstations and provision for an additional temporary staff at Employment Exchanges for work occasioned by the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act. An amount of £164,000 has been spent. I want to raise the question of the character of the outstations provided for the temporary staff. The Minister of Labour visited one in my division. May I say that I cannot understand the almost uncanny haste of the Minister of Labour at the moment of assuming office to visit that part of the country known as Glasgow. Almost in the first weeks of his taking office the Minister of Labour followed the rule of his predecessor, who had also followed the rule of his predecessor, and visited my native city of Glasgow. Here he visited an outstation—well, one can hardly describe it as that, it would be more properly described as more of a prison or a barracks—for the housing of temporary clerks who are paying out unemployment insurance money. One of the places he visited was on the south side of Glasgow, where they have taken over temporarily a building for the housing of the temporary staff. I want to say, in the first place, that this $164,000 would never have been required For a temporary staff were it not for the Minister of Labour's own method of trying, by every restriction possible, to curb unemployment benefit. It seems to me the Minister of Labour has to choose whether he is going to pay benefit decently to people, or going to pay money for temporary staff.

But as to the question of outstations; in my own division they have taken over a seed store and have carried out practically no alterations. The temporary staff is housed there in a way that is a disgrace to any Department. There is practically no heating, the lighting is inferior, and even the men who have to go there to make their claims have not any comfort, not even the semblance of comfort, while waiting for hours in order to have their claims properly heard. Everybody who has seen this exchange agrees that it is a disgrace to the Ministry of Labour, and even temporary clerks, although they may not have reached the dignity of being a permanent civil servant, are entitled to decent conditions while they are performing their work.

It is on page 50. You will me there "A—Salaries, wages and allowances," and there is a sub-head "(iv) Outstations." If I was in your profession it would be double fees for that information. My point is that the buildings used as outstations are not adequate and are not designed for the men who are working in them. In the same way I want to raise the question of Kew and the provision for clerks there. I know that Kew reaches a higher standard than any other part of the country in regard to this kind of provision. I notice that in this Vote you have added a considerable number of new clerks, but even at Kew the position is very much congested, and it is not in size or accommodation at all sufficient for the clerks to perform their work in anything like comfort. I think this question of special and temporary accommodation ought to be taken into consideration. Recently the Minister of Labour visited Glasgow and opened a new station, and for this purpose he invited all the dignitaries of Glasgow from the Lord Provost to an ordinary trade union official, and the arrangement there with regard to the lighting were not very creditable to the Department. One of the exchanges recently provided in Glasgow was formerly an old seed store, and now human beings are working there 50 hours per week. I hope all these considerations will be taken into account.

Another question I want to raise is in regard to the delay in refunds. The Minister may tell me that all expedition is used in regard to this matter, but those of us who represent working-class areas know that constantly delays occur. I would like the present Parliamentary Secretary, who has had some knowledge of this Department in a previous Government, to make some statement on this point in order to allay the feelings of the general public. I want to enter a strong protest in regard to the £10,000 put down in this Estimate for a grant-in-aid of the officers' branch of the British Legion for certain work. I protest with all my power against any grant being made not only to the British Legion, but to any body which will administer that £10,000 without any effective Parliamentary control. I object on principle.

Some people believe that this particular body is a good one, but there are others who view the British Legion with a great deal of suspicion. Whether it is good or bad does not concern me, but I am concerned with this departure from principle, namely, the allocation of £10,000 to an outside body without any effective control being given in regard to the spending of this money. I think this is an absolute departure from principle, because we have no control over it, no say as to how it is to be allocated, and no guarantee as to whether the British Legion 'will show favouritism here or there. They may do their work well, they may he good or had, and while they are looked upon in some areas as a body performing very laudable work, in other areas their work is viewed from quite another point of view. But whatever view may be taken, I want to protest against any money being granted which is not under Parliamentary control, and subject to the Parliamentary scrutiny to which the expenditure of all other public moneys is subjected.

With regard to the training of ex-service officers and men, I see we are granting £244,000 additional for this purpose. There has been a growing feeling that there has been too much cutting down of the expenditure on the training of these men. I know that most of the supplementary grants for this purpose were made by the Labour Government. I would like to know whether the Department is going to extend its work, and whether they will see that there is no curtailing of the training of ex-service men in the future in this valuable work. I know there is a tendency now to economise and save, and sometimes it is done in respect of mentally defective children and sometimes at the expense of some poor section who can ill defend themselves. I hope the precedent of granting the £10,000 which I have referred to will not be established, and I trust the Minister will see to it that in regard to the training of ex-service men, and the accommodation provided for temporary clerks, no economies will be made at the expense of those votes.

I wish to put one or two questions to the Parliamentary Secretary. I want to know if the officials of the local committees are responsible for the distribution of this money, and, if so, is there any intention on the part of the Minister to make some changes on these committees?? Personally I do not think that people who do not Pay into the unemployment insurance fund should have any right to sit on the committees which have to decide these matters.

How does the hon. Member connect this argument about these Committees with any of the items which we are asked to increase, because this is not the main estimate?

I will try and make my point quite clear. The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) deals with the carrying out of these regulations. I want to know if the local officials are responsible for carrying out all these regulations, and I would also like to know whether the Committee is a mere sham and has no powers at all. I am merely asking foe information, and I am not criticising the Department at all. I know the Minister responsible has not been in office long, and it will take some time for hint to get to know what has been done. I would like to ask whether it would not be possible for Members of this House to be supplied with a copy of every instruction sent out from the Department to the local officials?

I think those remarks should be reserved for the Vote on Account, when the hon. Member can question the Minister on the whole of their activities. The hon. Member must now confine his remarks to the particular Vote before us.

My criticism is directed against the instructions which are sent out, and I am asking the Minister whether it would not be possible to supply Members of Parliament with a copy of all the Regulations and instructions sent out. If that were done we should know exactly what the conditions were under which unemployment benefit was being withheld, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to satisfy me on that point. I do not want to complain to the Minister of Labour, but I want to know exactly what our powers are, and what are the powers of the local officials. If instructions are being sent out, I claim that hon. Members of this House have the right to be supplied with a copy of them.

I want to put a question with regard to the out-stations and the appointment of the temporary staff. The present staff is working under conditions that do not conduce to economy or to the good working of the Department. Instructions have been issued by the Department that managers of Exchanges have got to discharge certain members of their staff, although they may be ex-service men who have not been permitted to serve overseas, in order to find employment for men who have been engaged overseas during the War period.

I want to place before the Committee the position of many of these men. They are working at a weekly wage and subject to a week's notice, and in many cases they are working under conditions that do not conduce to the good conduct or management of the Department. There are cases of men who have broken down in military training and they have served six or seven years continuously in the Employment. Exchanges. They are fully qualified for the work, and they fail to understand where the economy comes in by them being turned adrift with no possibility of finding other employment, because they are unfitted to go back to their original calling, and the suggestion is that they should be replaced by men who have had no experience at all of the work. I hope the Minister will look into this, because I think he will agree that the fact that men are serving week in and week out under the liability to notice that their engagement will be terminated at the end of the week cannot conduce to their giving the best service in the Department, as would be the case if they were assured of employment for a reasonable period. I cannot see where the economy comes in, or where throwing one man out of employment and replacing him by another and an inexperienced man is going to help the Department to get through the arrears of business which we are told, and which we know from experience, have accumulated in the Department and in the various Exchanges. I hope the Minister will take that into account, and will see if something can be done to ease the position and give these men some security, whereby they can continue their labours in the interests of the country.

"Provision for n Grant to the Officers' Branch of the British Legion on their taking over the work at present performed by the Appointments Branch of the Ministry in registering and placing in employment Ex-Service Officers and Men of similar educational qualifications."

Why is this Department being handed over by the Ministry of Labour to the British Legion? Is it because the staff at the Ministry of Labour is less efficient? Is it because they find any difficulty in administering the fund? Is this to be a permanent arrangement? Is the British Legion to carry on permanently in this Department the work hitherto carried on by the Civil Service? Is the grant of legion to be an annual grant? How is it to be administered? Is there to be any Government supervision? Is the Department to be supplied with reports of the details of how the £10,000 is being spent? Are those reports to be subject to Parliamentary investigation and discussion? I think that these are all questions to which the Committee is entitled to replies before it parts with what seems to be quite a unique and peculiar policy.

The important point raised by the ex-Minister of Health certainly demands explanation, because it is always a serious proposition to hand over public money to any private organisation, however efficient and however representative that organisation may be. I have nothing but admiration for the British Legion and all those connected with it, but I shall wait with interest to hear what safeguards the Ministry of Labour are providing. What I want to talk about is the question of the additional temporary staff at the employment exchanges for work occasioned by Unemployment Insurance. I am familiar with the important work that is done by these exchanges. Owing to the enormous number of unemployed, exceptional skill and ability and great knowledge of human nature are required. One of the weaknesses that I have experienced in the working of the whole administration of Unemployment Insurance is that in many parts of London nearly the whole of the staff is temporary and the buildings are temporary. I have in mind what is, perhaps, one of the most important centres in London, namely, the Shoreditch employment exchange, which deals each week with thousands of cases. The building is only a wooden one, built, I suppose, just after the War, and whenever I have gone there I have thought that even from the point of view of fire it was extremely dangerous that such a large number of valuable documents, cards, and particulars should be collected there, and that the work should be allowed to be done in a temporary structure.

It is the same with the men. We have very large and able body of civil servants under the State; we have a very large and able body of men, for instance, in the Post Office, but I doubt if there is any work that requires more training and more skill than the disbursement of these moneys, which are entrusted by the State to temporary staffs in these Employment Exchanges. You cannot expect men to become extremely interested in this work if their engagement is purely temporary. I would suggest that the Ministry of Labour should go thoroughly into the whole organisation of the staff of these Exchanges, and make up its mind what is going to be the permanent number that is likely to be required. When the Employment Exchanges were originally initiated, before the War, the idea was that they were to be staffed by highly-skilled trained men, and that the work was to be considered to be of a permanent character. The War came, and the staff was scattered to the four quarters of the Empire, women were substituted, and the result was, of course, that inexperienced persons were put in charge of the machinery. Under the pressure of public opinion the women were displaced and their places taken by ex-service men, but the new appointments have been temporary, and the managers of the Exchanges assure me that one of their difficulties is that the men feel that their job is not permanent.

Ever since the War, we have been dealing with all our problems by temporary expedients. We assume that next year or the year after the character of the problem will change. Here we are in 1925, six years after the War, and in great areas there are still these temporary buildings and temporary staffs, and the Government each year come with new Votes for temporary appointments. I say that this is not only unsound business, but it is unfair to the men concerned, and unfair to the State, whose money is entrusted to their care. People who are unemployed have a right to ask that the men who interview them and go into their cases should be highly trained, highly experienced and highly qualified, feeling that their work is of a permanent character, and that, they have a responsibility, on the one hand, to the State that provides the money, and on the other hand to the beneficiaries who have paid substantial contributions into the Fund What I am told, and what I have seen, is that only too often the applicants are merely regarded as case numbers, they are rolled off as if they were cards to be dealt with as quickly as possible, when, of course, they should be regarded as a great human problem to deal with which requires understanding and knowledge.

I am convinced that the machinery of the Employment Exchanges will never be satisfactory until the Government are prepared to recognise that this is a factor in our national life, that the men engaged in the work are occupying positions of great trust and responsibility, and that they should have some security and some encouragement to master their job. I think that before we pass this Vote we ought to have some guarantee from the Parliamentary Secretary that the Government are prepared to face this question of staffing with a long view and on scientific lines. My experience is that one of the reasons why the machinery breaks down from the point of view of finding employment is that the staff is constantly changing. It does not know its area; it does not know its locality; it does not know the conditions of industry; and, therefore, when a man says he cannot find work, or wants a particular kind of job, the official who interviews him is not in a position either to judge of his capabilities or to direct him where work can be found. We shall not get the kind of men who will do that kind of work unless we have a permanent Civil Service administering the Employment Exchanges and carrying out the immense and important work which is entrusted to their care. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to enlighten us.

I want just to refer to Subhead K.K.1, which makes provision for grants to certain associations. We are in doubt as to what are the associations that are to receive this grant, but I assume for the moment that one section of them, at any rate, will be the choice of employment committees set up by the local education authorities and the Ministry of Labour, and I shall be happy to know, if the information can be given this evening, whether a portion of this grant is to be given for the purpose of enabling these choice of employment committees to function better than they are able to do at the present time. They are doing exceedingly useful work, but my experience convinces me that they, as well as the ordinary Employment Exchange staffs, are handicapped by the premises in which they are compelled to work. I shall be glad to know that reasonable grants are going to be made to the local authorities to enable them to put at the disposal of these Committees premises which would enable them to carry out the work as it should be carried out. I put this point in the hope that the Parliamentary Secretary may he able to assure the Committee that consideration is being given to it, and that local education committees will be given grants which will enable them to establish the premises which are necessary in order that the work may be done in a capable manner. Furthermore, I want to see these choice of employment committees established to a greater degree than is already the case. My experience on a local authority convinces me that, if these committees are to grow and develop, the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Education will have to give more encouragement than has been given in the past. I hope that this grant is going to be a source of encouragement to local authorities, and I shall be glad to have information on the point.

When the grant was under discussion last Friday a very natural anxiety was expressed in all parts of the Committee to obtain information which as you, Sir, ruled was out of order. Therefore, it was with satisfaction, which is shared by my right hon. Friend, that we heard that an early date has been arranged when all the questions which are outside the scope of our discussion to-day may be fully and freely discussed in all their aspects. Therefore, if I confine myself, as I shall, to the points which arise specifically upon the various items it is not because I deprecate a discussion on the larger questions on which an opportunity is to be afforded in the near future when we shall have an opportunity of dealing with them at greater length. The first question about which I will say a word or two is that of the £10,000 to be paid to the British Legion. The history of that is this. For some time past it has been obvious that the work of the Appointments Department of the Ministry was gradually diminishing, and I think every recent. Minister of Labour has contemplated the time when it would be in the public interest that the Department should be closed down and its work undertaken by the British Legion. The Ministry of Labour has throughout acted in close co-operation with the British Legion and it is unnecessary to add that it has complete confidence in the capacity and capability of the British Legion to carry out its work. At present the register of candidates for posts has fallen to a point which has satisfied my right hon. Friend that the time has now arrived when the arrangement which has been so long in contemplation should be carried out. It is now under 2,000 in number and therefore it is proposed that the work should be taken over by the British Legion and that this sum of £10,000 should be paid to them. It is not an annual sum but a final payment. Under these circumstances we feel that we are doing a proper businesslike and economical thing in handing this work over.

No. The British Legion are to be free of the control of the Ministry and they will, therefore, not report.

Can the hon. Gentleman give any indication as to how they are to spend the money?

I would ask the Committee to have some confidence in the British Legion. They will continue the work in the way we have been doing it, but we must and do rely not only on their capacity, but upon their good faith in the matter, and we feel justified in doing so.

Is there an agreement that they are to carry on the work which has been carried on for a certain number of years or is the £10,000 to carry on the work for ever?

There is no question of it being carried on for ever because we believe it will very shortly come to an end, and the whole of this £10,000 will then be exhausted.

Suppose the £10,000 is not, equal to meeting the whole demands of the Department, what takes place?

Will the British Legion submit general details as to how the money is being expended or are we to take it that this £10,000 is going to be handed over to the British Legion for them to expend in whatever way they choose, always trusting to their honour that it will be expended properly.

It is fair to say there will be no control by the Government over the British Legion as to the way it is spent.

The hon. Gentleman will not, of course, take us as offering any objection to the proposal he is making on tile understanding that it is really necessary as a winding-up process in relation to the work done formerly by his Department, but we should like to know upon what basis this figure was reached. In what way was it assumed that £10,000 was the figure which would meet the case?

I am not sure that. I can give a very precise answer to that except that I can safely say that having regard to the cost of the Appointments Department and to the cost per capita of the persons who have received appointments, and also to the number of applicants left, which is under 2,000, we came to the conclusion—I am not sure the £10,000 was not arranged before my light hon. Friend came into office—that £10,000 was a fair sum to offer them consideration of the services which we are quite certain they will render.

Is there not still time to make it a condition of the grant that when the money has been spent the Government will get a financial report of the transactions from the British Legion?

I do not think it is too late, and I will ask for that to be done. I have been asked that the instructions issued by the Ministry might be circulated to Members. I am told that the Department supplies already to the Library of the House copies of all directions, issued by the local employment committees, also copies of the Ministry's decisions relating to dependants' benefit.

My point is whether they shall not be supplied to the Library but to each individual Member.

Of course, that would involve a certain amount of expense, and in these matters it has always been considered a fair compromise of that claim, which has been very often made, that a copy of the instructions should he placed in the Library, where any hon. Member can see it at any time.

I would put it to the Department that it would be very much more satisfactory to circulate copies to all hon. Members.

Could the hon. Gentleman make a concession in this regard, not issuing them to all Members, but that those who applied to his Department should have copies sent to them?

Certainly; any hon. Members who applies for any copy of any particular instructions shall have it. I think that is a very fair compromise.

Would it be more economically run by the British Legion than it is at present being run by the Civil Service?

I think it will be equally economically run by the British Legion. Questions have been raised with regard to the sum of £3,800 granted to associations under the Labour Exchange Act, 1909. I think hon. Members are under a misapprehension as to what this amount relates to, and they are disposed to give it a wider significance than the facts warrant. Under the Education Act, 1921, power was given to the local education authorities to assist juveniles in finding employment. Under the Act of 1923, local education authorities could undertake additional powers in respect to the administration of benefit, subject to a scheme approved between the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Education. The London County Council did not chooso to exercise this power, but under the Education Act of 1921 they had arrangements with two associations which were doing very good work—the London Association for the Care of the Mentally Defective and the Association for Blind and Crippled Children. The grant which was payable under the arrangements made between these associations and the London County Council came to an end on 31st March last year in consequence of the fact that the London County Council declined to exercise the powers conferred upon it by the Act of 1923. Therefore, we are in this position, that unless we take over this work, which is really an obligation incurred by the London County Council, there will be no money forthcoming to pay the grants hitherto paid to the associations. Under these circumstances the Minister of Labour has undertaken the responsibility. Hon. Members will see that this sum of £3,800 has no significance beyond the particular transaction to which I have referred. Therefore, some of the observations made both on Friday and to-day with regard to the larger question are not really relevant to this comparatively small sum.

Do we understand that this £3,800 is the only amount and that the rest is raised by voluntary subscription?

The £3,800 is the amount which the London County Council formerly paid to these two associations, and the obligation is now taken over by my Department.

Is not the reason of this change that it was transferred from the Board of Education to the Ministry of Labour?

6.0 P. M.

Yes, and the reason why it has been transferred is owing to the fact that the London County Council did not choose to exercise the powers conferred on them. A question was asked with regard to training, and whether there was any intention of cutting down the grant now paid for that purpose. There is no such intention.

Has the hon. Member formed any estimate of the time the training is likely to go on?

No. I cannot answer that question offhand. The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) asked a question, which was asked by other hon. Members, whether further steps cannot be taken to acquaint persons using the Exchanges of their precise rights under the Section dealing with refunds in the Act of last year. The hon. Member said that certain misleading statements had appeared in the newspapers, which had caused disappointment and confusion in the minds of those who read them, and he asked whether we could not do something to set at rest those doubts. My right hon. Friend authorised me, before he left the House, to say that he will certainly consider the question of having a short statement published in the Press, of the kind suggested by the hon. Member for Govan, because he is just as anxious as hon. Members that the rights of these persons should be well known and that everything possible should be done to prevent unnecessary claims from being made.

The hon. Member also asked questions with regard to certain instructions, particulars of which he gave, which he said had been issued by the Ministry. No instructions of the kind mentioned by the hon. Member have been issued. The only point on which I would make some small reservation is the question relating to the men who are said to have served in the Free State Army. That point was new to me, and I cannot give a decisive answer now. Regarding the whole question of refunds, I was asked certain definite questions to which, insofar as they have not been answered by my right hon. Friend, I will give a precise answer now. The claims that are coming in every week number something like 10,000. The number received up to the present time is something like 600,000, and the total number that we expect before we finish will come to something like 1,200,000. The amount we have actually paid is very nearly £1,000,000, to be precise, £940,000, and the amount that we expect to pay before the matter is finally closed is something like £3,300,000. The Committee will realise that this does involve an immense amount of work, and, having regard to the magnitude of the task, I think the Ministry may well be congratulated on the expedition with which up to now this very complicated task has been performed.

A point was raised last Friday, and it was mentioned again to-day, that in a matter of this kind it was not fair to put the applicant in the position of being able to say that he did not know what his rights were, and that he should not be prejudiced or precluded after a certain short space of time from asserting his rights. I remember the discussion on this point which took place in Committee when the Bill was before the Committee. I am not sure whether I moved the Amendment on the point, but, at any rate, the matter was discussed, and the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw), who was then Minister of Labour, met us most fairly, and agreed to the Amendment which is comprised in the Section read out by the Minister, under which an additional four years is given.

Yes, but as far as we are concerned, that sanction will not be construed in any niggardly or close way. Confining myself entirely to the points which are strictly relevant to this Supplementary Estimate, I think I have dealt with them all. There is one point with which I did not deal, because I did not think it relevant to these Estimates. The point was raised by several hon. Members, as to the sort of building in which many of these people have to work. That is a question relating to the actual fabric of buildings, and it is a matter which should come on the Office of Works Vote.

We are taking temporary premises where temporary clerks are engaged to do the extra work caused in regard to the three days' benefit. What I am asking is that more care should be exercised in taking over temporary premises for this purpose.

In regard to the buildings, I can assure hon. Members that every care is and will be taken to provide the best buildings available under the circumstances. Certainly, it is a matter which has had, and will continue to have, the constant attention of the Minister.

I have no intention of trying to prevent the Minister from getting his Vote, but I want the assurance that the matters which we desire to discuss will not be excluded from the discussion which has been promised a week or 10 days hence. According to it ruling given by the Deputy-Speaker, the administration of the Department and questions of principles cannot be discussed on this Estimate. We desire most urgently to raise the whole question of the administration of Unemployment Insurance, the new instructions that have been issued, and the new policy adopted by the Ministry with regard to a certain Clause in the Act of 1924. If I have the assurance that all these questions can be thoroughly debated when the opportunity is given in a week or 10 days, I shall not raise any discussion on these Estimates, because anything I wish to say goes far wide of the ruling of the Chair, and I should prefer to discuss the matter when full debate is possible, rather than conduct a lame discussion in which one never knows whether he is on the side of order or disorder.

Obviously, the proper time for discussion will be on the Vote on Account.

May I take it that we shall have the right to a general discussion on the Vote on Account? We wish to discuss not only administration but general policy. We have been ruled out of that to-day. I wish to know whether we can discuss general policy and not merely administration on the Vote on Account.

On the Vote on Account, it is permissible to discuss anything with regard to legislation which has already been passed, administration and such like, but it is not permissible to discuss anything that would require fresh legislation.

On a point of Order. On this Vote there is a certain item to which I strongly object. I recognise that there may not be any desire on the part of any other hon. Member to divide the Committee on this particular point, but I wish to record my individual protest against the £10,000 being handed over to the British Legion. Is there any way in which, as I stand alone, possibly. I can record my protest?

Will the question of the constitution of the Committees be in order on the Vote on Account?

That would obviously be in order. In regard to the other point raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), if the Amendment now before the Committee is disposed of, it, would be competent for the hon. Member to move another Amendment on the ground that he objects to some item hi the Vote.

Question, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £421,000, be granted for the said Service," put, and negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Class VI

Ministry of Pensions

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,096,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Pensions, and for sundry Contributions in respect of the Administration of the Ministry of Pensions Act, 1916, the War Pensions Acts, 1915 to 1921, and sundry Services."

In introducing this Estimate, it may be for the convenience of the Committee that I should refer briefly to the actual reasons which necessitate it. It might be supposed by now to be possible to estimate pretty accurately the amount which is required for the administration of pensions during the ensuing year, and, although we are getting towards that, we have not quite reached it yet. There are certain factors which predispose towards an increase and a decrease of pensions in this country. Obvious factors of increase are, fresh claims and the worsening conditions of the men who have been disabled. On the other hand, there are factors producing a decrease, such as death, the re-marriage of widows, and children coming off the pensions' list when they pass the age at which money is received from the State. But in neither case are those factors constant. Though there is a net decrease in the present Estimate compared with former years, at the same time it would have been impossible to estimate correctly the amount required. The original Estimate was for about £67,000,000, which was 7 per cent. less than the Estimate for the year before. The actual expenditure has amounted in round figures to £69,000,000, or a decrease of 4 per cent. on the previous year.

The items come under five different sub-heads. At the same time they really group themselves into three different divisions. There are two items, C.1 and K.1, both of which refer to the same branch of administration of pensions, and they together amount to a sum of £838,000. There are two main classes of pension, those in which final awards are likely, and those which can only be given conditionally, pensions which are subject to review. It is hoped and believed that the condition of the majority of those who have conditional pensions will improve. At the same time there is a substantial minority who are suffering from serious progressive disease, and obviously in their case there must be a worsening of their conditions, and the pensions therefore must necessarily go up. It is difficult naturally to estimate the amount that will come in one particular year, and in this particular year it was under-estimated to the extent which I have already named. Turning to the next item in which there is an increase, L, which is widows' pensions, and gratuities to the children of deceased seamen and deceased warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the Marines, Army and Air Force, the increased charge is £360,000.

I have already mentioned that one of the reasons for a decrease in the pensions list is in respect of widows who re-marry. Obviously it is difficult to state in any particular year how many widows are going to marry. He would be a bold man who in private life would venture to prophesy on such a matter, but unfortunately the Minister of Pensions is bound to do his best to prophesy in that direction, and he has not very much to go upon except what has happened in previous years, and as years go on, what has happened in previous years may not be a good criterion on which to prophesy how many widows will be married in the following year. On this particular occasion there was a distinct overestimate of those who were expected to re-marry, and consequently we are now faced with having to pay more money for those who have not been married. But the greater part of the increase is due to the larger amount that was claimed, as compared with what was anticipated, owing to the amending warrant of the 14th January, 1924, which gave improved rates of pensions to the widows of men who died more than seven years after their discharge from the service, and that accounted for a large proportion of the £360,000.

Then the next group into which you can divide up this Supplementary Estimate is treatment and training allowances and medical treatment of disabled officers, non-commissioned officers and men. They come under K.2 and O.6, and they amount altogether to £920,000. It will be agreed, quite rightly, that the Ministry should never restrict its efforts to secure the best facilities and the utmost skill available both in the medical and surgical profession for the benefit of disabled officers and men. That has always been the principle which the House has laid down, and the Ministry has acted up to it, and we see the result of this in the improved health of a very large number of those who are disabled by their war service. We have made use of several institutions. We also have a large number of special hospitals and clinics all over the country, and on an average, on any one particular day of the year, 50,000 officers and men receive treatment daily at the cost of the Ministry.

Of course in many cases the condition is improved, and as the health improves there is involved a diminution in hospital and building accommodation, but the Committee will readily understand that that is not very easily estimated at the beginning of any particular year, and can only be guessed at, and even if the guess is correct you have still got to estimate the rate at which you will be able to make consequential reductions of hospital accommodation and staff. In other words, the standing charges must diminish more slowly than the patients. In this particular year under review the decline of patients has been slightly slower than was expected, and although the cost of medical treatment did decline it did so at a rate much slower than that which was estimated, and as a consequence we now have to come to this Committee and ask for an increased Estimate of £920,000 for these particular services. But there is nobody who would be inclined to argue that the treatment should not he given. I believe that everybody would say that the treatment should be given as generously as possible, and that everything possible should be done for these men who have been injured in the War. The total Estimate comes to £2,118,000, and against that there is a slightly increased appropriation in it which comes to £22,000, and therefore the Supplementary Estimate now asked for comes to £2,096,000.

The hon. and gallant Member has referred to certain constant factors, but the only constant factor that the ex-service men know is the announcement that comes to them in the form of the few words "not attributable to service." I had to draw the attention of the Ministry of Pensions to the case of a man who was said by the medical men in charge to be quite well, and yet when we made a light and got the man X-rayed, we discovered that he had various pieces of shrapnel lodged in his body, and still we were told that there was nothing wrong with him, and that he was fit. Then comes this X-ray plate which shows that the man was not monkeying as it is called in the report. In the same street there is another man on the same work who was born in that street, and known by all his comrades at the work, who was unable to go up the little hill with his comrades at dinner time to get his dinner because of a defect in his ankle, and he is told, under treatment, that there is nothing wrong with him. These men feel that they are being made out as if they were untruthful, as if they were saying that something was wrong with them when there is nothing wrong with them. That is a moral hardship, apart altogether from the other things which they are asked to suffer.

What is the use of complying with the request to have a man re-examined, and having the medical people there saying that there is nothing wrong with him, or that if there is it is not attributable to service, when the man knows that he is suffering? Is the word of all the men who know these men to be taken or not? Is the medical power going to be such that you can tell a man who is coffering that he is not suffering? I would like the Ministry of Pensions to get a more human touch with this type of man. They lack this human touch all through their eases, as they did in the case of this man who was at his work and who dropped down at his bench, and in whom the X-rays revealed the presence of shrapnel, when he was told that he is not suffering from the effect of shrapnel in his body. We have to get right away from that kind of thing, and to secure that men who are really suffering shall be dealt with in a human way. I regret to have to repeat any charge against the medical side, but what I find is that when men whom have known all my life, men with whom I need to work, say what is wrong with them, I refuse to believe what the medical men say, because I know the other fellow. It is very hard for men who have been honest and hard-working all their lives to be treated as if they were something else. I hope that the Ministry of Pensions will pay attention to what I have said in relation to these questions, and that these men shall be treated in a more human way than they have been treated in the past.

I wish to raise one point of considerable importance. I was surprised to discover that ex-soldiers who belong to the Army Reserve are not in a position under the Regulations to make an appeal against a decision of their case by the Ministry of Pensions. It is surprising that men who undertake an obligation under the Army Reserve should be in a worse position than the ordinary soldier who has finished his service. If it be necessary to make some alteration in the Regulations to permit this, it should certainly be done. I have in mind a particular case which I communicated to the Minister of Pensions the other day. It was the case of a man who is undoubtedly suffering under very grave disability. The question whether this disability was caused by War service or by service in the police is in dispute. The man expressed a desire to appeal. The Minister is always very prompt and civil in his replies, and he had to inform me that under the present Regulations the man was disqualified from appealing. Assuming that that statement is correct, it seems grossly unfair.

I want to deal also with the question of treatment allowances. One of the most important things that we have to do, in the interests of public finance as well as in the interests of the men themselves, is to get them cured as soon as possible. That is better for the labour market, better for the man's character and better for the Ministry of Pensions and for every interest concerned. I have found in many cases that there are difficulties about treatment allowance. A man is told that he can renew his occupation, but if he continues his occupation he cannot get treatment allowance. The Ministry should reconsider all the regulations in reference to treatment allowance when men are admitted to be suffering from some illness. Naturally a man hesitates to risk losing his job in order to undertake elaborate treatment at a hospital, unless he can be assured that he will not be out of pocket. I refer particularly, not to men who go away to residential hospitals, but to men who attend at a hospital regularly every day, say between 9 o'clock and 5 o'clock. A man who is in work and goes to a hospital in that way daily runs a risk of losing his work. The ordinary working man has not his time at his own disposal, and if he has to undergo daily treatment at a hospital it is essential that the allowance should be such that it compensates him fully for the time he loses away from his job.

It is so very rarely that this House gets an opportunity of discussing anything relating to the Ministry of Pensions, that I hope the Chair will allow this Debate to take as wide a range as is in order.

If I gave latitude to one hon. Member, I would have to give it to all, and the Debate would be too long.

I did not intend to be out of order deliberately. One question which I want to mention is that of final awards. Everyone will agree that the final awards as they are now administered are not satisfactory to the ex-service men. Every Member of this House who judges by his post-bag will agree with that statement. The final awards which I wish to mention particularly are those of the men with under 20 per cent. disability. It is quite true that the ex-service man once asked for final awards, but he meant final pensions, and had no idea that anything such as the under 20 per cent. would be conceived by any Department. A man was awarded a pension of under 20 per cent., and was given a lump sum which was allotted to him weekly for a couple of years, and he was then, as far as pensions was concerned, wiped off the Ministry books. It. is true that in certain cases he can appeal for treatment and for allowances, but only in certain cases. He is eligible for treatment allowance only if his wound or illness is directly attributable to his service in the War. If his disability only arises out of and is only partly due to service, he is eligible for treatment for a period of only 12 months, and after that he is not entitled to anything. It is my opinion, and the opinion of most of my friends, that that system should be altered.

Another thing in regard to which a man with under 20 per cent. disability suffers is his right of appeal. He is told that he has a right of appeal for 12 months. Very often for very good reasons he does not raise that appeal within the 12 months, and after that he is practically debarred from raising it at all. There are concessions made by which, if the appeal has not been lodged within the 12 months, he can apply to the Tribunal to hear his appeal, but I believe that out of more than 3,000 cases last year only 500 had their appeal allowed, or 18 per cent. I am sure that there are many Regulations which, if properly administered, could deal with a lot of these anomalies. I do not know whether it is the fault of the Ministry, whether they do not give sufficient instructions to their servants in different parts of the country and to the people on the War Pensions Committees. I think that in a great number of cases the War Pensions Committees do not know of the concessions relating to such cases. I think the men might be notified of their rights. It is a question of administration. I do not see any reason why everyone of these man should not be written to direct. It is rather too much to expect a man of the type of the ex-service man to find out all these things for himself. It is necessary, perhaps, to spoon-feed him, so that he can get the benefit of all the Regulations which are there for him.

I feel sure that the Minister will do the best he can to explain away all these things, but, I would point out that, in spite of all the Regulations, and in spite of everything that is done, there is not the slightest doubt that a great number of the men are labouring under a very distinct grievance, so far as these final awards are concerned. It is not sufficient to come to the House and to state that the men are entitled to so-and-so and that so-and-so can be done. In spite of what we may be told the man concerned does not get all these things; he is entitled to them, and he does not know it. I have here a file of some 40 cases of final awards which all seem to me to be cases that should be altered. The Minister will no doubt say that if I will let him have these cases he will consider the details of them. I know for a fact that the Minister will go into the details and with very great courtesy. Rut surely it is not right that it should be the duty of Members of Parliament to have to put these cases before the Minister in order to secure attention to them. Many men do not write to their Member of Parliament; they do not want to bother him. Many cannot put their thoughts into writing, and for some reason or other many do not like to write to Members of Parliament at all. Those are the men who suffer. Those who write to us have their cases brought forward. I know that the Minister is sympathetic to us, and I feel sure that he will explain away a great many of these things, but something more than explanation and sympathy is called for. We require drastic alterations in the methods of dealing with these final awards in cases of under 20 per cent disability.

It was very encouraging to hear the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, that the men should be considered in a generous way. I hope that, in conjunction with the Minister of Pensions, he still consider these cases more generously in future than they have been considered hitherto. Take the question of the final award, in cases of men with less than 20 per cent. disability, where. a man has a right to appeal or where he appeals within the 12 months for his case to be considered by the Appeal Tribunal. Before he goes to the Appeal Tribunal and when he appears before a Medical Board he is examined by a doctor or doctors. He is told that his disability is less than 20 per cent. and that he has the right to appeal within 12 months. He goes home and his panel doctor, who has probably known him for many years before the War and has been treating him since the War, tells him that he is not able to work at all and that his disability is very much higher than 20 per cent. He has to appeal to the Appeal Tribunal, and where he goes to the Appeal Tribunal he is examined by another doctor and his case is decided purely on the medical evidence of that doctor.

I put to the Minister now what I have put to him privately and on deputations, that in all such cases it is only fair and reasonable that the man should be accompanied by his own medical attendant. I understand that quite a number of doctors are willing to go both to the medical board and to the appeal tribunal with the men, but being members of their trade union, and being very unwilling to work for less than the rata prescribed by their trade union, they refuse to go unless they are paid. I do not disagree with the doctors in their claim that they should be paid, but I put it to the Minister that if he wants to act, not in a generous spirit, but in a fair spirit to these men, he will put no obstacle in their way in expecting them to prove their case that their disability is greater than that which the doctors on the medical board say it is. I could give any number of cases in which men have had pensions cut off on the evidence of medical board doctors, which was contrary to the evidence of the men's own doctors, and these same men are being maintained by the parish to-day.

It is no good telling us that the Ministry is giving very generous treatment. If so, they are not giving it in all districts equally. There is no generosity of treatment in the division which I represent. The men there have not been treated generously up to the present. I believe the Minister himself is sympathetic to the claim which I am putting forward, that a man should have the right to have his own medical officer with him when he is being examined either before the medical board or the Pensions Appeals Tribunal. I propose to attend an Appeals Tribunal on Friday next with a man who has lost his hearing because of service in the War. He served three years in the Royal Artillery, and the medical officers of the Ministry say his disability is not attributable to, nor aggravated by, his service, and that whatever disability he suffers is due to something which has happened to him since his service. His own doctor, who knew him many years before the War and who is still attending him, certifies that the man was in sound physical condition before joining the Army and that his condition is now such that he is unable to follow his employment regularly. This is purely a medical question. I am not a doctor and cannot argue the case from the medical standpoint and neither can the man himself, and it is not unreasonable to say that the man's own doctor, who knows him, who has had the opportunity of getting the same education as the other doctors and who is probably quite as well qualified as the official doctors, should be present with the man when the case is heard. The Minister agrees that the doctor can attend, and the only point between the Ministry and ourselves is that they refuse to pay the doctor. I think if a doctor attends he should be paid, and that the Ministry might grant the sum which is necessary to make clear whether a man is really suffering from a disability contracted during service or not.

In regard to the question of treatment, the same remarks apply. In the division which I represent we have quite a host of cases in which men are asked to go to Glasgow for examination when they are unable to work and are drawing from the parish whatever sustenance they are getting. When they go into Glasgow they are told that the doctor there admits that they are suffering from a disability and he sends them back for home treatment. Home treatment does not carry with it an allowance, and the position of such man is made very much worse because he has to go to the trouble and expense of travelling 12 or 15 miles to be examined by a doctor who will not tell him whether he is unfit to work or otherwise. I have myself asked the doctors there to say whether men were fit for work or not, but they would not commit themselves. There are cases of that kind in which the man's panel doctor tells him he is unfit to work and in which the parish doctor certifies him as unfit to work, otherwise he would not receive a penny from the parish. That is not even fair treatment of the ex-soldier much less generous treatment, and I hope the Minister instead of telling us that the Ministry are going to be generous and instead of speaking nice words about the services which these men have rendered will put those professions into practice.

I do not know whether I shall be in order in raising the question of the Scottish Regional Department. We had an assurance from the late Minister, and am not sure that we had not a similar assurance from the present Minister, that there was no intention of removing the Scottish Regional Department to London. A considerable amount of anxiety is, however, being manifested in Scotland on this point, and I wish to know whether there is any intention on the part of the Ministry of transferring it, the Regional Department, from Edinburgh to London. If there is, I enter the strongest possible protest against it. Far too much of the work is being done from London, and one of the difficulties with which the ex-soldier in Scotland has to contend is the fact that decisions are made and treatment is allotted from London, and the people in London do not come into direct. contact with the men at all. I put it to the Minister that he has an advisory council sitting frequently in Edinburgh, every member of which is an active worker on a local war pensions committee. There is not a single man or woman among them who is not anxious that there should be changes along the lines indicated by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Fairfield Division of Liverpool (Major Cohen). I believe every advisory council in Britain holds exactly the same opinion, and these men and women know from actual daily experience what are the real conditions. I hope the Minister is willing to take a great deal of their advice on the treatment of these men. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think I am attempting to criticise him personally. I am only anxious that some arrangement may be secured to bring about better conditions as between the ex-soldiers and those working in their interest throughout the country.

I wish to draw attention to certain points which have come under my notice in connection with this subject. First, I would refer to the question of the assessment of disability. Many cases have come to my notice in which a particular type of disability has been treated and, in the view of the tribunal, has been cured, but in the curing of that disability others have arisen which are more or less contingent on the original disability. I give as an example a case of a man who served for five years in the Black Watch. His disability was acute appendicitis, for which an operation was performed upon his, and during the period of cure—he was reported as having been cured of appendicitis—he developed tuberculosis. The Ministry now repudiate all responsibility for the care of this man. His health, which was perfectly good and sound before the War, is now such that he cannot work, but the pensions authorities will not accept any liability. In such a case, if the regulations debar the authorities from taking care of the man, then the regulations should be altered in that respect. A disability contracted during War service, even though cured, very often leads to another disability which leaves the man in a worse position than he was in originally.

The second point I raise relates to treatment allowances. There are many cases in which a tribunal, assessing men at under 20 per cent. disability, gives them a gratuity, and there seems to be a lack of touch between the tribunal which assesses this gratuity and those responsible for treatment. The result is, that after a gratuity has been granted, treatment is continued and, in the end, the whole of the gratuity allotted to the man is eaten up by treatment allowances which have been deducted from it. Two eases have been brought to my notice in which treatment allowances have been taken away from the gratuity, leaving the men concerned practically no money. In these two particular cases-which I can send to my right hon. Friend the Minister this system has resulted in the men having a distinct grievance against the Ministry.

The third point I wish to make is that in certain cases fathers who have lost sons in the War, who have not, at the time, claimed for the loss of those sons because they were not in need at the time and who, after a period of years, find that their position in life has deteriorated and that they have less means at their disposal, find, when applying for allowances for the loss of those sons, great difficulty in getting such allowances assessed. I know a case of a man who lost two sons in the War. He did not make any application until quite recently, and he was allotted a very small sum and one which was insufficient to keep him from starvation. Had this man not been receiving assistance from friends in the district, he would have been in a particularly hard position. I ask the Minister to see that those particular cases receive more sympathetic treatment in the North than they have received in the past. With regard to the Regulations under which the officers of the Ministry work, those officers, especially in the North, have themselves told me that the Regulations debar them from extending to the men that sympathy which they would like to give. I hope the Minister will personally look into these Regulations and deal with the hard cases to which I have directed attention.

7.0 P.M.

I desire to associate myself very strongly with the case which the hon. and gallant Member for the Fairfield Division of Liverpool (Major Cohen) has put before the Committee, and I wish quite shortly to examine the question of these final awards in so far as they are under 20 per cent. To my mind they were aptly described by a disabled soldier with whom I was discussing them as "a device to do us." I am sure that is the very last wish of the Minister of Pensions. The applications are generally for small sums. I generally find a man is awarded a final pension of under 20 per cent. disability of 10s. per week for 18 months. That gives him £39. You say to him, "Here is the £39 we grant you." He can immediately appeal and he can go before the House of Lords Tribunal, to which I wish to pay every tribute, and say, "This is not fair. How can I tell you how I shall be at the end of 18 months? "Why do you give him this amount, dribbling it out at 10s. per week? Many of the men do not realise that it is necessary to appeal within 12 months after the expiration of the, dole, and what is the result? They are too late.

I want to mention another great difficulty. It is neither just nor right, and I am sure my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions must see if something cannot be done to remedy it. Suppose it is a case in which a man has got this 10s. a week for 18 months or two years, and he comes to me. I can only say to him, "Your only chance is to appeal." It may be he is suffering from rheumatism in some form or another. It may be he is suffering from neuritis in some form or another. It may be that at the time he is afforded every chance of being well, but who can forecast that? He appeals, and, unless he can get a fresh medical board and put before them fresh facts, he is refused. He appeals to the House of Lords, and he is sent from there to the medical board and receives his 10s. until after the period when the right of appeal has gone. At the end of that period the ma may worse. Suppose he is no better, supposing he has the right to appeal at the end of 18 months, surely if he has not improved by that time it is not the object of the Committee or the Ministry to deprive him of the chance of appeal. I, therefore, ask, Have we any right to say his pension shall riot be continued?

If a constituent writes to me in the matter in time I can go to the tribunal and put the case before them, but I do submit we ought not to make the awards in this way. If you make a final award of £50 that can be dealt with, but after my experience of these cases I wholly protest against the notion of any finality unless a man has got really a pension for life. It is impossible to say what aftereffects the War may have upon men. I suppose everybody in this House has met cases in which men have their employment affected by reason of these after effects of service in the War. Surely we ought not to make final awards in these temporary cases. There ought to be a right of appeal open to these men who served and saved the country. If at any time they can satisfy a tribunal that they we really incapacitated by some illness which they contracted by the War, why should it be that we have to say to them, "It is too late and you can have nothing." I protest against these men being put upon the rates. Why should this obligation be thrown upon the rates? We know something must be done for these men. Why should it be thrown upon the rates? Quite clearly, it is a national obligation. We know how hardly rates press upon the poor.

These poor men have had this temporary award which is final, and, there being no appeal they go to the Employ-merit Exchange and put themselves down for Unemployment Insurance. What does the Manager, quite properly, and the Committee, quite properly, say? "Why have you not been at work?" The answer may be, "I am suffering from rheumatism contracted during the War, and I cannot get regular work, and my disability is such that employers will not take me." After all, ability and skill are matters of consideration at the hands of employers. What is the result? These men are thrown off the Unemployment Insurance and refused benefit because they are told, "You are unemployed, not because you cannot get work, but because, in truth, owing to your disability, you are unable to work." Why should a man who has fought for us and has saved us be thrown upon the poor relief? We have for years tried to keep the people out of the workhouse, and I do feel most strongly that the Minister of Pensions ought to do something to alter the state of things. It is not, I am sure, any part of his desire or the desire of this Committee that me should be able to say, "conclusions must be dropped, and they are now all dropping." What we want to be sure of is that when dropped, as inevitably they must be, every justice shall be done to those who suffered by this War. I strongly urge my right hon. Friend to see what can be clone in regard to the aspect of the question we have put before him to-night.

I just want to say one Word with regard to final awards, about which I think there is some misapprehension. I am given to understand, even when a final award is made, it docs not debar a man from making another appeal. I think if that went out to the public it would give more confidence. I can instance it case where a man was in receipt of a 70 per cent. pension. He had lost a leg, and he had been sent into an institution to be attended to, and he did. When his case was inquired into the widow got no pension. The doctor said there was no connection between the man's wounds and his death, and that he died from tuberculosis. In cases like that I think the Pensions Minister ought to show as much sympathy as would be shown uncial the Workmen's Compensation Act. More sympathetic treatment ought to on given in cases like that, because in the caw that I have mentioned the widow and children are now on the parish. Surely when the husband his fought, got mounded, and died, even though the connection of the wounds with his death was nut very apparent, sympathetic consideration should be given. It should be better for the country and the people. I know the difficulties of the Minister of Pensions, and I want to help him as much as possible, and that is why I am bringing these cases forward in order that he can try and administer on the lines we suggest.

This being one of the Reserved Services, as far ns Northern Ireland is concerned, it affords us one of the few opportunities we have of making our voices heard. What strikes me, as one particularly interested in the ex-service man, is, that if there be any suffering on the part of the ex-service men or their dependants, I am quite satisfied that it is not the wish of this Committee or the Members of this House, and I am quite satisfied that it is not the wish of the nation to prolong that suffering. It ought to be the duty of the Minister in charge of Pensions in this House and of the nation to see that suffering and want are done away with. Too frequently have me found the Minister has come down to this House to say that in the view of the Final Appeal Tribunal he has no power. What I do say is this, that if there be such a thing as an Appeal Tribunal and the result of their action is that there is injustice, then it is the duty of the Minister in charge of Pensions to see that something is done to do away with that injustice. I think it is the duty of this House to see that justice is done.

There was one point mentioned with regard to the inability of the dependants, particularly poor woman, to plead their own cause. We all recognise that. We all know when n poor woman comes before these doctors how helpless until nervous she is. I know of one case where a widow was turned down and she appealed. She said that she wished to invite the services of the doctor who was thoroughly acquainted with the case locally, and the poor woman had to go and borrow four guineas in order that the doctor might attend. The doctor did attend and the result of his attendance was that the case was won, said, after being turned down, she got a pension. I do feel that something should be done, so that these poor people could apply for the assistance of the local medical officer, who appreciates and understands the case right from before the war until the man dies. There is another point, in regard to the value of the deceased sons to their parents. That is usually put down as the value——

I orily mentioned it because mother speaker had already mentioned it, but if it is not in order, I will not proceed with it. With regard to the pensions officers, I must pay my tribute to the sympathetic and polite way in which they attend to all correspondence, but politeness and sympathy will not keep the widows and children of ex-service man, and I appeal to the Pensions Ministry not only to give a little more sympathy and politeness, but also, if necessary, to do away with or to bring in regulations by which all injustice shall be terminated. It is the nation's desire that these men, who have given their lives and their limbs freely, or their dependants, shall feel that the nation is looking after them. Nothing can exceed the courtesy of the present Minister of Pensions and of the late Minister, but their difficulties are made almost insurmountable by Regulations, and if the Regulations create injustice, it is time that new Regulations were brought in to do away with all injustice.

I am very glad to hear the sympathetic utterances from the other side, and particularly of the hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir G. Hohler), who referred to the Regulations. Those Regulations are surely made by the Ministry of Pensions, and it is to call attention to one particular Regulation which does inflict very great hardship on certain classes of men that I now rise in my place. It is in regard to men receiving treatment allowances. It is not commonly realised, I think, that a man may be certified as suffering from an attributable disability—the case I have in my mind at the moment is one about which I have had correspondence both with the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister and with the previous Minister—that he may be from time to time incapacitated from work by that disability, certified by his doctor as not being able to work, and therefore unable to work or get other means of support from the Employment Exchange, and yet at the same time be certified by the doctors of the Ministry of Pensions as not requiring to undergo a form of treatment which occupies all his time. He is told, in fact, to attend once a fortnight or once a month. Because the treatment prescribed by the Ministry, with his attendance once a fortnight or once a month, does not occupy his time, he is not allowed to have treatment allowance, and consequently the man, certified as unable to work, actually, in physical fact, unable to work, and unable consequently to earn money or get work from the Employment Exchange, is also debarred from getting treatment allowance.

That is due to a Regulation made by the Ministry of Pensions, and if the Members of this Committee want that Regulation changed they will have 'to vote more money, because it will be rather an expensive thing to change it.

But I urge very strongly that that is a Regulation which is quite unjust, that if a man, on account of a wound or as the result of an illness is actually unable to carry on any work at all, even although the treatment prescribed by the Ministry does not require his daily attendance, that man ought to receive an allowance sufficient to enable him and his family to carry on their ordinary life. I am perfectly well aware of what the Regulations are, because I have myself been almost every kind of pensions medical officer in my time, but there is no reason at all why those Regulations should not be changed. There is no reason at all why you should not assess the pension at such a rate as to allow the payment of treatment allowance during those periods of incapacity.

When I have corresponded with the Minister on this matter he has told me I must not mix up the question of unemployment with that of treatment. I agree. There is no question of doing so. There is simply this very definite question that a man suffering from a wound or an illness which disables him is, under existing Regulations, unable to get adequate compensation to enable him to carry on his ordinary life, and I say that the Ministry ought now to change the Regulation which makes this very grave injustice possible. You are, by your Regulations, of this Department and of other Departments, actually depriving a man of any resources whatsoever, except application for poor relief, in a case where there is no doubt at all of the attributability of the illness from which the man is suffering, and in which there is no doubt at all that it was definitely connected with the War. Because of your Regulations, the man is not able. to get anything, and I suggest that those Regulations ought to be changed.

My only excuse for intervening in this Debate at this late hour is because we get very few chances in this House of putting forward the legitimate grievances of the ex-service man with regard to pension matters, and I should like the Committee to understand that I am not making any attack whatever on the Minister of Pensions. We know how sympathetic he is to all cases that come under his notice, but I want to draw attention to certain Regulations under which the ex-service men in this country are suffering a grievous injustice. I put a supplementary question in the House this week with regard to the statutory limit for a pension appeal, and I asked the Minister if he was aware that when a man goes into hospital he is told: "You are not to put in your appeal; you can delay it until you are better." The time goes on, and the man comes out for a couple of months, and then goes back again. He is told the same thing again, and when at last he comes to put in his appeal, he finds that the statutory limit of 12 months has gone by and that he has no right to appeal. I am speaking from actual experience, because I am dealing, and have dealt during the last five years, with pension cases in the north-western region, which seems to be the worst area in this country for the administration of pensions.

I should like the Minister to note this instruction in regard to the assessors. The assessors, who do not necessarily see the pensioners at the medical boards, are required by the regional awards officer to reduce a certain number of pensions weekly. If they affirm, or in seine cases increase, all the assessments, the regional awards officer sends for them, and inquires why they have not produced the regular quota of reductions. That is a fact, which is going on in the north-western region, and I can prove it up to the hilt. When an ox-service man claims that his pension is being cut down unjustly, for the sake of economy, is it to be wondered at that he makes that assertion, when this sort of thing is going on? I want to say one or two words more with regard to the statutory limit of the pensions appeal tribunal. There is not, I venture to say, one ex-service man out of every 70 who knows that he has to appeal within 12 months of a decision given by a medical board. There are no notices put up in the offices. These men are not told by the clerks in the pensions offices——

It is essential to justice being done that those who are attacked should have the opportunity to reply, and with regard to the instruction mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member, this point has nothing to do with the present Estimate, if I may make that submission, because the statement was made that such orders were issued, but no such orders have been issued, anti, therefore, clearly they have not in any way affected the Vote.

Hon. Members will realise the difficulty of confining their remarks to the actual items on this Vote, and I hope they will assist me in that direction.

During the Debate this afternoon the ground has been pretty widely covered, but, of course, if I am out of order, I submit to your ruling. May I raise another question with regard to the statutory limit, and that is this, that if a man is invalided from the Army——

The hon. and gallant Member will not be in order in discussing the statutory limit.

I wish to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Pensions and the Parliamentary Secretary on the fact that the first Estimates they have put before the House are to supplement the amount already passed. That is a very pleasant experience in regard to the ex-service men, but I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the item

"C.1.—Pensions and Gratuities to Disabled Officers of the Navy, Marines, Army and Air Force."

We see there that it is

"additions provision required to meet the cost of pensions consequent upon the assessment of disablement in a considerable number of cases having increased to a greater extent than was anticipated, whilst the number of grants in payment has not decreased so rapidly as was expected."

It amounts to a sum of £125,000, and should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if that increased sum is due to the fact that there have been increased amounts given for pensions, or if it is due to the fact that there have been increased gratuities with an extra large number of final allowances. It may, of course, be due to both factors, but I think it is worth while the Minister giving the facts to the Committee.

If the hon. Member will allow me, I will answer at once. The increase is, in the main, due to the fact that a number of the men are getting worse. For some time past the net result of all medical boards has been to show an increase. That has been steady and progressive, and the highest result achieved so far was in last December. It is due mainly to the men getting worse.

I take the right hon. Gentleman's explanation that it is due only to that fact. I should like to support the appeal which the hon. and gallant Member for the Fairfield Division of Liverpool (Major Cohen) made so eloquently concerning the question of final allowances. I think I have heard the right hon. Gentleman say before that the suggestion of the final allowances originally came from the British Legion; at any rate, they were enthusiastic supporters of the suggestion from the first. Now the principle of final allowances has been a great experiment. As a matter of fact, it is, like the Pensions Ministry altogether, a great, and—although I have been a critic from time to time—I think, a wonderful experiment in its way, because it has had very difficult and very delicate tasks to perform. It covers a very wide area, and deals with very complicated and complex questions. From time to time there have had to be experiments. Sometimes they have been abandoned; sometimes they have been successful.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, inside the Pensions Department itself, even from their point of view, the final allowances are considered to have been a success as an experiment, because I can see from the Department's point of view reasons which would make it very probable that, even if ale experiment had been financially successful, the trouble it has brought might more than overbalance the financial reduction. The right hon. Gentleman may say, of course, there have not been any financial reductions, really, as a result of the experiment, but it is a fact, I think, that you find eases in which final awards ought never to have been made. No friend of the ex-service man ought to burke the fact that there are people who take a final award as the next best thing, because they think that, probably, in a few months at some medical examination they will lose their pension altogether, and so they take it as the lesser of two evils. We have all seen cases where that has not quite succeeded. A number have been mentioned by the hon. Member for the Fairfield Division of Liverpool, and most of us could give cases.

I wonder how many complaints the Department has received. I am not going to say, in view of such a complicated subject, and the very delicate questions with which it has to deal, that absolutely it has been a failure, because the test of that would be to know exactly how many complaints the Minister himself is getting from week to week, where it has been demonstrated, as an actual fact, that the pension having finished, and the gratuity having been paid, the men is actually found to be suffering from the disease, or the wound, or the disablement from which it was considered he had been free when he was before the previous board. I should like some answer from the right hon. Gentleman upon that state of affairs. I had a case myself, only quite recently, of a man who had his final award, and got his gratuity. He had been troubled with malaria. It was quite obvious he had a recurrence of malaria when sitting in my own room. I am not, going to say that that kind of case is widespread. But I should like to know the number of complaints they get from men who have finished their allowances. Then there was the point put by the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie). Is there any difficulty in men having an X-Ray examination when they say there is shrapnel still in some part of the body? The right hon. Gentleman will remember some 18 months ago of a very regrettable case in which a man had shrapnel injuries.

I had another case in which there was an X-Ray examination, and it was discovered that the man had some shrapnel in the arm, but not in the part which would affect the muscles. The hon. Gentleman has given other cases. Of course one can understand that the facilities for X-Ray examinations may not be the same in all parts of the country. They might not be quite as adequate as the right hon. Gentleman himself would like, but it would be interesting to know exactly whether when a man himself, or some representative, asks for an X-Ray examination, when it is considered that there is still a remnant of shrapnel or a bullet in his body, he can have an examination if he asks for it.

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman understands, that whatever criticism may be made in this House, the criticism is simply made in order to keep the Ministry in touch with the country at large. I trust that the Treasury are going to give a generous and hearty support to the Pensions Ministry, so that, if necessary, when the right hon. Gentleman wants a Supplementary Estimate, he is not met with frowns and a frozen face, but is met with some encouragement. As I say, this, Department is a difficult and a very complex one. Anyone who knows any thing about it at all, even at second or third hand, will give the Ministry, and all people who have to do with the administration, their deepest sympathy, and the Minister, I trust, gets the sympathy we all desire from that wonderful Department called the Treasury, of which some of us have had some experience in times gone by.

I am sorry to have to intervene now, but I am very glad to think that a very large number of Members have had the opportunity of putting their point of view. If I may say so, I should like to thank them for the friendly and helpful way in which they have regarded this Ministry. Its task is, of course, one of the most difficult that can be put to any Ministry. On the actual point of the Estimate, the Committee may, perhaps, be interested to know a little about the movements of our national finance, so far as they concern the Ministry of Pensions. Anybody listening to this Debate would, I think, hardly have gathered from the speeches that it is a Debate on Supplementary Estimates. One would have thought it was a Debate on an attempt by the Government to cut down the Ministry of Pensions by some £50,000,000. I think, perhaps, if the hon. Member for the Fairfield Division of Liverpool (Major Cohen) was not speaking in this House, but was, as he does sometimes, addressing ex-service men on the Continent of Europe, he would give, perhaps, a rather more favourable account of the work of this Ministry, because I do believe, not from any party point of view, but from a national point of view, all parties in this House have done their level best to get a good system, and to work it properly, and when the Committee is told that, including this Supplementary Estimate, we shall have spent a sum of £600,000,000 by the end of March, I think that gives some idea of the effort which the country has made.

This Supplementary Estimate, I may say, is due, not to any great change of policy, but to the fact that a miscalculation was made by the Labour Government a year ago. It is exceedingly difficult, as the Committee has been told, to foresee, but I would point out that the Estimate which I brought in two years ago showed a reduction over the previous year of £8,000,000. The actual expenditure last year, including the Supplementary Estimate now before the Committee, shows a further reduction of £3,000,000, and there has been throughout a tendency to have a reduced expenditure year after year. I have looked at the expenditure of the Ministry month by month, mapped out, and I have also looked at the expenditure of other countries mapped out in the same way, and we get this uniform result, that all the countries had a maximum of expenditure round about 1919, and that there was a very rapid decline a few years after that. We had a rapid decline for about four years, but about the middle of 1923 the rate of decline slowed down, and since the summer of 1923 the decline in expenditure has been steady and very slow. A feature of it is that it has been marked by no sudden changes. It would be wrong that there should be sudden changes. It seems to me, when there is a continuous, steady decline, it shows there has not been any sudden change of policy, and that justice, as far as possible has been carried out. One hon. Member said that some new Regulation ought to be brought in which would avoid all injustice. I should like to see that applied to every department of life. I think if there is to be no injustice anywhere in the world, then a good deal of the criticism of the Pensions Ministry would come under this new Regulation, because, undoubtedly, the Ministry have suffered injustice by being assailed on many occasions from lack of knowledge.

On the actual points raised, may I say how much we appreciate the helpful suggestions of many Members who have taken part? We recognise, for instance, in some of the Members who spoke from the opposite benches, Members who take part on regional councils or on the central advisory committee, and we welcome their help. Taking the main issue, and the contention that something is wrong, I would say that the whole pensions system of this country has been built up year after year by the joint work of all Members of this House, that all the main decisions on which our work is based, and all the main laws which are the foundation of our system, have been passed by the unanimous decision of the House of Commons. Therefore, the foundations were laid by all parties. They have been laid by a great deal of hard work and goodwill on the part of Members on all sides of the House, and I do not like to believe that these foundations, laid in seven or eight years of work, are as wrong as some criticisms would suggest. Moreover, we are now, I believe, getting to the point in the history of the Ministry when there should be no longer occasion for violent changes of any kind in our policy. We have had a little experience of the Labour Government in office, if not in power. I do not know what may have happened in the inner Councils of that Government, not being a member of it, but I have not the least doubt the Labour Government made a most earnest inquiry into the whole working of the Ministry of Pensions. Their final position was this: that they left every single principle intact, left every single warrant unchanged, and at the end of the time—after nine months—and after reviewing the whole of the circumstances the Minister, speaking for the whole Government, said: the position that they did. If I may say so most respectfully they were right, because what are the proposals we have had made to us?

It has been suggested to us that we should break up the whole system of final awards. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear!"] Yes, that is clearly the problem as between final awards under 20 per cent. and those of 20 per cent. and over. If you once abandon part of the system you break down the whole. Hon. Members may perhaps have forgotten—though I have noted it in many speeches in the past on this subject and in denunciations eloquently expressed against the Ministry—have forgotten what happened before, namely, the complaints that the men year after year were left at the mercy, as was said, of the Medical Board. One Member of the late Government—not the ex-Minister of Pensions—said it was intolerable that these men should be kept on conditional pension. The men themselves constantly and sincerely asked that they should get final awards and the final assessment of their pension. The hon. Member for Chesterle-Street (Mr. Lawson), in a most sympathetic speech, for which I am glad to have the opportunity of thanking him, asked whether we had studied and were satisfied with the position of the final awards. I should like, so far as I am allowed by the rules of debate, to say that this question of under 20 per cent. awards is in this position: Before the War there was a very simple and in some ways an advantageous method of dealing with this problem. For 100. 75, 50 or 25 per cent. an award was made; below 25 there was nothing. Then followed the War and the problem of compensation which had to be considered. It was decided by the Minister of Pensions, who at that time was a member of the Labour party, and it was confirmed in the Warrant which had the consent of the next Minister 01 Pensions—also a member of the Labour party—that the best thing to do in the under 20 per cent. eases was to work on the lines of workmen's compensation, and to give a man a final grant. It was decided that below 20 per cent. you could not have permanent pensions, but a final grant. It was arranged that for other ranks than officers a maximum grant of £200 was to be given. From the first it was under- stood that that was to be the final settlement of the debt of the State. It was put in the original Barnes Warrant, and in the subsequent Hodge Warrant, and the policy throughout of every Minister of Pensions was that the cases under 20 per cent. were settled, not by a permanent pension allowance, but by a grant. By thus limiting the amount it was clearly a lump sum and was intended to be a final discharge of the State debt.

Now we are told that, after all, these awards are to be cancelled! I have been thinking the matter over for some time, and I have not yet thought of any conceivable arrangement by which the State can deal satisfactorily with a system which compensates a large number of men by giving a final settlement in a lump stun and which then cancels the award! Are you going to recall the amount paid, because, if not, some of those under 20 per cent. will possibly be paid twice over. There are in the final awards another class which is seldom alluded to and that is the great mass of people who are over 20 per cent. to whom the final award means every conceivable advantage. It means the security from reduction by the medical boards and that security is what every ex-service man asks for; it is what this House and the Departmental Committee urged and it is what this House unanimously decided should he done. What does the final award of life pension mean? It means that a man is safe for life, that the assessment will not be reduced——

Might I express the hope that the Minister will not assume that line of reasoning because it is a very provocative one. We are not prepared to accept the dictum that all who are given a final award over 20 per cent. are satisfied, because they are not.

Hon. Members raised this point and I am replying to it. I was making no party point whatever. All parties have asked for it. Moreover the ex-service men asked for it. I think I am entitled to point out that under the present system the men who have been finally assessed for life pension are in this safe position that they are protected from any reduction by medical boards. In this matter I am replying to a very fair question from the other side of the House. The point is this: I am dealing now with how far the system is successful. It is suggested that the system of giving these final awards should be altered. I have not the figures actually before me, but something like 270,000 permanent pensions have been assessed. Do hon. Members realise what that means? That 270,000 men are safe for life with their assessment.

What has been overlooked is that there are an enormous number who have not yet got these final assessments. Many of these men are very ill indeed. I have proof that the work has been done fairly, for we find that men who are sick and are drawing treatment allowances are the men who have not been given final awards. Of the men who have been given final assessments, only 1 per cent. have come to ask for treatment, as they are entitled to do. That only shows that the medical officers who conduct the boards and who treat these cases do take out the cases which, in the main, are proper for final settlement, that is, cases where the men are not likely to get better or worse. In cases where a mart is getting worse he does not get a final award.

It is suggested that we should cancel all under 20 per cent. awards. It is suggested, therefore, that the whole system which has been in force in this country for upwards of eight years and maintained by successive Governments, should be broken down. What exactly should be put in its place nobody can say. I do urge the House not lightly to entertain any suggestion to break down the arrangements that the House arrived at itself unanimously, and which are, on the whole, of enormous advantage to the men themselves. When this question of final awards was under discussion in the House somebody, indeed several Members, raised the point as to what would happen if a man got worse. Amongst those who spoke was my hon. Friend the Member for Fairfield (Major Cohen), who, when it was pointed out that it was intended that those men should be eligible for treatment and treatment allowance, accepted the Bill of final awards pat forward as a satisfactory solution, and that solution was subsequently accepted by the British Legion. But we have gone beyond that. There are cases—nobody denies it—of error. We have made arrangements, that in cases of serious error the award can be corrected. Under the late Conservative Government we had already started arrangements under which certain cases of error could be corrected, and when the Labour Government came into power they accepted this as a proper solution of the difficulty. My right hon. Friend opposite put the scheme into operation and at the same time explained it very clearly in various speeches in the country. He took the line, and expressed on behalf of the whole Government, apart from exceptional cases, that the main principles of our Warrant and the Acts must stand. The arrangement is this: If a man gets worse he can, as hitherto, get treatment, and if while he is receiving that treatment it is found that he cannot be remedied by the treatment, and it is clear there was a serious error in the estimate of his condition due to the doctors having diagnosed his case wrongly, or wrongly forecasted the course of his disability, we have taken powers to correct the error.

Does that apply to cases which go back in time? For instance, a doctor diagnoses a case wrongly. The man is a bad case, and he was assessed at a certain amount. When the doctor's serious error is discovered, is he reassessed, and the difference allowed between that and the original assessment?

8.0 P.M.

He is not given the difference, because the whole contention on which his claim is founded is that there has been a change. You are never going to get anything if you are going to have a series of medical boards always going into the matter. The whole position is that the man is ill, goes into hospital and when he is there the case is found to be worse than it was thought, and that the hospital cannot put him right. Then the doctors in touch with the man examine him and find that there has been an error. In those eases we are going to correct the error. I myself believe that with such a method it will be possible to deal with difficult and exceptional cases. If the House has got to choose between the system by which individual cases can be and are being, put right and the proposal—a revolutionary proposal, if I may say so—of scrapping the whole foundation of the system, then I do ask all parties in this House to maintain, to build up, and to carry forward the present system. I should Eke to thank all Members who have dealt with the Ministry in so kindly a spirit. We have a very difficult task, we are not trying to work on party lines, and I did appreciate the speech made by one of the Members who spoke first, the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie). We are doing our best, and we ask the House to allow us to go on dealing with the main problems brought up in this Debate. I should he grateful to the Committee if, after this very full explanation of the position, they would allow us to have this Vote, because, after all, it is an increase of the Pension Vote, and the money is wanted.

There are two questions I put which the Minister has not answered. The first is as to the position of the Ministry with respect to the calling of panel doctors into the medical boards and the second is as to the intentions of the Ministry with respect to Scotland.

The Department is not considering the question of the Scotland Region at the present time. I cannot undertake to add to the enormously heavy expenses spent on doctors and on medical boards. If the local doctor has anything he wishes to say about a pensioner who is going before a medical board, we welcome a statement from him, but our main object is not to increase expenses, because the more money that goes to the pensioners and the less in expenses, the better.

I have no intention of taking any part in the Debate, but I just want to call my right hon. Friend's attention to one point on which he has been good enough to quote from a speech I made in the country some time ago. He quoted me exactly with regard to the position which I, on behalf of the Government, took up in connection with the system of final awards at the time that speech was made; but I just want to bring the Committee to my recollection when I say this, that at a later period, when a good number of questions were addressed to me by hon. Members as to what we intended to do with regard to this difficult question of final awards, I then replied, if my memory is correct, that we intended to be guided by the information we were getting as to the system we were then working. Therefore, I think I am entitled to point out to the Committee that we had not quite definitely made up our minds with regard to this matter, but were prepared to investigate it, and be guided by the information we could gather.

Amid all this chorus of sympathy and good will I think it is only right to emphasise the statement made by the Member for the Fairfield Division (Major Cohen) that that does not really take us very far. As the right hon. Gentleman will perhaps remember, I sent a case to him the other day, typical of very many thousands in the country, of a woman whose husband served in the War, and got a sort of gratuity for what happened to him, and then was finished with. But a disease that arose from the wounds he had received came on again, and he died, and now the woman and her five or six children are paupers. There is no chance of getting her anything under the present warrant or regulations. In the Parliament in which the right hon. Gentleman was Minister of Pensions before, I got very angry about a similar case, and I have not found in regard to these cases, that either he or his successor has done anything to deal with them. I have got one remedy and one remedy only, and that is for the House to appoint a special Committee to consider the working of this scheme that we have built up in seven or eight years. There is nothing of the law of the Medes and Persians about it, and it ought to be thoroughly overhauled and investigated to see what can be done to carry out what the British Legion has asked to be carried out. I am always being told what the British Legion has agreed to. The British Legion, in manifestoes issued at elections, has asked for the acceptance of this principle, that a man who was passed fit to serve in the War should be considered fit for a pension after the War, if any disease breaks out, no matter from whatever cause. You may smile about it, but doctors passed men as fit when the men told th-m they were not fit, and the State ought to take the responsibility for what its agents did. [HON. MEMBERS: "It's the Labour party's demand!"] Excuse me, I have documents here from the British Legion, and have discussed this matter with the members of the Legion in my Division, and that is what they have always asked me to agitate for in this House. Whether it is the view of the Legion or not, it is my view of this business, that any man passed fit for service ought to be considered fit for a pension. To my mind there are no two questions about that.

What I got up to call this Committee's attention to was the fact that in the borough I represent we have got literally thousands of women, children and men partially disabled who are on parish relief, and that to-night nobody has put forward any proposition for taking them off parish relief. No amount of sweet nothings said to one another across the Floor is going to get over that. I protest against this. I had nothing to do with driving men to or encouraging men to go to the War, and never would have. It is for those who did, and told them that their women and children would be properly looked after if they died or were wounded, to find out why we are not doing it.

That is a large question of policy which does not arise on this Vote.

I am quite aware of that, Sir, and I wonder it was not ruled out of Order long ago. It. has been discussed the whole evening. As to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister, if he will permit me to say so, I shall never get angry with him again as an individual or as an administrator. It is this House that is responsible. This scheme has been hedged round. You would not have dared' to put that scheme, the scheme you are operating now, to the men when you were taking them into the Army. You would not have got a man to go, if they had known that their women and children would be under those conditions.

There is one practical thing I think the Minister might deal with. With regard to the Saltash Institution, would it not be possible to bring the men there nearer to London, so that their people could go to see them more frequently? I under- stand that most of those men are more or less permanent cases, and that it is only once in six months that their people can go down to see them. We ought to try to find a number of these institutions, and put people into the nearest, so that they can at least have solace of seeing their friends more often.

I should not have got up to speak but for the very dangerous tone of complacency which was conspicuous not only in the Minister's remarks but in those of many other Members who have spoken in the Debate. The position is not one on which any member of any party can congratulate himself. I was dumbstruck to hear the Minister giving such eloquent praise to the system of final assessments. I was an official of an ex-service men's organisation during the three years in which we were told there was all this agitation for final assessments. What are the facts? Under a Minister for whom neither the present Minister nor his immediate predecessor can be held responsible, the methods by which the six months' examination were being carried out were so utterly unfair and unjust that the ex-service men who were suffering from them were only too glad to accept anything. They did not accept the system of final assessments with pleasure, but because they were bullied and dragooned into it by the methods used to them beforehand. At the present moment, under the system of final assessments, many thousands of men in this country who ought to be receiving pensions are dependent on the rates, or on the charity of people from whom they can beg. I suppose every Member gets letters from men among his constituents who are suffering from heart disease. To a man between 20 and 35 heart disease is not a serious matter, in the usual way, because if he has to work he is quite all right. It is when his muscles begin to stiffen, and he is getting middle-aged that he is often entirely incapacitated by that complaint. The Minister says only I per cent. of the people who have been finally assessed apply for treatment. I hope the Minister will inquire very carefully into the circumstances under which treatment allowances are given to men with a final assessment who are ordered into hospital. That is one of the minor injustices of the administration at the present time.

I also wish to mention for the Minister's consideration the hardship of the widows of pensioners who die from a disease for which they are not receiving a pension. To give an extreme case; a man is receiving a pension because, when in the Army, he received pieces of shell in numerous vital parts of his body, underwent several operations to have those pieces of shell removed, and came out of the hospital a physical wreck. After three or four months he catches a cold, a cold which would have no effect at all on a robust individual; but that man had been reduced to a wreck by reason of his war service and disability, the cold develops into pneumonia, and he dies, yet his wife and family are left without a pension because, forsooth, he did not die of the injury he suffered in the War. There are thousands and thousands of cases of that kind, and I hope the Minister will consider them. With regard to final assessments, we are asking that, where a man can produce any evidence that will convince a reasonable person that his disability is substantially worse, then never mind the final assessment., he should have power to appeal against it; we are not asking that the Minister should have power to break it. That is the one main point that I hope seriously the Minister will give attention to.

I have been trying for a long time to intervene in this Debate. I am not objecting to the passing of this proposal, but it is very seldom we get an opportunity to deal with such an important matter. It is one that lies very heavy upon every man and woman here. The big bulk of our correspondence——

It being a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

Employment of Disabled Ex-Service Men

I beg to move

I would like to point out at the outset that the terms of this Resolution, while they specifically state that we should leave no avenue unexplored, one avenue—compulsion, which we regard as a natural source—is closed because a private Bill is shortly to be introduced to deal with the question of compulsion. Consequently that avenue is closed, and we must explore what other sources are open to us. I chose this Resolution for a maiden speech, because I preferred to deal with a question which I felt this House would treat on nonparty lines, and that on all sides of the House good will would unite and provide a solution.

I have a tabulated summary of the different pledges and promises on this subject given by the various parties from 1918 up to the last Election. I do not wish to go through them, or to draw any invidious comparison between what was promised by hon. Members when in Opposition by hon. Members on this side, or hon. Members who belonged to the Coalition party. But I want to give one or two quotations which seem to have a certain psychological bearing on the way the matter was regarded in 1918 and now, in 1925. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), speaking at Wolver- hampton within a fortnight of the declaration of the Armistice, said:

Perhaps I had better indicate briefly some of the existing machinery at our disposal. The main step was taken in September, 1919, when a Royal Proclamation provided for the formation of the King's Roll. On the King's Roll the employers who agreed to abide by it undertook to employ a minimum of 5 per cent. of disabled ex-service men, and the declared objects of the Roll were, firstly, to absorb into employment all unemployed disabled ex-service men; and, secondly, to secure an equitable distribution of such men among throughout the country the several industries.

The reasons for the comparative failure of the scheme can be briefly summarised as follows: It is a voluntary scheme. Some employée are insufficiently patriotic, and the assistance they give fluctuates from time to time and from season to season. Again, it is said by employers that these disabled men are not, strictly speaking, from an employer's point of view, an economic proposition, because those who employ them lose output and increase the risk of employers' liability. The employer who undertakes to employ them has to take into consideration that he is facing competition, and that by his patriotism he is saddling himself with a burden which he is not inclined to take upon his shoulders. The good employer who is on the Roll suffers because the bad employer is probably employing men who are of 100 per cent. efficiency. Again, I think the Roll has suffered because the inducements which were held out to employers have not altogether materialised. They have not altogether received the benefits in regard to contracts which they were entitled to expect. There are certain points on which I think some further information is to be desired from the Ministry of Labour, and there are one or two questions that I should like to put. For instance, to what extent does this preference in contracts operate in favour of the employers who are on the King's Roll? Can we be given recent figures on that subject? Again, prices being equal in tenders for a contract, does a firm on the Roll get the contract; and, if prices are unequal, is the employer on the non given any consideration in respect of his higher cost of production? Perhaps we can have some general information on some of these points, and also as to the attitude, generally speaking, throughout the country, of local authorities towards the King's Roll—whether they are able to exercise any pressure on employers to put their names on the Roll, and whether any steps are taken to do so.

I am told that the strength of the King's Roll has dropped from what had been its highest figure of about 30,000 to a present approximate figure of 28,500. That drop certainly seems to show an increasing apathy in regard to this question of ex-service men, unless there are some other hidden causes at work which have not been revealed to me so far as I have been able to investigate the question. Again, the voluntary undertaking of those who sign the Roll is for a period of one year only, and, if I may venture to make the suggestion, it seems to me that, now that industry is becoming daily more stabilised, it would be fitting that that contract should be made one for at least five years rather than for one year. Further, I would make the tentative suggestion that, as the Press of this country has very great power, and as some of the great daily newspapers show that they are able to pick and choose the advertisements which they insert—they are able to pick and choose those which they consider to be advertisements of firms offering fair value to the purchasing public—I venture to offer the suggestion that they might also pick and choose as regards the firms who advertise, and might out of patriotism give some sort of priority or preference to employers who are on the King's Roll. Then, again, I would venture to ask whether the Government, when they outline their machinery for the Safeguarding of Industries, would consider the suggestion of making any measure of protection conditional on the trade affected employing a fair quota of disabled ex-service men, and, therefore, bearing its due share of the general burden.

The record of employment by the Government itself seems on the whole, from the facts and figures I have been able to get, to be a very fair one. The total number of disabled ex-service men in Government employment is given to me as 43,600. The Civil Service employment has been regulated by the Joint Substitution Board, set up following the recommendations of the Lytton Committee, and I have also a figure showing that at the end of 1924 nearly 38 per cent. of the total temporary male staff in Government employment, consisted of disabled ex-service men. The Government have also initiated a number of schemes to help employment. Industrial training has been given under the Ministry of Pensions, and is now transferred to the Ministry of Labour. Thirty special trades were selected, involving 600 different occupations, and training was given for periods of from nine to twelve months in institutions, and then for a further period in private employment. The trainees received allowances for their dependants and, also, part of the cost of maintenance was defrayed by the Government, and the balance by the employer.

I am told that some 53 Government, instructional factories have been established, and 300 smaller centres, and at the beginning of this year 89,000 men had actually received training, 6,600 are receiving it, and about 2,000 are waiting for, vacancies to receive training. There is also what is called treatment training, for men who need medical care, and 550 men are being treated in that way under the Ministry of Pensions. The Civil Liabilities Department has granted large sums, amounting in all to £4,000,000, among, roughly, 122,000 men. But I have not been able to get a clear understanding as to whether that figure refers to disabled ex-service men only, or, as I think probable, to the whole body of ex-service men. Grants have also been made to the Lord Roberts's Memorial Workshops and other similar institutions, and there are training schemes under the Ministry of Agriculture and the Board of Education, as to which, perhaps, we may have some further information to-night from the Minister. There is also a number of privately supported organisations, but I do not wish to take up the time of the House by giving any details of these, especially as hon. Members who follow me are, I believe, prepared to go into some detail on that subject.

The crux of the position is, really, how is the voluntary system to distribute the burden equally throughout industry? That is really where the system seems inclined to break down, and where we have to bend our energies to seeing if we can find a solution. It seems to me to lie partly along the line of tightening up that preference in regard to contracts which ought to be given to those who are on the Roll. And something might also he done as regards employment in sheltered trades, to ensure the employment of a larger quota of ex-service men in trades which do not suffer from severe foreign competition. Trades which have been suggested to me in that connection are bookbinding, printing, plumbing, painting, and plastering. One suggestion, which I gather from the Report of the Select Committee in 1922, is that other countries have made experiments with cooperative societies of disabled ex-service men for such purposes as making artificial limbs, and these societies, in the foreign countries where the experiment was tried, were given some initial State aid, but they were not given any regular annual subsidy, as this was on the whole considered to be a preferable scheme. I have not been able to ascertain whether there is anything analogous in this country, but, if not, I venture to submit that it might be given a trial.

I want to quote in this connection a passage from the Life of Mr. Henry Ford, because I believe that he has found what is in some ways one of the best solutions for dealing with disabled men, although it is not confined to men disabled during the War. In highly specialised mass production on a very large scale, Mr. Ford says, there is evidently great scope for the employment of men who are not of a uniformly high physical standard. He says:

I should also like to quote a few figures I have from my constituency. In Norwich and district the firms actually on the King's Roll when it was at its height were 253. They now give us only 144. This represents a drop of 109; in my opinion a very serious drop, and one which requires dealing with. The unemployed disabled ex-servicemen actually on the register now are 168. This does not perhaps at first sight seem a very high figure on a population of 120,000, but I am told by the local Legion that that figure of 168 cannot be taken as by any means a maximum, and that there are several causes which tend to make it a false figure. In the first place, a number of men do not register at all, and in the second place a number of disabled men prefer to conceal their disability and put themselves on the ordinary register, hoping thereby to have a better chance of employment. Again, in 1924 the Norwich Committee of the King's Roll passed a resolution of which I should like to quote a few lines:

I beg to second the Motion.

I feel sure that everyone who has heard my hon. Friend's speech will feel that he has discharged his duty in a very creditable manner and that the House is largely indebted to him for the summary he has given of the history of this question and for the able and sympathetic way in which he treats it. He started by saying that, luckily, this question is one which cannot be considered in any degree a party question, and I am sure, if the fortune of the ballot had enabled members either of the Labour or the Liberal party to propose a Resolution for the benefit of disabled ex-service men it would have been moved either by the Labour or the Liberal party if it could not have been moved by the Conservative party. Therefore, I think everyone in the House is agreed that if there is anything we can do to ameliorate the conditions of these unfortunate men and women, in some cases, it is our duty to do it if we can. I fully endorse what my hon. Friend has said with regard to the way in which the Government has attempted to treat this matter. There is no doubt that the number of people who are affected by it makes this a very difficult question, and anyone who knows anything about history knows that, right away from the very beginning, if there has been one question which has been a difficult question for any country to solve it is that or settling veterans in civil life. Rome found it such a difficulty that it was nearly broken two or three times in attempting a solution. So it, is not a new question. My hon. Friend has said there are 75,000 disabled ex-service men who are unemployed. Of course, a certain number of them are unemployable. It is obvious that many of them must be utterly unable to be employed, either because they have lost limbs or are vitally disabled in some manner, but we may take it that there must, be at least half that number who could usefully, economically and efficiently be employed in labour or in some employment. Therefore the problem we have to deal with, if our figures are right, amounts to trying to place from 30,000 to 40,000 men who are disabled back into industry, so that the problem is not a very large one, and I think that is perhaps the most hopeful part of the question. The Government have already absorbed 43,000 of these men on their staff, and I believe that amounts to a very large percentage. We ought to be able in some way or other to devise a means by which these 30,000 or 40,000 men may benefit. I know, of course, that since this question has been with us the best brains in England have been concentrated on trying to solve this question, and it is always a very daring thing for a layman, and one who is not an expert, to make suggestions for dealing with a question which has been insoluble to so many of the best intellects.

But I should like to draw attention to certain experiments which have been made already and which seem to me to offer, at all events, an example, if they cannot offer us an actual solution, of the way in which a solution, perhaps, might take place. In my own constituency we have a tuberculosis colony of ex-service men. It contains 50 or 60, or sometimes a few more, of these men. Of course, they are not the very worst cases. They are men whose disability is perhaps 70 per cent., and of course it is a varying percentage. In that colony various works have been set up. Some of them have been making boots, and in country districts one of the most useful tradesmen you can have is one who is able to mend boots. They have done excellent work both in making and in mending boots. They have also set up a workshop and have installed planing machinery and mechanical saw benches and they are turning out excellent work as joiners and carpenters. They are making a large number of outhouses, which are very much wanted in the country, and they are making all sorts of houses and sheds which are required for the poultry industry, which is becoming larger and larger every day, and in addition to that they have made, I believe, the whole of the open air huts in which they pass their time when they are under cover. They have made an excellent recreation hall, which I have seen, and they have also made for themselves their sick berth, or sanatorium, containing room for about 10 or 12 inmates. In addition, these men carry on poultry farming, and sell eggs and chickens. They have a garden, which they work excellently. They have made arrangements by which their products can be taken five or six miles away to the neighbouring city of Norwich, and they are selling excellent flowers, vegetables, and fruits. I do not know whether shay are yet self-supporting, because they have not been a very long time in existence, bat they are doing work which gives them great comfort and great interest. They are working for their colony. They have some of the old-time working spirit which they had when they were in the Army, and they compare very favourably with many other men who are working for masters and for the profit of somebody else. They are cheerful, eager and anxious to do their work, and I have no doubt that in the future they will do the best work of which they are capable. Incidentally, the physique of the men so employed has benefited enormously. After a few months of it they are, very often, discharged as cured.

That is only a small example of the way in which these men can be treated. A much larger and a much more significant example has in the last four or five years been produced in Leeds. The hon. Member for Central Leeds (Sir Charles Wilson) can supplement anything which I may omit in regard to this matter. This is another tuberculous colony. Cancer and tuberculosis are the causes of the disablement of many ex-service men, and if you can give them work and a cure as well, you are, so to speak, killing two birds with one stone. The experiment at Leeds has been carried out by the Leeds Tuberculous Ex-Service Men's Society, Limited. I suppose it has been registered under some Act, and that it is equivalent to a public utility society. It was started by pooling the grants of 50 per head which were made by the Civil Liabilities Department to 60 men. They got £3,000 from the Civil Liabilities Department, and Earl Haig's Fund gave them another £3,000; so that they started with £6,000.

They began their operations in a small way. The first thing they did was to buy a plant for splitting and bundling firewood. On this they employed six or seven men. Then they purchased window-cleaning appliances, and I believe that at the present time they have about 12 men employed in window cleaning. They also undertake external and internal cleaning of houses and outhouses, in which work they have been very successful. They then went a little further. Men were flocking to them, all anxious to get into this experimental colony, so they started a joinery department. I believe they got, originally, one joiner, who had a 70 per cent. disability, and he started the department. He was a very clever man, and he has been able to train four or five men, who now undertake the repair of furniture and make all sorts of wooden buildings, including motor garages. They also undertake the repairing of cottage and house property. There is hardly anything with regard to the repairing of house property which they do not undertake. They even lay out yards, and carry out concrete work and operations of that sort.

The next industry they started was that of brush making, in which they employed 12 men who had a 70 per cent. disability. When the training of these men began exemption had to be obtained for them as to wages under the Trade Board's rules, but in six months' time these men became efficient, and none of the men who are now making brushes in this colony at the present time requires exemption under the Trade Board's rules as to wages. The manager of the colony, whose letter I have before me, says that there is not a man in the whole Factory to-day who is not earning as much if not more than the minimum wage that is laid down by the Trades Board. In order to be able to sell their products the colony employ and have trained men to act as travellers. These men are paid on commission and results and are earning on the average as much as skilled travellers in other trades.

The Colony, having gone so far, thought they would like to undertake contracts, so they approached the Corporation of Leeds to see whether they could get some corporation contracts. I understand that the corporation said, "If you are going to come and take the place of the people we usually employ upon our jobs, such as the unemployed, on road widening and work of that sort, you will have to come exactly on the same terms. You will have to make a contract and undertake to finish it in the same way and on the same terms as if we were employing directly our own unemployed." The Colony said, "All right. We will make our contract." They entered into contracts, and have undertaken a large number of works for the corporation. They have gone in for street widening, and at the present time they are engaged on making a new road. The hon. Member for Central Leeds tells me that the road is not an ordinary road, but that these men are levelling a hill and making a road across a valley. Therefore, it is a big job, and I am told that the amount they will receive in wages for the making of this new road is something like £20,000.

Therefore, from the training point of view we may say that the Leeds Society can be regarded as self-supporting, and that after a period of direct training of only about four years. In these directions, there is opportunity and hope of being able to help men in a way which will do them the most good, by giving them not only employment, but courage and hope, after having for many years been in a desperate condition, seeking work and not finding it. I could best sum up the position in regard to this Tuberculous Colony by quoting from the Report of Sir George Newman, medical officer to the Ministry of Health, who says that, perhaps, this colony is the best example of what can be done in regard to the general employment of disabled men.

Having dealt with what has been done, I will suggest something else, and I hope that I shall carry the House with me a large number of ex-service men are suffering in the same way as a large number of other people in this country, through want of houses. If there are any means by which the Government can put these disabled men and other ex-service men into building houses for themselves, they would find that these houses would not be jerry-built. I do not think we should find that the houses would take months to build, if the men could build them in weeks, nor would clays be taken over jobs if the men could do them in hours. If you could put these men on to the building of their own houses, not for profit, but for use—a term which we have often heard from some of our hon. Friends opposite—you would put an enormous amount of courage into them. Among these ex-service men there is a large number of men who are skilled tradesmen. A large number have been employed in the Royal Engineers, which branch of the Army consists of various trades, most of them expert in constructional work, such as bricklayers, masons, smiths, plumbers, and other tradesmen. If we could get some sort of co-operative movement which would rope in these ex-service men, if we could make use of the experts' skill and knowledge of such men as the sappers and put them to build their own houses and the houses of their fellows, we would put such heart into the whole of these disabled ex-service men as probably they have never had since the Armistice.

I do not know whether hon. Members opposite may object to this, but I do not think that they should. There is no law in England to prevent a man from building his own house. These men would be building houses for use and not for profit, and they would be conferring on their brethren who were in a distressed condition the great advantage of getting houses, and at the same time conferring a benefit on the country at large, for every single man who is satisfactorily housed makes the whole problem of housing the others less. It seems to me that this is an opportunity by which these men who are in a special condition, and are specially deserving of greater help than any other class in the whole country, could be benefited. These men came forward for every one of us and risked their lives and their limbs, and if there is any class to which special favour should be shown it is this class. It may be said that there will be a shortage of materials, because, as I understood, the Minister of Health the other night said that the building trade had in front of it such continuous employment for such a long time that probably the bulk of the materials which are available in this country are more or less allocated to the building of houses which have been sanctioned or will be sanctioned in the course of the next few months or years. I would also suggest that these men should be bound together in some public utility company, or some association which would receive assistance from the Government by finding sites, and in other ways a little more than the assistance given to anybody else.

9.0 P.M.

Then there is another suggestion. One very troublesome matter in country districts at present is the shortage of bricks. We have not any large builders in my constituency, but we have a lot of small builders, and I understand from them that one of the difficulties from which they suffer is that all the bricks have to come from Peterborough. That means that a large sum has to be added to the cost of the brick in the brickfields to pay for the cost of transport to the locality where the brick is required. When I was a boy it was a common thing for every second or third parish in East Norfolk to have brickfields. Those are at present shut. If you want to increase the materials in this country you could not do anything better than get these men building their own houses, and put them also into the brickfields to make their own bricks, and into the sandpits to get their own sand, and in some places they might get their own lime, so that they might actually help housing and the country at large by providing the actual materials which will be required for themselves and their fellows. I think that something can be done in this way. If you can get a building society or something of that sort to rope in these ex-service men they would volunteer to come in with no less heartiness than they did when they faced all those risks which are the cause of their present disability.

As one of those ex-servicemen who were sufficiently fortunate to come back no worse than they went out, I am anxious that the House should give very careful consideration to the Motion which has been moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Norwich (Captain Fairfax). The present is a very appropriate time for considering such a Motion. When the King's Roll was put forward as a solution of the problem the moment was very unfortunate so far as most industries were concerned. The proposal was put forward at the very worst point of the slump in trade. Consequently it was very difficult for those of us who were working on the King's Roll Committee to get so many men placed as we should have been able to do had trade been in a normal condition. Now that trade is improving somewhat it seems a very appropriate time for the House to consider ways and means of placing these ex-servicemen in industry. With all due respect to the hon. Member for East Norfolk (Mr. Neville), I cannot go with him in these fancy schemes of training ex-servicemen in colonies and all the rest of it. These men should be put into ordinary industry. They ought not to be segregated, and I am satisfied that industry can absorb them.

You know that if they want to make room for a footballer or someone of that kind in a large factory it can always he done. I know works where they run a band or something of that kind, and if they want a man who can play the cornet they can always find a place for him though he knows nothing about the par ticular industry. If you can find places for musicians, football players, and all the rest of it whom you desire to bring into the works to help forward in the welfare work of the place, or something of that kind, the same thing can be done for these ex-service men. These men are disabled men. It is absurd to talk about putting them into brickfields and sandpits. They want such jobs as minding a telephone or acting as watchmen, or some other job that you can readily conjure up, to which there is no arduous bodily work attached, and possibly with the strain taken off their minds of feeling that they are useless in the world they might later on be able to do something a little better than what they can do to-day.

The first thing to do is to find a job which they can do, and I am afraid that there is something in the complaint of the hon. Member for Norwich that the time is going by and that employers and workers are not feeling quite so sympathetic as they were in 1918. I know that even in the departments of the municipal corporations, managers expressed great sympathy with the men who came back disabled. But this is what happened. A manager would say that he was prepared to do all that he could. The manager goes and another takes his place. This other says, "This is not a charitable institution, nor a hospital for disabled men. We have to show results." The consequence is that there is not that sympathy shown, and there are not the places made that there were when the King's Roll was started by the large municipalities.

We might try to devise some fresh way of attacking this matter. Certainly, so far as industry is concerned, the moment is far more favourable than it was in 1919–20. If you can place the whole of the men to whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred, that would very materially reduce the trials of the Pensions Minister. I am satisfied that if we could have an improvement in trade and all the pensioners had a reasonable prospect of work, they would much rather work than go cap in hand to the Ministry of Pensions. Unfortunately for the disabled man, he is not quite in that position. His pension is there and has to be there. If he can supplement it a little he will be a much happier man.

The thing is to find him employment. This Mother of Parliaments, if it sets out to do anything, I think does set out to create the greatest number of happy and contented people. Here are men who have done their best for their country. Their very injuries prove that they have not been slackers. In some ways it should be brought home to employers—or to managers, who are far more responsible often than the employers—that if these men had not gone to the Front and incurred their injuries, there would have been no business left for the employers. How that fact is to be brought home to them I do not know, but it ought not to be beyond The wit of leading men of all parties and of all shades of thought—if the best brains of the country are anywhere they are in this House—to devise some means for removing this great blot on the fair name of this country.

I would first of all congratulate the Mover of the Resolution not only on the excellence of his speech, but also on having taken the opportunity of bringing forward this question for discussion. There is not the slightest doubt that sufficient publicity has not been given to it. I was a member of the Select Committee which sat, under the chairmanship of the hon. and gallant Member for Fareham (Major-General Sir J. H. Davidson), in 1922, to consider the whole of this question, and I have been for the past two years hon. secretary of the King's Roll National Council, which was established as the outcome of one of the recommendations of that Committee. I would like to explain to the House what steps the National Council have taken in order to deal with this question. The House will remember that, in the first place, one of the recommendations of the Select Committee was that in place of the work being done by the local employment committees it should be done as far as possible by ad hoc committees, either subcommittees of the local employment committees or special King's Roll committees. As a result of that recommendation, the then Minister of Labour, Dr. Macnamara, established 250 to 260 committees of that kind, and they are now in existence. The National Council does not deal with individual cases, but it endeavours to coordinate the work of the local committees and to make suggestions to them from time to time for improving the methods of work.

The first thing that the Council did was to divide the men who were marked as disabled into three different categories. They classified in Category A men whose disability was so light that it would not prevent them returning to their normal occupations or an analogous occupation In Category B they put men whose disability was more severe and who could do only light work. In Category C they placed men whose disabilities were se severe that they could not return to industry at all under normal conditions, and would require some special form of employment such as was given in Lord Roberts's Workshops. When they had done that and the classification had been carried out by local committees, they made special appeals in various forms. They made a special appeal, for instance, to all the big London clubs. They made a special appeal to all the local authorities in the country, sending letters to each local authority. They made a special appeal to the big public utility companies—gas companies, electric light companies, tramway undertakings not belonging to local authorities, and to the various dock boards and conservancy boards along the coast. They also instituted what they described as special campaigns in certain of the towns and cities which they considered to be specially suitable for that purpose. They carried out a certain amount of propaganda, partly through the Press, partly through advertisements in post offices and in tramcars and omnibuses, and partly through a system of distributing calendars at Christmas time. Much of this propaganda has been done gratuitously, particularly that part done by the Press, and there is net the slightest doubt that it has considerably assisted the work of the King's Roll.

They considered it necessary from time to time to take a census of the number of men who were shown as being still out of work. Just after the Select Committee had concluded its sittings, as far as I can remember, the Ministry of Labour took a census, which showed that there were nominally about 65,000 disabled ex-service men out of work in this country. The figure at present, according to the figures which are collected for the King's Roll National. Council by the Ministry of Labour through the Exchanges, is 37,000. The figure has been between 36,000 and 38,000 for six or eight months. It has been stated that the figure of 37,000 is not accurate, and that the real numbers are very much larger. The whole question was discussed at length by the National Council last year, and, without going into details, I may state that after considering all the evidence the Council were satisfied that the figures were more accurate than any other figures which could be produced, because there was no evidence which could be produced to substantiate any other figure. The fact that the total has dropped from 65,000 to 37,000 shows that the work of the Council has to some extent borne fruit. Let me give one or two other figures to show what the result of that work has been. When the Council first started work there were 1,224 local authorities on the Roll. There are now 1,372, or an increase of 150. There were 374 local authorities which either restricted their contracts or gave preference to firms on the King's Roll. There are now 511. That also is an improvement.

Taking the broader aspect of the question, we find that whereas the total number of unemployed on the trade unions' schedule at the present time is I think about 11 per cent., the total number of disabled ex-service men out of employment is only about 5 per cent. That is to say, it is only about half the total percentage of unemployed. Therefore, the disabled ex-service man does occupy a better position than his ordinary brother who is not suffering from any disability. I do not for a moment say that the position is satisfactory, but it is only fair to the work which the local committees have done for the last two years—in some cases very hard work for which they received very little public recognition or thanks—that it should be said it is work which has borne fruit. What has been done in the past two years has resulted in the situation to-day being better than it was two years ago, notwithstanding the fact stated by an hon. Member opposite, that the scheme was started under considerable difficulty. The hon. Member who has just spoken can speak as the chairman of a King's Roll Committee and is in a position to know how much has been done by these committees.

That being the position, I should like to make one or two suggestions to the Minister as to how the work can be. improved wish the House to realise that I am not making these suggestions on behalf of the national council, nor am I committing the national council, nor am I necessarily implying that the council has even discussed these questions at all. I am making these suggestions in my capacity as a private Member of the House as I am perfectly entitled to do.

One of the ways in which the Roll has been maintained and one which has served as an encouragement in all its work has been the system by which in 1921 the Government agreed that Government contracts should only be given to firms on the King's Roll unless there were some particular circumstances which made it necessary that something else should be done. The Mover of the Motion made some reference to that matter. I do not propose to follow him in detail because it is not my business to do so, but as honorary secretary of the Council, I see all the cases which come up from local committees of complaints with regard to contracts, and I take this opportunity of saying that in the two years during which the Council has dealt with this work, the Government contracting departments have been extremely fair in the way in which they have tried to administer that agreement. Very few cases which can be described as genuine and serious complaints have come to our notice. Sometimes misunderstandings arise, for example, owing to a firm being enrolled in another place because it is amalgamated under some agreement of which we are not aware. In ordinary circumstances, the agreement which the Government made in regard to contracts has been faithfully carried out by the contracting departments, and it has been of material assistance to us in maintaining our figures on the Roll.

For that reason I suggest to the Minister that it might be possible to extend that proposal. Last year the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fareham (Major-General Sir J. H. Davidson) tabled a Resolution to the effect that, in the case of all contracts on which Government money was expended, whether they were given by the Government Departments themselves or whether it was a case of a local authority spending money towards which a Government grant had been given, a preference should be given to firms on the Roll or, if possible, there should be a restriction in their favour. It may be said that if the proposal is extended in that direction it will interfere with the rights of the local authorities, but I do not agree with that view. Where it is a case which concerns public money voted by this House, I do not think the local authorities can put up any genuine protest in the matter. I do not think they would have the support either of this House or the country if they did, because the vast majority of the larger local authorities in this country, if they have not already agreed to give a preference or a restriction in their contracts to firms on the King's Roll, ought to have done so. It is quite true that in the case of some of the smaller authorities, where the region for which they can give contracts is very limited, it is not possible to restrict contracts. They have rather to go a little wider and give a preference. We have several cases in which they have endeavoured to restrict, with the result that they did not get any tenders at all. It is really not the smaller local authorities who are seriously affected; it is the larger ones, and there are still, I am sorry to say, some of the larger local authorities in this country which have refused either to restrict or to give a preference in their contracts to firms on the Roll. If the Government can see their way to extend the proposal in that direction it would have a material effect on the whole King's Roll scheme.

There is another way in which we might approach the question, and that is by the scheduling of occupations. I am not suggesting for a moment that it should be done by Statute. That would not only be very difficult but it would possibly in the future lead us into serious complications. If you start definitely to schedule occupations, you come up against the question of women's occupations, and, in the second place, there are certain industries which have always made a practice of keeping certain light occupations for old employés or men injured in the industry itself. I think the mining industry Etas done so, as well as the boot and shoe trade and other industries. For all that, there are certain special occupations which are particularly suitable to severely disabled men. There is the occupation of liftmen in large London shops. A special appeal was made to the large London shops in that connection some time ago. In certain respects, I am sorry to say, it was not at all successful. They refused to consider the question at all. I would like to see another attempt made to appeal to undertakings of this kind to consider the point of view of the disabled man a little more sympathetically.

The Corporation of Liverpool not so very long ago instituted a rather novel idea with regard to absorbing some of the more severely disabled men. They came to the conclusion, through having a large staff of employés, that they might temporarily adopt certain severely disabled men and find employment for them in various departments of the city corporation. As a matter of fact, their parks departments was under-staffed, and they have in the space of three or four months absorbed 140 severely disabled men, all of whom are of a disability over 30 per cent. All those men are being permanently employed by the corporation. I am not suggesting they are being paid for doing nothing. They are fully employed, and it is possible that, in time, those men may be given other employment outside the corporation by the King's Roll Committee. There is no reason why ether large cities could not try end adopt some similar system. It could not be carried out by smaller authorities, because their staff is not large enough, but it certainly could be done by larger authorities if their attention were called to it. It is not always easy for one authority to call the attention of another to what it has done, because they might not take it in the way suggested. There is a third point which I would like to put to the Minister. There are, as I have said, three categories of disabled men. The first category must depend for employment to a certain extent on the ordinary ups and downs of trade. The second is a class of men who can largely be dealt with if we could get the contract system extended so widely that it would practically embrace all the large undertakings in the country. The third class are the men who cannot be absorbed in industry at all. Except in very rare cases they can only be really employed in places like Lord Roberts's Workshops, or, perhaps, in one or two of the factories referred to, like Leeds or some similar workshop. There are in the country, at the present time, if you count Lord Roberts's Workshops individually, some 30 or 40 scattered up and down the country.

Before the National Council was set up, Lord Roberts's Workshops made an appeal to the Ministry of Labour, pointing out that unless they could get assistance from the State they would not be able to carry on their work. The result was that a State grant was given to those particular workshops. When the Council came to consider this matter they came to the conclusion that that grant might profitably be extended and enlarged and put forward suggestions. As a result of their proposals the Treasury agreed to a more generous scheme of grants. The grant was raised from to £35 per head. In certain cases it was agreed, apart from the deficiency and training grant, that a capital grant should be given to any undertaking that was going to start work. Unfortunately, the Regulations covering the issue of that capital grant are so strict that no new undertakings have yet been set up. I want the Minister to consider that point of view and to see whether that particular regulation relating to the grant for a new undertaking can be modified in some way so as to enable an increase of capital money being made so that new workshops may be able to make a beginning. It is quite true that the number of "C" men in the country out of employment at present, so far as our figures are concerned, is only about 1,300 or £400, and the bulk of those men are not congregated in any area in large numbers, but scattered all over the country in tens, twenties or thirties.

The only three places where they are congregated in large numbers are Dundee, Nottingham and Liverpool. In Liverpool, as I have said, the problem has been partly solved. Nottingham has made an attempt, but at present has not been able to bring all the details to a satisfactory conclusion. There is no doubt the proper way to solve the question of the "C" men is not by having two or three enormous factories in different parts of the country where these men would be segregated from heir wives and families, but by having small workshops run by men who know something about industry who regard the question as somewhat of a kind of hobby and are prepared to take an interest in this particular kind of work. If that could be done, if more generous Treasury grants could be given for undertakings which are starting for the first time we might absorb the bulk of these "C" men, who are really fit for industrial employment. It may be true that there is a residue that could not be employed, but the bulk would be fit to be employed in workshops for disabled men. I am sorry to detain the House with all this detail, but I feel that it is necessary from time to time that the House itself should have information as to what is being done by the National Council and by the committees which really do the bulk of the work. I hope that, if the House will always continue to treat this question, not as a party question, but as a national question, and if the people of this country themselves, both employers and employés, and, so to speak, the man in the street, would try to take a little more interest in it than they have done in the past, we may find a satisfactory solution.

I should like to take the opportunity of congratulating the hon. and gallant Member for Norwich (Captain Fairfax) on his excellent maiden speech and also to thank him for introducing this subject of disabled men to the House this evening. If this discussion does no more good than advertise or make more public the case of the disabled men, it. will have done a great deal. I have listened with a great deal of interest to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Bootle (Lieut.-Colonel Henderson). I would suggest that for the benefit of the hon. and gallant Member and of the House the work of the King's Roll Grand Council should be published at more frequent intervals than it is so that Members of the House might have an opportunity of knowing what the Council is doing. I personally know the work myself, because I just happen to be a member of it. I consider that on that Council the hon. and gallant Member for Bootle and the hon. and gallant Member for Fareham (Major-General Sir H. Davidson) have done a great deal of great and good work and they are to be thanked for the way in which they have conducted it, just the same as the local committees and the King's Roll Grand Council are to be congratulated on the work they have done up and down the country. Their task has been a very difficult one, and I am certain those who are the executive officers of the King's Roll Grand Council are not satisfied that they have accomplished all that they would have liked to have done. I was anxious to find out from my hon. and gallant Friend the number of firms who are on the King's Roll at the present moment, but I did not hear those figures quoted. I am convinced of one thing; that there must be to-day over 20,000 firms in this country, employing a staff of over 25, not on the King's Roll. When these questions are continually coming before this House both with regard to the occupation of disabled men and unemployment I wonder if we really do make any actual progress on either of those two great questions. I have before me a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT containing the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Fareham, who spoke when the compulsory Bill was introduced last Session by myself. He said there were over 20,000 firms, and he suggested that a drive should be made to try and get them on the King's Roll. I wonder how many of them are on the King's Roll to-day. I quite appreciate the difficulty under which many firms are trading, and I quite agree that industry is in a very difficult position. but the hon. Member who spoke on the benches opposite said that if a particular firm wanted to get a footballer or a cornet player on its staff, it was quite easy for it to do so. I, too, have had some experience of that kind of thing, and I have known that that statement is quite correct, and I would like to see these firms that are not patriotic enough to take on these disabled men made to do it, but naturally, as the Bill which is to be introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for North Islington (Sir H. Cowan) in April next is before the House, we cannot deal at the present moment with any compulsory Measure.

Although it may be said that there are some 37,000 unemployed disabled men at the present moment, we in the British Legion are not altogether prepared to accept those figures; but whether it may be 37,000 or 87,000, it should be up to this House and to this country to see that these men, after having made the sacrifice that they have made, should be found employment, irrespective of whatever the cost might be. Sympathy with the disabled men is passing, and by such Resolutions as this that has been moved to-night we have to keep the public alive to the facts and to what they owe these men. As I go round in the great stores, I see many positions that could be quite easily filled by disabled men. I go into the great banks of this country, usually to see how my overdraft is getting on, and I find an extraordinarily large number of women employed in the banks. Before the War, you could hardly find a woman clerk in these banks, and surely the man who has lost a left arm or a leg is quite capable of doing that particular kind of work. Then also, with regard to county councils, urban district councils, and other local authorities, I feel that they might play a bigger part in trying to absorb these men than they are doing at the present moment. I have visited on more than one occasion Lord Roberts' workshops, and there I have seen men under all kinds of disability carrying on and doing roost efficient work.

It is a wrong idea to think that because a man is disabled he cannot do a good day's work as well as a man who is absolutely fit. I quite agree that some disabilities differ from others in regard to the work that a man can do, but it is extraordinary to see what some of these fellows do. I saw a man, at a training centre in Wales, who had lost his arm, working as a bricklayer's labourer. That man could even lay bricks, and he could shovel rubbish into a cart and do the most extraordinary things. You have only to go down to the British Legion's poppy factory, and there you will find men suffering from all kinds of disability making those poppies, which are sold on Poppy Day every year. I have also been down to Papworth tubercular settlement, and there you will find some of the most excellent leather goods manufactured by these men, taught by one of themselves, and supplying the great stores of London with their goods. The British Legion have quite recently taken over Preston Hall from the Government, and they will carry that on as a tubercular settlement, and the men there will learn a trade and will work under conditions suitable to their disabilities.

If these things can be accomplished in one way, I am pretty certain that the majority of the disabled men can be absorbed in some trade or other. The great thing is that we have to make the employers of labour realise their responsibilities to these men, and unless something is done soon, whether by a compulsory measure or otherwise, we shall do nothing more than talk about it every year when there is a chance of a Resolution being brought forward, or on some Vote, and the time will come when these men will not be able to carry on any work at all, for the simple reason that they will either have passed away or will be suffering from old age. The country owes a debt to these men, and I believe that the public are behind us in advocating employment for them. It should be up to the employers of labour, public authorities, and everyone else to see that they play their part and stand by these men who stood by them during those dark hours of war.

I think the House ought to thank the hon. and gallant Member for Bootle (Lieut.-Colonel Henderson), who has given such interesting particulars of what the King's Roll committees have been doing and trying to do. We all recognise how difficult is their task of trying to get employers to take on disabled men. Employers do not usually want disabled men. They want men with the full 100 per cent. of ability to do their work, and so we find that where you have got a sympathetic employer who, out of sympathy, takes in a partially disabled man, if he knows he is getting any pension, he generally likes to take advantage of that fact by paying him less wages than he would to a man with no disability at all. [An HON. MEMBER: "Shame!"] Yes, it is a great shame, and that, I think, wants driving home very forcibly to these people. I quite appreciate that there are many jobs in the City of London that disabled ex-service men could perform. have seen some of these men performing their work, and it is no exaggeration to say that the capabilities shown by some of these men with one arm are extraordinary. I know there are men with one arm who are driving horses in the streets of London. I know they are doing very good work with the shovel in loading their carts or vans, as the case may be, and also in serving coals round the street, but they are getting their wages, and we are trying our best to see that they do get their wages as an ordinary man would for such work.

We have heard something about the action of many local authorities. Many local authorities, probably, are not doing as much as they might do, but that does not apply to a very large municipal authority just over the bridge. That much maligned authority, when it applies to this House for assistance or for Acts of Parliament, is generally called very bad names, but that authority lays it down that no contract will be accepted by it unless the contractor is on the King's Roll, unless there are very exceptional circumstances in connection with what he is going to supply. Further, that authority has taken its men from the Army or Navy back into its employment, whether or not they were disabled, and many other authorities, I know, have done the same. But there might he others, if they were looked after properly, and primed up a little more than they are, who would do the same. Therefore, if the discussion to-night has the effect of waking up some of these other authorities, and some of the employers who have not yet seen fit to take these men, this discussion will not have been in vain. I hope it will have the effect of getting employers to do their part in taking these men into their employ.

I wish to pay a compliment to, at any rate, one municipality, and that is the city council of Leeds. They promised their men they would take them all back, and they did that and more, and during the last year they have taken a considerable number of men who were displaced by the Ministry of Pensions. I was very glad to hear the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of this Resolution. The Mover made reference to the fact that employing these men in many cases was not an economic proposition, but in a particular case referred to by the Seconder, I think I can say it was, and is, an economic proposition organised by ex-service men—Major Braithwaite, Major Clarke and Mr. Allen, who got together a capital of £6,000, which was largely spent in machinery, and they could do with more machinery to-day. I do not know how far the Department can help them, but they employ a considerable number of men outside. So far as tubercular cases are concerned, inside employment is no good.

By way of excavation they have already done considerable work, but the great work they are carrying out at the present time is in filling a deep valley a quarter mile across, and building a road 100 yards wide, involving the construction of a large tunnel to convey a stream, with brickwork and concrete filling, the soil having to be brought half a mile. They could not have done this but for the Leeds Corporation corning to their assistance, realising there would be great expenditure, and supplying £5,000 to enable them to get steam navvies going, and the great steam-wagons to remove the stuff shifted out of the hill. These men have not merely done good work, but they have done far better than anyone who knew them expected they would do. Of course, there has been some broken time, but to a great extent many of them have been restored to comparatively good health, and their outlook is altogether improved—a thing no one can value in the shape of money. One realises that, this is the sort of thing that can be done in other great communities. I believe one of these officers—Major Braithwaite—has already put up to the Government Department a scheme similar to this for working in other large cities. Whether that can be done or not, I am glad to think that, so far as Leeds is concerned, a real effort has been made, without talk, to get this thing put on a proper basis.

This is one of the very few questions that unite the whole House, and on which there can be, I think, no difference of opinion at all. I am sure that every Member of the House has not only appreciated a most excellent maiden speech on the part of the Mover of the Resolution, but is in agreement with him in the sympathy he expressed, and the duty he unfolded to the House. It is perfectly true that we had a lapse in the House from our due regard to the men in question. There was, for a certain time, an economy campaign that stampeded the House and during which things were done, of which, I think, afterwards we were heartily ashamed. During that economy campaign, I am afraid that the men of whom we are now speaking suffered, along with many others, but since that campaign ended I am sure that every Member of the House will agree that it is not only the duty of the Government, but the duty of the Opposition parties, to help the Government every possible way, and to show every generosity in the case of the disabled service men.

The only question that arises is, how best to help. How can we work in the best interests of the disabled service men? There may be reasonable differences of opinion as to which is the best method, but, I repeat, no difference of opinion that the best method ought to be found, and found in the quickest possible time. There is one thing of which, I think, the Minister of Labour may be perfectly assured, and that is, that if he can find a method, or a number of methods, to solve the problem of the disabled service man, no matter what the cost may be in money, no matter what the cost may be in staff, no matter what the cost may be in trouble, he will find the House absolutely solid behind him, and woo even to the Treasury, if the Treasury should oppose any reasonable methods of the claims of these men.

I do not know exactly what proportion of the 37,000 odd men may be reasonably absorbed into any kind of industry, but I am sure we all agree that those men who cannot be absorbed into industry ought to be treated, not as men who are a burden on the State, but as men to whom it is an honour to the State to be able to repay part of the debt of gratitude that we owe. If men cannot work at all, I am sure we are all agreed on what is necessary, but the ordinary disabled man, able to do some little work, is infinitely better doing that work than when he has nothing to do. There is nothing more depressing than for a man to be continually brooding over his injuries, and, through lack of occupation, gradually sinking lower and lower, more and more despondent every day, and it is in the truest interest, of these men that whatever reasonable work can be found for them should be found. Give them an interest in life, but, above and beyond all, try to prevent them from being given work beyond their strength, because despondency will arise from over-effort just as surely as it will arise from brooding. When Mr. Ford said that business and charity could not go together, I think his remark was never meant to apply to disabled ex-service men. It is not a charity on the part of any employer to employ a disabled ex-service man. Rather is it a point of charity on the part of the disabled ex-service man to the employer, for has he not saved the employer's goods and chattels? There is no charity on the part of the employers nor on the part of the nation when the disabled ex-service man is employed. There would be little or no business in this country if it had not been for these men. Had the result of the War been different—whatever our opinion about its cause or conduct may be—who can deny that we should have gone through a crisis in this country quite as bad as the crises that have wrecked the lives of so many of the people in those countries in Europe that are supposed to have been defeated?

10.0 P.M.

There was one regrettable thing, one sentence used in the Debate that filled me with regret. It is that a number of these men should be bound to bide their disability an order to get work. Their wounds are honourable. It is one of the cruellest things, I think, in our history that a man whose wounds are wounds of honour should be compelled to hide them in order that he may mix with his fellows and work along with them. As to the experiments that are being made to deal with this problem, I can only express one or two personal opinions. I am one of those who would avoid wherever possible any idea of segregating, whether in colonies or workshops—they may be useful in some cases, but wherever they can be avoided both should be avoided. It is not well, either, that a man should not only bear his own disability but should be continually looking upon the disabilities of others, and never get out of sight of the pain and suffering that has taken place as the result of the War. It seems to me that there is a danger, where men who are all wounded are working together, of developing an abnormal mentality. I think methods should be adopted—for I do not believe that any one method can ever solve this problem—which will lead to the normal taking in of these men so that they may live amongst ordinary normal men and women and not take on that abnormal mentality that I am afraid that constant living with other disabled men must finally lead to. There is one thing that ought to be guarded against in many of these schemes. The worst thing that can happen to our desire to help these men would be for suspicion to arise that they are being used because they have a pension to do the normal work of a man at less than a normal man's wage. There can be no bigger danger to the cause we all have at heart than that that suspicion should arise, and I hope that great care will be taken against it to guard, as much as possible, against that eventuality. I do not agree with some of the remarks that have been made about the types of work that these men should be encouraged to undertake. If I am right, the deserving ex-service men who are left divide themselves roughly, in my mind, not into three categories, but into two. I think the majority of the disabled ex-service men who are fully able to take up normal trades is very small. I am afraid that a great number of those who can do some work are those who cannot undertake an able-bodied man's work; window cleaning, house building, and brickwork seem to me to be rather above the strength of the men who are disabled. As I have already said, asking a disabled man to do work for which he is not fitted is the thing that is likely not to help him but to break him down and make his state of mind more miserable after the work than it was before.

We should try, I think, so far as we can to absorb these men as naturally as possible. Obviously the best thing would be to get back to the normal state of trade. That would help them naturally-more than any other thing. In the meantime we have to seek the best possible methods. The hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. Pielou), to whom I think we all listened not only with keen attention but with admiration, suggested that there were certain trades that could be done as well by ex-service men as by the people who now do them. In that remark lies both the difficulty and the danger. If the ex-service men are used to replace the men and women who are now working and these people are thrown out on to an already overloaded labour market you run the risk of discouraging a considerable amount of that sympathy which is now felt for the ex-service men. If the people could be replaced in other work, and the disabled ex-service man take work for which he is fitted it would be perfectly easy and the natural thing to do.

I referred, amongst others, to the females employed in banks. That particular work before the War was done by men. The women who usually-enter these banks are the daughters of middle-class parents, are certainly not poor people, and they are in many cases not the bread-winners. I do not want to displace bread-winners to bring in the ex-service men.

I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not try to do a disservice to anybody. During the War women played a very noble part indeed, and it is unquestionable that there are now thousands of women who must work in order to live, and nothing could be worse in the interests of the disabled ex-service men than that the slightest suspicion should exist that they are displacing people who are now in occupation, above all, if the suspicion arose that as pensioned men they are displacing people at a less rate of wages than is being received by the people now doing the job. In particular the situation will be worse if they displace heads of families. I was very glad to hear of the extraordinarily good work done by the municipality of Leeds. I am not satisfied that all the large municipalities have done what they can in that respect. A municipality is exceptionally well placed for showing an example in this kind of work, for I do not think there is a body of municipal voters in the country who would not hail with acclamation a decision on the part of a council to use every effort to absorb as many disabled ex-service men as possible. A remark by an hon. Member that occasionally heads of departments in corporations, wishing to produce results, are unsympathetic, has in it an element of truth, and unless pressure can be brought on the very large municipalities it is possible we shall not get the results we ought to be get from bodies which are placed in an exceptional position for setting a good example.

With regard to the King's Roll, also, propaganda ought to be unceasing. I know there would be no difference of opinion in the House if every step were taken to get the King's Roll honoured by every employer in the country. I doubt whether we can do it by compulsion, but every step that it is possible to take by way of conciliation and argument ought to be taken to get the King's Roll honoured by every employer who is in a condition—and every employer is in a condition—to honour it. I do not know and I cannot suggest any one single method of solving the problem. I believe the problem cannot be solved by any one method, neither by colonies nor by workshops nor even by municipalities, but it can be solved by the public conscience. In spite of all the difficulties that exist, if the public conscience could be properly awakened to the claims of these men, I am sure that those of them who can do some little work could be absorbed, and absorbed quickly, and that without displacement of any other labour. Twice at least during the Debate reference has been made to the great ease with which certain men, whether sportsmen or musicians, can be absorbed into an industry, even if they have had no training in that industry. The same spirit would, I think, largely absorb the men in this category-of whom we are speaking who are willing and able to do some work.

In conclusion, I think I can speak for every member of my party, and I am sure for every Member of the House, when I say that we shall all vote for the Resolution and support the Minister of Labour in any steps he considers it necessary to take in order to carry out the Resolution, and that red tape ought not to bind his actions in this matter. There may be a number of valuable principles in Government. Departments as to what should he done and what should not be done, but a little unorthodoxy in this matter would not be met by blame from any part of the House, and if it were possible for the Minister to help any scheme provided by anybody, which was a practicable one, old formulae ought not to stand in the way. I am certain the House would welcome any departure from tradition if that departure meant making better the lot of the men whose cases we are discussing. I hope we shall not merely pass a pious Resolution, but that the sympathy of the House, solid and sincere in every quarter, whatever our political opinions may be, may translate itself into action, and that this Debate may be the last to prove that a number of disabled ex-service men wanting work are without work, and that we may have the happier statement that every disabled man able to work and desirous of working has been found some work to do, which will keep him happier and better in every way than he would be in brooding over his ailments and his wants.

The hon. and gallant Member for Bootle (Lieut.-Colonel Henderson) described the work of the King's Roll National Council and the local committees so adequately and fully that it is unnecessary for me to touch on that subject, and I propose to say very few words this evening. But I should like to draw attention to the fact that the task before the country and before the King's Roll is becoming more and more difficult every day. The first reason is that public sympathy is undoubtedly "petering out"; the further and further we get from the War, the more and more we recede from it, the less is the sympathy, and the more difficult it is to get the public to respond. That is a fact we have to acknowledge and face. Two years ago, when the Select Committee first reported and the King's Roll National Council and committees were set up, we were very anxious to make a great drive throughout the country. In order to do that, we thought it very desirable to explain the whole problem to Members of the House, and I took the trouble, with my friend who is sitting beside me, to circularise Members of the House inviting them to come to a Committee Room upstairs on two occasions, at monthly intervals. On the first occasion only seven hon. Members turned up and heard the scheme explained, and on the second occasion only two. I do not think that was giving us much assistance, and I mention this now because I am most anxious that even at this late hour hon. Members should exert themselves, not in this House, but in their constituencies, in doing the very best they can for those disabled men who are still out of work. I will explain how they can do it. They can go down to these great boroughs and towns and make speeches, and we will provide them with.

all the facts they require to give to their constituencies in order to try and work up some enthusiasm amongst the public to achieve the task which lies before us. Those hon. Members representing constituencies which are not on the Roll should take steps to interview their local authorities and find out why they are not on the Roll.

With regard to the question of Government contracts, I should like to suggest a short method which was put forward by the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise). He moved a Resolution that in all contracts made by Government Departments with local authorities a preference should be given to those on the King's Roll. I think that is a point which can be well brought home in the constituencies by Members of Parliament. I hope hon. Members here will take steps in their constituencies to help in the matter of getting employment for these men. I said there were two reasons why the task was becoming more and more difficult. One is the lack of sympathy on account of the period which has elapsed since the War.

Another reason is that there are now 657,000 disabled men drawing pensions and of those some 620,000 are employed, and it is the last residue of some 37,000 for whom it is most difficult to find work. Therefore there is all the more reason for having an extra drive to get these few men absorbed into industry. My right hon. Friend who has just spoken asked what are these 37,000 and what do they comprise? Who are they composed of? I will tell him. The great bulk of them could easily be found work so far as their disability is concerned, because no less than 21,000 are A category men, and capable of being absorbed into industry. There are 14,000 who are not so easy to absorb, but they can be absorbed into special jobs. The remaining balance of 4,000 or 5,000 are exceedingly difficult to deal with, but the task of absorbing the bulk of these men is not so difficult as might appear at first sight.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to the admirable and unceasing work carried out during the past two-and-a-half years in regard to these men by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bootle (Lieut.-Colonel Henderson) as hon. Secretary of the King's Roll National Council. He has worked day in and day out in this capacity even when he was not a Member of this House, and I am sure I am voicing the opinion of every member of the National Council when I say that without him we should have been able to achieve very little of the success which has crowned our efforts.

I rise to strike a point of view which has not been put before the House. Almost on every question which comes before the House I seem to find myself in an almost hopeless minority. I do not know whether it is that by nature I am so constructed or not, but I feel myself in disagreement in the main with hon. Members who have already spoken on this subject. I must say that, on an occasion like this, I should like to find myself in complete accord with the majority of the House, but, whether or not that be the case, I want to say that I also have listened with a considerable amount of interest, and a considerable amount of education, to the speeches which have been delivered this evening, and I desire to join in the tribute which has been paid to the hon. and gallant Member for Bootle (Lieut.-Colonel Henderson). I used to be one of his constituents when he was in the House before, and I can assure the House that, although I voted against him and helped to prevent his coming here, I appreciate, as I appreciated then, his point of view, although it may differ from mine. I feel that he is earnest and anxious in his work, and any man who is anxious or earnest is entitled at least to be congratulated upon his sincerity and his earnestness.

My chief objection to the Motion tonight is the objection which I have stated before in the Debate on the Bill. It has been said in this House, and I suppose with a good deal of truth, that the public is strongly behind you in this connection. I disagree. It may be that the constituency which I represent is, like its Member, peculiar or inclined to take a different view. As has been said by the hon. Member who introduced the Bill last year, I was the one Member who opposed that Bill; I was the one Member who stated the dissentient view. I think I was equally honest with him, and my majority was, perhaps, the only Labour majority in Scotland that was considerably increased even over a big majority before. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is altogether unpopular to take my particular point of view.

My objection to this Motion is that it is an attempt to segregate the population. I represent a working-class district, which is a part of my native city, and for four and a half years I was a member of the city council, which is on the Roll. I want to put before the House the difficulties I see in regard to this Motion and in regard to the Bill, and I will take as an example a typical case that happened only some five weeks ago in my constituency. A young man of 24 came to me, who is minus one of his legs. He did not lose it in the War, but in the days when he was at school. He has received for gallantry on two occasions, in saving life on the Clyde, the Royal Humane Society's medal and the Carnegie medal. He came to me because he could not get work. He applied to the Glasgow Corporation, and the Glasgow Corporation refused to give him a job because he had never served in the Army and had never taken part in the great War. Here you have the case of a man of equal gallantry and no less courage than any soldier, although his disablement occurred in civil life, who is in receipt of no pension at all, who goes to the Glasgow Corporation, and, although his father has been a ratepayer for 30 years, he is refused a job. Men who, merely because they served in the War, with no greater gallantry than he, and who have already a pension of over £2 a week, can get work, but this poor chap, with an injury equal to theirs, who is in receipt of nothing at all, is refused a job.

I want to protest in this House against the proposition that because a man has served in the Army and has suffered a certain disability he is entitled to receive preferential treatment over a man with possibly the same disability who has not served in the War at all. I want to go even further. In my Glasgow Corporation experience, in the selection of certain aplicants for a job, we were bound by the fact of being on the King's Roll to observe the preference for ex-service men, and what did we find? As an hon. Member who spoke before has said, there are certain jobs which are mainly suited to disabled men, such as the job of night watchman. We occasionally had to appoint a night watchman. That is a suitable job for either a disabled man or au old man. Men came along to me who were residents and had paid rates for 40 years. They were 65 years of age, they were refused a civil pension from the Government, they had no income at all, and even m some cases they were refused unemployment benefit. They made application for a job. I was faced with this choice, a 40-years' ratepayer, a man whose sons in many cases had served in the Army, and a man who had been in the Army and lost a leg, was in receipt, of a pension of over £2 per week, and had not contributed rates for a fourth of the time that the old man had, and because of the instructions imposed by the Glasgow Corporation, I had to choose the younger man and to reject the old man, although he was as good a citizen, and had contributed as much, even to the carrying on of lam War, because he had given his sons.

I object to this thing because I feel it is not fair. It is the duty of hon. Members, not merely to bring in a Motion instructing a thing to be done, but to solve problems, and not to solve one at the expense of creating another, not to take a disabled man and to throw a woman out. Take care that in doing that you do not create a greater social burden than you have already. One of our gravest social problems, the most cruel of all in our cities, as the Minister of Labour must know, is your idle female population, for your moral well-being. I am not going to say that any woman shall be thrown out to give place to some other person. The War ended six years ago. During the War many men and many women contributed. They served in their own way and their own particular capacity. It may be that one man did this and another did that. Are we to refuse a job to the son of a man who was killed in the War and give it to the ex-service man who has been disabled? Is not the son of the man who was killed in the War as much deserving of gratitude as the disabled man? [HON. MEMBER: "No:"] In many respects we have a greater responsibility for him. I am Presbyterian enough to believe that the greatest influence in the bringing up of a family is the father and mother. My greatest influence in anything I have largely comes from this combined force. Here is the son of a man killed in the War. He has lost one of the main props of his life.

From every point of view the country owes a greater responsibility to that man than it does to the disabled man. They have taken away one of the helps that keep the family going. They take away from that youth his pension at the age of sixteen. Therefore, the son of the man who has been killed in the War has as great a claim for consideration as the disabled ex-service man. There are other men who have served their country in civil life, and who have lost a limb, whose compensation does not compare with the pensions that are paid from the Pensions Ministry, although those pensions may not be generous enough. These men are equally entitled to the good wishes and sympathy of this House.

It is all very well for hon. Members to tell us on one day that the case of these men should be considered, and the next day to tell us that they want to relieve industry by lifting the loads from industry. How many hon. Members in recent years have worked in factories, and know the conditions that prevail? Before the War, I worked at Messrs. Harland & Wolff's, in Belfast. Before starting work, you had to state on a special sheet everything that was wrong with you, physically. If you were minus a thumb or part of a finger you had to write down the disability on a sheet. I did not blame Messrs. Harland & Wolff. They were in competition with other firms, and in respect of every man who suffered from any physical disability a bigger premium had to be paid to the insurance company than was paid in respect of the man who was fully developed, or who suffered from no physical disability. The result was that at Messrs. Harland & Wolff's, until quite recently, in order to get the insurance premiums down, the men had to undergo, until the trade unions were able to stop it, a medical examination. Hon. Members will understand that a man with physical defects is regarded as being subject to a greater degree of likelihood of meeting with an accident than the man who is physically fit. Employers generally have taken up that attitude.

I do not believe that the solution of the problem can be found on the lines of the Motion. The solution of the problem ought to lie in the direction of the community paying an adequate amount to their disabled ex-service men.

I do not think the Pensions Ministry have met them adequately. The pensions ought to be increased. It is unfair at the present time, when you have fit men, capable men, men of great powers with regard to physique and knowledge, walking the streets, idle, that you should propose to bring into industry in their place men who are not their physical equals. Industry ought to absorb the best men, physically, first, and those who are not so physically fit ought to be helped by the community. We ought to help them better by means of pensions. If they were well paid from the Pensions Ministry, they would be able to manage for themselves. I have never known a decent man who could not make his own way. He could have his allotment, or in a hundred and one different ways he could occupy his time, provided he has a decent pension and security for it.

I am opposed to the Motion, because it is an attempt to split up the population between disabled ex-service men and disabled civil service men, between the old people and other people, between those who have served in the War and those who may not have served in the War but who helped to make Great Britain, if we can call it a Great Britain, and who have contributed their best. I object to a Motion which tries to differentiate between decent, deserving people, and to split them up.

We have had an interesting Debate on this Motion, and not the least interesting contribution has been that of the Member who has spoken last. It so happens that this morning I received a letter illustrating a type of case exactly similar to those about which the hon. Member has been speaking, and I feel precisely the same kind of difficulty which he does. This was the case of a really good workman in the building trade. He fell from a ladder a distance from between 30 and 40 feet, and broke his arms so badly that both of them had to be amputated. Any man with less spirit and courage would, I think, have died as a result of it. But he has pulled through. He is a man of quite exceptional spirit. I heard of the case, and I hope it may not be imputed to any wish to gain credit on my part, but I was so interested in it that we managed to arrange that he should get artificial arms which are extraordinarily well fitted, and that man is now very anxious to get some kind of employment. I wrote about that case, and the letter which I received this morning illustrates the point of the hon. Member as well as any case which I could wish to put. My informant says:

Therefore, I do hope that the House will accept this Resolution without any feeling of disparagement to men of the type which the hon. Member has in mind, and I have too, namely, cases of misfortune other than those of disabled ex-service men. One thing has been remarkable in this Debate, and that is the type of speech made. If I may, I would like to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member who moved this Resolution on his maiden speech. It was one of the best maiden speeches that I have had the privilege of hearing in this House, for it put the case extraordinarily clearly and with moderation, and at the same time very cogently; and I would add that I was almost equally struck with the few remarks made by the hon. Member for Newcastle West (Mr. J. H. Malin), of whom I think more in his connection with Bradford as Lord Mayor of Bradford and as chairman of the King's Roll Committee in that city. The Debate has shown that there is to a much greater extent than usual a desire on all sides of the House for co-operation. Perhaps, therefore, I may appeal to all parties in the House, that when the Debate is over and we have all expressed our sentiments, with a few exceptions, and those honest ones, in favour of a Motion like this, we should all do our best, with whatever part of industry, with whatever employer or union, or in whatever part of the country we are, to see that the sentiments we have expressed are translated into facts so far as we are able to bring our influence to bear either on individuals or on corporations.

May I sum up what has been done with the object of helping the disabled ex-service man? It may be true that as the years go by sympathy' gets colder, but, on the whole, there has been a distinct improvement as regards the extent of the problem. The amount of unemployment amongst disabled ex-service men has fallen from about 65,000 at the time the King's Roll Council launched their special effort, to something like 40,000 to-day. I do not think that those figures can be impugned. That is a total of about 90,000 out of 650,000, which is the number of disabled ex-service men in receipt of pensions. In other words the rate of employment among disabled ex-service men is only half what it is among the total of the insured trades generally. If ever criticisms are raised against firms because they cart get a special man into their employment because he is a, good bandsman or footballer, one has to remember that the number of vacancies which can be filled in this way is relatively small. What hon. Members sometimes forget is that the figure of 40,000 at present out of employment is not a fixed figure representing the same individuals who are always out of employment. We have men passing into and out of employment; we have not a total continuing rate of the same 40,000. I hope the House will not think I want to under-rate the duty which the country has towards the portion which is as yet unabsorbed, but I think it only right that we should see steadily the proportions of the whole problem and how much has been done, and what is the real size of the problem with which we have yet to deal.

Before the right hon. Gentleman passes from that point, I would like to ask him whether his figures are not rather misleading and whether the number of men supposed to have been absorbed, includes those who were simply wiped off the list because they have been given a final award and are no longer reckoned as disabled?

May I also point out that already 15,000 men, as the result of injuries or disease, have died.

I am going to deal with that question later on. May I briefly put to the House the nature of the problem as it appears to me. There are three categories of disabled service men. There is the category of those who can take up again their previous employment, amounting on the latest figures—those for January—to about 20,000. There is the category of those who, though capable of ordinary work, probably cannot take up the same employment as before, amounting to about 15,000, and there are something over 1,000 of the "C" class, the most severely disabled, who cannot take up ordinary work. In addition to those, there are, as the King's Roll Council estimated, a certain number who have not. registered their names at the Exchanges, and probably of those who have not so registered more are in the "C" class than in the others. I submit you have two distinct problems with which to deal. You have first the class of "C" men who cannot go into ordinary employment. There are really two methods open of dealing with this class most advantageously. One is by means of workshops. There are 14 or 15 workshops already in existence to which the Government give a grant of 50 per cent. of the loss involved subject to a certain maximum and in many cases a 50s. per week training grant as well. In certain eases, also, a grant can be given for establishing fresh workshops. I shall be only too glad, without giving any undertaking to-night, to see whether there might be any modification in the conditions which I could submit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer so as to make the grant for new workshops more useful.

Another way of helping the "C" men might be by scheduled occupations. I think in that direction there is a real possibility. Going through one of the Exchanges in the North of England I remarked a very badly disabled ex-service man operating the telephone sub-exchange in the office. The manager told me that without question this man was the ablest telephone operator they had yet had. It is quite conceivable that there may be some other comparable occupations which we may be able to get at in order to absorb some of the men still out. But here again I hope hon. Members will not think I am too cautious. One has to have regard also to the people already in those occupations. I think that disabled men ought certainly to get the preference when a vacancy occurs, yet one must remember that in industry at this moment if one makes a vacancy for one person someone else may be squeezed out of a job. Therefore, I hope the House will not think I ought to state more positively than I do that, while I think the disabled. ex-service men should have the preference in filling a post, it is no good creating an injustice because you are trying to do your duty to one particular class.

There is the other problem of the remaining two classes—the "A" men who can go back to their own occupation and the "B" men who cannot do so. After examining the question, I myself believe you ought to try, as a general rule., to absorb them in industry as your first object, but it is impossible to dogmatise on any special way of dealing with them and say you could not do it in any other way.

There was the question of the tubercular cases mentioned by the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. Pielou). I have only too much reason to know what the danger is for other workers, for example, if you have tubercular cases in the same shop, and especially in workshops where they are in comparative confinement and there is a lack of ventilation. The same may be said in regard to neurasthenics. You cannot disregard the difficulties you may have in a workshop in getting neurasthenics working alongside ordinary men. Special schemes therefore all have their place. I visited the special scheme with the hon. Member who spoke of it, and I thought that in many ways it was a quite wonderful performance. So far as tubercular men are in open air trades it is good for them, as all doctors would tell us, except that, if you press them beyond a certain point, you get a tendency to break down. Provided, therefore, the work is suitable, I would say, absorb them into industry. Much has been done to help ex-service men to resettle in civil life by means of Civil Liabilities grants, which, of late, have been given only to disabled ex-service men. Moreover, the Government itself has done a great deal to give employment to disabled ex-service men, so much so that 38 per cent. of the temporary male staff of all Government Departments are disabled men and about 14 per cent. of the whole of the staff, and the House knows that large sums have been spent on industrial training. May I assure my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Motion, that the preference that is given in contracts to those who are on the King's Roll is a very real preference, as everybody knows who is a tenderer for any contract for the Government. It means that where there is equality in price and in the quality of the product, without question, the contract goes to the firm that is on the King's Roll, and in cases where things are much of a muchness, the fact that a firm is on the King's Roll is taken into account, and weight is given to it. I cannot give the actual amounts of the contracts, but that is not really in point, because that rule is absolutely applied to all contracts for the Government, with the exception of the few in which a perfectly special subject-matter is involved.

I am told that sympathy has grown cold. It is quite true that the years are passing, and I would only put it to the House that that means that we ought to make the incidence of the scheme more general, so that if we put it to all the different firms that preference will be given to those who are on the King's Roll, then there is less chance of a person who evades his liability being able to undercut his competitors. That is what is really wanted; it is to put them on an equality in that way, and that is the reason why I made the appeal and why I would venture to press it on the House again, to put all the pressure and all the influence possible on the larger local authorities who are not themselves yet on the King's Roll to join it. There are some who are so small, like firms employing less than 20, that the question does not affect them in the same way. If you have a local authority which is a very tiny one, the King's Roll is not applicable in the same way, but in the case of the few larger ones that are not on the King's Roll, I put it to members who have expressed their sympathy to-night that they should use their influence in fact to-morrow to get them to come on. Next I would say to the large authorities that they should, like the Government, put the King's Roll into their contracts for public works. I think that is a right thing to try and extend; and, lastly, I shall be only too happy—I have not considered it yet—to see how far the same type of stipulation can be made in the making of grants; to say that if grants are made, the contracts shall only be placed with firms on the Roll. With that, and with some methods that we have got or hope to get of approaching individual firms again, I hope that the total number of disabled ex-service men still unemployed may be very considerably reduced. I hope hon. Members do not think I have spoken too coldly, because I have tried to keep within the bounds of reason and common sense, and at the same time I trust that those who think like the hon. Member who spoke before me will not oppose this Motion, but allow it to be carried.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

"That this House desires to leave no avenue unexplored which may lead to a permanently satisfactory solution of the question of employment of disabled ex-service men."

Supply

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Civil Services and Revenue Departments Supplementary Estimates, 1924–25

Class VI

Ministry of Pensions

Postponed Proceeding resumed Question,

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,096,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Pensions, and for sundry Contributions in respect of the Administration of the Ministry of Pensions Act, 1916, the War Pensions Acts, 1915 to 1921, and sundry Services."

Question again proposed.

It being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow,

Consolidation Bills

Ordered,

"That the Lords Message [10th February] communicating the Resolution, That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills of the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament,' be now considered."—[ Colonel Gibbs. ]

Lords Message considered accordingly.

Resolved, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Resolution."—[ Colonel Gibbs. ]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

House of Commons (Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms)

Ordered, "That a Select Committee be appointed to control the arrangements for the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms in the department of the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House."

Ordered, "That the Committee do consist of Seventeen Members:

Sir James Agg-Gardner, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Compton, Sir Walter de Frece, Sir Nicholas Grattan Doyle, Mr. Dunnico, Sir Park Goff, Mr. G. Harvey, Major Hennessy, General Sir Aylmer Hunter-Weston, General Sir Robert Hutchison, Mr. Ian Macpherson, Mr. Murchison, Sir Herbert Nield, Mrs. Philipson, Mr. Rawlinson, and Miss Wilkinson nominated Members of the Committee."

Ordered, "That the Committee have on power to send for persons, papers, and records."

Ordered, "That Three he the quorum."—[ Colonel Gibbs .]

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

Secondary Schools (Free Places)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." —[ Commander Eyres Monsell. ]

I wish to call the attention of the House to an administrative decision of some importance made by the President of the Board of Education. During the Labour Government, the deliberate policy was adopted of encouraging the provision of free places in secondary schools, and, in pursuance of that policy, the Labour Government established a special grant, or super-grant, of £3 for every free place for above 25 per cent. of the entrants into secondary schools of various authorities. I do not care whether you call that grant a reward to local authorities who give a large number of free places, or a bribe to local authorities to give more free places in secondary schools. It was intended as both. No objections were raised to it. The grant, however, is now going to be withdrawn. There is a Paper issued with a certain number of reasons. They are given at considerable length. I am bound to say they do not seem to me to be very convincing. It is suggested that this super-grant has not had very much effect yet in providing more free places. As it only began to operate at the end of the summer, I do not think it was at all surprising if it did not have very much result at once. Local authorities cannot move very quickly. No doubt, if more free places are to be given in the case of individual schools a good deal of readjustment may be necessary. I never expected that that would operate in any way but slowly. But I am bound to say that I did realise, as no doubt my successor has realised in discussing it with the Treasury, that ultimately this grant might amount to a very considerable sum indeed. That we fully realised. But we thought it was worth it for the nation in order to encourage access of more children who came from parents of all grades. What we wanted was to get more children of poor parents an efficient education. If it is suggested that the grant has not had any considerable effect, I am not quite so certain about that. I do not know whether the House is aware that in the last few weeks one of our local authorities have taken a very important step. I refer to the County of Durham.

Some years ago when there was a Labour majority on the Durham County Council, the Council started a scheme which would by this time have made secondary education from one end of Durham to the other absolutely free, the Labour majority gave place to a Moderate majority. In the years that have passed, about 1920, the new Moderate majority altered the provisions of the resolution made by the Labour majority and stopped the progress towards free education. This year—about a month ago—the still existing Moderate majority in Durham passed a new series of resolutions which are to bring, if permitted by the Board of Education, free secondary education in Durham County in 1926. I really cannot persuade myself that the Moderate majority, in changing its mind, was not to some extent influenced by the fact that it knew that for the free places which it was going to make it was going to get a much bigger grant.

Yes, it was as free as any other election; but I do not know what that has got to do with it. The fact is they have changed their policy. I am not certain how the Moderate majority view the situation now, and whether they will want to go back on their resolution. I hope that my successor is not going to refuse to Durham the right to get its secondary education free, but if he does permit Durham to carry through their resolutions, and to get their free education, it is rather hard on Durham that just at the moment when they get their free secondary education, Durham is going to be deprived of the grant on the strength of which, certainly, a great number of Moderates voted in favour of the project. I am not going to spend any further time discussing the rather long series of small criticisms put out at rather formidable length in objection to this grant. I will refer only to the one where it is said in conclusion that this grant "will have a disturbing effect on the framing and execution of the programmes which the present Board have it in mind to desire from local authorities." I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in saying it would be an excellent thing if local authorities would make their progress by means of regular programmes advancing year by year, but how on earth that process is going to be disturbed by the local authorities having more money to carry out these programmes I cannot conceive. The truth was that I did wish this grant to have a disturbing effect; I wished it to stimulate local authorities to action. That was the whole meaning of it. I do not know how far this action of my right hon. Friend is a definite reaction. I cannot see any meaning in what he has done, except to say, "Do not, please, go so fast." I do nut know what other meaning it has. If that is not the meaning may I ask whether he is going to substitute any other kind of encouragement? That this is an encouragement cannot be denied. He may say it is a small one.

I have given an instance where I think it has had a big effect—in Durham; and as far as it goes it must be an encouragement. If he is retracting this grant, he going to give us anything in its place? Has he got any other plan? The right hon. Gentleman has spoken in very kind terms of most of what I did when I held his position. He has said he wants to-pursue a policy of continuity, and I think he will agree that I have expressed myself in acknowledgment of that with due gratitude to him. I recognise that in many respects, in most respects, he has been trying to pursue the same policy we were pursuing last year; but I must say that this action of his makes me a little uneasy, and I do not know quite how far he is going. I hope he is not going to react very far. Hope and progress in education were frozen by the parsimony of the Board two or three years ago. Then came the action of the Labour Government which thawed the springs and was a period of warmth and sunshine. I do not suspect that my successor is going back to the ice age, but I only hope that we are not going to have an era of tepidity now. I very much regret this decision of his, and I hope that in explaining his reasons he is going to give us some encouragement to believe that even if he did not approve of the form of the way in which we tried to carry out this effort of ours to get a real advance in democratic action, he will be willing to say he approves of what we were trying to do, and that he is going to provide us with some other means of carrying out the end which we had in view.

I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Newcastle Central (Mr. Trevelyan), for giving me this opportunity of dealing with this question. I may remind the House that I stated on the last day of the Session before Christmas my feelings about this grant. I did not then draw any such condemnation of my action, or contemplated or suggested; action from the right hon. Gentleman, as he has given to it to-night. He then seemed very mild about it; in fact, he seemed to be tepid. He now says that my action is very grave and is likely to have very grave results, and he even suggests that it is reactionary. Let me make it perfectly clear that neither my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor anybody else at the Treasury ever suggested to me that I should interfere with this grant in any way. I have taken my action not on financial grounds, not at the instigation of the Treasury, but purely on educational grounds. The right hon. Gentleman gave the House what he said were the arguments of the Circular. Those arguments are merely a repetiton of the arguments which I used before Christmas in the House. He singled out for special attention the statement that this grant has not had very much effect, as if that were one of the reasons which I gave in the Circular, but it was nothing of the kind.

The paragraph which he summarised was a paragraph the argument of which was that I had decided to withdraw the grant on certain grounds. I did not want to inconvenience local authorities or do anything unfair to them by a sudden withdrawal. I did not think that up to now local authorities had committed themselves more than to a certain extent and therefore if I recognised such commitments I thought that I should be quite fair to the local authorities as regards what they had already contracted for.

The action taken by Durham was taken deliberately on the strength of the circular issued by the right hon. Gentleman.

I will come to that in a moment. I am talking now of the commitments actually undertaken by local authorities. That was my object. What I stated was not an argument for withdrawing the grant. My argument for withdrawing the grant was quite different. The remarks of the right hon. Gentleman in the latter part of his speech were very kind, but the first part of his speech seemed to be partisan. He now comes to this House and says that this was part of a deliberate policy on the part of the Labour party to free secondary education. Let us remember what he said when he was in office was the deliberate policy of the Labour party. He used very different language from that which he now uses in opposition. He told us in the Estimates Debate last summer that he wished to lay down a policy that could be continuously followed and, with regard to free places, what he said was that we should increase the number of free places to 40 per cent. throughout the country. The average for the, whole country at the present moment is 34·2 per cent. for last year, not taking into account the small additional increase at the end of the year, except as part of the whole. Therefore, you have to make up about 6 per cent. on the average throughout the country.

No, I think he was speaking in terms of the Board's regulation, but that is only a difference from year to year. The increase necessary would mean something in the neighbourhood of 22,000 extra free places. The right hon. Gentleman at the same time said that he had got £440,000 out of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was to be used for children between 14 and 16, in place of the lowering of the insurance age, and he mentioned one or two minor ways in which he was going to spend that money. The part of that sum allocated to England was about £380,000. He said to the House generally that he proposed to do something to encourage the provision of free places. He then went away and considered the question for some two months, and then he issued the Circular of 3rd September.

What happened when he issued that circular? He started by paying this grant of £2 per head last year, which is to be £3 this year, on 40,000 existing free places. The number of free places necessary to bring up the average number throughout the country to 40 per cent., which was the policy he had then announced, was about 22,000. He started by paying on more than 40,000 pianos already existing, and which had existed for years. In this next financial year that amounts to £120,000, that is to say, roughly one-third of the whole of the money he had got out of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, without providing one single additional free place or facility of any kind for one of these children between 14 and 16 that this money was supposed to cover. Could there be any administrative proposal less calculated to gain the end aimed at?

He says that Durham want to free secondary education. I will not say anything about what view I may take of this proposal when it comes before me. But what did the right hon. Gentleman say in the Estimates Debate last year on his policy of freeing secondary education? He did not say then, as he says now, that the Labour party had a deliberate policy of freeing secondary education. He said he would like to bring the number of free places up to 40 per cent., and would like to see some—a few—experiments in completely free secondary education. He has such an experiment in Manchester already, and another in Bradford. I do not know how many he would have wished to have. He might have wished for another in Durham, and perhaps another in some other part of the country. But there was no talk then of this deliberate policy of freeing secondary education throughout the country. That is something which he has thought of since he has been in opposition, and which he now says is the deliberate policy of the Labour party. He knew perfectly well last year that he could not announce a policy of that kind because he had not the Chancellor of the Exchequer behind him.

In the very few minutes that remain, let me deal with what he now asks me as to what alternative I have. My reasons for withdrawing the grant are fully explained in the circular, and that circular contains the definite statement that I adhere to the policy laid down—as a continuous policy—by my predecessor in the Estimates last year. There can be no Debate about continuity in that matter now. The right hon. Gentle—man says, "What do I propose to put in its place? "He means, I suppose, "Do I propose another specific grant for free places as distinct from all the other higher education services?"

One of the main arguments in my circular is that any specific grant of this kind cuts right across the continuity to which I owe just as much allegiance as to continuity with the right hon. Gentleman—continuity with tic whole new basis taken for education grants in 1918. When I speak about continuity I go back further than the right hon. Gentleman. I do not agree with him that all that happened before him was Cimmerian darkness and the departure in 1918 was designed to wipe out this system of specific grants, and no one has attacked the system of specific grants more than the right hon. Gentleman. If you start specific grants of this kind you cannot stop at one. Could anything he more absurd than this, that under the right hon. Gentleman's super grant—where the local authority charges fees in its secondary schools of £4 a place—by freeing the whole of its places in the secondary schools it gets a grant of 125 per cent. from the Exchequer, while if it builds a new secondary school, the Exchequer will only give it. 50 per cent. of its loan charges. Is it more important to free places in existing schools than to provide additional secondary school accommodation? Of course, it is not. How are you going to have one specific grant for free places without having other specific grants for other additional educational provisions which are just as important in certain areas What we want is that the local authority, taking all the needs of higher education into consideration, shall go forward with a programme which shall not be disturbed by the feeling that if it goes in for a certain educational provision it will get more money out of the Board. That more money out of the Board does not mean that my right hon. Friend opposite when he was at the Board really thought an increase in the number of free places from 40 to 60 per cent. in an existing school was more important than the provision of additional secondary school accommodation or more important than the enlargement of facilities for day technical classes in certain areas. We must recognise that the needs of every area differ, and that in certain areas the local authorities are much further behind hand in certain other provisions for higher education. I believe that the progress of education does depend upon following the lines laid down in 1918, in providing a comprehensive grant to local authorities out of which they can provide, according to the needs of their area, what is most necessary. Do not let us slide back, as I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman by this expedient was sliding hack into the old, evil day, pre-1918, of a multiplicity of specific grants.

It being half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House with out Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.