asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that at a fete organised by the Hitchin local Conservative and Unionist Association in the grounds of Hitchin Priory, on 16th July, the Henlow Royal Air Force band was in attendance; whether official sanction was given; and, if not, what action he proposes to take?

The Henlow band, which is a voluntary one, accepted an engagement as stated in the question. The engagement was approved by the officer responsible, who stipulated that the band, although attending the fete, should take no part in the political meeting which formed part of the entertainment. The presence of the band in such circumstances, though not directly forbidden by the terms of the existing regulations, is liable to be misunderstood, and my right hon. Friend is having revised regulations issued.

Will the hon. Baronet say whether any payment will be made for the use of the band in the circumstances, and does the payment go to the men?

I do not think the men were paid. They were playing in their spare time on the Saturday afternoon.

Is the hon. Baronet aware that the only abjection to this band is that it has not got the Red Flag?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the cleaning of some of the Metropolitan Police section houses in dockyard divisions is performed by a police officer whose whole time is taken up with this work; whether this is due to any difficulty in obtaining suitable local labour at ordinary cleaners' rates; and whether vacancies for such work will be advertised in the police Press so that pensioners may have an opportunity of applying for the work?

I understand there are only two or three stations at which officers are so employed for lengthy periods. The question of revising the existing arrangements is at present under consideration by the Commissioner.

asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the lives lost by the flooding of the River Irk, in the Borough of Middleton, and the consequent damage to property, he will set up a public inquiry into the cause of these fatalities?

I have no information with regard to this matter, but I will make some inquiries.

Do I understand that there is every likelihood of a public inquiry being held into this matter, to allay the anxiety in this part of the country as to what the situation will be if there is another flood?

The point is that I am not quite certain whether I have power. The powers of the Home Office are many and varied, but I am not sure whether I have power in this matter.

I have applied to about four Departments, and none of them seem to have any powers. One wants to find out who has.

I believe that is the reason why the hon. Member, as a last resort, has come to me.

Because of the anxiety in that part of the country, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will make some inquiry as to whether or not the responsibility does rest with his Department?

Certainly; I promised my hon. Friend I said that I am making inquiries now.

How many lives were lost?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the agitation caused by the Ranjila Rasul case, in connection with the publication by a Hindu of insulting attacks on the Prophet Mahommed, is spreading to the frontier provinces; and whether the Government is taking measures to have the matter dealt with?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative: as regards the second part, I would refer to the answer given on 27th July to a similar question by the hon. and gallant Member for Bath (Captain Foxcroft).

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the strength of the Native police force in Kenya; whether it is intended to increase it; whether it is in all respects thoroughly efficient; and, if not, what is being done to make it efficient?

The latest report I have is for 1925. It showed that additional personnel was required, and also better housing and a better definition of the duties of the force, before it could be regarded as fully efficient. I am now awaiting despatches from the Governor showing what has been done since the report was received.

The total strength of the force on 31st December, 1925, was 2,224. The European personnel has been increased from 80 to 119, but the native ranks show a slight reduction.

Is the hon. Member justified in using the word "native"?

I think in Africa nobody objects.

The House is tired, and I ask the indulgence of hon. Members for two or three minutes to raise a matter which is of some importance to a considerable number of ex-service civil servants. The Government have decided to hold an examination in November with the object of introducing into the Civil Service a certain number of young men and young women. At the same time, we are reaching a position where, owing to reductions, for example, in the Ministry of Pensions, and from other causes, a considerable number of ex-service temporary civil servants are receiving notice that they must leave the service. In a particular office 100 people have been notified within the last day or two that they must leave the service in a month, and we are given to understand that in the next few months there will be some additions to that number. Considerable fear is felt by all these men that the Substitution Board, which has done admirable work in trying to replace them in other Departments, may not be able to find them work.

The day before yesterday the Financial Secretary to the Treasury stated, in answer to a question, that the introduction into the service of successful candidates from this examination would not lead to the dismissal of ex-service men. The words he used were that no efficient ex-service civil servant would lose his job to make room for a young man or woman who was successful in this examination. That assurance is very gratifying and minimises to a considerable extent the apprehensions which some of us felt, but while we do not in any sense whatever question the honourable intentions of my right hon. Friend, nor think for one moment that he has not the utmost desire to put these men in employment, we fail to see how, in fact, he can substantiate that statement. This, briefly, is the position. There are three kinds of civil servants—the established civil servant, the permanent civil servant, or P Class man, and what is called in the service the fringe man. Under the Guinness Agreement the P men, that is, the middle group, were told that as individuals they should stand a chance of receiving promotion into the established group. Unfortunately, the opportunity has not arisen for a single one to receive that promotion. The fringe men understood that at any rate one-third of the vacancies which arise in the P class through either promotion or wastage would be given to them, and some of them have had that promotion. Here we are faced with a position in which the Financial Secretary says no ex-Service man will leave to make room for a boy or girl, and yet ex-Service men are being told to leave now, and fear that the Substitution Board will not be able to replace them; and in November some few hundreds of boys and girls will go into permanent jobs in the Civil Service.

As I understand it, the work done by the boy or girl and by certain of these ex-service clerks is similar work, and I foresee that next year, or at any rate very soon, some of the boys and girls successful in November will be in work and some of the ex-Service men at present in work will be out of work. Under those circumstances, it seems difficult to place anything but the most narrow interpretation upon the answer given to that question two days ago. The Government has, I think rightly, decided to give a preference to ex-Service men in reference to these jobs. It is recognised that this preference must cost not only money but something in the reduced efficiency and elasticity of the Civil Service, and undoubtedly a case can be made out for the service demanding the introduction of new people who will grow up in the Service, but, with unemployment as bad as it is, the time has not come when anything should be done to place any of these ex-Service men out of work. I hope the spokesman for the Government will be able to say that he will reconsider this matter, or at any rate go a little further than the Financial Secretary was able to go two days ago and assure us that no ex-Service men will be dismissed to make room for a boy or a girl, and that we shall not find boys or girls in jobs in a year of two's time and ex-Service men who are now in similar jobs out of work.

My hon. and gallant Friend did not send any notice to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that he proposed to raise this matter.

I gave the Financial Secretary notice, but I perfectly understood that an important engagement in his constituency rendered it difficult for him to be present in the House before 12.30. The Opposition did not take advantage of their opportunity to take, part in this Debate, and this subject has been raised sooner than was expected.

I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will hold the Financial Secretary and myself guiltless for not being able to enter upon the topics he has raised in detail at this moment. The Rules and Regulations dealing with this subject are very well known, and they have been carefully studied by my hon. and gallant Friend, and this has enabled him to raise this question with singular ability. I will undertake to draw the attention of the Financial Secretary to the remarks which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made, and I can assure him that they will be most carefully considered.

I quite agree with what has been said on this subject by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North St. Pancras (Captain Fraser), and I hope the merely departmental view will not prevail in this matter.

I am afraid that I am in the same position as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North St. Pancras (Captain Fraser), who opened the Debate on the Adjournment Motion, because the Secretary for Mines expected to be here, and he said that he might be a little late. Nevertheless, I expect that some Member of the Government will be able to listen to what I have to say, and I hope we shall get some further assurance on the matter which I am going to raise. In the last Debate on this subject, we discussed the operation of Section 18 of the Mining Industry Act, and on that occasion we pointed out that this Section gave an opportunity to the Government for giving the protection that we feel this Section was intended to give to the miners of this country. It is there laid down that any man who is a miner prior to the 30th April, 1926, shall have a special preference.

The attention of the Government was called to the non-operation of this Section. On 12th July the attention of the Government was again called to this matter, but now we see from the OFFICIAL REPORT issued on Thursday morning last that an agreement has been come to on this important matter, and the regulations have been laid down as to how it should operate. There is, however, no reference to the important point that we raised on both occasions about giving protection to the men who were bond fide miners up to 30th April, 1926, and who have since been evicted from their homes. The point is that men evicted from their homes since the end of the last stoppage will have no protection of any kind under the agreement arranged under Section 18 of the Mining Industry Act, I particularly want to call the attention of the Government and the Minister of Labour and the Secretary for Mines to this important matter, because we believe that it was the intention of the Government, when they introduced this Act, to give proper treatment to all those men who were bonâ fide miners prior to 30th April, 1926.

There is another point which I am anxious to raise and which was raised in the course of the last Debate. The Secretary for Mines pointed out to the and to House, the Opposition particularly, that there was too much talk to-day of a coming crisis in the mines. We are not anxious for any crisis, and, as a matter of fact, we are all anxious to avoid crises. I want to call attention to the fact that the agreements made last November will inevitably create a crisis whether we like it or not. The miners are beginning to wonder what is going to happen in November this year because of that fact. We are desirous of drawing the attention of the Government to it, and we ask them to use their influence with a view to easing the situation as much as possible. The Government cannot shelve responsibility in this matter, because they granted during the stoppage the Eight Hours Act, and they did that particularly with a view of arriving at a certain position in the mining industry which would ease the very heavy costs. The Government hold that this was necessary to place the industry on something like a sound basis.

Many points have been raised to which I will only just refer and not develop, because the Secretary for Mines often tells us that in debate we come up to a certain point, but we never give any specific idea in our line of policy as to what is going to help this particular industry. I think the right hon. Gentleman is bound to agree with us that there have been so many suggestions made that, if the suggested recommendations and lines of policy are canvassed, he himself will feel that he has a sufficiently large job in giving them all consideration with a view to trying to redeem the position as early as possible. There are the questions of amalgamation, selling agencies, unification of wagons, unification of the industry, and all these matters have from time to time been dealt with. On the question of amalgamation, the Government brought in their Act, believing that the principle was right, and that it was stated that they would give it three years to operate on a voluntary basis. The other day the Secretary for Mines said:

"We have now come to the conclusion that it is essential to wait for a report in a year's time on this matter."

What I pointed out was that under the Act passed last year a report would have to be made at the end of the second year.

We believe it is essential that we should have some re port earlier, in view of the fact that things are likely to result in a crisis much earlier than the end of the second year of this particular Act of Parliament. I want to point out, also, that in the last Debate the Secretary for Mines said that the country is watching very carefully, and that a report will have to be made before very long on this question. I agree that it is essential that we should have a report, in order that we may know as early as possible what the exact situation is. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the position was far too serious to make political capital out of it. So far as I and my friends are concerned, we are not anxious to make political capital out of it, but to try to get some security for our people, because, after all, this is a bread-and-butter matter for us, and we are, therefore, very anxious to avoid what is so often spoken of as the coming crisis in the coal industry.

It has been claimed for the Eight Hours Act that it has kept many pits at work which otherwise would have gone out, and that it has so reduced the costs of production that we are now in a fairly favourable position as regards our export trade. We have been told many times that the Samuel Commission reported that 73 per cent. of our coal was being sold at a loss, and that that was the reason why it was so essential to reduce the costs by means of this Eight Hours Act. It was suggested that, if the costs could be reduced, the evil would be remedied, but, even after we have brought down the costs to a figure that no one expected would have been possible in so short a time, the evil is still with us, and probably to a greater extent than before this Act was passed. In reply to a question that I put the other day, I was told that during the first six months of this year, as compared with the first six months of 1925, our exports had increased by 470,478 tons, but that in value they were down by £2,113,953. The argument was always put forward that, if the costs were reduced and the hours extended, it would enable us to compete with Germany and other foreign countries with which we had to compete in the export market, and would help us very considerably.

I find, however, that the only effect of the policy of the Government last year has been to make the position of our people more insecure, and also to make the position of the workers in foreign countries more insecure as a consequence. I was in Germany recently, and I found that the German miners have come to the point of desiring a higher standard of life, and that they sent their representatives to meet the heads of the syndicates in Germany with a view to securing increased wages and a higher standard of life. But the heads of the syndicates said to the German miners, "It is impossible, however desirable it may be, for us to give you any increase of wages, because the export price of British coal is so low that we cannot compete with it." The policy, therefore, of the Government and of the coalowners last year has brought us to a position absolutely contrary to what they themselves anticipated at the time. I also want to point out that, from the point of view of unemployment and destitution, the situation is very much worse now than it was during the first six months of 1925. In 1925 there were, in one large mining area in this country, 305,662 persons in receipt of out-relief, and for the first five months of this year—we have not the figures for the first six months—that number had risen to 485,908, showing an increase, as compared with the first six months of 1925, of 180,246. In value, that represented £365,032 in the first six months of 1925, and £553,809 in the first five months of 1927, or an increase, for the first five months of this year over the first six months of 1925, of £188,777.

It may be argued, as it was argued on Wednesday, that the general standard of life of the worker is to-day equal to what it was in 1914 or at some earlier period. I want to say that the 1914 standard is not a correct standard to take, because to-day we are living under quite different conditions. The very fact that education has made such rapid strides in recent years means that working-class folk are putting forth greater efforts to educate their children in order to make them better citizens, and their standard of life generally is, therefore, much higher than it was in 1914, so that the conditions of 1914 do not meet the standard which the development of time has brought about in the lives of our people. It is a singular thing, when one hears statements that the standard is practically the same now as in 1914, to find in one's own area men who have been engaged in coal-mining all their lives and who are now unemployed, who do not desire to take unemployment benefit, and who are not anxious to receive out-door relief from the guardians, but make every attempt possible to secure occupation; and, when one sees pay-bills which show that able-bodied men are receiving £1 4s. 8d. for six days work, it makes one wonder where the comparison with the standard of 1914 really comes in.

We have been told that the Mines Department is to be abolished. Personally, I am sorry for that, because I think it can be made of great service to the country, and particularly to the mining community. I am hoping that the Government will reconsider their decision. Before, however, the curtain is rung down, if it has to be rung down, I would ask that the Secretary for Mines should canvass all the points that have been raised during the present Session, and endeavour to point out to the coalowners of this country that, in order to prevent these low prices for exported coal, which are not bringing into the industry the necessary revenue to enable reasonable wages to be paid, the time has come when it is essential to call an international conference of those who own the mines in all the coal-producing countries, with a view to setting up some international board that will so control the export prices of the world as to obviate the miners in any country having to work for the meagre wages for which they are called upon to work at the present time. I think that that is quite within the range of possibility, and will be one of the things that will help us in a very large measure to obviate what all of us are so anxious to obviate in regard to prices at the end of this year, when all these agreements come to an end. If the right hon. Gentleman can impress upon the Government and bring to the attention of the owners this important fact, and can also have many small things in the mining industry adjusted that can be adjusted fairly readily, I am confident that he will render to the mining industry of this country and to the community which largely depends upon it a service which will be received with the greatest gratitude.

I am sorry I was not here at the beginning of the hon. Gentleman's speech. The subject came up rather earlier than was expected. Perhaps he will remind me of any points I missed at the beginning of his speech. He has alluded to the proposed reorganisation in which the Ministry is involved. He will hardly expect me to discuss that, but I am glad to repeat the assurance I have already given, that there is no intention on the part of the Government that the mining industry shall suffer. It is obvious that Statutes have to be carried out, and any reorganisation of departmental work will enable it to be carried on under other conditions. As regards the suggestion of calling an international conference, ideas of that sort are extraordinarily attractive and, naturally, we are all in sympathy with them, but I am afraid we cannot base very much hope for the immediate situation on anything so remote as that must be. There is only one country that has anything like a real concrete organisation which could deal with schemes for the whole of the industry of the country, and that is Germany. It would be perfectly impossible under present world conditions to arrive at any agreement which would be binding, and which would not be liable to be undercut and defeated by outside competition from those who had not come into the arrangement, and though I quite agree with it as an ideal for future international co-operation and agreement, I am afraid it is not a practical suggestion for dealing with the difficulties we see now.

The hon. Gentleman alluded to a fact to which I have often alluded myself, that the tendency of hon. Members' speeches opposite on this subject is to mention all the evils front which the industry is suffering, and say nothing more except what are the Government going to do. As I have often said, you may as well assume that you are dealing with an incompetent Government and bring the experience and knowledge of hon. Members opposite to our assistance, but the fact that so few suggestions are ever made of any particular default on the part of the Government makes me really think that there cannot be a strong case against us after all. The hon. Gentleman mentioned amalgamation, and, though anyone may have his opinion as to the work the coal-owners are doing, and whether they are devoting sufficient attention to the subject, there is no blame to be attached to the Government. The Coal Commission reported in favour of the general principle of amalgamation, and said the effect of working in larger units would be to bring greater prosperity to the industry. It also said that it would be mischevious to try to bring about compulsory amalgamation. Anyone who thinks of it, must realise that that is so. They suggested also that the only compulsion which would be desirable would be that at some future time a report should be made as to the progress that has been made in this direction. We have carried out absolutely the whole of the recommendations. We have made amalgamation easier. We have cheapened the procedure and made it more easy, and we have arranged for a report to be made. As far as we have gone, we have made the position very much easier and have carried out this recommendation in the only way it could be carried out as laid down by the Commission. Then there is the question of selling agencies. I have reason to know that a good deal is being done and a good deal of discussion is going on on these matters. It is very mischievous to interfere with discussions of that sort at a period like this. I am glad to see at least one Member of the Liberal party in the House.

I was here all the time.

There are Members who are very anxious to see amalgamation carried through at lightning speed. Anyone who has had anything to do with business knows the great difficulty of getting Parliamentary arrangements for amalgamation through. Take an illustration from the Liberal party. They contain some of the most brilliant brains in the country. They have been trying to amalgamate for many years, but they have not yet succeeded. We must give time for these things to be successful and to be carried through in a form that will guarantee permanence and success.

The hon. Gentleman has made the usual suggestion that a good deal of the trouble in the industry is due to the hours having been lengthened. I hope hon. Members will remember that there is nothing to be gained by overstating the case. The President of the Miners' Federation, the other day, said that at present we were working longer hours than any European country. He said that in 1922 the miners were getting 19s. 2d. a shift, and that they were now receiving 10s. 9d. To make a statement in that form, especially when coupled with an attack on the Government, is to suggest that in that year wages were double what they are now while the hours were shorter. As a matter of fact, in 1921 wages were still very high. The actual figure was 19s. 2d., but in the following year it dropped to a lower level than it is now. It dropped to just over 9s. To use the period 1921 as if all the intervening years were covered by a higher rate of wages and to suggest that they have dropped now is not a fair way to put it. It is true that at this moment we are working rather longer underground, but we have to remember that wages are very much higher than in other countries. The latest figures I can get are: the Ruhr, 7s. 7d.; Upper Silesia, 55. 8d.; Poland, 3s. 5d.; France, 3s. 10d.; Belgium 5s. 2d.; and the British, in April, 1927—they are a little lower now—10s. 6d. That is nearly double the Ruhr, and a good deal more than double Poland and France.

Are these comparative figures in British money based upon exchange values or upon the cost of living?

No, they are figures expressed in English money based on the exchange value. I am certain most hon. Members opposite wish to try to make the situation easier. The men are having a very bad time, and I am afraid for some months yet the conditions are likely to continue. But already there are some signs of improvement. I hope no one here will attempt to gain a political advantage by making the case appear worse than it is. I noticed the other day an interesting comment on the position in the "Times," in a speech made at a meeting of the Rhenish-West-phalian Coal Syndicate. The chairman pointed out that British competition was at last making its presence felt in Germany, and he said there had been a notable decrease in exports owing to British competition. A price war was being waged by the British coal industry, and the German industry found itself at a disadvantage, as extreme rationalisation had robbed it of reserves. He went on later to say that the inability of Ruhr coals to compete successfully with British coals in Hamburg is due to the old problem of transport costs.

That shows that our position is improving. It is all very well to say that we are bringing prices down, but the German price was brought down at the end of the Rhur occupation, and has remained rather lower than our price ever since. We have been following them; they have been leading the way. It is not true to say that the British have been cutting prices through all this mad competition, as was said by the Miners' Federation the other day. I only mention that in reply to what the hon. Gentleman said about our efforts to regain markets. I quite agree that we do not want to see the wages of the German worker cut down, but at the same time it is far more important that we should be able to maintain wages for our own people. I am quite certain that the German worker can look after himself. Our primary interest, and the primary interest of those in the coal industry, should be to look after our own people, and let the other people assist themselves. I think I have dealt with the points which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. If I have not, perhaps he will tell me.

There is only one point, I think, to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not referred, and that relates to the question I raised before he entered the House, namely eviction. I pointed out that there was an arrangement under Section 18 of the Mining Industry Act, 1926, but that particular arrangement does not fulfil the idea contained in Section 18. Section 18 was understood by us, and I think the Government so intended it, to protect all men who were miners on the 30th April, 1926, and who had been miners for some previous period. The point is that all the men who have been evicted from their homes and sent to other parts to seek employment have received no protection at all. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman should draw the attention of the Minister of Labour and the owners to this matter, in order to obtain some kind of security for people against being evicted from their homes.

By the leave of the House, I will answer that point. I am sorry I did not hear the hon. Gentleman's remarks upon it. The regulation is, as we know, a matter with which the Ministry of Labour has been dealing, and I cannot answer the point without seeing the reports that may have been made as to the working of the regulation. I will certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Labour, to the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised. I do not think I can say more than that at the moment, but I should like to point out that I believe these regulations are operating fairly in the circumstances.

I am not a miner, nor am I authorised to speak for miners, but I represent in this House 4,000 miners, who, I should say, at the present moment, are more poverty-stricken than any other body of workers to be found in this country. I am credibly informed that, before the dispute, their wages would not average more than £2 per week. They are miserably housed, and so bad are their conditions to-day that a great many of them have to have their scanty earnings supplemented by Poor Law relief. It is a terrible condition of affairs, particularly when one remembers the terrible risks that these men take every day that they go to their work. The pits are old, some of them having been handed down for generations. The owners have taken as much out of them as it was possible to take in the way of profits, and have put in very little in the way of development or in reconditioning the gear and the safety appliances. The result is that only last year some 38 of my constituents went to their work and were drowned. We find that these accidents are still occurring, and, as far as one can see, the necessary capital is not forthcoming to-day to put these pits into such a condition as to make them reasonably safe for those who have to work in them.

When I remember the promises that were made by the Prime Minister prior to the dispute of last year, that the Gov ernment accepted the Samuel Report and that they were prepared to implement it, and when I consider what has happened since then, and how little has been done to put the provisions of the Samuel Report into effect, beyond effecting an increase in hours and a reduction in wages, I have very great difficulty in meeting the right hon. Gentleman's wish this morning that when I go to my constituency I shall not exaggerate the situation. It is impossible to exaggerate the situation. I remember meeting the Noble Lord the Member for South Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck) on the platform a few months ago, and, when passing the time of day with him, he told me that he was going to his constituency, and he said, "I do not know how to face these men. I do not know what to tell them. I have to address a meeting of miners." I feel that when I go to my own constituency during the coming Recess, I shall not know how to meet those men who are starving and whose clothing is worn out. They will produce their rent-books and show how much they are in arrears with their rent. The only solution the Secretary for Mines can bring us this morning is that we are winning in the old game of "beggar my neighbour," and that we are at last being able to undersell the people on the Continent, who, I presume, have depressed their workers' standard of life to an even greater extent than the standard of life of our workers has been depressed. I feel after the speech we have heard this morning, very depressed with regard to the future of the mining industry. We have some very valuable coalfields in Northumberland, which have proved of very great value to the prosperity of this country in the past. To-day these valuable deposits, which are far from being worked out, are practically becoming derelict and abandoned. They are being cut out by the better equipped and more modern collieries which are being opened in South Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire. I suppose, in a few years' time, the Government will be providing a subsidy to reopen these valuable deposits of coal which are now becoming derelict, while the miners are having to starve or disperse over the world.

As a matter of fact, while we are allowing these skilled miners to starve or to seek—those who can—their fortunes in other parts of the world, a day will come, and not very long hence, when these people will be required. Already, in the shipbuilding industry, with the slight revival that is taking place, we are finding a shortage of skilled key-men. Managers are going round, or sending their emissaries, to the trade union branches. Many of the men have gone to America, and are being used by our competitors. It seems a very sad state of things, and I trust when we meet again the Secretary for Mines will have a more hopeful story to place before us than he has had this morning. Speaking as I do for 4,000 of these poverty-stricken miners, I must utter my protest that a Government consisting of all the talents cannot give us more consolation to take to our constituents than the right hon. Gentleman has put before us this morning.

I only intervene for one moment and for one purpose, to which I would draw the particular attention of the Secretary for Mines. What I am going to say will be extremely practical and extremely brief. It is unnecessary to stress the importance and the seriousness of the fact that 100,000 miners may permanently lose their employment in this country. What I rise to say is this: Will the Secretary for Mines investigate most carefully, by means of all the expert assistance he can get, and with an open mind, what hope there is, if any, that any considerable number of miners who may be permanently out of their own work may find a new and a permanent life by settlement on the land? I ventured to address the House the other day on that subject, and I am not going to repeat what I then said. But—if I may say something rather presumptuous—if the Secretary for Mines would ask somebody just to run his eye over the remarks I then made, which appeared in the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will see, as far as I can judge, very solid arguments behind what I am pressing on him now. I should never be so foolish as to urge action before careful investigation, but I am certain, in my own mind, that there is a clue here which should be followed up and examined. I believe nobody would say it would be possible to settle 100,000, far less 200,000, but it is the fact that within the last three years the League of Nations has been able to settle 150,000 refugee families in the very exiguous territory of Greece. From the angle of mining unemployment, I do urge the right hon. Gentleman to use his influence to combine with the other Ministries concerned in having an inquiry to see whether it is not possible to elaborate a scheme, even in these times of great financial stress, and with all the qualifications that must always be kept in mind, by which even a small fraction of the men who may be permanently out of their customary work may find some real occupation and life as settlers on the land.

I have one word more to say. I think all Members know, even if their constituencies are not mining constituencies, that the miners as a class—many of them—are not entirely devoid of some rural experience. Many of them work their own little patches of ground or devote their leisure to keeping some sort of fancy live-stock in the widest term, and so on. They are not men who come to that state of life with a blank ignorance, and, further, of all the men who are engaged in what we may call the urban occupations, they are muscularly the strongest. These are real points. The whole question could be elaborated immensely, but may I urge the Secretary for Mines, in what must, be an anxious time for him and the Department, in considering the immediate future of these 100,000 men, to have inquiries instituted? May I urge him to consult the Ministries that know? May I urge him to look at the ease of men with urban training who have succeeded? I do not urge him to take action, but I urge him to take thought.

I entirely agree with what the hon. Member who has just sat down said as to the need of some investigation and inquiry in this direction. I think it will be agreed that, very frequently, when such questions as this have been urged, the Secretary for Mines has said—and it applies also to other Ministries—that this is a matter for another Ministry, and, again and again, what, I think, has been thoroughly well-intended suggestions for some measure of improvement have been turned down upon that ground, and that ground alone. That is a state of affairs which could not possibly exist in any well-regulated business, and ought not to exist in the country in regard to this great question of unemployment. It is not only a question of unemployment; it is a question which comes up in all kinds of directions. The other day I had a deputation of men engaged in a particular industry in Sheffield, entirely unconnected with mining, and we were up against a matter in which three different Ministries were involved, each more or less dependent on the other, and yet, apparently, there was no co-ordination or inquiry on the part of any one of them as to what the other was doing, and the attitude of which I have spoken was again and again taken up.

I want to refer more particularly just now to the difficulty which many of us on this side have often experienced in regard to questions which have been put to the right hon. Gentleman on mining matters, and have been told that the Department had not got the information which was asked for. It does not apply only to the Mines Department. It applies to some of the other Ministries also, and I am making a somewhat interesting collection, with which I will deal on some future occasion, of the replies we have received which seem certainly to indicate that we have not got that information which it is necessary we should have, and which we should expect to have in a thoroughly well-regulated Department. When we consider the importance of the whole mining industry, it is most important that there should be the fullest possible information, not simply in regard to what is happening in this country but in regard to what is happening abroad.

I want to draw the Minister's attention to an answer which was given to my hon. friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Lee) on 5th July, and to an answer given to a question put by myself on 20th July. My hon. Friend asked the Secretary for Mines whether he had figures showing how the output per man-shift in the coal mines where full time is being worked compares with the output where less than full time is being worked, and what is the amount of difference per man-shift thus caused in the output. The reply to that question was that no such figures were available. When another hon. Member rather pressed the question in regard to the returns which were made, the Minister replied that such returns involved a very great deal of work. The question that I put on 20th July was, whether in the monthly returns showing the number of days worked per week by the mines and in regard to which allowance is made in all the cases for short time, such allowance takes any account of cases where full man-shifts are not worked; if so, to what extent; and whether, if no such account was taken, there was any difficulty in its being ascertained. The reply was that parts of a day shift are counted as such in both sets of employment figures published by the Mines Department. It appears to me that the two answers are in entire contradiction, and if the Minister could now give some explanation we should be glad to have it. Otherwise the question would seem to be in dispute. There is one other respect in which we have a right to complain. We are not supplied with information or there is not available the information which ought to be available in such an important department.

One other matter I would mention is the position of the City of Sheffield and its indebtedness in consequence of the very serious unemployment there. Very shortly, the Corporation will have to take over the work of the Guardians, with an immense burden of debt. That burden has been incurred during the very serious unemployment of recent years, and in no small measure has been incurred because of the very considerable addition to the population during the War, that population being still there. This necessitous area, like other areas, is necessitous, not in consequence of something which has been done there and not in consequence of any extravagance whatever. That opinion is borne out by the report which Mr. Collins late City Treasurer of Birmingham, has just issued to the Corporation. The report shows that the trouble is caused by unemployment that was due to the war and by coal prices. The position is serious and calls for a great deal more consideration than it has yet received.

The hon. Member has asked me about two apparently contradictory answers to questions which were put in the House. If he had given me notice that he intended to raise this point I would have looked up the records, but without knowing whether the two questions were on the same point I cannot answer him now. As regards the reckoning of the output, I think I said in a previous answer that the figures are calculated on the basis of whole days, and that where two half-days are worked they count as one whole day. The hon. Member complained that he cannot get certain information from the Mines Department. If we have not got the information we cannot give it. The hon. Member implied that we ought to get it. These things are not so easy. Inquiries often involve the getting of information from other countries, and other countries are often very much more behindhand in their statistics.

I was not referring to that.

Our whole intention is to make our returns as accurate as possible. The hon. Member raised the question of land settlement in relief of unemployment in the mining areas. This question is being very carefully gone into with a view to finding a solution.

As to the question put to the Minister on 5th July, my point was that in his reply the right hon. Gentleman said there were no figures available.

I wish to raise the question of juvenile crime, particularly in Glasgow and Scotland. I have been reading a paper this morning in which it is reported that the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) made the statement that Scottish Labour member have not raised the question of Scottish housing sufficiently well in this House. I do not know whether that statement applies to all Scottish Labour Members. I do know that, so far as I and my colleagues from Scotland are concerned, if the hon. Member looks at the Order Paper, the OFFICIAL REPORT and various other records, he will find that no body of Members has raised the question of the conditions of the people, particularly housing, more keenly and with more regularity than we have done. I attend regularly here, I put Questions on these subjects, and, to-day, I take this opportunity of raising the question of juvenile crime in Scotland which is linked up with the problem of housing as with other problems. I think this is a matter to which the House, even in the dying stages of this part of the Session, ought to give consideration. A few days ago I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the average number of persons between the ages of 14 arid 16 found guilty of any form of crime in Glasgow and I also asked for comparative figures relating to the years 1925, 1924, 1923 and 1922. I find that from 1922 onwards there has been a steady increase of crime among young persons between the ages of 14 and 16 in Glasgow. One must bear in mind that while we have this increase in juvenile crime we find, if we consult the Prisons Report, that apart from last year—when the mining dispute led to certain increase in the number of offences returned—there is a welcome tendency for crime to decrease among the adult population.

A very marked tendency.

Yes, and that tendency is due to two reasons. First, the population of Scotland, to their credit, are becoming increasingly sober, and, secondly, education and other forces are at work to bring about an improvement. But while the adult population is becoming increasingly law-abiding, there is an ever-increasing tendency towards crime among youths between 14 and 16. In 1922 there were, in Glasgow, 1,500 boys found guilty of some form of crime, and in 1926 there were 1,871 boys found guilty of some form of crime—an increase of 360 or about 20 per cent. That would be bad enough in the case of adults, but in the case of juveniles such an increase in crime calls for the attention of this House and of the Scottish Office. It is not enough to say that these boys are bad or that those who have influence over them are bad. Wherever you have crime there is a cause for it. The great mass of criminals are not bad simply because they want to be bad. There is some reason or other for the existence of crime, and repression is no solution of the problem. We ought to devote our minds to trying to find the cause and then seek to remedy the cause as quickly as possible. The figures in reference to girls are not large for a population like that of Glasgow. This only goes to show that, generally speaking, the female is more law-abiding than the male. I can never understand why we have hesitated so long about granting women the franchise and equality in various spheres of life, because, if we look into criminal statistics, we find that the female population, adult and juvenile, are more law-abiding than the male population.

In 1922 in Glasgow there were fewer than 40 girls convicted of any form of crime, but in 1926 there were 60 convictions, showing about the same percentage of increase as the figures regarding the boys. I wish the Lord Advocate to state what steps the Scottish Office are taking to deal with this increase in juvenile crime. I think there is a tendency among the Glasgow police—though on this point I am not going to dogmatise—to become rather too rigid in arresting young persons who may be committing technical, but not very serious, offences. Whether we like it or not, young people will amuse themselves, and in a city like Glasgow with a population of over one million there are many districts where the young people have no open spaces and no facilities for recreation. They will amuse themselves in the streets and in the places where the law forbids them to do so. Take, for example, the Gorbals Division which is the second biggest division in Glasgow and in residential population is actually the biggest. There is a voting population of 41,000 and the total population, including women and children, is probably nearly double that figure. In that constituency there is hardly an open space or a football or a cricket pitch for the youthful population. There are one or two small playgrounds with swings for young children but no open space suitable for youths between the ages of 14 and 16. Unfortunate as is this increase in juvenile crime I think it would be an appalling circumstance if boys of that age were not to play at all and I would ask the Lord Advocate to use his influence with the Glasgow police and the Glasgow Corporation to be a little less strict regarding minor offences which arise from the desire of the young people to amuse themselves. I have heard it said that they "loaf" at the street corners and stand about here and there but it is the duty of the Scottish Office to try to provide for them some reasonable alternative.

There is also linked up with this subject the question of unemployment and here we find a tragedy. In a city like Glasgow we have large numbers of boys and girls every year leaving school and one of the reasons why we have only 60 girls convicted of crime as against over 1,800 boys, is the fact that the girls at the age of 14 find an easier market for their labour than the boys can find. Shipbuilding and engineering are the chief trades in Glasgow and boys of 14 are not sufficiently mature to enter those trades, the usual age being 16. On the other hand girls are taken into the laundries at the age of 14 and are dispensed with when they reach 16 or 18, in cases where the Trade Boards Act or the Insurance Acts operate. Boys are unable to find any useful occupation between the ages of 14 and 16. Society says to them "We cannot provide you with work; we cannot find you any useful occupation, we cannot give your parents any maintenance grant to enable them to keep you at school, and therefore you must straggle about the streets finding some mischief to do.'

I had a case in my own Division, but I will not raise it for two reasons, first, because I do not want to attack any magistrate unless I give proper notice that I intended to do so, and, second, because I want to try to raise the question in another way. But, if I may use it as an illustration, I would like to say that two boys, who had been in trouble before, stole milk which was worth 1s. 4d., and they were sent to a reformatory for4½; years. I am not to say that the magistrate was right or wrong, but here is the tragedy of it. The boys are put into a reformatory, and it costs the nation to keep each boy 30s. a week after he has become a criminal. Would it not be good national business, instead of paying 30s. a week to keep a boy after he is a criminal, if the Secretary of State for Scotland would consider making some maintenance allowance, not of 30s. a week, but of less than one-third of that sum, to keep the boy at school, so that they would not be criminals at all?

I want, therefore, to ask the Lord Advocate what steps the Secretary of State for Scotland is taking in compelling, or asking, the local authority to provide reasonable open spaces for the children and to see that the law is not enforced almost to breaking point against the younger children. Cannot the Lord Advocate consider the point of circularising the magistrates and local authorities throughout Scotland with regard to the First Offenders Act? I think there is a tendency among, many magistrates, on a first offence, to inflict a penalty. I had a case where they inflicted for the first offence six stripes of the birch rod. Kindly treatment meted out on the first offence will in most cases either make or mar the whole of a person's life. I hope the Lord Advocate will turn his attention to the problem which I have stated in Glasgow. It may be said that it is a matter of gangs, but I do not think that applies to the cases I have been speaking of. Most of the boys in the gangs in Glasgow are over 16 years of age. It may be described as Glasgow's underworld, but I think the great majority of the boys are over 16. I think, in almost every case that has come before the Glasgow Sheriff Court in recent years, that that is the position. Therefore, it does not touch the problem that I am raising. But, even in regard to the gangs, there must be some cause for the gangs, and you must bear in mind that the problem of the children who are between the ages of 14 and 16 may become the problem of the gang to-morrow. The questions which I have been raising are not of international importance, but they do affect common, decent folk living in one of the great cities for which the Government are responsible.

Obviously these are questions to which anybody who is interested in the children of our country will be ready to give careful and anxious consideration. There is no doubt that in Glasgow as distinguished from the rest of Scotland as regards juveniles of both classes, those between 14 and 16 and those between 16 and 21, matters have not been stationary in the last few years. There has to be a distinction drawn, between the marked decrease that there has been generally in the numbers of crimes and offences all over Scotland and what has happened in the City of Glasgow during the last five or six years. As the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has already told the House, undoubtedly there has been a marked increase in juvenile crime in the City of Glasgow as regards both those classes. I may inform the House at once that my information is that the majority of this increase, in both classes, is in the nature of such offences as are committed by boys and youths in gangs, such as breach of the peace, betting, gaming and lotteries, playing football on the streets, and obstructing the footways.

May I point out that what we mean by gangs of boys over 16 are not those who have been playing football? What has been generally interpreted as gangs have been those which have committed such offences as criminal assault.

Then let me use the word groups. I do not want to use the word gang in any restricted sense. One of course is alarmed and made anxious by an increase of that kind. Hon. Members who do not know it already will be interested to learn that, some time ago, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland set up a Committee for this very purpose, which has been sitting for some time. A question was asked about it by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) the other day, and as to when its Report was expected, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland stated that the Report was expected in the autumn. I am sure the hon. Member for Gorbals has read the Report of the Prison Commissioners, and he will see on page 7 of the Report that this question about the treatment of juvenile offenders and their cases is a point on which evidence has been given before that Committee. I would mention that the right hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson) is a member of that Committee, and this is the very point which is the subject of their investigation. Therefore, my right hon. Friend has anticipated the sort of method which doubtless is in the mind of the hon. Member for Gorbals. It is obviously a matter that ought to be inquired into, and it has been and is being inquired into at the present time. It is not as if the increase in Glasgow was a rise in this last year; it is a rise that has been going on for some time, and these figures are available and were partly the reason for setting up this Committee. We look with anxiety and interest to see the Report of that Committee.

I do not need to add much, except to say that quite obviously— everyone realises it now—the provision of playing grounds and of open-air spaces for the youth of our cities is one of the most vital matters and one which should be urgently kept in front of all local authorities and of those who are interested in the matter; and everyone wants to sympathise with the very important movement that is going on at the present time to help that result, because clearly, if boys play football in the streets, it is because they cannot get football fields in which to play. As the hon. Member has said, it is the best thing in the world that they should play football, but it is not only obstructive but dangerous to play football in the streets. The real cure is, I agree with the hon. Member, to provide open spaces, and that is primarily a matter for the local authorities, but it is a matter which, although I do not actually know about it, I should assume the Scottish Board of Health would keep constantly in view in considering the general health of the population. Undoubtedly, it is typical of the kind of question that this Committee will be considering at the present moment, and we shall all await the report of that Committee with great interest.

In the meantime, will the right hon. Gentleman not consider the advisability of calling the attention of the magistrates in Scotland, by letter, to the First Offenders Act? I remember that the Home Secretary in England some considerable time ago did something of that kind.

I need only say that I am quite sure that that has been done already. It may have been some time ago, but I will certainly look into the matter.

I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty for being here, because I know that he has a very important engagement in a few minutes, and I will not detain him longer than is absolutely necessary, but the matter which I have to raise is a very grave and serious one, affecting the employment of a whole town and the careers and future of a large number of faithful servants of the Crown. Last night, in common with the other Members for Plymouth, I received a telegram from the Plymouth Town Council, based on a resolution which was passed yesterday by the Council, unanimously, by all parties. Some 210 men in the dockyard at Devonport have received notices of discharge. I think it is a very unfortunate thing that these discharges should be announced on the eve of the Parliamentary Recess, but in some measure I suppose we ought to be grateful for that, because when a previous decision to close two dockyard towns, Rosyth and Pembroke, was taken, it was announced in the Recess, when there was no means of protesting in this House. Therefore, I am at any rate grateful for the small breathing space that is given, because it enables me to give an invitation to my hon. and gallant Friend to make an announcement as to what the proximate policy of the Admiralty is to be with regard to tire Southern dock yards, and Devonport in particular. When Pembroke and Rosyth were closed, I asked a question of the predecessor of the hon. and gallant Member as to the effect which the closing of those yards would have upon Devonport, and the answer I received, on 22nd March, 1926, was this:

"He will be pleased to know that the number to be employed at Devonport will be considerably greater, owing to the transfers from Rosyth and Pembroke Dock, than would otherwise have been the case."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd March, 1926; cols. 873–4, Vol. 193.)

There is a specific statement made on behalf of a responsible Department that we were going to have more employment at Devonport, but what happened? Within a few months, 600 men were thrown out of work in Devonport, and following closely upon that unfortunate incident and, as I can only term it, breach of understanding, come the discharges, for the first time in official history, of a number of established men. It is a small number, it is true, but my hon. and gallant Friend will realise the sense of insecurity under which every dockyard employé rests at the present moment. They do not know what their future is to be. One can quite understand any Government embarking on a policy of peace, a policy which means the building of fewer armaments, but surely that peace is not to be purchased at the expense of faithful servants of the Crown, without any notice, without any provision being made for them and for their families.

The town which I represent is a town which depends entirely, exclusively, and absolutely upon the building and repair of ships of war, and if the dockyard is to share the fate of Rosyth and Pembroke, let us know it, but also let us make some provision for the alternative employment of the men, who have committed no crime and who are suffering so severely. It appears to be the tendency of the Admiralty to send work to private yards, and the construction this year shows that the private yards are getting over £2,000,000 more work than the dockyards. When times are better, these private yards will get more work from outside sources, but there can never be work from outside sources for His Majesty's dockyards, and I do request the Admiralty to look forward in this matter and, having considered their policy, if they come to the conclusion that the Southern yards or any of them are of no further use to them, let them devise some means whereby these men can continue to live. What these men will have to do now is to go to America and build a fleet against our own. The Americans apparently are going to increase their Navy. They are paying very much better wages than our dockyards, and why should men whom we have trained be driven abroad, simply because of the narrow-minded policy of the Admiralty, a policy which refuses to consider any kind of alternative employment for the best skilled men in the country? As I say, an undertaking was given by the Admiralty, after the closing of Rosyth and Pembroke, that more employment would be provided for the best skilled men. In every year since then, instead of more employment, more discharges have been made. Some 190 discharges were made in 1924; 962 discharges in 1925; 2,536 discharges in 1926; and over that number in that part of the present year which we have already passed. It really is not good enough, and I plead with my hon. and gallant Friend, on the eve of the Recess, to let these men know what their future is. That is all that we want to know—whether or not there are going to be more discharges, whether or not the Admiralty are considering, with the Ministry of Labour or with any other Department, the possible alternative use of the dockyards

I want also to ask him if he will tell the House what the effect of the removal of those destroyers to Rosyth is going to be. It is going to result, we are told, in an economy of £130,000, £40,000 of which is coming out of the pockets of the people of Devonport, in addition to the distresses from which we already suffer. It means that £40,000 less is going to be spent in a year in the shops at Devon-port, and it means that naval personnel are going to be separated from their families. I want to know if he can give me any precise forecast of what the removal of those destroyers will mean. The last announcement of discharges has brought a heavy and menacing cloud over my constituency, which has already been severely battered by the storm, and I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend may be able to announce the prospect of better weather which shall dispel that menacing cloud, and bring some better hope for the future to the persons whom I have the honour to represent.

I want to join in what my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) has said, and to remind the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty that a short time ago I had the pleasure of being present at an interview between a deputation from Plymouth and the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the impression taken away from that interview was that in no circumstances were there going to be more discharges this summer. As the hon. Member for Devonport has said, according to the telegram received yesterday, they are intensely excited and worried in Plymouth over the idea of further discharges that were not expected. I am not going to raise the question of the economy of making these discharges, except to say this, that with the labour market largely overstocked, it is, in my opinion, the very poorest economy to turn skilled men on to that market—the very poorest. I hope the Admiralty will realise that if they go in for economy, as we all want them to, it is not economy to discharge any more men from dockyards at the present time. I hope the matter will be taken up by the Admiralty, and that even if they have got a decision that they are going to discharge the men to-day, they will see that it is wiser for the country that the men should not be discharged but that the dockyards should be kept open.

I quite agree with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) as to his being in stormy water, but I would remind the House that at any rate he is in harbour. We in Pembroke, unfortunately, are on the rocks. We have been wrecked by Admiralty economy and national economy so-called, and I was very glad to hear the hon. Member for the Drake Division (Sir A. Shirley Benn) suggest that it may not be the truest economy to discharge men on to a market where there is nothing for them to do. What we regret in Pembroke is that in spite of all our efforts to try to get some amelioration of our conditions nothing has been done. We have met with the utmost sympathy from the Admiralty, with the utmost sympathy from every Member of the Government to whom we have spoken, but the practical effort which has resulted is nil. If some real, practical measures were taken something could be done, but, unfortunately, the Admiralty have, quite rightly, taken up the position that they are concerned purely with Admiralty matters, and that the question of labour is a matter entirely for other Ministries. But when we go to the Ministry of Labour they say, "This is a question in which we cannot interfere. This is an Admiralty matter." We pass on then to other Members of the Government, but all want somebody else to "hold the baby." In the meantime, the unfortunate adult, Pembroke, which is not a new infant, like Rosyth, is gradually decaying.

What I wish the Admiralty would do is to consult with some of the other Government Departments in order to see whether some work cannot be carried on in that dockyard, where we have the plant, the buildings, and everything required for other forms of work. We hear about the mechanisation of the Army, and undoubtedly experiments with tanks and things of that kind have to be made. Surely those experimental machines, those tanks and other things required for Government services, might be made at Pembroke Dockyard. The utilisation of the plant would be an economy, and if a determined effort were made to try to find some work, some work could be found, but, unfortunately, it is nobody's business to do it. I do want the Admiralty to see that it is somebody's business to see what can be done. We do not ask for a lot. At the present moment we have about 300 men engaged on making oil tanks, but that work is gradually coming to an end, and when it is finished we shall be absolutely derelict. Unfortunately, as it has turned out, many of the men employed in the dockyard are the owners of their own houses. When there was no further employment or prospect of employment, many of these men who were established men had to go to other parts, and then found they were unable to dispose of their property. I do not say that it is purely the Admiralty's business but I do say it is the Government's business to see what can be done to mitigate the hardships from which these people are suffering.

The whole object of creating a town at Pembroke Dockyard out of nothing but a few cottages in the early part of the last century was to have there a town at the service of the nation and for the purposes of the dockyard. The town grew up, a century passed and then, with only six months' warning, the whole object of the town was destroyed by the closing of the dockyard gates. The town, its people, and all its institutions remained. At first the distress was not so great, because the people were living on their savings, and on certain gratuities which they received from the Government when they were discharged from the dockyard; but day after day, as time passes, this distress gets greater and greater. I am perfectly certain that the sympathy of the House is with us, but until that sympathy takes a practical form it is of no real help to us. It seems nobody's business to do anything, and that is why I ask that the Admiralty will take whatever steps may be necessary to see that it is somebody's business. It was suggeted that certain institutions for the training of naval ratings should be started at Pembroke Dockyard. We believe provision was made for that in the Estimates last year, but that owing to economic stringency those proposals were cut out. We hope they may be replaced next year, and that we shall be able to look forward to some form of training being started there.

Another point which has been raised is—I do not know whether this is true—that the Committee of Imperial Defence say that the dockyard must be ready for reopening at a month's notice. If a dockyard is a necessity, from a strategical point of view, for the defence of the Empire, the burden of keeping it in a state in which it is ready to be reopened at a month's notice should not fall mainly on the unfortunate district. It ought to be kept not only ready for reopening but with a nucleus personnel there, and that should be an Imperial or a national burden and not a local burden. I do hope that the sympathy which has always been expressed with us will take a practical form at an early date, and that we shall be saved from destruction. If the Admiralty or the Government do not come to our help, nothing can save the town from utter disaster in the very near future.

References have been made this afternoon to Devonport, but I hope the Parliamentary Secretary when dealing with this matter will remember also Chatham, Sheerness and Portsmouth, and although Members for those constituencies are not here, I can speak for them, at least as far as the operatives are concerned. I would like him also to tell us why it is that those of us who are on the Whitley Council—I am a member of the Shipbuilding Trade Joint Council—received only this morning the letter from the Director of Dockyards to tell us of these discharges. The letter is dated the 27th of July, and I admit that it reached the secretary of the trade union side yesterday, but there was a meeting within the last fortnight, and surely something of this ought to have been known to the Admiralty and ought to have been communicated to us at that time. The number to be discharged is much greater than the figures which have been given, but I am leaving it at that. I join with my hon. Friend in stating that I think a mistake has been made by the Government in not paying regard to what could be done with the dockyards when there was no armament work for them. We have urged various Governments to deal with this question, and to make up their mind what shall be done with dockyards and arsenals. It is very curious that when we are being sent away for several months on holiday on full pay—there will be no stoppage so far as Members of Parliament are concerned—this should be the moment chosen for giving enforced holidays without pay to so many men who have served the Government so well. I think it is a mistake that such a lengthened holiday is being given to Members of this House when we have such serious problems before us.

I can very well sympathise with the views which have been expressed by all hon. Members who have spoken this morning, and I need scarcely say that from the Admiralty point of view we regret very deeply the necessity which has been forced upon us of making these discharges. I am particularly sympathetic with the case put forward by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Major Price), because he and I have had a good many discussions as to what can be done with Pembroke Dock. As he truly said, the Admiralty had some idea of doing something in this direction last year, but actually we made no provision in the Estimates for that purpose. There is a harder ruler than the Admiralty, and we were prevented by the necessity of strictest economy from carrying out our intentions. I need scarcely say that it my hon. Friend will bring forward any practical suggestions which will enable us to help in regard to Pembroke Dock we shall give them our best consideration. I can assure hon. Members that we are always bearing the case of Pembroke Dock in mind. That may be cold comfort to hon. Members, but it is all I can give them at the present moment. With regard to the discharges which are the subject of the discussion this morning, I might as well give the House the discharges that we have in view at the present moment. Here are the facts. The discharges ordered are 220 at Portsmouth, 210 at Devonport, 320 at Chatham, and 50 at Sheerness, making 800 in all. These discharges are being made in two lots. Except in the case of Devon-port, the first notices are being issued to-morrow and the second on the 6th of August. We give two weeks' notice.

Why is there a difference at Devonport?

At Devon-port the notices are being delayed in view of certain work which has to be done on two of His Majesty's ships. The reason we have to make these discharges is that certain work which was contemplated in the dockyard programme is not now required to be done. That work related to the re-tubing of boilers in certain of His Majesty's ships which is not necessary at the present time because the life of the tubes was found to be longer than was anticipated. This is the main reason which has obliged us to make these further reductions in the dockyard staff. The matter was not known when the First Lord received the deputation to which my hon. Friend referred and on which occasion my right hon. Friend expressed the very sincere hope that it would not be necessary to make any further reductions in dockyard staffs this year.

Does that apply to all the dockyards?

I cannot say which particular dockyard, but, when we are making reductions, we try to distribute them over all the dockyards.

Will not those boilers require re-tubing later on?

When was the survey made with regard to those boilers after which the Admiralty came to the conclusion that the life of the tubes is much longer than was anticipated?

I can only give the hon. Member the information which has been given to me on this subject, but I suppose the survey referred to was subsequent to the meeting at which my hon. Friend alleges that the details were given. I think the House should know the whole situation. As a matter of fact, the reduction in the estimate of work contemplated would have necessitated the immediate discharge of 1,000 men, but, owing to our efforts in obtaining additional work on a repayment basis having been successful, the actual discharges were reduced to 800. Of course, I cannot give any assurance whether in the interests of national economy—or rather what is considered economy, because there are two opinions about that—it may be necessary to make further reductions in the course of the year, and I cannot give any guarantee that there will not be further reductions.

Will the reductions apply to all the dockyards as far as possible?

That is the intention of the Board of Admiralty. The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) criticised the policy of the Admiralty in giving work to private dockyards when there was not sufficient work to satisfy the demands of the Government dockyards. The policy of the Admiralty is to distribute the work as fairly as possible in the interests of the whole community, and it is obvious that in parts of England where there are private dockyards at the present time the conditions as regards unemployment are considerably worse than in the southern dockyards of England. I might quote the percentages of unemployment which illustrates very conclusively the truth of what I have just said. At Chatham, the per centage is 9.2; Devonport, 11.3; Portsmouth, 9·3; and Sheerness, 6·4. In private dockyards at Barrow the percentage is 12·5; Clyde, 13·4; Jarrow, 29·6; Newcastle, 17·9; North Shields, 22·7; Liverpool, 16·9; and Birkenhead, 19·4. It is clear, therefore, that, if the Board of Admiralty is to consider the dockyards at home and the interests of the working-class community as a whole, it must give a share of the work to the private dockyards. Although I perfectly understand the attitude of Members representing southern dockyard constituencies, we as a Government have to consider the rest of the community, and that is why we still give work in the proportion that is fixed by the Admiralty between the private dockyards and the Government dockyards.

The hon. Member asked me what was going to be the effect of the policy of the Admiralty in sending these destroyers to be put in cotton wool, so to speak, in Rosyth. I cannot, of course, answer for the prophetic instinct of my predecessor. I do not know all the facts of the case, and I do not know how far his answer can be considered as representing anything but intelligent prophecy; but I am not going to say that I believe the effect of sending these destroyers to be kept in security in the more peaceful waters of Rosyth is going to bring employment to the Southern dockyards. Obviously, it cannot have that effect. But, before they go, they are going to be put into thorough repair and overhauled in every way, and that work will be done in Southern dockyards. They will then be sent up to Rosyth. The financial saving is as the hon. Member suggested. We hope to save about £130,000 per annum as a result of this move. Of that, between £40,000 and £50,000 undoubtedly represents dockyard labour. The rest will be due to a saving in material and stores and to a reduction in the number of naval personnel employed.

I know, and, as I said before, I quite well appreciate, the objection which certain hon. Members may have to this economic move on the part of the Admiralty, but I must beg them to take the larger view. They are calling for economy. You cannot get economy without making some people suffer, and that is the tragedy of economy. No one regrets it more than the Admiralty. If the Admiralty were allowed to do as they wished, no doubt they would keep the dockyards going full steam ahead now and for ever, in the interests of the nation, as they believe, and as I most certainly believe. Unfortunately, however, it cannot be done, and, as a result, we have to make economies in every possible way. Therefore, although I admit and quite appreciate that there must be criticism of these economies from certain quarters, I do beg the Mem bers of the House as a whole to realise that they must be made, and that, however much individual places may suffer, the interests of the whole community are larger and must prevail.