My right hon. Friend, the Minister of Labour had, until this morning, intended to move this Resolution, but I think that the Committee, knowing the circumstances and the duties which keep him away, will excuse his absence, at any rate during the first part of the proceedings. Therefore it falls to me to endeavour to explain, as clearly as I can, the financial provisions of the Bill which we introduced the other day, and which are explained in the Actuary's report. Many of the estimates are necessarily hypothetical, depending as they must do on uncertain and on unknown considerations. For instance, we cannot forecast with anything like mathematical certitude what would be the state of the Insurance Fund at any given date as the state of the Fund depends on the amount of unemployment which prevails at that date. Therefore many of these calculations are founded on uncertain and unknown contingencies. The Bill which we introduced the other day, the proposals of which we explained very fully, contained proposals involving a charge upon the Treasury, and, that being so, it is necessary to obtain a financial resolution from this House before Treasury sanction can be obtained for this proposal.

I will now explain as clearly as I can what is the broad effect of the financial provisions which we propose to make. The effect of the Bill is, in a sense which I am going to describe, to impose a charge upon the insurance fund of £10,000,000. I mean that if things remain as they are we should save the £10,000,000 on the basis which was anticipated under the Bill of last year. The Committee will recollect that the £10,000,000, which is itself a hypothetical figure, is based on the assumption that if there is no Bill the number of persons struck off the register under the Act of last year will be something between 200,000 and perhaps a maximum of 250,000, and therefore, were there no Bill, the fund would be saved an amount which we estimate as nearly as we can at £10,000,000. Against that £10,000,000 we have, as the Committee know, imposed certain limitations of benefit in the Bill which we introduced the other day. The two classes with which we deal are persons who are affected by the extension of the waiting period from three days to six, and those who may be affected by the exercise of the discretion which the Bill seeks to give the Minister. We estimate that the result of those two provisions, which are of course a limitation of benefit to somebody or other, will, upon a register of 1,300,000, amount to £6,500,000. Therefore the net increase, so far, upon the fund is the difference between the £10,000,000 referred to a moment ago and the £6,500,000 to which I have just referred. The net increase of charge, therefore, is a sum of £3,500,000.

Now the Bill proposes to reduce the contributions of employers and employed by 2d. and 2d. respectively. I will not complicate the matter by giving the reduction for men, women and juveniles, and so for the purpose of description when I am talking of reduction, unless I otherwise specify, I mean the reduction of the bulk contribution by employers and employed. The reduction in these contributions of 3d. and 2d. will we estimate cost the fund £6,800,000. So therefore the total increase in the charge upon the fund comes to £10,300,000 which is made up of £6,800,000 represented by the cost of the reduction in contribution and of £3,500,000 to which I referred a moment ago. The Financial Resolution proposes that additional money shall be obtained from the, Treasury which will give a sum, to what extent I will in a moment explain, to make up what I may call the deficit. The Financial Resolution, proposes that that additional money from the Treasury shall be an additional 1¼d. in the case of men and an additional contribution of ¾d. in the case of women, this will give us a relief to the extent of £2,200,000 a year and it dates from the beginning of the next financial year.

That is for men, women and children.

Yes.

What is the amount for men alone?

I will give the hon. Member that figure before the end of my statement. The Financial Resolution in paragraph 2 on the last page contains what looks like a very complicated statement. Shortly it means that every year there is to be a calculation made as to whether in any quarter the deficiency fund in that quarter exceeds the amount at which it stands on the 31st December next. If in any subsequent years, therefore, the deficiency fund at the end of any quarter is higher than it was on the 31st December next, the Treasury will give a further contribution of 1d. It is estimated that this additional contribution will, if it is paid, yield approximately £1,700,000. That is, therefore, a contingent contribution, contingent upon the deficiency fund being greater than the basic point of December 31st next. Assuming, as we must assume, that that further sum will become payable, the Committee will observe that the total increase of Treasury contribution is the £2.200,000, to which I have referred, plus £1,700,000 contingent contribution, which I have just spoken of, making in all a total increase of Treasury contribution of £3,900,000 a year.

The fund is making a deficit at present of something like £8,000,000 a year. If there were no Bill and if we took no action, we should have saved £10,000,000. Therefore we should have been £2,000,000 to the good. But, for the reasons which we discussed the other day, we find ourselves unable to take that course. I will give a picture of the balance sheet of these proposals. Owing to the powers that we seek with regard to the waiting period and the discretion of the Minister, on the credit side find against those two items we put a figure of £6,500,000. We are getting an increase from the Treasury for the 1¼d and ¼d. which amounts to £2,200,000 a year, and we have this additional contingent Treasury contribution of one penny, which gives us an additional £1,700,000, or a total of £10,400,000. On the other side, on the debit side, we have of course to meet the loss consequent upon the reduction in the contributions. That amounts to £6,800,000. Therefore the net saving is £3,600,000.

On a figure of 1,300,000 unemployed, the fund will continue to run into debt to an amount not less than £4,400,000 a year, which is the difference between the £8,000,000, the present estimated annual deficiency, and the £3,600,000.

An hon. Gentleman opposite asked me to differentiate, in the £2,200,000 increase in Exchequer contributions, between men. women and juveniles. I have now obtained the figures. Men, it is estimated, will come to £1,750,000, that is at lid., and women and juveniles at ¾d. come to £450,000, making £2,200,000 in all. I think that all figures are complicated and I detest them, but I have endeavoured as clearly as I can to explain these figures. I will gladly, as far as I can. answer any questions arising upon them. But, for reasons I have given, these figures are necessarily hypothetical, because the conditions on which they depend are unknown. I hope that the Committee will give us the resolution and enable the Treasury to give us the grant which it is prepared to give.

I think every Member of the Committee will understand the absence of the Minister, and will certainly be pleased if the result of the work in which he is engaged is a favourable result. All we can hope is that his efforts may be crowned with success. The hon. Gentleman has been lucidity itself in comparison with the legal language that one finds in this Resolution. I do not pretend to be a lawyer, but I do pretend to understand plain English, and I have wondered whether it would not be possible to simplify this language and put it into terms that the ordinary man may read and understand. It has required the hon. Gentleman's plain language to let the light into the Resolution for many Members of the Committee. Let me just criticise the attitude of the Government with regard to the powers they are now seeking and the methods they are adopting, I would have liked to know rather more about this deficiency. It would have been interesting, for instance, to know what deficiency the Labour Government found and what deficiency they left, also what deficiency the Conservative Government found and what deficiency they now have. That would have been interesting as a comparison, in order that the country might understand exactly what has been taking place. We have not had the statement so far, but perhaps we shall get it by question and answer.

I am disappointed that the Treasury has not been bolder. This method of dealing with the problem is a tinkering method with which we cannot agree. We hold that it is the duty of the Treasury, dealing with money provided by all the inhabitants of the country, to act in a more generous way towards this fund, and that a substantial burden should be taken immediately from industry and placed on the broad back of all the taxpayers of the country. We shall certainly not vote against the Treasury being even as gently generous as it has been. I agree that it is very difficult to make calculations and I would be the last person in the world to complain against the attitude of the Government when it says that hypothetical conditions cannot be correctly estimated. May I, in the gentlest way possible, call attention to the fact that I once stood at the Box opposite and was asked to be very precise. I was asked for accurate estimates of everything possible and impossible. I am now trying to show an example of the generosity which the Treasury might show when I say that I do not expect impossibilities from the hon. Gentleman. Certainly if I did expect that, judging from the results up to now very likely I should be deceived. He who expecteth little is less likely to be deceived than he who expecteth much from the Treasury.

The position of the fund itself ought to be explained in greater detail. We ought to know rather more about what will take place if the figures drop, and I hope they may do so, to 1,200,000 or 1,100,000. We might have some declaration from the Government as to the continuance of its policy. I know that certain provisions are made in the Financial Resolution for the year 1928. Is it impossible to tell us, before we vote on this Resolution, whether this is the end of the policy and whether the Government intend to continue to legislate on the lines of these financial proposals, or whether it is the intention of the Government to change their insurance policy and to modify the provisions of this Resolution at an early date? I am sure the hon. Gentleman will do his best to give us the fullest information. The financial statement which he has made shows again in the clearest possible light what is to take place in regard to the unemployed. Whatever the Treasury may do, the unemployed have to lose £6,500,000. That is quite definite and clear. We cannot discuss the provisions of the Bill itself, but I would not advise my friends to divide against this Financial Resolution although I believe the provision to be utterly inadequate, and cheeseparing on the part of the Treasury. It does, however, mark a move forward on the part of the Treasury. It marks an appreciation of the fact by the Treasury that the situation is growing worse and that it is necessary for the nation as a whole to step in. The step that the Treasury is taking is a very timid and very hesitating one, but I am not going to attempt to check the Treasury from making any advance at all. We shall have to rely on efforts in the future to improve, the whole method, and if possible to get another proposition from the Government of a wider and deeper and more generous character than this. Taking into account all the imperfections of the scheme, nevertheless I advise my friends not to divide against these proposals.

The financial proposals made from the Treasury side in regard to unemployment seem to be based upon what I may call the oscillation between two funds. In other words, one fund is supposed to react upon the other; and, where necessary, one fund or the other is expected to make up the balance. It seems to me that any Government taking a serious view of the situation should depend on something more substantial in their financial arrangements. No man in private business could hope to run his affairs on a basis like that and escape bankruptcy. The only two fixed things in the speech which the Parliamentary Secretary has made are first the constant factor of the unemployed man, and second, the taxpayer, but in the regard to the real finance of the problem of unemployment, these proposals in no way lay a basis for dealing with that question. It is no use talking about saving. You cannot save in present circumstances. What you are doing is to transfer the burden from the nation on to the local areas. You bring those burdens on to the local rates and the parish councils, and it seems to me the only thing we can look forward to is running into debt. It is easy to talk about the nation running into debt and having a way out over the general taxpayer, but what is the position of the areas which are already suffering from high rates? Take any industrial area in England, Scotland or Wales, and you will find every one of them in difficulties through this continued disregard by the Government of their national responsibilities.

You cannot get a proper basis of finance outside the national basis for dealing with a national question. The moment you begin to transfer your national responsibilities you only place them on the local bodies. If you take a coal area or a steel area, leaving out the shipbuilding areas for the moment, you find in every one of them that the council rates are constantly going up in relation to unemployment. The Government seem to make their calculations as if unemployment were caused by the flux of trade, and the idea is that all they require to provide for is a rise in trade giving employment or a fall in trade causing unemployment. I do not make the remark in any insulting sense, but that seems a very stupid method of dealing with the question. If we had only to work out our financial arrangements with the idea that unemployment was governed by the flux of trade we could accept the sliding scale without, much criticism. But you have a permanent factor in creating unemployment, and that is the displacement of men by improvements in methods of production. That is an ever-increasing factor month by month, and it produces a body of men who can never hope to get-back into employment, because of displacement, and not because of the influx of trade. This financial proposal is insufficient if we keep that factor in view. If we compare the position in the big rolling mills for steel in this country to-day with the position five years ago, we find there has been a displacement of men of almost 35 per cent. These are mostly highly skilled men who are getting rather grey in the hair, and they represent a serious factor. This is not the type of man who is down and out, or in and out or a man on whom you can cast the aspersion that he is merely seeking for the dole.

There is no provision in these proposals for that type of unemployed man. It is no use hon. Gentlemen opposite trying to put a man like that, who has always stood face to face with his work and has been able to do it, into the position of the crushed bootless man whom you want to see in the street as something you can easily subject to the policeman's baton. The Government has to bear this in mind, that, just as that type of man is thrown out of employment, just as his numbers increase, you are not going to get the, starvation idea, that you get with the ordinary casual "in-and-out," and it is for this Government to try now—there is plenty of time yet—to avoid that becoming a serious body of unemployed men. I would like the Government to try to show some human relationship in finance towards those who at least have always done their service when the opportunity of service has been given them. We have never in this House had from the Tory Government any basis that goes to show that they recognise this man. They are always trying to make it appear that this is something which is going to go up today and down to-morrow, and that if you wait a few months it will be better, but the permanent unemployment is there through our advances, because we are still in such an undeveloped, disorganised state in industry that we cannot absorb what we should be able to absorb oven without the improvements in production.

I think we are all agreed with a good deal of what has fallen from the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie). We realise as clearly as anyone—it does not matter whether you are an employer or a worker —that where you have large bodies of men who are out of work, and who are of a skilled character, it is of real importance to the State that those men should be got back into work as soon as possible, because every man who has even the most elementary knowledge of these men must know that they are depreciating in value while out of work, and, after all, we are all of some value to the State, it may be much or it may be little.

I thought the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) was getting a little wide of the Resolution, and I think the argument of the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay (Commander Williams) deals rather with unemployment policy generally. The present question is only as to the Treasury contribution towards the working of an existing system.

I fully appreciate that it would not be in order to expand this, but I was simply using it as an illustration to show the Government is justified in coming with this Resolution and making a call on the individual taxpayer to endeavour to keep these people in work at the present time. I will not, however, carry it any further, but I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Hill one question. Up till the present point there has been a definite proportion in the amount which the State has paid in this matter, i believe that the proportion of the State at present is, roughly, a quarter of the whole. Under the Resolution that we are taking to-day, we are reducing by £6,800,000, as I understand it, the amount of contributions coming in from the employer and the employed, and we are increasing the Stale contribution by, I think, something over £2.000,000. I would like, before we pass this Resolution, to have a clear statement from the Government as to what the effect of this change in proportion will be, and as to what proportion the State will be contributing in the future. because we are more or less responsible here for finding this money sooner or later, and we are responsible, on the whole, to the taxpayers to see what it is. Therefore, it ought to be made clear, in the change we are bringing about to-day, as to what exactly is the new proportion the State is going to carry. We have heard a great deal from the other side, and a good deal from the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw), that the Treasury are rather mean in this matter.

Very mean.

I would like to see as much done as possible, but when you consider this from a wider point of view—you cannot go into it very deeply from the one side, at any rate—but when you consider it from the taxpayers' point of view as a whole, the Treasury has to look after their money, and has to guard it carefully and efficiently. If they do not do that, the effect is going to be bad on trade all round, and create more unemployment. It is a question in these matters, however generous we might like to be personally, of remembering clearly that the mere taking of money from the Treasury means that the taxpayer and trade and industry have to find that money, and that the more we take the more difficult it is for industry to carry it. Therefore, I would like to urge on the Government, in considering these questions, to try to be as generous as they possibly can, but at the same time to remember that any generosity on their part is at the expense of other traders, however much all of us would like to help the unemployed themselves.

In considering the amount which the Treasury should give to this purpose, we have, of course, to consider where the balance is being drawn from, and we must remember that it is only possible to pass this meagre Estimate to-day by taking over £6,000,000 from people who are out of work. It is not a question of driving from the register people who ate committing frauds. The amount of fraud is very small. There is fraud in all classes and in every kind of financial transaction, as we know, but that is not the point. The point is that this Estimate is only possible because many people are going to be driven into a state of oven greater hardship by a reduction of their benefit. We must bear that in mind, and I think it is utterly unjustifiable in the present state of the finances of the working people. The hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) mentioned one case, and I have seen many of these people, naturally, as a Member of Parliament. Take the case of a man who has been working all his life, and is now told that he cannot any longer hope to find work. That, in itself, is a sufficiently discouraging thing to say, but when you tell him you will put him out of benefit, although he may have paid for many years, because he is done for, that is an announcement to him that, morally and financially, he is to be thrown on the scrap-heap, and that produces a feeling of bitterness which may have social results of a disastrous nature.

The hon. and gallant Member is discussing Clause 3 in the Bill.

I am anxious not to trespass beyond the proper bounds, but it is difficult to consider what the Treasury should give without considering what is the total balance that has to be met and where the rest is coming from. However, I will not pursue it further. The hon. and gallant Member for Torquay (Commander Williams) spoke about the burden of this on industry, and said we must remember that this money from the Treasury is only money from ourselves, the taxpayers, and that if you increase the grant from the taxpayers you thereby lay a burden on industry. That is true. We are not individually finding this money. It is being found by those whom we represent, namely, the taxpayers, but the Government's scheme in this and in the Pensions Bill—because the two are interlocked, and the finance of one cannot be considered without the finance of the other—is laying the burden on a very sore spot. It is putting the burden in respect of unemployment not on the broad back at all, not on the man who may have the money, but on the man who is struggling to maintain the trade and commerce of the country, and I think the hon. and gallant Member's criticism would have been better directed to the Government than to those on this side who complain of the scanty character of this scheme. The Estimate is the Government's redemption of a promise made to relieve the aggregate burden in respect of widows' pensions and unemployment, and, in our judgment, it should have been made very much wider, because the aggregate of that burden is, in the opinion of Members, not on this side alone but on the other side as well, a very crushing and dangerous one to industry at the present moment.

There is a third point I would like to put to the hon. Gentleman, to whose very able exposition of this matter I would like to pay my tribute. Is it not a fact that we are not merely dealing with un-covenanted benefit? The argument has always been that if a man has not paid for it, if, in the words of the Minister, he wishes to get his benefit on credit in respect of contributions he or others may pay later, we are entitled to say we will impose conditions on the payment of the benefit. I may be wrong, but I am under the impression that by increasing the waiting period, you are depriving people of the standard benefit, I am not very expert in this matter, but it does appear to me that, whereas last year the man who was in full benefit was enabled to get that benefit at any time after three days' delay, now he will not get it until after six days' delay. And it is not an eleemosynary grant, but the right of the man to standard benefit, which is being curtailed in order that the Treasury shall not ask for more than £2,000,000 or £3,000,000.

All this unemployment is very largely the result of the War, and we are hoping to get paid some of our expenditure in the War from our Allies, and particularly from Germany. In an increasing degree, the payment, of these debts and the payment of the reparation will create unemployment in this country. It is arguable whether it is a good thing to take this or not. Some people think it is a bad thing; other people think that to replenish our Treasury, if it can be done, by free goods from other countries, is a good thing. There are two views. On the other hand, it is perfectly clear that such replenishment, if it is to go forward, must create unemployment in the industries affected. We have seen it already in coal and in ships. Does not the Government realise that to the extent unemployment is created by the receipt of reparation and debts, the unemployed have a direct claim in equity upon the funds which so accumulate in the British Treasury? There may be a balance inuring to the benefit of the general taxpayers, but the first claim is with those whose employment is lost on account of the payment of these debts.

I think we stand to get, in a full year, about £27,000,000 under the Dawes Report. What we shall get from the French and Italian debts, we do not know; the correspondence has only just begun. But £27,000,000 to the Treasury and £2,000,000 in this Estimate make a very wide gap, and I do not at all feel alarmed that the unemployment created by the payment of these debts should make an increasing demand upon the Treasury, because I believe it is only in that way that you can correct the hardship inflicted by the receipt of these payments, if you consider it desirable to take them. To these observations I would ask the hon. Gentleman if he would direct a few remarks when he replies. I do not know whether the point has been raised before, but it has a very direct bearing upon this subject. We are in an unfortunate position as Members of Parliament, as we are not allowed to. move for the grant of any money, and, therefore, we have to take, with what grace we can, whatever the Front Bench offers us in any particular case.

Like the last speaker, I am rather disappointed with the very meagre contribution that the Government intend to make for the obvious deficiency that is bound to increase rather than decrease. If there is one thing that emerges from this Financial Resolution, and the Bill of which this will form a part, it seems to me to be the uncertainty in the minds, of the Government as to the tendency of unemployment in the coming months and the new year. There is no certainty in their minds that there is going to be any real improvement at all, and, because of their own incapacity to do anything towards alleviating the unemployment problem, it does seem to me that the very hesitating, halting and meagre fashion in which they are dealing with this great financial and social problem, justifies a protest from these benches. There is no Member on this side, or on any side, who would, of course, vote against this Resolution, but the Government, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman has just said, ought to have been more generous in carrying a fairer portion of the general unemployment burden than this Financial Resolution permits them to do. The hon. Gentleman who spoke from the opposite benches said that the Government need to be very careful before they indulge in the expenditure of large sums of money, with which we are bound to agree, but when he referred to the question of placing a further heavy burden upon industry when dealing with these questions, he failed to discriminate between payments made by the general taxpayers and burdens imposed upon the industries of this country.

After all, here is a national problem, which should be met in a national way out of national finances, and no great industrial area should be called upon to pay more than its fair share of the burden as compared with—shall I say? —the residential areas. But finance of this kind, in the nature of things, does impose unfair burdens upon industrial areas, whereas residential areas are almost excluded from any payment whatsoever. Taxation, in the nature of things, Is derived from income, whether that income be derived from industrial sources, rents or interest, or from whatever it may be received. And while the general taxpayer, with an income derived not from the ordinary industrial activities, could well afford to meet a fairer share of the burden, many industrial concerns would be in very low water if they were called upon to pay more than they are called upon to pay at this moment.

While the Government are relieving employers and employés of £6,800,000 a year, they are deducting from the income of industrial areas, by reducing the amounts to the various recipients £6,500,000 a year. Therefore, they are not relieving, practically, the industrial areas of any of the burdens that they are bearing at the present moment. That, I submit, is an unfair means of dealing with a problem of this kind. Necessitous areas are already carrying more than their fair share of this national burden, and I think the Government could well have afforded to have been much more generous in their contribution towards the Unemployment Fund than they are going to be under the terms of this Financial Resolution. For that reason, I suggest that, while we cannot afford to vote against this Financial Resolution, we are bound to utter a protest on behalf of those individuals who are certain to suffer, and, secondly, on behalf of industrial areas. I think the Government ought to have been much more generous in dealing with this problem, as under the Bill the industrial areas are called upon to pay a much larger share than they ought to be called upon to do. The Financial Resolution is most unfair in its incidence in meeting the needs of the problem in the districts.

I should like to make a short contribution to the discussion on the financial aspect of unemployment, and of the situation generally covered by the present Financial Resolution. This Resolution recognises for the first time since the passing of the Unemployment Act a certain principle, which is the assumption by the State of at least one-third of the sum total of the contributions towards the Fund. The deficiency in the Unemployment Fund at the moment is a consequence of the contributions of the employers and workmen being too small in proportion to meet the liabilities of the Fund, or, rather, by reason of successive Parliaments failing to recognise the full responsibility of the State in its financial relationship to the Fund. The deficit at one time was put at 15½ millions. Let us, however, go back to the period of about 1920. The State took full responsibility for paying the donations of the ex-service men who were unemployed, who had been demobilised, who had had no opportunity of qualifying, and for whom no Act was available, for the Act of 1920 had not yet been passed. The State, I say, took full responsibility of meeting the financial obligations of these men.

12 N.

Early in 1921 the State passed over to the Unemployment Fund, under the Act of 1920, all these ex-service men for whom they had accepted full responsibility. That placed a great financial burden upon the workmen and the employers who had contributed, and who had created a surplus under the old Unemployment Act. The surplus then acquired was used to take over the State's financial responsibility for the ex-service men which they had accepted. The State never had met its proportion of the financial responsibility of unemployment. It might have been one-fifth or one-fourth of the total. So you had it, a dead-weight, a financial responsibility, thrown upon the joint contributors to the Unemployment Fund. I am assuming that the accrued income from these courses was not only insufficient to meet the current obligation, but also ate up the reserves accumulated from 1911. The reserves all went. The State still did not accept its full financial responsibility. What the. State did, when the Fund became insolvent in itself, was to come to this House upon three occasions and ask for power to borrow from the Treasury certain amounts in order to meet their responsibility without in any way increasing their own direct contribution or the contributions of the employers and workmen. At one time they took power to borrow up to 10 millions, then up to 20, then up to 23, then up to 30. They have never yet had occasion to draw upon more than 15½ millions.

The point I am making I hope may be taken into consideration by the right hon. Gentleman when he sets up the Committee of Inquiry which, I believe, will include an inquiry into the financial relationships of this matter. It is, that if we assume the State had accepted one-third responsibility for the financial obligations of the Fund from 1920 there would actually have been a surplus to the credit of the Fund to-day. I assume that, I say. I have not called for the figures. If the State had accepted, on the assumption I am making, a one-third partnership responsibility instead of their being a deficiency there would be a surplus on the funds. There would thereby be no need for saving the 6½ million pounds as proposed. There would have been no need, therefore, for us to be confronted to-day with the desire of the Department to get the Fund on a sound basis and to wipe out the 8½ millions. I should like to suggest the possibility, in the near future, if such facts as I have suggested reveal themselves at the inquiry, that the Government should come to the House and ask permission to gauge their maximum responsibility in the past, wipe off the deficiency out of the unpaid contributions from the State, and remove many of the evils inserted in the Acts. There would be in that case no need to curtail the outgoings or to restrict the qualifications of the recipients. If the State appreciates these points this, I think, can be done, as they recognise in this Money Resolution their liability for approximately one-third of the contribution of the State.

This is a Resolution arising out of the Bill presented dealing with the unemployment question, and it arises solely because of the miscalculation of the Government in the early part of the year. I believe the present Financial Resolution has been rendered necessary because of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the introduction of his Budget. There was a miscalculation when the right hon. Gentleman promised he would introduce the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions scheme, and suggested he would place no burden on industry. He based his calculations on the assumption that unemployment was going to fall to about 800,000. That calculation has been entirely wrong. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite stated in their Election speeches, posters, and literature —and I have almost come, to the conclusion that they were foolish enough to believe it—that a Tory Government did mean stability of trade and a check upon economic developments, which I am persuaded that up to the present no Government has been able to touch. I believe that is why the unemployed have to be robbed of about £6,500,000. The State come along with a meagre proposal to grant £2,000,000 from the Exchequer in support of this proposal, and there are few local authorities in the country who will not have cause to curse the Government for the proposals which were originally made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which this now is attempting to cover up.

In my own constituency, with a vast amount of unemployment, with probably one in three of the wage-earners unemployed, with rates at 27s. in the £, this thing will only be made possible by the fact that many men who should come to the State for relief are going to be driven back to the sorely distressed local authorities for the means which the State ought to supply. Although one cannot very well vote against this proposal, I want to protest against the meagre way in which the Government are treating this matter. As a matter of fact, their method of dealing with unemployment, if it were not so tragic in its consequences, would be comic. It would take W. S. Gilbert to do justice to the Government's proposals for dealing with this problem. I want to protest with all the strength I have at my command against the additional burdens which are going to be placed upon the local authorities in my district and in other districts in South Wales where we are being snowed under with a vast amount of ever-increasing unemployment. I want to protest against the fact that the proposals of the Government are only going to be made possible by the local authorities having tremendous additions to their almost already back-breaking burdens.

I rise only for a minute or two to ask one or two questions of my hon. Friend opposite who is going to reply. The Committee will agree that before we part with a Resolution of this kind, we ought to have some definite information regarding the present position and the future of this fund, and also, as far as possible, regarding the scope of the financial inquiry which the Minister hopes to undertake. It is perfectly clear to us on this side of the House, and I hope to all hon. Members, that this Financial Resolution can only be put into practice at the risk of very great hardship to considerable numbers of people in this country, because, plainly, the benefits are governed by the general conditions of the fund, and by the changes that we are compelled to make from time to time, which they in their unemployment and distress necessarily find it very difficult to understand. The truth of the matter is that this morning we are engaged,—I do not use the phrase in any way offensively—in the doctoring of the Unemployment Insurance Fund to meet an exceptional state of circumstances which at the time of the initiation of the fund no one expected.

This fund has never had a chance, first because large numbers of good lives, so to speak, for the purpose of unemployment insurance, were excluded, and secondly by reason of the fact that there descended upon the fund at a comparatively early stage of its career a great volume of unemployment which, at all events at that period, it could not carry. So, by successive stages, we have gone through the process of altering and adjusting the contributions and modifying the fund until we have arrived at this Financial Resolution, which I am not surprised that my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) finds it difficult on the technical side to understand. Let us notice what the Financial Resolution proposes. First of all, the idea is that there should be reduced contributions at some later date from employers and employed. Secondly, it contemplates a substantial reduction in benefit to a considerable number of people. Thirdly, as regards what I may call a kind of exceptional deficiency, above a level to be taken at the end of this year, the Treasury is to pay in an extra contribution. And there are other proposals. That summary in itself must appeal to hon. Members as a very doubtful financial proposition. Here is a mixture of contradictory elements in finance, very difficult to follow, and all of them bearing upon their face the marks of expediency and of almost any device which a Government is driven to adopt in an emergency of this kind.

But do let us try to understand exactly what the Ministry mean with regard to the position of this fund. As I understand the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, if unemployment is at the rate of 1,300,000 people, then, under the proposals of this scheme, the deficiency in the Fund will continue to accumulate at the rate of £1,400,000 per annum. If, on the other hand, there is an intermediate figure of 1,200,000 people unemployed, then, under the proposals now made, there will be no deficiency. The situation will just about balance. But, if there is an improvement to the extent of 1,100,000 people unemployed, then, as I understand it, the Fund will benefit in a reduction of the deficiency to the tune of rather more than £3.000,000 per annum. That appears to be the state of affairs. The Minister has made it perfectly plain that, of course, we have proceeded in the realm of hypothesis as regards the numbers of unemployed, but, if the gloomy view be taken, then undoubtedly the deficiency in the Fund is not arrested by the present proposals, and, for all we know, other proposals will be necessary later in which some further inroad will be made, either on the rights of the people unemployed, or by the withdrawal of concessions to employers and employed in contributions, or by some other device.

All that leads me to the only suggestion which I will venture to put to the Committee this morning. Surely, the Committee will agree that on the financial side of these proposals we are in a very unsatisfactory position. The Government themselves have related this scheme to other proposals of social insurance on which they are embarking at the present time we are on this Resolution confined within very narrow limits, and I am not, therefore, justified in making any more reference to them—and they have also indicated that they propose to make an inquiry into the financial position of this fund. Much of the difficulty turns on this fact, that in certain classes of social insurance—in the new widows' and orphans' pensions scheme, in old age pensions, in other devices of that kind, and now in this proposal—you have here and there, but only here and there, a definite fund capable of actuarial measurement, under which you can say that, according to certain circumstances, definite benefits will be provided; but it is only to a very limited extent that we have that arrangement at the present time. What have we generally on the other side? This is a very good illustration of the case. We have no real fund at all in the strict sense of an actuarial proposal under a definite superannuation, insurance, or other scheme. What really exists is a Treasury account. It is not disputed that the rights of the contributors are safeguarded—I trust the State will never let them down—but what is suggested is that this is not really a sound financial scheme.

The whole burden of investigation is in the direction of setting up proper actuarially measurable funds, if I may use that awkward phrase. Where there is a Treasury account we get merely a periodical measurement of what they call the equivalence of the contributions on the one side and the benefits payable on the other. The outcome of all that is, that in certain circumstances that may enure to the advantage of the State, that is, the State might be getting the benefit of conditions in a fund which benefits, strictly speaking, ought to go to the contributors. On the other hand, in difficult times the question that arises is what contribution the State is going to make, and it becomes a competition in this House between what we press the Government to do and what the Government-invites the employed or the employers to do in a scheme of this kind. Can that be considered a satisfactory state of affairs? If we are going in for insurance, do let us try to get down to some comprehensive basis, and although I do not profess to speak this morning for anybody much more than myself, I believe there is a large measure of agreement in this House that if we are going to inquire into the financial mechanism of this scheme we ought to go right down to the root of the whole basis of this and kindred proposals.

Let us have some definite fund which we can measure, and under which we will be able to say to the people, "We will not meddle with and tinker with and alter your benefits from time to time in the way we have been compelled to do in the past. Here is something in which you have more than a. kind of concession or equity that is extended to you, something in which you have a legal right, as you would have a real right in contributing to an actual fund." Financially I believe that to be in the interests of the State, but, not less, I believe it to be strictly in the interests of the insured persons themselves, and when the Minister replies I hope be will be able to say that the Government are not going on any longer with Treasury Accounts and the equivalence of benefits and contributions, but are going to try to set up something which we can defend in this House and which will protect, amongst others, unemployed people.

In view of what I think I may describe as the common agreement in all parts of the Committee that the Committee 6hould agree to this Resolution I propose to apply myself only to one or two of the very helpful suggestions made in the course of this discussion. I think I agree with almost everything the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) has said. Nobody can pretend that a scheme of finance which contemplates a deficiency of something like £4,500,000 each year is satisfactory, and it is not less repugnant to my much less instructed mind than to the financial mind of the right hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour announced the other day the setting up of a committee to inquire into this problem under three heads: First, administration; secondly, policy; and thirdly, finance. Might I appeal to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House, and particularly to hon. Members opposite, to give the benefit of their experience to this committee, either individually or through the associations to which they may belong? What we desire is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh desires, namely, that we shall put this scheme, if we can, into a position where it can be defended rather than criticised as it is, and rightly criticised, in so many particulars. It may be said, "Why did not you set up this committee, why did not you decide upon your financial pro- posals before you introduced this Resolution and this Bill?" The answer is this—and it is really the answer to a good deal of the criticism that has been made this morning—that unless we bring in a Bill we have to deprive over 200,000 insured persons of benefits amounting to approximately £10,000,000 a year.

If we did nothing, so far from being involved in these financial criticisms, we should be £2,000,000 a year to the good, and it is because we think that we cannot allow these 200,000 or 250,000 people to come off the register in October that we are bound to act now, bound to act in advance of the assistance which we hope to get from this Committee. That, I think, deals with the point which was raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday). He is anxious, as we are all anxious, about the financial position of the fund. He made certain suggestions and comments which I Have not the slightest doubt the committee will take into consideration. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) raised, if I may say so, perhaps the most difficult question in relation to the whole matter, the ultimate incidence of these charges. I find it quite impossible to answer his question, and I doubt if anybody else can answer it. In some cases, probably, the charge falls upon the consumer. Where the employer can pass it on to the consumer no doubt he does so, and the ultimate charge falls on the consumer. In other cases where, owing to the stress of competition, foreign of otherwise, he is unable to do so, probably the industry itself bears the whole or a considerable part of the charge. But he must forgive me if I decline to express, as in fact, nobody can express, any opinion generalising about the ultimate incidence of the burden.

And if the hon. Gentleman tried I should have to stop him.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Leith (Captain Benn) invited me to give my views about reparation and the Dawes annuities, and the effect upon them of the finance of this scheme. I must again, for the reason which you, Mr. Chairman, have given, totally decline to do so. It is a, question of which I should require long notice, and I do not think it would be strictly relevant to the proposals before the House. The right hon. Gentle- man the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) asked me a specific question to which I will give the exact answer. He asked me about the amount of the outstanding Treasury advances to the unemployed fund in February, 1924, when the Labour Government came into power. At that date it amounted, roughly, to £11,500,000. In October, 1924, when they went out of office, the amount was about £5,000,000. At the present time the amount is about £8,500,000, but in attaching importance to those figures it is very relevant to bear in mind that during practically the whole time that the Labour Government were in power the rate of benefit was 15s. in the case of men, with corresponding figures for women and juveniles. Under the Act of last year it has been raised to 18s. and certain other alterations were made. I now ask the Committee to pass this Resolution.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary answer my question as to the amount of the Treasury contribution?

Broadly speaking, the ordinary Treasury contribution, which is now slightly over one-third of the joint contribution of employers and employed, will become about half from April next, year, and between one-third and two-fifths from the beginning of 1928.

These figures are very confusing, and I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us what is the proportion of the whole which is paid by the State. When the hon. Member says the State is paying one-third of what the employers and the workers pay, it is rather misleading. I think it is about one-fourth.

Yes, I think it is somewhere about one-fourth, but if the right hon. Gentleman asks me for these figures by putting down a question, I will give him the information, but I have not got them in mind at the moment.

In order to make this point clear, can the hon. Gentleman tell us approximately what is the proportion? In 1920 it was about one-third of the total. It has since been given as one-fourth, and I believe the new proposal makes it approximately about one-third.

I think that is right.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

In making this Motion I do not think it should be necessary for me to detain the House at any length, in. view of the fact that the Measure dealing with teachers' superannuation in England passed its Third Reading last night, and received such a very favourable reception in all parts of the House. I will therefore confine myself to a brief explanation of the main features of the Scottish Bill. Clause 1 of this Bill provides for the continuance of the existing arrangement for the payment of contributions by teachers, and it also provides that what has up to now been of a temporary character should be continued to the end of the financial year, and we make this provision in order that we should start on an equal footing at the same time as England does under the new scheme.

I think everyone will agree that we should move in step with England in this matter. We also want to extend the period during which the contributions are to be used for Appropriations-in-Aid. It follows that we must extend the period under which the Education (Scotland) Fund receives compensation from the Exchequer for any excess of the amount contributed by Scottish teachers over eleven-eightieths of the amount contributed by teachers in England and Wales. Hon. Members will notice the words in italics in the Bill, and they will see that the sum is not a very large one, but looking at it from a Scottish point of view, although not very large, it is still not negligible, and I believe everyone will agree as to the equity of the compensation, and if the House is good enough to give the Second Reading of this Bill I shall ask them forthwith to pass the necessary Financial Resolution.

Clause 2 deals mainly with contribution. On that general question, I do not think I need to say anything except that one welcomes the fact that England has at last recognised the sound principle which we have long considered proper in Scotland. I think I ought to draw the attention of the House to the White Paper dealing with the finance of the Bill. Hon. Members will see that the general relations with the Exchequer and the Education (Scotland) Fund remain as before. The Fund will continue to receive 11/80ths of whatever sum may be voted to meet the cost of the superannuation of teachers in England and Wales, and will continue to be responsible for the payment of benefits to the Scottish teachers. What is new is that in future the contributions of the teachers, as well as those of the authorities, will pass, not into the Exchequer, but into the Fund, which will, in turn, transfer to the Exchequer in each year 11/80ths of the contributions received by the Exchequer in that year from teachers south of the Border. This arrangement represents, I believe, a considerable simplification in more than one respect.

In the first place, there will be no overpayment of Scottish contributions to the Exchequer, and, therefore, no need for the repayment of any excess. In the second place, in Scotland we need not postpone until 1928 the bringing into force of the provisions as to the employer's contribution. We can do that at once, without, as I understand, putting either the education authorities or the other managers of grant aided schools to any inconvenience or disadvantage. Until the year 1928, no payment at all will be made out of the Fund in respect of the employers' contributions. All the money it receives from the employers will, therefore, be available for distribution in the shape of grants. Finally, when the employers in England and Wales begin to contribute, and receive grants towards their contributions. 11/80ths of that grant will accrue to the Education (Scotland) Grant, and will reach the Scottish education authorities through the usual channel.

Clause 3 provides for the framing of an amending scheme, which will be prepared by the Scottish Education Department for the approval of Parliament. Our intention is that the system of superannuation embodied in the new scheme shall correspond as accurately as possible with the similar scheme south of the Border. There are, of course, bound to be certain differences. We do not, for instance, propose to make any change in our policy as to the admission of uncertificated teachers, but in all essentials I hope there will be such a measure of agreement as will ensure a perfectly free flow of certificated teachers between the two countries. The scheme in draft form will, I hope, be prepared in a day or two, and should be in the hands of hon. Members before we go into Committee upstairs, and they will then see exactly what it contains.

Clause 4 of the Bill directs and empowers the Department to embody in the new scheme certain features, of which, if hon. Members have studied the English Bill, they will probably have made themselves aware. The most important of these, perhaps, is that which relates to the repayment of contributions. If there is no specific mention of other teachers, such as those reckoning university service, that is due to the fact that those powers are already contained in the Act of 1919, and hon. Members will see, when the scheme is placed in their hands, that we propose to exercise those powers. Then, for teachers who have retired, or who may have discontinued their service, and do not elect to resume it, the scheme of 1910, which was subsequently amended between 1922 and 1925, will still be the governing instrument. The new scheme will only apply to those teachers who are, or may be, in the service after the 1st April, 1926. If however, any such teacher feels that he will be at any disadvantage by the change, it will be open to him, under the provisions of Clause 5 of this Bill, to give notice, within three months of the change, that he desires to remain under the old scheme. I think the House will agree that it is reasonable that that alternative should be offered to the teacher, but that it is also equally reasonable that he should make his decision within a reasonable period.

I think the remaining Clauses of the Bill call for very little comment. The first Sub-section of Clause 6 I have already touched upon. The second Sub-section of that Clause is also covered by the Financial Resolution. It is designed to remove all doubt as to the right of the Scottish Education Department to receive from the Exchequer the 11/80ths of the contributions that may be returned by the teachers of England and Wales. That the Department ought to get the benefit of this contribution is, I think, beyond doubt. Clause 7, with its accompanying Schedule, provides for the setting up of an account on the lines of that which is to be established under the English Bill; and Clause 8 confirms the responsibility of the Scottish Education Department for the payment of all benefits. Clauses 9 and 10 are simply formal in their character. In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I do so in the hope that it will commend itself particularly to those who represent Scotland, and that it is an effort to carry out a reform which, I think, has been long overdue, and which we all of us trust may bring into the teaching profession a feeling of security and contentment, which everyone may trust will be reflected in an added progress in education in Scotland. I hope the House will agree to the Second Reading of this Bill to-day, in order that we may go into Committee, where we can discuss in the fullest detail any minor points.

My right hon. Friend has indicated that there is unlikely to be any controversy on this Bill, except on certain points in Committee, and I think it is unnecessary to do more on this side of the House, from this bench at all events, than say that we approve, of course, of the inevitable development following the English Measure. Indeed, if I had any kind of criticism at all to make on a Bill of this kind, it would be merely to the effect that, on the Estimates and in Measures of this description and so on, we are, for a variety of reasons, practically compelled to follow England at the present time, largely because of the 11/80ths of the expenditure and other arrangements. Notwithstanding that handicap, our education, as I think is commonly recognised, has been able to triumph in all parts of the world, and, not least, south of the Tweed. The only other point of criticism turns on the fact that this Measure, like the English Measure, does not carry out one of the recommendations of the Emmott Committee, namely, the establishment of a fund; but, as I have just made a speech on that very subject in another connection, it would be unfair to the House to repeat it now. I think all of us, or many of us, at all events, on this side and in other quarters of the House, agree with the view that the proper method of going about superannuation is to establish a fund, and not merely a Treasury account. The present argument is that, under the account system, the contribution of the State is less than it would be immediately, but I do not suppose it is disputed in the long run that the State must pay more, and I would very much rather that it shouldered its responsibilities properly. Apart from that, I do not propose to say anything at all. We will reserve our criticism, such as it is, to the Committee stage, and I think, with very little debate so far as we are concerned, the right hon. Gentleman may depend on getting his Bill.

I have nothing much to offer in the way of criticism of the Bill or of the speech of the Secretary for Scotland. The Bill is indeed of rather an unusual character in so far as it merely enables a Government Department to do a particular piece of work. It does not determine what those provisions are to be specifically. It gives the Education Department power to make a scheme to provide for the superannuation of Scottish teachers. However, the provisions which will be incorporated in that scheme have been already pretty largely determined by the Measure which got its Third Reading last night, and we are promised that, so far as possible, the two Measures will be brought into such accord as will enable the teachers to pass from one country to the other without disadvantage to themselves, and very possibly with great advantage to the country to which they go, as well as the one from which they come. I offer very sincere congratulations to the President of the Board of Education for the manner in which he has dealt with the question of superannuation. On the general qualifications for pension he has recognised the unity of the teaching service, so that from now on it will be possible for a man or a woman to pass from one branch of the service, the school, the university, the technical college, without any loss to himself. That is a very valuable feature in the English scheme, and of course we have the assurance that it will be incorporated in the Scottish scheme as well. The speech of the Secretary for Scotland renders criticism of the Bill almost impossible, if not unnecessary, for the reason that to-day we are only giving this departmental power, and the Bill in itself is really nothing. The scheme is the important thing, and so really, until we get the scheme, we cannot say whether the Scottish Education Department is doing all it should do, and doing it in the right way. At any rate, we shall have the opportunity of discussing this fully in Committee upstairs. I join with the right hon. Gentleman in the hope that this Bill, together with the English Bill, will be the precursor and the producer of a period of peace in the teaching profession which will be reflected in the work of the schools as the years go on.

I should like to say a word along the lines that have been already followed. As a member of the teaching profession, I am glad to think I his matter is likely now to find something that seems to promise a permanent solution of this matter. I notice the Bill is pretty much an enabling Measure for the Department, and I am sure we from Scotland prefer to deal with this matter in Committee among ourselves. We welcome the reciprocity in connection with the superannuation schemes and the flow that that makes possible from one country into the other. It has been suggested to me by some English Members that that flow is always from the North to the South, and never from the South to the North, but from my own experience in connection with Scottish schools I can say that is not so. Even although we have not reciprocity in connect on with our schemes, some English teachers have thought it advisable in the past to come to Scotland because of the atmosphere in the schools, and I hope there will be contentment in the profession. I notice in the memorandum paragraph that vested interests are fully conserved, and I hope those of my fellow teachers whose vested interests are being fully conserved will in the future make a real contribution in trying to get as good conditions and as good a pension scheme for other workers as they are getting for themselves.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question which has been put to me by teachers in my constituency. Why does not the reciprocal provision prevail in the case of retired teachers? I am told that whereas service in either country is to count for this purpose, in future, in the case of teachers who have already retired, such service will not count. I cannot imagine that a large sum of money will be involved. I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman will deny that we owe much to those who have spent their life in teaching and are now retired. May I ask him to consider whether it is not possible in Committee so to amend the Bill that the advantages of reciprocity which are given to teachers presently teaching can be extended to those who have retired from the service.

I have had a letter on this subject which reached me this morning. I should like to ask the Government to take it into consideration.

As I understand it, the provisions with regard to retired teachers are to be covered under the scheme of the 1819 Act, and while I am very willing to consider any proposition which hon. Members may put on this question, that is the scheme as it at present exists, but I shall be quite prepared to listen to any hon. Member who may put down an Amendment.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This small Hill is introduced in accordance with a statement made by the Prime Minister when he announced that the Government proposed during the autumn and winter of this year to hold an inquiry into the whole future of the system of broadcasting in this country. As regards that inquiry, while it is perhaps too much to hope that I may be able to tell the House the exact composition of those who are going to hold the inquiry, and the exact terms of reference, before we adjourn, although I will do my best, I may say that the arrangements for holding the inquiry are proceeding, and the investigation will be of a most comprehensive character. I hope that the investigations will start some time in November.

When the Prime Minister intimated that such an inquiry was in contemplation, he stated that we should introduce a short Bill with the single object of removing any doubts which might exist as to the validity of the system of licences. That is the object and the sole object of this Bill. The provisions are so simple that they need very little explanation. They are so narrow that it is extremely difficult to say much in explanation without transgressing the rules of Order. They are contained in two Sub-sections. I will deal first with Sub-section (2), because that is the only part of the Bill which I think in some quarters of the House is regarded as possibly being obscure.

In the principal Act, the Act of 1904, Section 2 deals with the grant of experimental licences to experimenters and provides that those licences shall be granted but shall not be subject to any rent or royalty. These words were inserted in the Act of 1904 for the reason that there was felt to be a certain apprehension lest in the case of any future invention, after the invention had been proved successful, the State might come along and claim, either explicitly or otherwise, that it should be a condition for the future user of that invention that some rent or royalty should be paid by the inventor to the State. The words were put in to prevent such a claim by the State.

It has always been recognised ever since the start of wireless telegraphy that, for obvious reasons connected with the defence of the Realm, some register of stations capable of sending out messages must be kept, and periodical inspection must be made. Accordingly, such a register has been kept and such inspections have taken place. A scale of fees was fixed towards covering the cost of maintaining such a register and carrying out the necessary inspections. The legal question has never been raised as to whether such a fee is, technically speaking, a rent or royalty, but as we were dealing with the question of interpretation in this Bill we thought it was perhaps as well to deal with this matter and put it beyond question that the fee for this purpose was not to be regarded as a rent or royalty.

1.0 P.M.

There might be, possibly, some apprehension lest the Postmaster-General, under cover of this Bill, was going to come down in the interim period during which this Bill was to operate, and raise the fees to the experimenters. I can assure the House, and I quite gladly give the assurance, that that is not so. It is not our intention during this period to make any change whatever in that direction. Perhaps as the best evidence that I could adduce of my bona fides in this matter, and of my goodwill towards the wireless fraternity generally, I might say that some months ago I thought that the existing scale of fees which had been charged for experimenters was too high, and I reduced them materially. At the present time, the scale, which only applies to those who have transmitting aerials, is, up to 10 watts, an initial fee of 10s. and £l a year for the licence; over 10 watts, £l initial fee and £2 a year for the licence. I think that scale is regarded as being satisfactory and reasonable by the experimenters generally. There is no intention to make any increase. After that assurance, I hope the House will be prepared to agree to Sub-section (2).

Sub-section (1) deals with a different and more popular matter, which also had its origin in a phrase in the Act of 1904. Section 1 (7) of the Act of 1904 purports to give a description of what is meant by wireless telegraphy:

"The expression 'wireless telegraphy' means any system of communication by telegraph as defined in the Telegraph Acts. 1863 to 1904, without the aid of any wire connecting the points from and at which the messages or other communications are sent and received: Provided that nothing in this Act shall prevent any person from making or using electrical apparatus for actuating machinery or for any other purpose other than the transmission of messages."

From that, the argument was drawn that, admitting the fact that valve sets are properly subjects for licences, inasmuch as a valve set is, technically speaking, capable of radiating, a crystal set, being unable to radiate was not subject to licence. That raised two questions, one of law and the other of policy. When I came to deal with the matter, I found that a gentleman who had a crystal set and who had also rather a litigious type of mind had challenged my predecessor to prosecute him for maintaining a crystal set without having a licence. I had to decide what course to follow, whether a prosecution should be instituted or whether I should ask Parliament to legislate. I decided, and I will tell the House why. to ask Parliament to legislate. I so decided because, although my legal advice has always been quite clear that the position of the State was perfectly sound in the matter, it was perfectly obvious, and it was so stated, that those who held a contrary view were prepared to carry the case through all the Courts, if necessary, and up to the House of Lords. if they did that and succeeded in their case the whole system would be thrown into chaos, and, obviously, the House of Commons would have to ask the Government to legislate. If, on the other hand, the Government were successful, still I should be responsible for the expenditure, on a legal investigation, of a considerable sum of money which might have been saved by Parliamentary action Therefore, I decided to ask the House to clear the matter up.

I said that I would say something about the legal argument. Perhaps I had better not, but I will indicate briefly the sort of vista which is opened up. The argument that crystal sets should be exempted is founded on the words in the original Act, "purposes other than the transmission of messages." To the casual reader at first sight these words appear to give a certain amount of substance to the contention, but when the matter is considered it is seen that there is very little substance in the contention. While it is true that the word "transmission" has now come, with the increasing development of words generally, to have a technical signification, it had no such signification in 1904 when the Act was framed, and in construing the Act the Courts would have regard to the plain English meaning.

So read, the Act does not mean transmission at all. It is the emission of messages. Transmission of messages, so runs the legal argument, consists of at least three distinct parts. Emission, conveyance and reception, and until the third of these is accomplished the transmission is incomplete. Whether that sort of dialectic is good or bad, I think that the House will see, from what I have said, that it opens up a wide vista for investigation. The question of policy is quite clear. Any future system of broadcasting in this country is not in question, because that is going to be the subject of an inquiry in the autumn. Nor is the present system in question, because it is regulated by contract which runs until December, 1926. The sole question is whether, under the system which is stabilised until December, 1926, you are to have in the intervening period two different sets of people, one paying and the other not paying. I think that the House will agree that that would be a situation which it would be impossible to justify.

Under what Statute does the Post Office levy the fee at present charged for the reception of wireless programmes?

Under the powers contained in the original Act of 1904.

It is not D.O.R.A.?

No, that is under the Act of 1904. That is where the possibility of trouble has arisen because of the words "other than the transmission of messages." The House will agree that we could not, during the present period, continue to carry on a system of broadcasting under which one set of people should be asked to pay for a programme which another set of people would receive free. Our sole desire in introducing this particular provision is to remove any "probable possible shadow of doubt," so that all persons shall be equally liable to pay. The reason for the words appearing at the bottom of the proviso is simply that it is necessary to say that the words shall always be deemed to have included this particular point in order to prevent some litigious person claiming against the Government a, return of licence fees paid in the past. This proviso merely enacts that bygones shall be bygones, and nobody shall be prosecuted in respect of any act or omission prior to the date of the introduction of this Bill. With that brief explanation I hope that the House will be prepared to give a Second Heading to the Bill.

I think that the House will be willing to give a Second Reading to this Bill without any undue discussion. I was extremely glad to hear the Postmaster-General say that the promise of the Prime Minister with regard to an inquiry is to be carried out, and that the inquiry is to be a very comprehensive one. I gather that this Bill is only intended to provide a legal explanation for certain terms. I think that the whole House will be very glad to think that such a legal interpretation is provided, so as to obviate the necessity of spending public money in litigation, either in local courts, or, possibly, in the higher Courts. So far as I am aware, no opposition will be forthcoming from these benches.

I do not think that the Bill is quite the harmless little Measure which the Postmaster-General represents. It raises a number of questions which are certainly of interest to those who have participated in this new popular science. I would ask under what Section of the Act of 1904 has the right hon. Gentleman levied the fees on those who have reception sets? I have looked through the Act—of course, it was passed in the time when the reception of wireless telephony was unknown—and I do not understand under what Section the charge is made. Is it Sub-section (2) of Section 1, or where do we find any power to levy a licence fee on the owner of a reception set? I was under the impression that the licence fees were taken under the provisions of the Defence of the Realm Act, certain Sections of which were renewed year by year under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. I do not know whether there are any sanctions subject to annual review in that way, but I think that I am right in saying that control was exercised at one time by the Postmaster-General under the powers conferred by the Defence of the Realm Act.

My hon. and gallant Friend is partly right, but in his reference to the Defence of the Realm Act he is wrong. The licences are collected under Section 1 of the Wireless Act but the Wireless Act is still an annual Act which is renewed every year under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.

I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. That leaves still the question as to what precise powers are conferred by this Act to collect fees in respect of a crystal reception set. I am not at all clear that such power exists. The right hon. Gentleman gets over it in this way. He says "Under this Act transmission means reception," and he says that "rent or royalty" means that he may charge fees on licences. That is his way of explaining the meaning of the early Act. It is desirable that the Postmaster-General should have control of the transmission of wireless messages and of instruments that are capable of transmitting wireless messages, but I have never understood why the Postmaster-General as Postmaster-General, or the Government, should have any control over crystal reception sets which are incapable of transmitting messages. Wireless telegraphy may take the place of books or newspapers or any other form of transmission of information. I am not speaking about the propriety of a man who receives a programme paying for it, but what other reason is there why the Government should say that each one of these little sets, which can do nothing but listen to what is going on in the ether, should be controlled and inspected and licensed by the Government? It is a commercial proposition. The people who broadcast an entertainment should be paid for doing so by those who enjoy it. But that is a different matter. This Bill is only a second thought of the Postmaster-General. He was to have produced a most formidable and devastating weapon. He had it prepared and printed, and all his blandishments to-day will not make us forget what a terrible fellow he is if he has his head. That is all gone for the time being. If we are a little suspicious and put these questions, the Postmaster-General will forgive us, because he knows that we remember what he intended to do and could not do. What we feel is that this Bill is merely a way of extending the power of the Postmaster-General in directions that are not necessary. In time of war he must have the power instantly to put under control transmission stations, but why should he have the power now to inspect and control a reception set when it is incapable of transmission?

A portion of the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend appears to have been prepared for another Bill which is not now before the House. The power is purported to be exercised under Section 1, Sub-sections (1) and (2) of the Act of 1904. Any place which receives messages sent out is a wireless telegraph station. As regards the apprehension the hon. and gallant Member has expressed as to a possible extension of this Bill, I can assure him that it is entirely groundless. Even if he were not satisfied as to my bona fides in the matter, I beg him to remember that, while this Bill is designed solely to deal with the interim period before we settle what is to be the whole future of broadcasting, if I do commit any sins, not only are the ordinary opportunities of challenging the unhappy Postmaster-General open to my hon. and gallant Friend—he is not slow to avail himself of such opportunities—but, in addition, if he will look at the end of this Bill he will set: that it is to be construed as one with the Act of 1904, and the Act of 1904 is included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. Therefore, if I do anything wrong, as soon as the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill is brought forward my hon. and gallant Friend will have an opportunity of bringing me to book.

Some of us are interested in the business which still remains on the Order Paper. If it were possible for arrangements to be made for a short discussion of some other items on the Paper, we would be prepared to forego, until the discussion of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, any further points on this Bill. Otherwise, to force this Bill through in one stage seems to be asking too much. However, it is just as the Government likes.

I am always ready to meet the hon. and gallant Gentleman whenever I can, but he is now going a little too far. Hon. Gentlemen who are interested in this Bill are present. I would not dream of trying to force it through unless with the consent of the House, and I am prepared to move the adjournment of the Debate.

Are you going to move the Adjournment of the House?

Yes, after the next Order. I now beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

I have not the least desire to put difficulties in the way of the Bill. As we have time this afternoon, and as Members have taken the trouble to bring Bills forward, I do not think it is treating us quite fairly to ask us to give an immediate passage to this Bill for the purpose of moving the Adjournment of the House. I say that out of no hostility to this Bill. It is a question of the arrangement of business. There are one or two Bills of importance on the Paper, and as time is available to discuss them it docs not seem fair to give this Bill a quick passage in order that the House may adjourn. If the Government can permit a short Debate on some of the Private Members' Bills on the Order Paper, the House would be grateful. That would advantage the Government's own business and please everyone. I suggest that the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate be withdrawn, and that the Third Reading of the Bill be taken.

I do not wish to say more than is necessary in explanation of this Financial Resolution, and I think very few words will suffice to make its main purpose plain. Hon. Members have the Resolution itself, and it is only necessary to add that Section 19 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, to which reference is made, gave power to the Board of Agriculture to make Orders authorising the slaughter by local autho- rities of animals suffering from any disease other than cattle plague, and for that purpose, provided for the payment of compensation out of the local rates. The first Order, which dealt with tuberculosis, was made in the year 1909, when it was laid down that the compensation should be wholly provided out of the local rates. As might have been expected, while the general idea was approved, there was a considerable measure of opposition to the payment of full compensation out of the rates. That Order, therefore, was withdrawn. In 1913 another Order was made, and on that occasion provision was made for the paying of compensation, as to one-half, out of the Exchequer after the deduction of whatever receipts local authorities obtained by the sale of carcases. As a result, however, of the burden which still rested on the local rates, the Order was not put into operation in many parts of the country, and therefore did not achieve its purpose. The consequence of that was that in July, 1914, immediately before the. War, the Order was again amended, and the Treasury increased the Exchequer contribution to three-quarters of the gross compensation paid by the local authorities. The War stopped the operation of the Order, because the staff necessary to give effect to it was dissipated by the War. The next step was the Milk and Dairies Act, 1915, Section 5 of which prohibits the sale of tuberculous milk, and therefore indirectly compels the slaughter of tuberculous cattle. That Act has also been suspended, but it comes into force automatically on 1st September next, and evidently it is impossible for that Act to operate satisfactorily unless it is accompannied by a compensation Order of the kind with which this Financial Resolution deals.

It is for that purpose, therefore, that this Resolution is taken necessarily antecedent to the Order. The result of the Order, if made, and of the operation of the Milk and Dairies Act, 1915. is that the local authorities who will administer the Order, will pay compensation up to three-quarters of the value of these animals if they are not in advanced stages of tuberculosis, and up to one-quarter of their value if they are in advanced stages, and the Exchequer will repay the local authorities up to 75 per cent. of the gross compensation which they pay in connection with the action taken under this Order. It is estimated the total gross compensation will be about £67,500 a year, of which the Exchequer will pay £50,000. The local authorities, as was the case under the earlier Order, will bear the cost of administration, but that will be off-set by the proceeds of the salvage which they will make under the Order. In the draft Order we are taking power to exclude cattle from Ireland which are suffering from tuberculosis.

It is not necessary to emphasise the importance of making a start in this direction to combat tuberculosis. I do not give the Committee the figures, because they are easily accessible, of the toll which is taken year by year of all classes of our people by the Great White Scourge—by the scourge of tuberculosis. A good deal of the responsibility rests on the consumption of tuberculous milk, and the aim of the Resolution is to enable us to make a start in getting rid of the tuberculous milk at the source, by getting rid of the tuberculous cow. It is fair to point out that we have made great progress in the last few years in this direction. Something approaching 200 herds of dairy cattle in England are completely free of tuberculosis and a great many owners and farmers are making very laudable efforts in the direction of ridding their herds of tuberculosis, impressed as they are by the fact that tuberculosis in cattle has such a bearing upon the health of the people. There is a great deal more to be done, and I am satisfied and the Government are satisfied, as our predecessors were satisfied—for this is ground common to all parties—that if we are to tackle this problem, having regard to its national importance, we must tackle it upon national lines. In a matter which affects so vitally the health and physique and the lives of the future citizens of the country, it is time we made a forward movement in this direction, and I have no doubt it is for these reasons that a strong demand has been advanced from various authorities, rural not less than urban, that this action should be taken.

Many large municipalities spend large sums in combating tuberculosis in their areas, and in tracing tuberculosis among the dairy cows which supply those areas with milk. At the present moment, when a tuberculous cow has been traced, I am afraid the owner often sells the diseased animal, with the result that tuberculous meat may pass into human consumption, or else the animal is passed on to other dairy farmers, and all trace of it is lost. Therefore the expenditure of municipal authorities in that respect is largely wasted. On all that side of the question, compulsory slaughter, made possible by the accompanying compensation, will make that expenditure, of course, profitable. The present policy, as I have said, is no new policy. It is a revival of the pre-War policy, that had received full and careful consideration and, I think, universal support. A copy of the proposed Order has been placed in the library in draft for those hon. Members who are interested, and it has been considered and approved, on behalf of the agricultural interests, by the National Farmers Union and by the Advisory Committee of the Ministry. I have little doubt, therefore, that it will as a whole commend itself to the Committee, and that, although we may no doubt have to advance gradually towards the ideal that is in front of us of the total eradication of tuberculosis, the Committee is prepared to welcome this sum as a start towards the attainment of an object, of which, from the national health point of view, it is impossible to exaggerate the importance.

I am sure that all sections of the Committee will welcome any proposals which are made by the Government to try to reduce the ill effects which result to the community from tuberculosis in animals afterwards to be slaughtered for consumption. Anyone who has examined, even in the most cursory fashion, the records of the "white scourge," as the right hon. Gentleman called it, in this country must have been forced to trace a very considerable proportion of the origin of that scourge to bovine tuberculosis, and, whatever I may have to say to-day, the right hon. Gentleman may be assured that in any efforts to deal with tuberculosis in our herds he will nave not only my support but the support of hon. Members on this side of the House. In fact, if we criticise this Resolution at all, it is because some of us feel that the steps taken by the Government do not, on the face of them— there may be explanations—appear yet to be quite sufficient.

Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us on what basis the estimated expenditure, national and local combined, has been arrived at? I see it is estimated that that total will be about £67,500. How many animals is that supposed to represent in the Estimate for one financial year? I ask, because those of us who have examined the records of our herds believe that, in spite of the good work which, as the right hon. Gentleman said, is being carried out by some of our agriculturists, the percentage of tuberculosis in our herds is very large indeed, and constitutes a very severe menace to the people, both by way of the meat afterwards used and of the milk distributed for consumption. It seems to me, on a very brief examination, that if the total compensation is to be £67,500, you are not going to make a very large annual inroad upon the present very grave condition of tuberculosis in the herds of the country. Then, if the number of animals to be slaughtered under this Order is to be very considerable, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what steps are being taken, on the other hand, to replenish the herds of the country.

Some of us believe—and we have examined the question for some years now at great length—that there is need for the introduction into this country of new and healthy stock from countries in which they are able to show a record of practical freedom from tuberculosis. We have had long and sometimes acrimonious discussions in this House in regard to the importation of cattle from Canada. We got a Bill through in 1923—I think it was the right hon. Gentleman's own Government which was responsible for it—but the number of head of stock coming in from Canada for the replenishment of herds is really very small indeed. It is practically confined to store cattle and fat cattle, and there is, probably within the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman, a very strong move now, and a very real desire, that the terms of the 1923 Importation of Animals Act should be amended so as to include good healthy cows and heifers from Canada. Would he say whether, as a corollary to the reduction of our herds by slaughter for tuberculosis upon payment of compensation, there will be a consideration of the question of opening a wider door for the importation of healthy cows and heifers from Canada? The right hon. Gentleman knows, probably better than I do, that the class of beast most subject to tuberculosis is the cow, and we do want to be able to see our way to a replenishment of the herds of this country from that point of view.

Another point is raised which, I think, is of very considerable importance, and a point which is of very grave concern to the hon. Members with whom I am associated on these benches, and that is that the local authorities' expenditure under this head is to be governed, or the compensation they have to pay to the owners of condemned animals is to be governed, by what they obtain from the sale of the condemned carcases. Some of us are very concerned about the way in which use is made, for human consumption, of the remains of the carcases of animals which have been condemned for tuberculosis. I know there may be academic views upon that point, but I should be very loath myself, as an individual, to feed upon the remains of the carcase of an animal which had been condemned for slaughter because it was tubercular, yet the amount of compensation to be paid to the owners by local authorities is to be governed by what they obtain from the sale of the carcases. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that none of the meat in the carcase of a beast condemned for tuberculosis is used by the consumer. I think that is a very grave state of affairs, and I should be glad to know whether he is going to be able to see his way to get the Government to work to prevent, as far as possible, any part of the carcases condemned for tuberculosis being used afterwards for human consumption.

Then there is another point, an administrative point, which I want to make. The right hon. Gentleman very rightly said that this Financial Resolution and the Bill which will subsequently be introduced for discussion are a corollary to the development of legislation with regard to milk and dairies. We, on this side, welcome most cordially the decision to put into operation next September the Milk and Dairies (Scotland) Act, 1914, and the Milk and Dairies Act for England and Wales of 1915. I think it is perfectly obvious that, having regard to the terms of the Orders under the 1922 Act and the need for making Orders under the Milk and Dairies Act for other parts not yet operative, there will be proposals made for dealing with tuberculous matter in milk, and probably that will lead to the inspection of dairies, farms, herds and people connected with milking operations. What I would like to know is whether the Government have examined how far there are likely to be overlapping and undue establishment charges between the two Ministries in this regard. I think that, unless they are very careful, they will find that there will be, in a measure, almost too much interference, although it is with a good purpose, with the people engaged in the industry, unless we are going to get the two objects secured as far as possible by the performance of the functions by one Department. If you are going to have a completely duplicated set of inspectors dealing with tuberculosis from the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, it seems to me that, not only will irritation arise, but undue expense will be incurred.

Next I want to raise a general question as to the percentage of Government grants in this case. It may be rather wide of this Financial Resolution, but in the Resolution is raised this point. Because of the representations which have been made in the past with regard to the share of the cost by the local authorities, it has become imperative that the percentage payable by the Government should be as high as 75 per cent. I think it is all to the good, and I welcome it. It is for a very important national purpose;. But I think we must warn the Government there are other national purposes for which State money is granted on a much smaller percentage, and those of us who are interested in getting for really good national purposes a larger share of responsibility undertaken by the State, and not forced upon local authorities, will have to use instances of this kind as a precedent, and as a lever for seeing that we get proper consideration of our case with regard to other important national services.

There is one other point on which I would like the right hon. Gentleman to answer a question. It is with regard to the butchers' case concerning tuberculous cattle. I understand that the butchers in the country are very much concerned because, as in the case of a previous Order which was made but was not operative, this Order does not include any arrangement for compensation to the butchers for animals which may be condemned after slaughter, but before being used for human consumption. They are afraid there may be heavy loss. So far as I am concerned, I am against the butchers' point of view. I am very anxious to avoid the expenditure of public money on anything which could possibly lead to a collusion between unscrupulous persons either in the farming industry or in the distributive industry for getting a higher percentage of compensation, and I welcome the proposal to make the amount of compensation payable under the Order smaller as the amount of disease is increased in the animal under examination, because that ought to be an incentive to the farmer to try to prevent and limit as far as possible tuberculosis. I therefore welcome it.

But I would ask, have the butchers through their association actually met the right hon. Gentleman in this matter, and has he given a final decision with regard to paying compensation? So far as I am concerned, I may tell him that at the Co-operative Annual Congress, at Whitsuntide, a very large number of delegates had this matter under discussion, and some of the butchers and farmers moved to get compensation, but some of us were able to persuade that very large and representative delegate conference that such a course would not be advisable in the best interests of the country. The right hon. Gentleman would probably welcome that decision of the Co-operative Congress, but I want to know, for the sake of clearness of understanding, whether the butchers have made direct representations to the Minister, and, if so, what has been his answer? I might also ask him whether, having regard to his reference to the fact that there is power to give compensation with regard to animals condemned for any disease other than cattle plague, his Department has under consideration the extension of Orders of this kind, or the revision of Orders of this kind, for other classes of cattle disease? The right hon. Gentleman said that they had power to give compensation under the Diseases of Animals' Act for any disease other than cattle plague. Some of us are not quite satisfied with the provisions for compensation in other cases, such as foot-and-mouth disease, and I would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has under consideration in his Department any revised proposals for dealing with compensation for any disease other than cattle plague?

I find little from which to dissent in the two speeches which we have heard on this very important subject, but the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down made some reference, which was extremely obscure, and which I did not at all understand, to the amount of assistance which was being given under this Financial Resolution to the local authorities. If the hon. Gentleman objects to the amount of assistance, then we will be able to meet him in debate, but if he only makes obscure references to the use he is going to make of this amount of assistance on future occasions, then I say, let each case be considered on its merits. It makes it a little hard for the agricultural community, whom the hon. Gentleman considers is entitled to assistance in this case, if he turns round on the Government and says, "You are doing right in giving assistance to the agricultural community, but I am going to use it against you on some future occasion."

If the hon. and gallant Member will allow me, I think I recollect many occasions when occupants of his benches, including himself, have not hesitated to use a debate on a question before the House to refer to the effect of the particular matter on other issues.

If in a particular case we have a proposal before us for a certain measure of assistance being given to the agricultural industry, those in favour of that assistance should not threaten the Government with using it against them on some future occasion. The only objection which I raise at all to this Financial Resolution is that it does not seem to go far enough, as I think the hon. Gentleman himself said. It is purely defensive. We are to sit down under the scourge, and then when the scourge afflicts the herd, the local authority will be given so much assistance in taking the necessary measures. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, will consider that the time has now come for making a further step forward, and I would venture to recommend to him that he should have some regard to the Report of the Scottish Agricultural Conference, which has just been published. It has what seems to me to be a very valuable section dealing with bovine tuberculosis, and in the appendix it goes into considerable detail of a scheme for the eradication of this plague. Broadly speaking, it is based upon a grant from the Government of 50 per cent. of the expenditure of local authorities in providing free tubercular tests and clinical examinations, and also in giving assistance in the provision of temporary dwellings necessary for carrying out the scheme. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider, before he brings in the Bill which will be based upon this Resolution we are discussing, if he could not include a scheme on these lines, introducing a, further Financial Resolution if necessary, so that we could take the whole thins at one gulp, and proceed with a scheme on what seems to me the excellent lines the Scottish Agricultural Conference has suggested for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis.

I am glad, if I may say so, that hon. Gentlemen opposite have put forward one or two points. I shall certainly consider the suggestion made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Sutherland and Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair), but I am not sanguine in thinking that his suggestion, valuable as it is, would be susceptible of incorporation in the general process of administration. I think my hon. Friend himself recognises that this is trenching on rather wider ground than the Financial Resolution covers. However, I think I may say that the important views advanced by the Scottish Conference will, I am sure, be carefully considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland, who will see that the whole question receives the most ample consideration from the wider standpoint. There is one other observation of the hon. Baronet to which I should like to make reference; that is, that under these proposals we are attempting to do what he described as sitting down under the scourge of tuberculosis. I should be very gravely mis- understood indeed by hon. Members if I led them to interpret this Measure as nothing more than a Measure of defence. Under this we shall be able to look forward to making a definite advance; to do much more than neutralising the effects of tuberculosis in the country.

2.0 P.M.

May I attempt, so far as I can, to give a short reply to the various points raised by the hon. Member for Hills-borough (Mr. A. V. Alexander). First of all, let me deal with the number of animals slaughtered. It is, of course, difficult to form a precise estimate, as the hon. Member will realise. Therefore, I do not give my estimate as in any way possessing authenticated authority, but it is estimated that something like 1,000 cattle per month will fall under the terms of the Order. That is 12,000 cattle a year. It is on that basis—admittedly a speculative basis—that the Financial Resolution is framed. The hon. Gentleman asked what my view was, and the view of the Ministry of Agriculture, with regard to the estimated effect of this Order on the cow population of the country and the replenishment of our herds. He asked whether or not, the Government would be prepared to admit the importation of certified healthy breeding animals into the country to replace those that were destroyed. On that matter I think that he perhaps is unnecessarily anxious. I do not know whether he has had the opportunity of refreshing his mind on the figures, but during the last four years there has been a steady increase of something like 100,000 per year in the number of heifers and cows in the country. That is a very satisfactory increase which has, no doubt, done much to replace the effects of the War.

With regard to the other point mentioned, may I remind the hon. Member that the House, at my suggestion, earlier in the Session, passed an Act allowing a regulated importation of pedigree animals from the Dominions which, I think, will effect perhaps what he desires. This arrangement was the result of very long deliberation and a reasonable compromise between the breeding interests in this country and the interests of the exporters overseas. On behalf of the Government, it will not be possible for me to hold out any further hope of action on these lines, having regard to the facts I have mentioned.

Is the Department keeping watch over this aspect of the case: that there is evidence that very often we have got a large amount of tuberculosis from cattle imported from Ireland as one of our Dominions, whereas the embargo against importation has worked against those countries where they had a clean record. Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything on that point?

I have not all the facts before me, and therefore I can only answer that question with some slight hesitation. I think, however, I am right in saying that the draft order prohibits the landing in Great Britain of any animals from Ireland which are found to be suffering from any of the forms of tuberculosis specified in the Order. On the general principle of keeping a watch over meat for human consumption the hon. Gentleman and I are in complete agreement. I think I may safely say that no meat liable to be prejudicial to the health of the consumer is allowed at the present time to be sold—at least, not knowingly. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it has to pass the gauntlet of medical and veterinary examination by inspectors of the local authorities. I would remind him further that consumption by human beings is not the only way by which salvage can be obtained. You have portions of the carcases that can be used for other purposes, hides, offal, and so on, all of which have their monetary value. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having called attention to a matter which also I have had in mind, namely the overlapping of the various inspection functions of the two Ministries. That matter is at the present time the subject of consideration by the two offices. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have no greater love than he for duplicated inspection. I do not wish to take part in the controversy between the hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness and Sutherland, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough as to the potential use of the 75 per cent. principle on one side or the other, but I think the hon. Baronet agrees that if at any moment the hon. Member for Hillsborough seeks to use adversely the action we are taking here in the agricultural interest, we shall at least be able to command the support of the hon. Baronet. Therefore, I am not very apprehensive on that score.

With regard to butchers, I am informed on inquiries that I have made since the hon. Gentleman spoke that they have made no request for a conference or a deputation. I do not charge my memory with the fact whether they have forwarded to me a resolution or not, but they have made no request for a conference, and I am glad to know that the hon. Gentleman, like myself, and, I have no doubt, for the same reason, would be opposed, not to the butchers' general point of view, but to the point of view of some butchers. At all events, it is certain that this Order for the slaughter of tuberculous animals will pro tanto tend to reduce the ultimate difficulty in which some of the butchers may from time to time be placed by getting rid, obviously, of animals which might otherwise cause them trouble. With regard to the last question raised by the hon. Gentleman, I do not know whether that would be in order on this Resolution, and, indeed, I do not think that I could give him the full information which he wants without fuller knowledge of what he has in his mind. If he has any points in his mind which he would wish privately to put to me, I shall be very glad to go into the matter with him.

With regard to the position of the butchers, I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would consider whether he can do anything to assist the development of an alternative policy to the payment of compensation to butchers and whether he can do anything to promote two things: first, regular insurance against the risk to a butcher if no compensation is paid by the State, and, secondly, the question of a warranty.

There are one or two questions which I should like to address to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade with regard to the various inquiries which are proceeding and that have been proceeding under the Safeguarding of Industries proposals of the Government, and I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for coming down at my request. I should be glad, indeed, if we could have a few words from him to say, for instance, how the inquiries with regard to super-phosphates, gas mantles and gloves are proceeding, and, more particularly, with regard to the inquiry into the position of the steel industry. The White Paper, which was the governing table of the law with regard to these matters, seems to me to have been entirely passed over. The wording of the White Paper, which I have in my hand, is that if a prima facie case is made out for any particular industry then the Board of Trade will refer the claim for inquiry to a Committee. It is not "may refer" but "will refer," and the position as it appears to me is this. The conditions of the White Paper, which we were given to understand would be the only procedure which the Government would allow, have either not been carried out or else no prima facie case has been made out in the case of the iron and steel industry. I cannot help remembering the fate of the inquiry into lace, where the Committee appointed to inquire into the matter found that the conditions of the White Paper had not been fulfilled and where, in spite of that fact, the protective measure was proceeded with. In other words, I think the White Paper has become waste paper.

We are now told that the steel inquiry has been referred to the Civil Research Committee. We have never had any particulars regarding that Committee, or as to why this kind of matter should be referred to them. All we know is that, first of all, we were promised an Act of Parliament to deal with the matter. Then we were given a White Paper where the conditions are perfectly specific, and those conditions in the White Paper have been violated in three or four instances. We are now in a state of complete uncertainty, not only as to the result, but as to the actual procedure which the Government in future propose to adopt in dealing with these claims for protection. Our object in raising this matter is because we, particularly my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) and myself, have during the whole course of this Session been watching what we regard as an attempt to introduce tariffs and protection, and we have found that gradually the pledge given to us by the Government has been whittled away, and we are now in a state of complete uncertainty as to how we stand in these matters. I should be very grateful if the hon. Gentleman could give a short answer as to how these inquiries stand, and, particularly, as to what is to be the procedure in regard to the inquiry now going on by the Civil Research Committee into the case of iron and steel.

Of course, it is usual, when hon. Members are going to bring up such an important matter as this dealing with an industry like the steel industry, that some kind of notice should be given.

Of course, it was not within our knowledge: that there would be this opportunity for raising this point, but the moment we saw that there would be a little time I gave what notice I could to the hon. Gentleman.

I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member. He certainly told me, when I came into the House about five minutes ago, that he was going to raise this question, and I tell him, perfectly frankly, that I am not going to say much about it now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I think hon. Members will appreciate my position and not expect me to launch out into a long speech on this subject at such short notice. I should have thought that all that could be said had been said about the iron and steel trade in the last few days. Again and again, both my right hon. Friend and I have explained that this matter of the iron and steel trade is being considered by the Civil Research Committee. The inquiry is suspended while the Civil Research Committee are going into it. I cannot say more.

The hon. Gentle-says, "While the Civil Research Committee are going into it." Into what? Are they going into the application of the iron and steel industry? What have they to decide? Have the Civil Research Committee to decide whether there was a prima facie ease for an inquiry under the White Paper procedure, or what?

That, of course, I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman. I am not in the Cabinet. This is a Cabinet Committee, appointed by the Prime Minister, presided over by the Prime Minister. I do not even know what Members are on that Committee, and I do not know what particular aspect of this great question they are considering. He asked me if the application is being considered as if it were before the Committee which would be set up under the White Paper. The inquiry which, in the ordinary course, would be made by a Committee set up under the White Paper is suspended while the matter is under consideration by the Civil Research Committee, and beyond that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any information. As to the other subjects which the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for West Walthamstow (Major Crawfurd) mentioned, gas mantles, super-phosphates and gloves, they are before Committees.

Could the hon. Gentleman tell me, as far as his knowledge goes, which does not seem to be very far, if the Civil Research Committee are following the same lines as the Government laid down in the White Paper as the lines to be followed by a Committee appointed by the Board of Trade. This was the method which we were told quite definitely by the Government was to be the method to be followed in any application for protection made during the existence of this Parliament, and if it is not the case then, as I said, I think all our safeguards are gone.

I can only ask hon. and gallant Gentlemen to wait until it is possible for them to know what has been done by the Civil Research Committee. It is perfectly idle to try to cross-question me as to what the Civil Research Committee are doing when I tell hon. Gentlemen, very frankly, that I do not know what they are doing.

The hon. Gentleman says he is unable to answer this question to-day because of the insufficient notice given him by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Walthamstow (Major Crawford), but there are two or three other questions of which he has had rather considerable notice, and which are very important. They were put to him in debate on Monday, and he did not reply to them. We had no reply to the question whether the Balfour Committee on trade and industry, examining the whole problem, and able, perhaps, to produce a report of vital interest on unemployment, were going to produce an interim report. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us, also, what steps are being taken as a result of the report of the committee on the working of the bankruptcy laws? Will he also tell us what is the position of the inquiry with regard to the administration of the Companies Acts?

As to the bankruptcy laws, there is a Bill in draft now. That is as much as I could say, because I do not think that committee have made a report yet. As to the Balfour Committee, I understand that an interim report will be shortly available, but only on a portion of the enormous problem before the committee. I do not think I can satisfy hon. Members, because as I say, I have come into the House at two minutes' notice, and I must ask hon. Gentlemen to forgive me if I refuse to be drawn into making a statement without the necessary notice.

We are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for his presence here at all, and we do realise that it was short notice, but, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for West Walthamstow (Major Crawfurd) explained, that was not our fault. The course of business was so framed by the Chief Whip that this opportunity occurred. But really there is no surprise in this question. I grant that the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary is not able to tell us what is happening in the new Civil Research Committee, for he is not a member of the committee, but what he can tell us is what is happening in his own Department. This steel inquiry is an inquiry of the very gravest possible importance. The procedure the Government intended to follow was clearly stated by the Prime Minister, and it was laid before Parliament in the White Paper. Three conditions have to be fulfilled by an industry desiring an inquiry. These three conditions are not in question—substantial importance, severe competition, bad labour conditions abroad. The industry makes application for an inquiry to the Board of Trade, and not to the Civil Research Committee. For all I know, it may be the special sphere of the hon. Member to investigate such an application.

May I interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman and perhaps save his time and breath? How can I make it more clear? He says to me that I ought to know what is going on in my own Department, what is happening in this matter. I cannot make it more clear than such English as I possess has already made it. That inquiry has been supended while it is being examined by the Civil Research Committee.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I was going to proceed to point out that this is a breach of the undertaking given in this White Paper. There are three conditions. He is good enough to admit that the conditions are fulfilled. The industry comes forward and, relying upon this White Paper, which is the declared policy of the Government, the industry says, "Grant us an inquiry." The White Paper says that if the Board of Trade are satisfied that a prima facie case is established, and that the three conditions are fulfilled— and they are not in question, the hon. Gentleman admits it—

How do I know?

The hon. Gentleman will not say that the steel industry is not an industry of substantial importance, will he? Will the hon. Gentleman say that the steel industry is not suffering from severe foreign competition? Will the hon. Gentleman say that the terms of paragraph 3, relating to labour conditions abroad, are not satisfied? That being so, we come to the final sentence, which says that if the conditions are satisfied the Board of Trade will grant an inquiry. That is the Government's policy. Then the Board of Trade say, "We will not grant an inquiry; we will remit it to be investigated by an august body, newly formed, called the Civil Research Committee." What we ask the hon. Gentleman is, "Why have they departed from the terms of the White Paper?" That is perfectly simple. Does it indicate that this policy of the White Paper has been scrapped? My hon. and gallant Friend pointed out that in one case, that of lace, it was scrapped, and it is very important indeed for us to know whether the Government relies upon this declaration of policy or not. That really is vital, because it may mean that the Government are taking one road instead of the other, and it really would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman could see his way to explain, when the steel industry came to the Board of Trade and established the conditions, what it was that was in his mind, as head of the Department of the Board of Trade, which led him to say, "I will not grant you an inquiry under the White Paper, I must refer it to the Cabinet, and have the matter referred to some other Committee." What was it made him do that? That is a simple question, and if the hon. Gentleman could enlighten us on that point we should he grateful.

As I have already stated, I am not in a position to answer that question, but I can promise the hon. and gallant Member that I will give him an answer as soon as I get the information.

I understand that the hon. Gentleman is under a seal of silence as far as the steel inquiry is concerned. I also gather that while he is unable to deal with steel, he can tell us everything about gas mantles. I am very much interested in the gas mantle industry, and some of my constituents are very much worried about the position of things just now. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will believe me when I say that I am not a malignant doctrinaire Free Trader, and I can look at this matter in a strictly scientific spirit, I am very interested in the safeguarding of industries experiment, and I want to see how it will work. The Government think it is a great panacea to cure all the ills of this nation, whereas there are others who think it is a desperate poison that will destroy Britain's trade.

Personally, I think the truth lies somewhere between those two extremes Nevertheless I am very interested to see the experiment put into operation. I think also that we are all agreed that when these inquiries are set going they should be put through with something like business dispatch. This inquiry about gas mantles has occupied much too long a time, and if every industry which asks to be safeguarded and asks for a separate inquiry is going to take so long as the gas mantle industry has taken, then the trade of this country is going to be very seriously hampered. With regard to the gas mantle industry I understand that the big orders for gas mantles are generally placed long before they are really required for sale, and this is the time when the industry makes its arrangements for the winter season. Now at the most important period of the year manufacturers and dealers in the gas mantle industry do not really know whether they are going to be dealt with until the Committee report.

I want the hon. Gentleman to tell us what are the reasons for this delay, and if this is the great machinery that the Government is devising to aid the trade and industry of this country, and if it is going to work so slowly in regard to a very minor industry, like the gas mantle trade, what a terrible mess we shall be in when there are 200 or 300 industries all in a similar condition demanding a protective tariff or the adjustment of some protective tariff. Under these circumstances you can imagine the state of chaos which will arise when nobody in any industry knows where they are for more than a week ahead. The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that he knows all about the position of the gas mantle industry, and now when we have time; at our disposal, and we are in a very amiable and non-contentious frame of mind, I hope we shall hear all that the hon. Gentleman knows about the present position of incandescent gas mantles.

I should like to discuss a little more this question of the iron and steel industry. I understand the main reason why the Board of Trade has referred this question to the Committee of Civil Research is because iron and steel necessarily being a raw material for other manufactured goods, there is some doubt as to whether more harm would be done and things made worse than they are by putting a tariff on iron and steel. If it is true that this country is at one of the turning points of its great career, we should consider very seriously what actions this House should take to cure the unemployment problem, and it is essential that all three parties in this House should work together and consider seriously what is the best thing to be done in connection with our great basic industries.

During the last year the imports of iron and steel have increased by 200,000 tons in the first quarter of this year. It is said that the production of iron and steel in this country is approaching the total of 1913 and in America the steel industry is working to 90 per cent. of its capacity. When we come to subsidise the great industries of this country then we have to come to basic facts. If we take public money for certain industries that must necessarily be a greater burden upon other trades, but supposing this policy could be adopted without injuring our general trade, then there would be a very good argument for giving to the iron and steel trade a subsidy of £l per ton on steel and £l per ton of shipping built. If we could by a subsidy cheapen the production of steel in this country, we should decrease the cost and increase the output. Under these circumstances it seems well to consider whether there is not some way of obtaining money for that purpose without in any way affecting the trade of the country.

When I look around. I find a rather extraordinary situation in this country. We have a million and a quarter unemployed, but we are to-day spending very nearly £400,000,000 a year on drink, which is rather unnecessary, and I am wondering whether this country can, in its present circumstances, continue to afford to spend that enormous sum of money on what is not a necessity. It seems to me, also, somewhat callous and selfish and shortsighted of the country as a whole to allow this for political advantage—because, obviously, it is a good fighting political point to reduce the tax on beer—and I wonder whether we are not, as Members of this House, neglecting our responsibilities and prostituting our position as guardians of the nation's security, as guardians of our public purse, when we allow ourselves to be led away for electoral and petty party advantage, and endeavour each to outbid the other in giving to the public what is neither good for them nor any great advantage to the country. Therefore, I would suggest for consideration among all parties, and also for the consideration of the Civil Research Committee, that they might consider putting back the taxes upon drink to what they were in 1923. [A laugh.] The hon. Member below me laughs, but he is looking at it entirely from the point of view of political advantage.

We have about 1,500 clubs in the Conservative party, all of which consume a great deal of beer, but I venture to think that their consumption of beer, at any rate, is not a great advantage to the country as a whole. It is, however, a great advantage to the country as a whole that our basic industries should be resuscitated; it is a great advantage to the country as a whole that we should not have this canker of a million and a quarter unemployed. Therefore, supposing that my suggestion as to increasing our taxes on drink to what they were in 1923 were carried through by agreement between the three political parties—I venture to suggest that it could not be done without agreement between the political parties—then the revenue would be increased by something like £16,000,000 a year. With that amount them would be ample to assist our three great basic industries of shipbuilding, iron and steel. I exclude the coal trade for one reason, namely, that coal is not a manufactured article, and it is not, in my opinion, in the interest of the country that low-grade mines should be kept in operation when the supplies from high-grade mines will meet the demand, because, if coal in those cases is mined at a cost which is not- economic, obviously the country is paying a certain amount on each ton—there is a certain loss on each ton—and the more coal that is produced from these low-grade mines the more must the country as a whole be the poorer Therefore, I do not believe it would be in the economic interest of the country that these low-grade mines should be helped by any form of subsidy. I do think, however, that the State as a whole might consider bearing part of the cost of the transfer of miners to places where they can mine coal which can be produced at an economic rate.

Therefore, I would draw the attention of the House to these three great basic industries of ours, namely, iron, steel, and shipbuilding. If that £16,000,000 a year were obtained for the purpose of a subsidy to those industries, it would not affect the trade of the country as a whole in any way; it would not affect in any way the other industries of the country; all it would do would be to reduce the amount of expenditure on something which is non-essential, and in that sense it would, I believe, be in the best interests of the country that we should endeavour to combine and make an effort to deal with this question on those lines. Of our unemployed to-day, half a million are persons in these trades, and for that reason I venture to suggest that the House might consider in some fashion the suggestion I have put forward. I put it forward purely as a contribution to the question of unemployment as a whole, and not from any point of view of party or any other point of view. I venture to suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade might consider these remarks, and, if he considers them worthy of putting before his colleague, perhaps he will do so.

This is not the first time that there has emanated from the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) a suggestion of far-reaching value which may be destined to have the greatest effect on the well-being of this country, but it is the first time I have ever heard an hon. Member belonging to his party have the courage to rise in his place and advocate an increase in the taxes on alcoholic drinks, not as a party measure, but as a national measure; and there are many of us in all parts of the House—I think they are not confined to this side— who believe that, until something of that kind is done, we cannot hope to compete with nations like the United States of America. I merely say that in passing, as I rose, not to deal with that subject, but to deal very briefly with the question of food.

It is only by the exigencies of Parliamentary time that we have the opportunity of raising this matter with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade at all. I want, first of all. to ask him whether he can see his way to make some change in the methods of collecting statistics in his Department with regard to food. In the first place, we find that, in almost every statistical return relating to food that is available to us, it is grouped with drink and tobacco. I fail to see anything in common between food, drink and tobacco, and I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he could not see his way to separate them in all statistics for which his Department is responsible.

They are separated.

They are not separated in many important statistics, and I should be very glad if the hon. Member for Heading (Mr. H. Williams) could give me instances, which I have failed to find, in which they are separated. I also want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary why it is that the Ministry of Labour is responsible for preparing statistics relating to retail prices of food, while the Board of Trade is responsible for preparing statistics relating to wholesale prices of food. It seems to me that at the present time, when many charges are being made on the subject of profiteering, we are totally unable to bring these two classes of figures together. I have searched everywhere in order to find some sort of comparison in official returns between the wholesale and retail prices of food. I have made a most careful examination of the Report of the Royal Commission on Food Prices, but it appears to me that in that Report, not only do they not give us that information, but they seem to have studiously avoided bringing these two figures together, although in their terms of reference that was the most important task with which the Commission were charged.

I do not on this occasion propose to enter into the question of food prices at length, but there is one particular form of food to which I would ask the hon. Gentleman to devote some attention. I refer to the article of food known as "fish and chip potatoes." Those who are fond of this article of food, among whom I count myself, have been greatly disturbed at the deplorable rise in the price of fish. In the constituency which I have the honour to represent, this is a staple article of diet, and a very-excellent diet it is. I have been going into the figures, and I find that fish has risen in price in country districts, since the beginning of the War, by 101 per cent., but in town districts—big districts like London—it has risen by 131 per cent. I should have thought that in towns, with the large quantities that are handled, and the facilities for distribution and for the manufacture of ice, and whore every other standing charge in connection with the storage and distribution of fish is much lower than in country districts, there is no reason whatever why the increase should be 131 per cent. as compared with 101 per cent. in the country. That seems to me to be prima facie evidence that the fish merchants and buyers at the docks—I am not making any charge against the small dealers— are taking advantage of the fact that in the towns fish is an essential article of diet among the poor people, who have no weapon of pressure at all in order to keep the price down. I desire to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will go into that figure and make some recommendation to the Food Council, powerless though it may be, to take some effective measure to meet the situation, and give them a chance to tackle the question of the excessive prices of fish in the towns. Potatoes, the other component of this staple article of food, have gone up in the towns since the War by 132 per cent. far higher than the usual increase on articles of food. Bread, which has gone up quite sufficiently, is up by 83½ per cent., but fish and chip potatoes have gone up to a degree almost unequalled in any other article of food. This is not because the farmer is getting too much money for his potatoes. He is getting far too little. He is selling his potatoes at an absolutely uneconomic rate, and there is little wonder that he is unable to make his farm pay. It is not because we are paying too little for our potatoes in the restaurant. The truth is that there is come large body of middlemen who are squeezing the farmer at one end and the consumer at the other.

I will now leave the Chair until 4 o'clock.