Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 213: debated on Thursday 23 February 1928

House of Commons

Thursday, February 23, 1928

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

Private Business

PRIVATE BILLS (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

South Suburban Gas (Consolidation) Bill.

Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill.

Bills committed.

Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS reported, That, after conferring with the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, for the purpose of determining in which House of Parliament the respective Bills introduced pursuant to the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, should be first considered, they had determined that the following Bill should originate in the House of Lords, namely:—

Greenock and Port Glasgow Tramways Company (Substituted Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions

Naval and Military Pensions and Grants

Institutional Treatment

asked the Minister of Pensions what was the cost per head per week of ex-service patients under medical treatment in institutions belonging to the Ministry and in voluntary hospitals during 1925, 1926, and 1927?

As the information desired involves a certain amount of detail, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, cause the answer to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

The following table shows the cost per week per ex-service patient in institutions belonging to the Ministry as compared with the corresponding cost of ex-service patients in other hospitals for the years 1925, 1926, and 1927:

Year.

Ministry Institutions.

Other Hospitals.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

1925

3

0

7

2

19

8

1926

3

0

6

2

18

11

1927

3

0

3

2

18

7

Comparison of the cost per head as between the two classes of institution is necessarily affected by the fact that in institutions controlled by the Ministry the entire medical staff is salaried. Moreover, it is to be remembered that the Ministry only maintain separate institutions for treatment where that course is necessary to supplement existing civil accommodation or to provide treatment for special classes of disability for which hospital treatment is not otherwise available.

asked the Minister of Pensions the number of ex-service men, suffering from disability of any kind, for whose care the Ministry is responsible who are being treated in institutions belonging to local authorities in Scotland and England, respectively?

The number of ex-service men who are in receipt of treatment at the cost of the Ministry in institutions belonging to local authorities was at the end of January, approximately, 5,300 in England and 800 in Scotland.

Central Advisory Committee

asked the Minister of Pensions the date on which the last meeting of the Central Advisory Committee was held; and whether he will place a copy of the minutes of those proceedings in the Library for the information of Members?

The latest meeting of my Central Advisory Committee was held on the 30th November last. With regard to the last part of the question, I do not see my way to accept the suggestion made by the hon. Member. The proceedings of the Advisory Committee are in the nature of full and free discussion on the matters of administration and policy put before them, and this would not be the case if it were the practice to publish the proceedings.

New Hospital, Dunston, Gateshead

asked the Minister of Pensions if the proposed new hospital is to be in Dunston, Gateshead; and whether it is proposed to administer the hospital in association with the Dunston after-care home for disabled ex-service men maintained out of the County of Northumberland War Relief Fund?

Year.

1923.

1924.

1925.

1926.

1927.

Established

3

3

50

50

50

Unestablished

544

452

329

222

190

The average numbers of ex-service men receiving treatment during these years were 71,000, 56,500, 44,600, 34,700 and 27,700 respectively.

Servants' Registries, Cardiff (Fees)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received any Report from the Cardiff Watch Committee regarding the Chief Constable's statement concerning the amount paid in fees of £l,004 3s., by servants seeking situations to local servants' registries and that

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The premises which are known as Dunston Hill House, Dunston-on-Tyne, were formerly occupied by the Northumberland Naval and Military War Pensions Voluntary Fund. The administration of the hospital will be in the hands of my Ministry, but I have every reason to hope that some, if not all, of the members of the committee of the Northumberland Voluntary Fund will serve as members of the Welfare Committee of the new hospital when it is ready for occupation.

Government Departments

Ministry of Pensions (Medical Officers)

asked the Minister of Pensions what was the number of established and unestablished whole-time medical officers employed by the Ministry during 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926 and 1927, and the average number of ex-service cases under treatment during the same period?

In view of the detailed particulars required, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The numbers of established and unestablished whole-time medical officers (including the whole-time medical staffs of Ministry institutions) employed by the Ministry during the years in question were as follow:

only 1,714 persons were found situations, while on the other hand employers paid £342 5s., and were provided with 2,001 servants; and whether he intends to take steps to regularise these charges and prevent the payment of fees unless a situation is found for the applicant?

Yes. I have a report from the Chief Constable, and I am suggesting for the consideration of the council the adoption of a by-law similar to one which is in force in London, limiting the amount of the preliminary fee which may be charged to an applicant.

Public Health

Ethyl Petrol

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to ascertain that no ill effects will result from an extended use of petrol diluted with lead tetra-ethyl in motor vehicles in this country, and especially in large cities; whether he is satisfied that there will be no evil results on the health of the community; and if he is aware that stringent regulations have had to be imposed on the use of this fuel in America?

The effect of the use of this substance on the public health is a matter outside the jurisdiction of the Home Office, but in view of the possibility that special measures might have to be taken for the protection of factory workers, the Department has been following closely the investigations which have been carried out in, the United States, and I understand that no evidence has been discovered there of any injury being caused to the public. It is not the case, so I am informed, that any Regulations have been imposed in the United States on the use of this substance, but instructions are issued by the company supplying it, and the same is being done in this country. I may add that the effect on workers engaged in occupations in which there is any likelihood of their being exposed to risk from the use of this substance is being and will continue to be carefully watched. So far no case of lead poisoning has occurred.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the letter from Sir William Pope, the eminent chemist, which was published in the "Times" of yesterday, 22nd February, and has he observed the grave warning against the use of this substance made by this authority?

I know of this warning. I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that I gave a very careful answer. It is a new substance, and it is under most careful consideration and investigation at the present time. If anything of that kind is discovered I need hardly say that I will deal with it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the United States of America, according to this authority, five deaths and 30 cases of poisoning occurred in the factories; and is he only going to pay attention to factory workers. Is he going to take any steps to consider the effect in city thoroughfares?

As I said in the early part of my reply, the hon. and gallant Gentleman must not confuse the duties of the Home Office with the duties of the Ministry of Health. The Ministry of Health deals with public health; I only deal with the protection of factory life.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that lead poisoning takes a considerable time before it appears, and that that is the danger of this substance?

Can the right hon. Gentleman see to it that the Research Department make investigations into the matter?

I think I can reasonably do that. I will confer with my colleague, the Minister of Health, in order to see if one of the Research Departments can take this matter more fully in hand.

Small-Pox and Vaccination

asked the Minister of Health the number of smallpox cases in the Aspull and Hindley Urban Council areas during the period from 1st January, 1927, onwards to date; what are the causes of the outbreak; and what steps are being taken to prevent the disease spreading?

During the present year five cases of small-pox have occurred in the Hindley Urban District and four in the Aspull Urban District. The source of infection of the first case in each district has not been definitely ascertained. The usual steps are being taken in accordance with a memorandum issued by my Department to prevent the spread of infection, and I am informed by the medical officer of Hindley that patients were removed to hospital; house and clothing disinfected and contacts vaccinated or re-vaccinated. Handbills were prepared and distributed to every house in the district, and large notices warning the public of the outbreak and advising vaccination were posted in conspicuous positions throughout the district. The Infant Welfare Clinic was opened as a vaccination centre, where the vaccination officer was in attendance daily. All schools were visited and special arrangements made for vaccination or re-vaccination. Over 1,000 men, women and children were treated in this short period. All efforts were centred on prevention. Absentees from works and schools were reported to the Health Department daily and visited. The picture palace proprietors co-operated and the halls were closed for matinee performances. The schools, billiard halls, Employment Exchange and the post office were also disinfected and preventive measures taken wherever considered necessary.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to overcrowding and bad sanitation in these areas which may have caused the outbreak?

I am advised that overcrowding and bad sanitation do not cause outbreaks of small-pox.

Would it not be much more efficacious, instead of taking these panic measures when small-pox m already prevalent in a locality, to re-impose the duty upon all citizens to be vaccinated?

asked the Minister of Health how many of the 7,956 cases of smallpox classified in the Report of the chief medical officer of the Ministry of Health for the year 1926 as unvaccinated had been vaccinated during the incubation period of small-pox; and the ages of such patients?

Of the 7,956 cases classified as unvaccinated in the Report referred to, 459 were persons unvaccinated at the time of infection, but vaccinated during the incubation period. As the reply to the last part of the ques- tion involves a tabular statement I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say why there is no small-pox in Ireland, seeing that we get so much in England?

There are no snakes in Ireland.

Following is the statement:

The ages of the patients were as follow:

Under 1 year

15

1 and under 6

80

6 and under 11

111

11 and under 20

181

20 and under 50

64

50 and over

8

459

asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the greater difficulty experienced by medical officers of health in obtaining detailed information regarding the vaccinal condition of patients vaccinated during the incubation period of small-pox than in obtaining information as to their unvaccinated condition prior to exposure to small-pox, he will give instructions that, when the forms containing details of the cases are being filled up by the responsible officials, it should be stated whether the case was vaccinated during the incubation period instead of only that the case was originally unvaccinated?

I do not think that the information which would be obtained if this suggestion were adopted is of sufficient importance to justify me in imposing this additional requirement on the responsible medical officers.

Hospital Accommodation (Tall Patients)

asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the remarks made by the deputy coroner at an inquest held on Ernest Seldon Smith at Chelsea, in which it was proved that on account of the deceased's height, which was 6 feet 7 inches, there was not a bed long enough for him in the hospital; and will he give the necessary instructions that at all hospitals under his control there shall be one extra long bed for such tall patients?

I understand that the committee of the hospital have been asked to consider the question of providing for this kind of emergency. I do not think, however, that the matter is one in which I could properly issue any general instruction.

Marsh Lands (Spraying)

asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the approaching hot weather, he will issue a Circular to all local councils who have marshes in their vicinity, which are the natural breeding places for insects, advising that all such marsh lands should be sprayed so as to prevent plagues of mosquitoes this forthcoming summer?

I am advised that the indiscriminate spraying of all marsh lands is not necessary and would probably be ineffective. The pamphlet on "British Mosquitoes and their Control," published by the British Museum (Natural History) in collaboration with my Department, contains advice as to the best measures to combat mosquito pests, and my Department is prepared on request to advise local authorities in special circumstances.

May I ask whether, in view of the enormous increase of mosquitoes during the summer, the right hon. Gentleman will issue general instructions to local authorities so that they may be able to take every step that is known for mitigating this pest, which is growing?

The conditions are not the same in each locality, and it would be impossible to issue general instructions. All that I can do is to advise local authorities generally that, if they have any particular pest, they should apply to the Ministry of Health, and I can send down an expert who will be able to give them advice as to how to deal with the particular pest.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this pamphlet has been circulated to local authorities?

Imported Milk Regulations

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is prepared to limit the importation of all milk and milk substitutes under licences granted only where there are effective guarantees that the imports are produced under sanitary conditions equal to those required in this country and when analysis shows that the imported articles fulfil all requirements operative in this country?

I do not think that it would be practicable to deal with the question of imports in the manner proposed. The Imported Milk Regulations of 1926 require imported milk to comply with a strict bacterial test and to be free from tubercle bacilli, and they make provision for removing from the register of importers any person importing milk which does not comply with the required conditions. As regards condensed and dried milk (which I assume to be what my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind in speaking of milk substitutes), I may say that all imports are required to conform to prescribed standards, and that a recent inquiry showed that the sanitary conditions of milk production in the countries from which most of the imports are derived are not inferior to those existing in this country.

Capital Punishment

asked the Home Secretary whether he is considering the desirability of abolishing capital punishment and substituting for it penal servitude for life?

Courts of Law (Welsh Language)

asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the recommendation of the Departmental Committee on the Welsh language that the provision of Section 20 of the Act of Parliament, 27 Henry VIII, cap. 26, which forbids the use of Welsh in Courts of law should be repealed; and whether he will introduce a Bill to effect this purpose?

I am aware of this interesting recommendation. The Section referred to is, I think, Section 17 and not Section 20. The question of its repeal raises important issues, some at least of which it would not be for me to decide, but I will look into the matter.

asked the Home Secretary whether, with a view to preventing any charge for the services of a Welsh interpreter being made on the parties to any proceedings in Courts of Summary Jurisdiction, he will issue to magistrates' clerks in Wales and Monmouth instructions similar to those issued to registrars of County Courts by the Lord Chancellor in a circular dated 9th April, 1928?

I believe that the practice which the hon. Member desires to establish is already universally observed, but if he has information to the contrary and will kindly let me have it, I will certainly consider the matter.

asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the suggestion made by the members of the Departmental Committee of the Board of Education on the Welsh language that a statutory Welsh form of any oath or affirmation required to be taken or made in Courts of Law should be provided, and that Welsh versions should also be provided for other statutory forms, such as the questions, cautions and explanations of charges which the Summary Jurisdiction Acts and the Criminal Justice Act, 1925, require should be addressed by the Court to the accused on the hearing of charges against them in Courts of Summary Jurisdiction; and whether he will take the necessary steps to put this suggestion into operation?

Murders With Firearms

asked the Home Secretary if, in view of the number of murders recently committed with the aid of firearms, he will take steps to amend the law with regard to the possession of firearms?

I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that figures to the latest date available do not show that the number of murders with firearms is increasing; rather the contrary.

Does the Home Secretary agree that if the Government introduced the penalty of flogging for those who shoot with intent the effect would be that bank outrages and other offences would be very much reduced?

In view of the recent statements made by magistrates and Recorders on the danger of firearms and easily converted toy pistols, will the right hon. Gentleman seek amending legislation in order to make it almost impossible for firearms to be in the possession of persons who have no right to have them?

The hon. Gentleman's question began with the word "if," and is, therefore, as a hypothetical question, out of order.

I can only say that the whole matter is under constant care and attention. The hon. Member must realise—and I say it with great respect—that a magistrate or Recorder who has one particular case in his ken, is not in the same position to take a complete conspectus as I, who have the whole of the cases under my care. It is quite clear, as I said in my reply to my hon. Friend, that murders with firearms are not increasing. The question of the toy pistol which can be converted is already under the consideration of the Home Office. It is a very difficult question to deal with, as the hon. Member knows. I cannot destroy the trade in toy pistols.

Greyhound Racing (Betting)

asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the great number of greyhound racing tracks that have been established during the past 12 months which are an incentive to gambling amongst the younger generation, he will consider the introduction of legislation making it compulsory for all grey- hound racing tracks to obtain a licence from the Metropolitan or local municipal councils?

As I said last Tuesday in reply to a supplementary question by the hon. Member, I should be glad if the opinion of the House were elicited. I cannot, however, as at present advised, consider the introduction of any Government Bill.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say, in view of the difficulty of hon. Members having an opportunity of testing the opinion of the House on this subject, whether, if a private Member were to introduce a Bill, the Government would give sympathetic consideration to it as far as time is concerned?

It would depend in the first instance what the Bill contained. I would suggest, if I may, to hon. Members in all parts of the House, if there is a desire to debate this matter, that there are two more Wednesdays on which Ballots for Notices of Motion will take place and other opportunities. Surely somebody might be the lucky person to bring the matter forward, when I would give it consideration.

Liquor, Traffic (Extended Hours of Opening)

asked the Home Secretary the number of cases in which inquiries and reports have been submitted by the Metropolitan Police in respect of applications for the extension of hours for the sale of intoxicating liquor on licensed and registered premises between 1st January and 18th February, 1928, and the number of such applications which were granted?

I can only give the figures for the last completed quarter. In that quarter ending 31st December last, the number of applications was, in the case of licensed premises, 3,314, of which 3,242 were granted, and, in the case of registered clubs, 1,005, of which 901 were granted.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, when granting these special facilities, any conditions are imposed; and, further, whether one of these conditions is that he ought not or should not auction off champagne after 12 o'clock midnight?

I have not heard of any condition of that kind being inserted nor do I see any necessity for it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he thinks that the auctioning of champagne after the hour of midnight is one of the things which should be prevented?

Transport

Taxicabs, London

asked the Home Secretary whether he can make a statement as to the taximeter-cab position in London; and whether he can afford information as to the relative fares, cost of petrol, and vehicles in London and Paris for four persons, and the relative cost of living in the two cities?

The new tariff of 9d. per mile came into operation on the 1st May, 1927, but the fixing of the new taximeters did not commence until the 1st November, 1927, from which date all the motor cabs presented for re-licensing were required to have affixed a taximeter recording at the new scale of charges. On the 18th February, 1928, the number of such meters affixed to motor-cabs was 1,935. Negotiations are in hand with the taximeter makers with a view to the expedition of the output of new meters. As a result it is hoped that a sufficient reserve of altered meters can be maintained so that the change over can be extended to motor cabs other than those presented for re-licensing. I regret that the information available does not enable me to answer the latter part of the question.

Has the right hon. Gentleman received any communication from the taxicab trade that the minimum fare of sixpence is one which brings them down almost to starvation level?

Will my right hon. Friend look into the great disparity in prices in Paris and in London with a view to taking action?

I do not quite know what action my hon. and gallant Friend desires me to take. Does he desire me further to reduce the fares? Perhaps he will take on my job.

Will my right hon. Friend consider the difference between the numbers of taxicabs in Paris and in London, seing that we have a great many more under our control than they have in Paris?

I am not so well acquainted with Paris as my hon. and gallant Friend. We might go together and inquire into this matter.

Will my right hon. Friend take into consideration every other relative difference between Paris and London?

There again I am rather in a difficulty compared with the hon. Member.

Motor Car Insurance (Third-Party Risks)

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider the desirability of issuing a regulation rendering it compulsory for motorists and motor-cyclists to insure against third-party risks?

I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave on Tuesday last to the hon. and gallant Member for the Everton Division (Colonel Woodcock), of which I am sending him a copy.

In view of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, which refers to his Traffic Bill, is it not a fact that this Traffic Bill is not going to be proceeded with?

Would it not be as well if the right hon. Gentleman were to say plainly whether it is the intention of his Department to proceed with this Bill this Session, so that we should know where we are?

We cannot proceed with it this Session, but it will be proceeded with as soon as possible.

Would it not be better for the right hon. Gentleman to let the House understand that, instead of continually referring to questions on these subjects covered by this Bill, thus leading the House to hope that the Bill is about to be introduced and dealt with?

Railways (Workmen's Fares)

asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the increase in dividends announced during recent weeks by railway companies in the home counties, whether he is aware of the hardship imposed upon workmen whose fares have been increased; and, if so, whether he will direct that inquiry be made with a view to restoring the lower rates previously in force?

Jurisdiction over railway charges resides with the Railway Rates Tribunal, who recently settled new scales of charges, including the charges for workmen's tickets, after a prolonged public hearing. The new charges came into operation on 1st January last and will be reviewed by the Tribunal next year. I would remind the hon. Member that while, as a result of the new scale, some workmen's fares may have been increased, others have been reduced, and that the railway companies have given an undertaking that, where the new standard fares exceed those previously in operation, any increase charged would not exceed 1d. a day or 6d. a week.

Rabbit Snaring Prosecution, St. Helens

asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the cases of John Ramsbottom and Samuel Seddon, who were fined at the Lancaster County Sessions held in St. Helens £10 and £5, respectively, for being engaged in snaring rabbits; and if, as this is a case of ordinary trespass and the men are only casually employed as miners an average of three days a week at the utmost, he will consider a reduction of the fines?

My attention had not been drawn to this case, but I have made inquiry and I find that this was very far from being an ordinary trespass. Seddon, who still owes £2 15s. of a fine of £5, inflicted more than three years ago for a similar offence, was caught with Ramsbottom. They had three nets, 150 yards long, 17 pegs, a drawing line and three rabbits. There are no grounds on which I could advise reduction of the fines imposed by the Court.

Is it not a fact that, no matter what the number of rabbits or the number of nets may be, persons found in possession of rabbits are not within the Game laws, but are merely trespassers? In view of all the circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman apply the more humane law of Genesis to the situation?

Richard Aubrey Dixon (Prosecution)

asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of Richard Aubrey Dixon, who was acquitted at the Old Bailey on 23rd November, 1926, of a charge in respect of which he was extradited from Australia; if he is aware that Mr. Dixon is unable to afford a passage back to Australia; and whether he will use any discretionary power, vested in him by Section eight of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, to send him back to Australia free of cost or will otherwise assist his passage back to his wife and family?

This matter has been considered very carefully. It was a private prosecution and, on consideration of all the facts, including both trials, I have not been able to take the course suggested.

Is it not the case that this man was brought here for a criminal trial at the expense of the parties bringing him; that he has been acquitted and is not able to afford his passage back to Australia. Are there no Government moneys available whereby assistance can be given to the man?

It is true that I have power under the Fugitive Offenders Act to pay for the return of a defendant in suitable circumstances. I have gone very carefully into this case. I do not know whether the hon. Member has read the remarks of the Judge on this man, who prosecuted in turn for damages. The remarks of the Judge were such as to lead me to believe that this is not a case where I ought to use public funds in sending the man back.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that the man was acquitted, whatever his own action may have been, and does not that justify a grant from public funds to send him back?

I do not want to make public remarks about the man, but if my hon. Friend will read the report in the Press of what the Judge said, on the 19th January, in regard to the fortunate character of the previous trial, I think he will not press me any further in the matter.

Education

Secondary and Elementary Schools (Returns)

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will consider, in the interests of economy, the desirability of simplifying the existing forms of Returns, both in secondary and technical schools; and whether he is aware that the present forms are so complicated as to necessitate the employment of a special clerk, thus involving unnecessary expenditure of the ratepayers' money?

I have already given this question a great deal of consideration, and my hon. and gallant Friend will be interested to learn that during the last two years an overall reduction of nearly 30 per cent. has been effected in the number of forms in use, and in the case of forms relating to secondary and technical schools the reduction amounts to over 40 per cent. I hope to carry still further the process of reduction and simplification, and I shall be happy to receive any specific suggestions which my hon. and gallant Friend may be able to make to me.

Supplementary Teachers

asked the President of the Board of Education how many supplementary teachers there are with 20, 25, 30, or 35 years' service, respectively; how many have been created since 1914 and 1918, respectively, up to date; and what steps, if any, are being taken to efficiently train the latter?

The service of individual supplementary teachers is not recorded by the Board, and I am, therefore, unable to supply the particulars asked for in the first two parts of the question. As regards the third part, under the Code, persons employed as supplementary teachers must receive such training for the practical work of teaching as the Board require, and arrangements for this purpose are made by the local authorities in consultation with His Majesty's Inspectors. As the hon. Member knows, the number of these teachers is declining.

National Health Insurance

asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the continued volume of unemployment, he will suspend for a further three years paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of Leaflet 32 (revised), National Health Insurance, in cases where insured women who have married are able to show they did not cease work voluntarily, but were unemployed owing to inability to obtain work?

The operation of the provisions of the National Health Insurance Acts referred to by the hon. Member have been suspended, in the circumstances mentioned, until the 31st December, 1928, under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act.

Contributory Pensions Act

asked the Minister of Health what action should be taken by a married woman aged 60, and compulsorily insured, who has supported an invalid husband for 20 years but is now getting beyond work, to conserve her right to a pension as an insured person the husband being 66 years of age?

If, as would seem to be implied, the woman concerned has been insured since 15th July, 1912, the special concession contained in Section 38 (4) of the Contributory Pensions Act would apply, and she would be entitled, if she gave up work, to pay each year the number of contributions required to keep alive her pension rights.

asked the Minister of Health whether he has received any protest from the Wigan Board of Guardians against increased expenditure resulting or likely to result from the operation of the new Old Age Pensions Act depriving recipients of pension from receiving health insurance or unemployment benefit; whether any protests have been received from the Leigh, St. Helens, and Warrington Boards of Guardians; and, if so, what is the increased amount these guardians estimate will be payable?

I have received a resolution in this matter from the Wigan Board of Guardians but not from the other boards of guardians mentioned. The letter which I have received does not include any estimate of increased cost likely to be payable by the guardians, and on such information as is available to me, I should expect that there would be more probability of a decrease than an increase of cost as the result of the passing of the Act.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in several areas it has been proved that there has been an increase since the Pensions Act was passed?

I am aware that in several guardians' areas it has been proved that there has been a very large decrease.

asked the Minister of Health his attitude towards the resolutions he has received from the Wigan Board of Guardians relative to the adverse effects to the ratepayers of the passing and operations of the Unemployment Insurance and Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts?

As regards the second Act mentioned, I would refer the hon. Member to the remarks made by me in the course of the Debate last night upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove). Questions in regard to the former Act are more for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour than for myself.

asked the Minister of Health if it is proposed to alter the disability of old age pensions not being paid to those who leave to reside in the British Dominions or Colonies immediately subsequent to having qualified for such pensions?

I would remind my hon. Friend that the Contributory Pensions Act authorises the making of reciprocal arrangements between this country and any part of the Dominions which has established schemes of health insurance and pensions substantially corresponding to the scheme embodied in the Act, and a communication on the subject has been addressed to the Governments of the Dominions. In the absence of reciprocal arrangements, I am afraid that administrative difficulties would preclude action on the lines suggested.

asked the Minister of Health how many persons actually in insurance on 31st December 1927, have been refused old age pensions under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act; and how many wives, who claimed on the strength of their husbands' insurance, have been refused on the ground that their husbands' claims have been refused?

The work involved in the actual decision of the claims for old age pensions arising at 2nd January, 1928, has been so heavy that it has not yet been possible to classify the rejections and ascertain the numbers in the various classes.

Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate the possibility of being able to give that information at some early date?

Yes. I would not like to specify when, but as soon as the pressure of work is over we shall turn our attention to that classification.

Poor Law

Institutions (Cost of Invalid Inmates)

asked the Minister of Health what was the cost per head per week of adult persons under medical treatment in institutions belonging to boards of guardians in England and Wales during the years 1925, 1926, and 1927, respectively?

The average weekly cost per inmate in Poor Law institutions in England and Wales for persons suffering from disease of body or mind, for which separate accounts are kept (other than institutions belonging to the Managers of the Metropolitan Asylums District) was 43s. in the year ended 31st March, 1925, and 42s. 63d. in the year ended 31st March, 1926. The corresponding figure for the year ended 31st March, 1927, is not yet available, nor are figures distinguishing the cost of adult persons from that of children.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how those figures compare with the cost per patient in voluntary hospitals?

Relief (Urgent Cases)

asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that some villages in England and Wales are many miles away from the relieving officer of the district, and that some other relieving officer is more easily available, he will make an Order or Regulation empowering such other officer to give relief in cases of sudden or urgent necessity?

As the hon. Member is, I think, aware, the responsibility of a relieving officer is not now confined to the cases arising in the district to which he is appointed, but extends to the whole union of which that district is a part. I have, however, no power to require the officer of one union to act in another union, and on the information at present before me I see no advantage in action on these lines.

Housing

Statistics

asked the Minister of Health the number of houses at pre- sent under construction or sanctioned under the Housing Acts of 1923 and 1924, respectively, and the number for the corresponding period of last year?

STATEMENT showing (1) the number of houses under construction and (2) the number of houses which have been authorised for erection but which have not yet been started under the Housing, etc., Act, 1923, and the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, at 1st February, 1928, and 1st February, 1927, respectively.

1st February, 1928.

1st February, 1927.

Number of houses under construction.

Number of houses authorised but not started.

Number of houses under construction.

Number of houses authorised but not started.

1.

2.

3.

4.

Housing, etc., Act, 1923

20,260

64,693

51,298

76,841

Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924.

30,296

30,512

51,267

47,686

Total

50,556

95,205

102,565

124,527

Rural Workers Act

asked the Minister of Health how many houses have been improved and how many others have been scheduled for improvement in Somerset under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926; whether he is satisfied with the progress made; and, if not, whether he will appoint the 11 rural district councils who have applied to him to be the authority to carry out the Act in their areas?

Up to the 31st December, 1927, the Somerset County Council had received applications for assistance under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, in respect of the improvement of 40 existing dwellings. Grants had been promised in respect of five dwellings, and work had been commenced, but not finished, on these five dwellings. I am not satisfied with the progress which has, so far, been made, and I recently issued a circular letter to local authorities urging them to take further steps with a view to expediting work under the Act. I trust that as a result of my representations better progress will be made.

asked the Minister of Health how many houses have been reconstructed in the County of Stafford under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act and in each of the rural council areas contained in the county?

As the reply involves a tabular statement, I will, with the hon. Member's consent, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

The authority for the administration of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act in Staffordshire is the county council who have adopted a scheme for giving effect to the Act. Up to the end of last year no applications for assistance under the Act had been received by the council, although steps had been taken to make the county scheme known. I understand that a number of applications have since been received, and in two cases grants have been recommended.

As I stated in my answer, the first difficulty was that no applications were being received. Now I understand that applications are being received and are being dealt with.

Building Materials (Prices)

asked the Minister of Health whether he has received any explanation from the Inter-Departmental Committee upon the prices of building materials as to why the price of kitchen ranges has risen in the Birmingham market from £7 15s. each in 1924 to £8 6s. 8d. in November, 1927?

I am making inquiry of the Committee and will communicate with the hon. Member further.

asked the Minister of Health whether he has received any explanation from the Inter-Departmental Committee upon the Prices of Building Materials as to why the price of white lead in the Birmingham market has risen from £2 18s. per cwt. in January, 1924, to £3 2s. 6d. in November, 1927?

No, Sir; but I understand that later reports received by the Committee show that the price is now down again to £2 18s. per cwt.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what action he takes when he gets instances like this from his Committee on increased prices? Does he communicate with the makers of these goods?

Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to a letter in the "Manchester Guardian" in which a building contractor intimates that he has to pay 72s. 6d. per 1,000 bricks within the ring, and that he can get the same bricks from the same firm at 58s. per 1,000. Does he not think that this is a matter which should be dealt with?

I do not think we shall ever stop different prices being quoted in different areas.

Since the same firm are discriminating to the extent of 14s. per 1,000 bricks, does it not imply that the producers have got their hands on the building trade of this country?

Is it not the case that, if the present building subsidy was revised, these rates would come down?

Caravans, Tramcars and Railway Carriages

asked the Minister of Health whether he can now review the sanction hitherto given to the Seisdon Rural Council, Staffordshire, to permit caravans, tramcars, and railway carriages to be used as dwellings; and if he will consider the fixing of a time limit for abolishing these as suitable for habitation?

I am not aware of having given such a sanction. If the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of any difficulties, I will make inquiries.

Rents

asked the Minister of Health the rents charged for houses of various sizes under the 1924 Act in industrial and rural areas?

The rents under the 1924 Act must be fixed in accordance with the conditions prescribed by Section 3 of the Act and my specific approval is not required. Particulars of the rents actually charged are not available in the Department. Some information as to the rents charged in a number of districts was circulated in reply to a question some time ago, and I will send the hon. Member a copy.

asked the Minister of Health what charges are being made for maintenance, management, and empties for houses under the 1924 Act; and what proportion do these charges form of the rents received?

As regards houses provided under the 1924 Act, local authorities are required to make such provision for repairs, management, empties and insurance as appear to them reasonable, having regard to their experience in administering houses already erected under the Acts of 1919 and 1923. This provision is equivalent to about 25 per cent. or 30 per cent. of the rents, exclusive of rates.

Rent Restrictions Acts (Sub-Letting)

asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to criticisms regarding the omissions in and the obscurity of the Rent Restrictions Acts in the case recently heard by the Court of Appeal with respect to the position of sub-letting tenancies under the Acts; if he will state whether the Government propose to arrange for the further extension of the Acts or whether it is their intention to introduce legislation this Session to deal with the matter on a permanent basis; and, if the latter course is proposed, will he consider as to setting up a small body to inquire into the subject and to prepare a draft Measure for purposes of discussion as a preliminary to the introduction of the Bill to deal with the matter?

My attention has been drawn to the case to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. I am not yet in a position to make any statement as to the future of the Rent Restrictions Acts.

Is there any truth in the drastic remarks made by the learned Judge? If so, does my right hon. Friend not think it would be advisable to consider some small Amendment to deal with the points that were made by the learned Judge?

I certainly think that there are things in the Act that might be amended with advantage, but to the question as to when it will be possible to introduce an amending Bill I am not in a position to give an answer.

Rates

asked the Minister of Health the amount raised per head of the population in rates by all local authorities in the country for the years ending 31st March, 1914, 1926 and 1927?

The amounts of rates per head of population collected by all local authorities in England and Wales in the financial years ending 31st March, 1914, 1926 and 1927, average £1 18s. 11d., £3 16s. 5d. and £4 1s. 8d., respectively. The last amount is approximate only.

Iraq (Treaty)

asked the Prime Minister whether the treaty concluded last year between His Majesty's Government and the King of Iraq will be laid before Parliament during the present Session, together with a statement by the Government and an opportunity for discussion by the House?

The text of the treaty was laid before Parliament in December last. As regards an opportunity for discussion, I have nothing to add to the replies which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member on the 12th and 19th December last.

Is the Prime Minister aware that this will mean that the new Assembly at Bagdad will discuss this treaty while this sovereign Parliament will have no opportunity of expressing any opinion upon it at all?

I think the hon. and gallant Member is under a little misapprehension. The position is this. There are two subsidiary agreements, one financial and one military, to be prepared and submitted with the treaty to the Parliament of Iraq. Iraq, I understand, is shortly to have what we are all looking forward to here—a General Election. Then the treaty, with the subsidiary documents, will have to go before that Parliament. Then they will have to go before the League of Nations, and they will have to be examined there. Not until after all these things have taken place will formal ratification be made by the British Government. The hon. and gallant Member knows quite well, no one knows it better, that there will be innumerable opportunities for raising the question if he and other hon. Members so desire long before that consummation is reached.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that that is a very different matter from laying a treaty of this importance before Parliament, as was done in the case of the Irish Treaty and the Peace Treaties? This Parliament is going to have a last word after everybody else has decided upon it.

The procedure has often been explained and has been laid down clearly by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in a treaty of this kind. Such procedure is the usual one and has always been followed.

Does the Prime Minister anticipate that he is going to have an early General Election in this country?

I do not think any words of mine would lead the hon. Member to make that deduction.

Coal Industry (Wages, Northumberland and Durham)

asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the Durham and Northumberland miners have again suffered reductions in their wages; and whether he will appoint a Committee to investigate the poverty existing in the mining areas in the North of England, or will he state what steps he proposes to take in the interests of the mining community?

On a point of Order. I put this question specially to the Prime Minister. Last Monday on the Adjournment we had the Departmental view, which meant nothing, and we were so dissatisfied that I have put down this question to the Prime Minister specially.

The Prime Minister is quite entitled to ask one of his Ministers to answer a question.

I make no reflection on the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Let that be understood. We had the Departmental view last Monday, and we got no further. I want the Prime Minister to face the question and answer it. If he will not, I am going to withdraw it.

National Finance

Government Brokers

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer who are now the Government brokers; at what rate they are remunerated for their services; and what sums have been paid to them from the public funds in the present financial year and in each of the last three financial years, respectively?

The brokers to the National Debt Commissioners are Messrs. Mullens, Marshall, Steer, Lawford and Company. They are remunerated by a fixed salary borne on the Vote for the National Debt Office Subhead A. Since 1920 the payment has been £2,000 a year. So far as other Government Departments employ brokers from time to time, whether this firm or any other, the remuneration would be by commission in the ordinary way.

Income Tax

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in framing the new Finance Bill, he will consider an amendment of the present system of assessing the incomes of married people living together by the issue of separate assessments instead of treating them as one for Income Tax purposes?

Under the existing law either a husband or a wife may elect for separate assessment to Income Tax, but the total amount of tax payable by the spouses is not thereby diminished. I assume, however, that what my hon. and gallant Friend is suggesting in his question is the adoption of a course under which a husband and a wife would receive individual personal allowances and be taxed at a rate or rates determined by their individual incomes and not, as at present, by their joint income. The Government are unable to incur the expense of a policy involving this result.

Is not that policy contravened by the Married Women's Property Act?

There is nothing new in the position, winch has been established for many years.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the growing tendency of Income and Super-tax payers to reside abroad for six months in each year in order to evade* the tax; and whether he proposes taking any steps to safeguard the revenue in this respect and at the same time to prevent the additional burden being put on those who do not avail themselves of such expedients?

My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension in thinking that residence abroad for six months in any year enables a person to escape liability to Income Tax and Super-tax. He may, however, rest assured that the question of attempted evasion of taxation by means of temporary residence abroad is engaging my serious attention.

United States (British Debt)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the possibility of approaching the American Government with a view to securing their assent to the payment of a part of the British obligations in kind?

Motor Duties (Foreign Lawn-Mowers)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give an estimate as to the amounts that would be raised if the present motor duties were extended to foreign lawn-mowers?

Facial Preparations (Taxation)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the statistical office in Berlin states that Great Britain bought more than 170 tons of facial preparations from Germany in 1927; and whether he will give this matter his close attention in connection with the consideration of redundancy and luxury taxes?

My attention has been drawn to a report of the German statement of exports to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. His suggestion has been noted.

National Debt (Voluntary Contributions)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will experiment for one year in placing boxes in all post offices and in any other suitable place where odd change can be placed to go towards the reduction of the National Debt?

Ought not donations to the Exchequer, even of the smallest quantities, to be encouraged as far as possible?

Penny Postage and Motor Taxation

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the predominating number of high-powered American motor cars in use in the Dominions; and whether he will re- consider the tax on horse-power of motor cars with a view to removing the handicap on British manufacturers?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is still in favour of restoring the penny post during the lifetime of the present Parliament; and whether he is considering the desirability of including the revision of postal rates in the forthcoming Budget?

I would refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave to the hon. Members for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury) and Basingstoke (Sir A. Holbrook) on the 21st February.

I could wholeheartedly reply in the affirmative if other circumstances did not override my wishes.

Co-Operative Societies (Income Tax)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any information as to the number and extent of retail businesses, hitherto carried on by individuals and companies, which have been purchased and absorbed by the co-operative societies in England and Scotland during the past five years, and the amount of Income Tax paid on the profits of these businesses on the three years' average before their absorption?

Does my right hon. Friend not realise that, in view of the steadily diminishing area of taxable income due to the causes mentioned in the question, it is important for his Department to keep some track of these transactions, to keep down the tendency to the gradual increase of co-operative enterprise and the tendency to diminish the area of taxable income?

The area of taxable income is inevitably reduced when properties are acquired by a large number of persons acting co-operatively or in combination, whose individual incomes are below the taxable limit.

Does my right hon. Friend not think it important to have some statistical record in the Department of what is going on?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the Act was passed it was anticipated that these co-operative societies would deal only with members, but, in spite of that, they are going into every class of business and commerce and banking; and does he think that is fair to the ordinary trader?

Estimates (Cost-Of-Living Index Figure)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Estimates for the forthcoming financial year are based on a cost-of-living bonus figure of 70 per cent. for the whole year or on 70 per cent. for the first six months and 65 per cent. or lower for the second six months?

The Estimates for 1928 are based on a cost-of-living bonus figure of 70 per cent. for six months of the year and 65 per cent. for the remaining six months.

Films (Production and> Assistance)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the average price received by the Treasury per exhibition of films produced with the aid of His Majesty's forces and naval ratings?

Standard of Living (Foreign Loans)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is prepared to consider the advisability of taking powers to prevent the raising of loans in this country for countries whose standard of living does not reach a specified level?

No, Sir. I do not see my way to adopt this suggestion. The best way to remedy a low standard of living is by economic development of which a condition is the importation of capital. It is not true that the most formidable competition comes from the countries with the lowest standard of living; indeed the low standard is in itself evidence of industrial incompetence. In any case it would be quite impracticable either to measure standards of living for the purpose suggested, or to enforce a prohibtion of the export of British capital to the countries which had in our opinion too low a standard.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the inefficiency that is indicated applies to the coal trade in this country?

My remarks were of a general character, and I had no thought of giving them particular application.

When the right hon. Gentleman talks of remedies for the low standard of living has he overlooked international action, and is he aware of the record of his own Government in the matter?

Is not the low standard of life the reason for the demand for safeguarding?

I do not see what any of this has to do with the original question, to which I gave perhaps a fuller answer than I need have done.

Royal Dockyards (Rating)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what contribution was made to the rates of each of the dockyard towns in respect of Government property there in 1913, 1914, and in each of the last two years; and whether, seeing that under the new valuation there has been an increase in valuation of civilian property in these towns, quite irrespective of any improvements, he will say what increase he proposes to make in the Government contribution to each of these towns?

As the answer contains a table of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question, as it does not involve any figures?

The last part is that in view of the revaluation of civilian property in these towns, the Government contributions will be re-assessed, but the amounts of the revised contributions cannot yet be stated.

Chatham and Gillingham.

Pembroke.

Plymouth, Devonport and E. Stonehouse.

Portsmouth.

Sheerness.

£

£

£

£

£

1913–14

31,224

4,910

32,814

38,671

6,307

1914–15

29,080

5,044

32,477

40,047

6,783

1925–26

54,806

12,860

88,038

71,295

13,376

1926–27

58,745

10,276

82,188

78,835

14,607

In view of the revaluation of civilian property in these towns, the Government contributions will be re-assessed, but the amounts of the revised contributions cannot yet be stated, I fear, as the necessary calculations have not yet been made.

Trade Facilities Act

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total capital guaranteed under the Trade Facilities Act, and the amount in respect of which guarantees are still outstanding?

The total amount guaranteed under the Trade Facilities Acts was £74,251,780, and the amount in respect of which guarantees are still outstanding is £71,427,400.

Tithe Apportionments and Maps (Custody)

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the removal of tithe award maps from the proper parochial custody to distant centres by the new collectors appointed by Queen Anne's Bounty and to the inconvenience thereby caused to tithe rentcharge payers in respect to the verification of the claims made on them; and whether he will take the necessary steps to restore such maps and awards to the proper legal custody?

Queen Anne's Bounty have no power to require the transfer

Following is the answer:

The contribution made from the Vote for rates on Government property to the dockyard towns in the years in question were as follows:

from incumbents and churchwardens of the parish copies of Tithe Apportionments and Maps in their custody, and I have ascertained from the Bounty that they have not authorised any of their collectors to remove any of those documents. The Ministry has no power to order the restoration to their proper custodians of such documents as are in the possession of persons not entitled to them. Section 28 of the Tithe Act, 1860, provides a remedy in such cases, but the initiative lies with some person interested in the rentcharge or the lands charged. If, however, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me details of any particular case where the parish copies of the tithe documents are in the custody of unauthorised persons and inconvenience is caused to the tithe payers thereby, I will certainly have inquiry made into the matter.

"Labour Gazette."

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of copies of the "Labour Gazette" printed during each of the last two years; what percentage of this number has been supplied to the public, irrespective of those used and distributed amongst official Departments; what was the cost of production each year; and what were the total receipts from sales to the public?

As the information asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend is full of figures and can be more clearly set out in a tabular statement, may I have his permission to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Following is the statement:

MINISTRY OF LABOUR GAZETTE.

Calendar Year.

Calendar Year.

1926.

1927.

1926.

1927.

£

£

£

£

Total Expenses of Production and Distribution, etc.

3,577

3,869

Sales

1,411

1,286

Advertisements

378

858

Copies supplied to Ministry of Labour for external distribution.

1,551

1,416

Balance

72

16

Copies supplied to Government Departments and Libraries.

309

325

£3,649

£3,885

£3,649

£3,885

Copies printed

136,500

125,125

Copies sold

56,445

51,423

External distribution by Ministry of Labour.

62,025 *

* 56,65056,650

Copies supplied to Government Departments and Libraries.

12,377

12,982

* These are used for distribution to employers and workpeoples' associations and others (who furnish the Ministry, gratis, with statistical information and reports) and to Members of Parliament.These are used for distribution to employers and workpeoples' associations and others (who furnish the Ministry, gratis, with statistical information and reports) and to Members of Parliament.

Beet Sugar Factories

Labour Conditions

asked the Minister of Agriculture what are the conditions of labour, as to hours a day and days a week worked, at the Selby beet-sugar factory; and what provision is made for intermissions for meals?

I understand that the arrangements made at this factory provide for the men engaged in unloading beet, coal, limestone, etc., to be employed on piece work, and they normally work about 54 hours a week in the busy season and 44 hours a week at other times, with an intermission for meals. Men working inside the factory are employed on a 12-hour shift during the manufacturing campaign, which in the past season lasted 80 days. During the remainder of the year the permanent staff retained work 44 hours per week. Owing to the nature of the employment there is in most cases no difficulty in the way of the workers taking meals, and where necessary reliefs are provided for this purpose.

Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the allegations made at the recent cooperative party conference?

If my hon. Friend will send me the allegations to which he refers, I shall gladly look into them.

Have any complaints been received by the right hon. Gentleman's Department in regard to any of these factories, as to the men and the boys concerned having to do without any regular meal hours?

No, I have had no complaint. I gather that the conditions are found satisfactory by those affected, and that under these conditions they are earning about 91s. a week.

Is there any advantage in having employés working 12 hours, instead of having three shifts of workers working eight hours each?

It is not very easy to find the skilled supervision necessary, and some of the factories have had to bring in a great deal of foreign labour. I believe if we interfere in this matter, it will be very difficult to carry out the arrangements without sanctioning the employment of additional foreigners.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that with 1,000,000 unemployed in the country, we could have sufficient skilled labour, if the opportunity were provided for men to acquire the necessary knowledge of this machinery; and will he consult the factory people with a view to making a change in that direction?

Do these factories come under the Factories and Workshops Act, and, if so, are the Regulations being applied?

I think they come under the Factories Act, but I ought to have notice of that question.

Does not the 12-hour day relate to unskilled labour as well as to skilled labour?

Yes it does. A good deal of this labour does not involve continuous attention. A man may be looking after a filter press or some other apparatus which needs only intermittent attention, and gives him time to have his meals while he is on duty.

Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the fact that three men were killed a short time ago at the Bury St. Edmunds factory, and that their deaths were attributed to the fact of working long hours?

I was not aware of that fact. I think the accident was attributed to the weather, which blew over a crane.

River Pollution

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is devoting attention to the pollution of rivers by poisonous effluents from beet-sugar factories; and whether he proposes to take action to increase the powers of his Department in regard to this question?

In reply to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 13th instant by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education to the hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil (Major Davies), a copy of which I am sending to him. The administrative and legislative aspects of the question of river pollution are engaging the attention of a Committee appointed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and myself under the Chairmanship of Sir Horace Monro.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the development of the dessication process may prove the solution of the effluent problem?

We have no evidence of that at present. The dessication process has only lately been started on a commercial scale and we have not got the results.

Agriculture

Occupying Owners

asked the Minister of Agriculture the number and acreage of agricultural holdings owned by the occupiers in England and Wales in 1924, 1925, 1926 and 1927?

As the reply contains a number of figures, I propose, with the right hon. Gentleman's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The number and acreage of agricultural holdings owned by the occupiers in England and Wales in 1924, 1926 and 1927, according to returns furnished by the occupiers, were as follows:

Acreage.

Number of Holdings.

1924

6,574,044

94,236

1926

7,295,580

107,184

1927

9,225,734

146,887

This information was not collected in 1925.

The difficulty of obtaining reliable information on this point and the unsatisfactory nature of the returns in respect of the years prior to 1927 have been alluded to in reports published by my Department. The figures in respect of 1927, however, which appear to justify the suspicion attaching to the figures for earlier years, may be regarded with a greater degree of confidence, as special efforts were made on that occasion to obtain satisfactory answers to this particular question on the schedule.

Potatoes (Importation)

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is prepared to consider the limitation of importation of potatoes by licence for specified periods; and whether he will introduce legislation and take other action to this end?

Apart from several other serious objections, the Convention for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restrictions, which was signed at Geneva by a representative of His Majesty's Government towards the end of last year, though not yet ratified, would preclude the adoption of this proposal.

Foot-And-Mouth Disease

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Department have had under investigation the risk of infection of foot-and-mouth disease arising from imported agricultural and garden produce; and, if so, what is the result of such investigation?

In every case of foot-and-mouth disease exhaustive inquiries are made with the object of identifying, if possible, the origin of the outbreak, and particular attention is paid to imported feeding stuffs or other agricultural and garden produce. A special inquiry was made during one six-monthly period, when 62 initial or quasi-initial outbreaks occurred. It was found that feeding stuffs of foreign origin were used on the premises in only nine cases, in four of which the importations were from countries free from foot-and-mouth disease. As these feeding stuffs were distributed without harm resulting amongst a very large number of premises where animals were kept in addition to those where disease occurred, the conclusion was reached that the probability of infection being due to this imported produce was extremely remote. In no case has infection been definitely traced to imported agricultural or garden produce.

Is the right hon. Gentleman continuing to keep a watch on this possibility, even though the investigation has not been conclusive?

Is it not the case that the United States Government are so impressed with the probability of contagion that they are prohibiting import of some of this produce?

I did not know that there was any prohibition on imports of agricultural or garden produce, but if my hon. Friend sends me details I shall be very glad to have them.

Wiltshire-Cured Bacon (Imported Carcases)

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has information showing that foreign pigs are sold by English bacon curers as Wiltshire-cured bacon; and, if so, whether he is prepared to extend the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Act to this article of food and so protect the consumer from this form of misrepresentation?

I have been asked to reply. I am aware that it is the practice of certain bacon curers to some extent to import carcases of pigs and after curing them in Wiltshire to sell them, as "Wiltshire-cured Bacon." The carcases being cured in Wiltshire, a sale under such description would not appear to amount to a misdescription under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887. The carcases being cured in England would not come within the definition of imported goods in the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, and consequently that Act would not apply to them. I see no prospect of introducing any further legislation on this subject in the near future.

In view of a recent report stating that the virus of foot-and-mouth disease is brought into this country by foreign pigs, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the placing of an embargo on the importation of this animal?

Pigs used in this factory—in any of these factories—do not come from Europe. They are chiefly Canadian pigs, which come over frozen.

Is it not a fact that pigs that have never been in Wiltshire are still labelled abroad "Wiltshire-cured," though they have never seen the county?

There has been a law case on that subject, and I would refer my hon. Friend to it.

Afforestation

Gkime's Graves, Brandon

asked the hon. Member for Monmouth, as representing tie Forestry Commissioners, whether sanction has been given for the planting of part of Grime's Graves, near Brandon; and whether it is intended to sanction any further planting before the archælogical exploration of the site has been completed?

The position was explained in detail in a Statement by the Forestry Commission and the Office of Works, published in the "Times" on 12th October last, a copy of which I have handed to the hon. Member. The Forestry Commissioners have no intention of planting the area known as Grime's Graves or the unplanted adjacent areas (referred to in the Statement) which are known or can be shown to contain remains of antiquity.

Merthyr

asked the hon. Member for Monmouth, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether he has considered the question of afforesting the valleys to the north of Merthyr Tydvil, particularly those coming under the joint control of Methyr Water Board; and whether he has considered the question of planting in the area covered by the borough of Merthyr?

The Forestry Commissioners have examined the whole of the area in the districts referred to with a view to afforestation, but it was found that owing to altitude and soil conditions the land suitable for planting was insufficient in extent for an afforestation scheme.

I am quite sure that the hon. Member is quite conversant with George Borrow's classic "Wild Wales," and will therefore know that that area—

Sitka Spruce

asked the hon. Member for Monmouth, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether he is aware that Sitka spruce is very successfully grown in the Queen Charlotte islands; and whether his Department has made any experiments in the growing of it in this country?

The Forestry Commissioners are aware that Sitka spruce is very successfully grown in the Queen Charlotte islands. The Commissioners always obtain seed of this species from those islands whenever it is available. Over five million Sitka spruce were planted by the Department last season, the majority of the plants having been raised from seed from the Queen Charlotte islands.

Scotland

Royal (Dick) Veterinary College, Edinburgh

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the amount paid to the Royal (Dick) Veterinary College, Edinburgh, in capital grants and grants-in-aid since 1909 to 1927, inclusive; and the average per student for that period?

I have not been able in the time available to obtain full information; but I shall communicate the figures to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Poor Relief (Lanarkshire)

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the scale that has been recommended by the Scottish Board of Health to the parish councils in Scotland as a guide in their treatment of claims for poor relief; and the number of parish councils in the county of Lanark who are paying relief above, below, or in accordance with the scale?

The following maximum scale of poor relief was recom- mended by the Scottish Board of Health in July, 1926, as a guide to parish councils in dealing with applications from destitute able-bodied persons out of employment:

I have no knowledge as to the exact number of parish councils that are paying such relief above, below, or in accordance with the scale, though I understand that in the industrial areas most of the scales in force are equal to or approximate closely to the recommended scale. The Scottish Board of Health have issued no recommendations in regard to scales of relief for ordinary poor persons relieved under the Poor Law Act of 1845.

Do I understand that the scale of relief is 23s. for a man and wife, and, if so, will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to send that information to the Commissioners for the West Ham Board of Guardians?

Loss of Steam Dredger "Grinkle."

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether an inquiry has been, or will be, held into the wreck of the steamer "Grinkle," with the loss of several lives, on the night of 10th February in the River Mersey?

The inquiries so far made regarding the loss of the steam dredger "Grinkle" indicate that the vessel went ashore in the hurricane which passed over the Mersey on 10th February. Inquiries are still proceeding, and my right hon. Friend will let the hon. Member know the result in due course.

Palestine

Ottoman Debt

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in estimating the Palestine Budget, account is still taken of the Palestinian share of the old Ottoman debt, which is not being paid by the other Succession States?

No provision has been made in the Palestine Estimates for 1928 for charges on account of Palestine's share of the Ottoman Public Debt.

Reported Earthquake

( by Private Notice ) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information as to the reported earthquake in Palestine?

No, Sir. I am not yet in a position to add anything to what has appeared in the newspapers.

Irish Free State (Ex-British Civil Servants)

( by Private Notice ) asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the announcement made in the Dail yesterday on the subject of the compensation to civil servants under Article 10 of the Irish Treaty of 1921, and whether His Majesty's Government have any statement to make?

His Majesty's Government in Great Britain were informed in advance of the announcement which His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State proposed to make as to the policy to be adopted in the matter of the compensation of civil servants under Article 10 of the Articles of Agreement. His Majesty's Government in Great Britain indicated that they accepted the view that it would not be equitable that the transferred civil servants should receive more favourable treatment in the matters in question, which relate to the treatment of bonus, than if they had remained in the Civil Service of this country, and that they would be prepared, subject to agreement as to details of the legislation contemplated, to give their concurrence and co-operation in the proposed policy outlined by His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State.

Why should these British civil servants be deprived of the rights which they have under Article 10 of the Treaty, as decided by the recent Privy Council judgment?

The clear intention of those who framed the Treaty was that these civil servants should not be put in a worse position in respect to pension or compensation than if they had remained in the service of the Crown under the British Government. The conditions in regard to pensions which govern British civil servants to-day were fixed a short time before the transfer took place, and, therefore, what the Government of the Irish Free State are doing is to put them in the position contemplated, namely, in the position corresponding to that of British civil servants in this country.

Does not my right hon. Friend remember that when the Treaty was before this House we were told that not a line nor a comma would be altered, but that it must be taken as a whole; have not these civil servants, rightly or wrongly, rights under the Treaty decided by the Privy Council; and why should they be deprived of those rights by a subsequent arrangement between the two Governments?

But it is an arrangement intended to carry out the clear purpose of those who framed the Treaty.

Is not the Privy Council the authority to decide matters of this kind, and has not this case been brought before the Privy Council, and has not the Privy Council decided that these civil servants are justified in the claim which they have made?

Business of the House

May I ask what business the Prime Minister proposes to take next week?

The business will be as follows:

Monday, 27th February: Civil and Revenue Departments Vote on Account; Committee stage. A Debate on the Washington Hours Convention will take place on the Ministry of Labour Estimate.

Tuesday, 28th February: Second Beading of the Rating (Scotland) Amendment Bill, and the Reorganisation of Offices (Scotland) Bill; consideration of outstanding Supplementary Estimates.

Thursday, 1st March: Civil and Revenue Departments Vote on Account; Report stage. A Debate on the position of trade will take place.

On any day, if time permit, other Orders will be taken. The Civil and Revenue Departments Vote on Account will be circulated on Saturday morning.

Is the Prime Minister yet in a position to say when the Franchise Bill will be introduced?

It is impossible to name the date at this time of the year, because everything depends on the progress which is made in the necessary financial business, but, in any case, it is the intention of the Government to have the Second Reading before the House rises for the Easter Recess.

Exportation of Horses Bill,

"to amend the Law with respect to the exportation of horses," presented by Mr. Ammon; supported by Colonel Applin, Mr. Viant, Mr. Broad, Mr. Parkinson, and Mr. Compton; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 45.]

Chairmen's Panel

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had come to the following Resolutions, which they had directed him to report to the House:

"1. That any Member of the Chairmen's Panel may and is hereby empowered to ask any other Member of the Chairmen's Panel to take his place temporarily in case of necessity.

2. That in the absence of the Chairman of the Chairmen's Panel, the Panel may be convened at the request of any two Members of the Panel.

3. That where on two successive sittings of a Standing Committee called for the consideration of a particular Bill, the Committee has to be adjourned by reason of the absence of a quorum within the first twenty minutes of the time for which the said Committee was summoned, the Chairman do instruct the Clerk to place the par-

4. That it is the undoubted and established right of the Chairman who is appointed to a Standing Committee for the consideration of a particular Bill to name the day and hour on which the consideration of the Bill shall begin."

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Sir Edmund Turton to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Stabilisation of Easter Bill); Sir Robert Sanders to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Companies Bill); and Mr. James Brown to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Slaughter of Animals (Scotland) Bill).

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Message from the Lords,

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for the protection of the Lapwing." [Protection of Lapwings Bill [ Lords. ]

Indian Affairs

That they communicate that they have come to the following Resolution, namely:

"That it is desirable that a Standing Joint Committee on Indian Affairs of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to examine and report on any Bill or matter referred to them specifically by either House of Parliament, and to consider, with a view to reporting if necessary thereon, any matter relating to Indian Affairs brought to the notice of the Committee by the Secretary of State for India."

Orders of the Day

Supply

Considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

Civil Estimates, Supplementary Estimates, 1927

Class V

Scottish Board of Health

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Scottish Board of Health, including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, Grants to Local Authorities, etc., in connection with Public Health Services, Grant-in-Aid of the Highlands and Islands Medical Service, Grants-in-Aid in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Acts, certain expenses in connection with the "Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, and certain Special Services."

This is a Supplementary Estimate for a nominal sum of £10 which is required to meet the State grants payable in respect of expenditure incurred by approved societies in Scotland on sickness and disablement benefit. This expenditure, as in England, has been necessitated, as the House is aware from the Debate which has already taken place, owing to the rise in the cost of those services. Since this matter was fully debated on the English Supplementary Estimate, it is unnecessary for me to go very deeply into it. It will suffice to say that it is a matter of very grave concern, both to the approved societies and to the Minister concerned, that there should have been this very large increase. The matter has, of course, been receiving our most careful consideration. The expenditure commenced to rise in 1926, very markedly after the stoppage in the coal industry, and it continued at an abnormally high rate until the end of 1926, necessitating a Supplementary Estimate in that year. It was expected that it would decline, but unfortunately that has not been the case. The expenditure on sickness and disable- ment benefit during 1927 was even heavier than it was in 1926. For example, after allowance for extra expenditure on additional benefits, on additional sickness and other cash benefits, if we take the index figure for 1925 as 100, the figure for 1926 was 113.5 and for 1927 117.75.

It is very difficult to find any explanation of this exceptionally high expenditure. Apart from an epidemic of influenza in March last year, 1927 has not been an unhealthy year, whether it is judged by the mortality figures or by other standards, such as the number of prescriptions issued by the medical practitioners in Scotland to their insured patients. It may be that those who have been out of work for some period through the prolonged industrial depression may have sought this channel in increasing numbers to obtain relief. It is clear, too, from such evidence as was produced in the Committee in the previous Debate, that there is a great feeling of apprehension on the part of both the approved societies and those connected with them that the medical profession is not taking that amount of care in giving this relief that might be expected of them. Already the Scottish Board of Health have taken steps to call the attention of the approved societies to this huge increase, and have been in consultation with the representatives of the medical profession. I am not going to say now what steps additional to those that we have already taken can be taken to help this matter, but it is clear that such steps as, for instance, not allowing the transfer of an applicant from one medical practitioner to another, except within a certain period, may have some slight effect.

That has been done, and it ha3 been increased, and it may have to be further increased. In any case, we will carefully watch these matters, and in the long run if there are flagrant examples of medical practitioners failing to carry out their duties reasonably, such steps as increasing the period or other steps will have to be taken. It is satisfactory that in asking for authority to meet this increased expenditure, I am not asking the House for extra money. We have been able, in the Estimates which Parliament has already voted to my Department, to make certain savings upon the item of steel house construction. That will commend itself to hon. Gentlemen opposite who have constantly opposed that scheme, and I will only say to them that I regret that, owing to the difficulties that have arisen from opposition in many quarters to this scheme, there has been denied to the people of Scotland the quick production of houses which are very urgently needed. This saving of money has been made because we have proceeded with 500 houses less than we intended, and it is necessary to come to the House to get permission to transfer a portion of this saving to meet the extra expenditure which falls on this Vote, amounting to £40,000.

I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £5.

4.0 p.m.

I do not propose to say anything with regard to the statement of the Secretary of State for Scotland regarding the maternity benefit. I wish, rather, to deal with the question of the saving of the £39,990. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the money has been saved by not building steel houses. He further said that from many quarters there had arisen opposition to these steel houses. He did not explain why that opposition had arisen. I must assume that it is because local authorities throughout Scotland have come to the conclusion, after experience with these houses, that they have not met the requirements; that they have not come up to the standard claimed by the projectors of the houses. Otherwise, why should the local authorities object to them? Although it is necessary work which everyone desires to see carried out, the local authorities of all the municipalities in Scotland are taking exception to these houses. The Glasgow Corporation within the last few weeks had from the leading builder of that kind of house an offer, which on the face of it, seemed to be an offer which any authority with a desire to get on with housing would have accepted. The Corporation of Glasgow, which, as a whole, is in the meantime an anti-Socialist Corporation, and will have no truck with Labour, except to denounce all that Labour may desire to do, has decided unanimously to have nothing further to do with steel houses, or to accept the offer that Lord Weir has made to them. There must be some reason for that, and I do hope that the Secretary of State, later on, will give to this Committee an explanation of the action of the Corporation in refusing this offer, and why steel houses are not a success.

The need for houses is growing greater and greater in Scotland. Let me once again repeat that the Housing Commission reported in 1917 that there was at that moment a shortage of 121,000 houses, and another 114,000 houses if the standard of housing in Scotland was to be improved, that is, 235,000 houses in all. The Department has said again and again that 20,000 houses are necessary to meet the annual requirements, plus 10,000 houses to make up the leeway. There have been built from 1919 up to now 67,000 houses, whereas in the nine years, at the rate of 20,000 houses per annum, there ought to have been built 180,000 houses. So that to-day, instead of 121,000 houses, that shortage is nearly 230,000, not with the improved standard, but merely to keep things as they are, despite the fact that there have been protestations in the House from every Scottish Member, who realises that there is no question with which Scotland has to deal but is inextricably mixed up with housing. What is the use of increasing medical benefit; what is the use of spending more money in health administration, when the problem which is the source of nearly all the troubles that beset us, begins in the house and ends in the house through the bad conditions which obtain?

Last year the Estimate was £1,601,000; the year before it was £1,605,000. There was, therefore, a decrease of £4,000. Taking into account this sum of £39,990, you are spending, according to the statement, £44,000 less this year in dealing with this situation. While it is true that our infantile death rate this year is the second lowest in our history, namely, 82 as against 79—our lowest—in other parts of the world, not more happily situated with regard to climate and other conditions than we are, the death rate is ever so much lower. We are asked to accept this sort of thing as something with which we have got to be satisfied, in spite of the tremendous development in medical science and the fact that our medical officers, to their credit, in every municipality in Scotland have year in and year out been drawing attention to the relationship between housing and health generally. In the city from which I come it is stated, that there are 13,000 houses unfit for human habitation. That is not correct. In 1910, those figures were given when the population of the City of Glasgow was less than 800,000 and its area was only 12,000 acres. To-day, with a population of nearly 1,200,000 and an area of 30,000 acres, the same figure of 13,000 is still fobbed off.

If our medical officer of health were interviewed, I daresay he might tell you that he would not care to make public an investigation with regard to the un-inhabitability of the houses in which the great majority of the people live. Quite recently, in making an investigation in the Tradeston part of the City of Glasgow, in Govan Ward, Fairfield Ward, Kinning Park Ward, and Kingston Ward, he found, out of 2,100 houses, that 254, or 12 per cent., contained two families per house, and that of this number of two-apartment houses or 13 per cent, contained two families. Taking the whole thing into consideration, it can be seen why it is necessary to come here to-day with a plea for the spending of money which has been saved in housing, and has to go entirely to improving medical administration and providing benefit for the saving of child life. In every part of Glasgow wherever the area is dense and housing conditions are bad, in Rose Street, Richard Street, or other such purlieus, the infantile mortality rate is three times the average for the city. In this way you are filling your hospitals, increasing the expenses in every direction, and yet the right hon. Gentleman makes the claim that £40,000 has been saved this year in housing. It is not £40,000 saved, but much more than that sum wasted.

The Government have got to take a step forward to meet the circumstances of our great industrial centres. It may be that the Secretary of State, when he replies, if he will do so with regard to the statements I have made, will point out that during 1924, under a Labour administration, the number of houses built was much less than was built in 1925. I believe the right hon. Gentleman knows why that can be said with a certain amount of truth. Owing to the attempt that was very successfully made by those patriots who were taking advantage of the needs and necessities to boost up prices, someone in authority had to say they should not go further, and, consequently, in the following year the advantages were reaped of the action that was taken by the Labour Government in 1924. Last year the Government took some credit, justifiably, for the fact that they had increased the number of houses that had been built in Scotland to 19,000— not 20,000, but still a great advance. We have got to make up that shortage of the 250,000 houses, apart altogether from the question of the improved standard. I do not desire to take up more time discussing this important question, but may I read one statement made by our medical officer. While it may be, perhaps, an infringement, I do not think objection will be taken to my giving his statement publicity. He says in a communication to me:

In 1919 it was stated that 57,000 houses were required in Glasgow. To meet each year's requirements 5,000 new houses were necessary, plus another 5,000 towards meeting the shortage of 57,000 houses, making a total of 10,000 houses a year. In the whole of the nine years since then the number of houses built, including those erected by private enterprise, is only some 16,000, and to-day, instead of saying we are 57,000 houses short, we have to confess that in Glasgow we are over 80,000 short. Over £600,000 has been spent annually on health administration, of which a considerable proportion has to be met by the city. More than £220,000 has been spent on tuberculosis alone. More than £200,000 has been spent on child-welfare schemes. This expenditure is ever growing, yet the cause of it all is left practically untouched, nay, worse than untouched, for it is being allowed to develop into a festering sore, which is doing tremendous damage and cutting off lives which could easily be saved and would, perhaps, be of great advantage to the State in its hour of need should that come again.

The hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division (Mr. Stewart) seemed to suggest that the Secretary of State for Scotland had in some way been remiss over the supply of houses in Scotland. Figures supply a complete refutation of that suggestion. I do not suppose more houses have been built in Scotland in any one year than were built last year.

If the Minister slightly abates his enthusiasm now, he does so with every justification. The steel house has served a good purpose. It has produced a kind of reserve, and has afforded security against abuses in the price of ordinary stone or brick houses, and in industrial districts we find that private enterprise is undertaking housing on a more and more liberal scale. One looks forward to the time when, presently, we shall have that very excellent but much maligned citizen, the speculative builder, again coming forward and continuing the year by year supply of houses, built not merely to satisfy his own ideas but built under the strict supervision of the public authorities, so as to maintain the highest possible standard in the way of sanitary requirements. We are almost at that point now, and that is largely due to the way in which the Minister has proved to builders and all concerned that so long as houses were required they would be obtained from one source or another. To a certain extent he has indicated his independence of the private builder, and that intimation has been the best stimulus towards making the private builder work.

There is only one point which makes me a little suspicious of the Minister, and that was his reference to the extra cost incurred through increased sickness. One can understand the disappointment of the Minister in having to come to the Committee for an increased grant, but I would ask him to remember that last year Scotland was still suffering a violent reaction from the coal stoppage and, incidentally, it had the wettest season on record. I think we had only one fair day throughout the whole summer season, and the weather, taken in conjunction with the lowered vitality of the people following the stoppage, readily accounts for the increased sickness. I would ask the Minister to be slow to assume that medical practitioners in Scotland have been a little too facile in allowing panel patients medical treatment, or too slow in turning them off the list. One ought to hesitate seriously before interfering with the discretion of the doctor. If we interfere with that discretion, with whom is the supervision to rest? Is the doctor to be supervised entirely by official medical men representing the Ministry, or is he, in order to support his case, to have the assistance of other panel doctors?

I put that point the more anxiously because I have found cases where objection was taken by a doctor to his being overridden on the question of the quality of the medicine which he had prescribed. One does not want to create the impression that there are two classes of patients, the patient who is on the panel and the patient who is not on the panel, and that if medicine of a certain kind is required the patient not on the panel gets it while it may not be supplied in the other case, even though it is equally necessary. Immediately we raise a question of that kind we bring the Insurance Act into disrespect, and make it very suspect, and therefore I ask the Minister to avoid, as far as possible, interfering in any way with the discretion of the medical man. That discretion may not be exercised legitimately in every case, but I have heard of that discretion being challenged in the case of medical men whose repute was beyond all doubt, men who are just as jealous of serving the public interest well as I am. If we spread the idea that doctors have been a little too easy in taking people on as patients, and a little too slack in declaring them fit for work again, we shall start on a thorny path, and, therefore, I suggest that the Minister ought not to be alarmed too easily by the increased expenditure this year. It is to be explained, I think, by perfectly obvious causes, and we should not be too ready to assume that the explanation is to be found in doctors being too easy in their dealings with their panel patients.

The speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland has revealed that a peculiar situation exists in that country. The Speech from the Throne proroguing Parliament contained this statement: Member for the St. Rollox Division (Mr. Stewart) has given us appalling figures for Glasgow, with which, of course, the Minister must be perfectly familiar, but what makes the situation so peculiar is that the Minister links up this question with that of sickness benefits. I would like to know what evidence there is in Scotland for this strange report concerning the medical men there, and the allegation that they are not properly looking after the interests of approved societies and their funds by their failure properly to supervise the cases of those who come to them for treatment.

There was a case in Dundee recently over which the doctor, according to his own explanation to me, took very great care. He decided that the patient ought to be put off benefit because he conscientiously thought that she was able to resume work. As a matter of fact, the patient was far from being able to work and got worse. She tried to resume work, but found it could not be done. The doctor, in his explanation, said that if she had come back to him and told him that she could not manage to work, he would have put her on benefit again. That is an instance, I think, which shows that a doctor was over-careful in handling a case—one which has given a great deal of trouble and one in which there was every reason for sympathising with the position of the patient. I do not think there is any substantial ground for saying that doctors are slack in attending either to the interests of the patients or the interests of the approved societies. My view is, that if such a state of things prevailed we should have some very clear proof of it through representations made before the Health Insurance Committee or some of the approved societies as to the evidence they have acquired on the subject. In times past the case has been made out of an excess number of patients being on the list of panel doctors. We heard the other night, in the Debate concerning West Ham, of the case of a doctor who actually had 500 more patients on his panel than the maximum number of 2,000 allowed by the Ministry of Health. It is some considerable time since I heard any complaint of that sort in Scotland, and that seems to point in the direction that we must hold the doctors not guilty of doing any injustice to the approved societies.

The general reference which has been made by the Secretary of State for Scotland may be grounded upon some more definite official indication than has yet been presented to the Committee. My own feeling is that where there is anything like a doubt the patient should get the benefit of it. When we find that the figures relating to Glasgow concerning the development of disease are so striking, surely there is substantial ground for saying that the Government are seriously at fault in not reconsidering whether the steel house is a suitable class that would be acceptable to the general body, and whether it is a class of house in which the poor people should be housed. My own opinion is that Scotland is in this predicament, that we shall never get a thorough handling of those greater interests of the people of Scotland until all those correlated social issues involved in housing are dealt with. We are only now dealing with certain aspects of this question, but Scotland requires a far more comprehensive scheme to be put into operation on practical lines than anything that is likely to come from this Government, or is likely to be obtained in this House. Under our present constitution, the facilities for getting these great issues settled are very limited, and we shall never approach them with anything like determination until the people of Scotland unite thoroughly in urging our right to establish a parliament in Edinburgh.

Considering the state of housing in Scotland which an hon. Member on the Front Bench has already described as a scandal for the Secretary for Scotland to take comfort in the fact that he has been able to save on the housing expenditure, and state that he is only asking for £10 for the increased needs of the approved societies, seems to me to be something that should provide a suitable memorial for the present occupant of the Office of Secretary of State for Scotland. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is not unaware of the fact that his administration does not enjoy the confidence of those who do not belong to his own party. In spite of the extraordinary scarcity of houses and the fearful conditions under which the people are living the right hon. Gentleman takes comfort to his soul that he is able to save on the Housing Vote for Scotland. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would compare the amounts spent on housing in some of the great cities of England with the amount spent in Glasgow. I wish he would compare Birmingham and Liverpool with Glasgow in this respect because then I am sure he would find that although the needs of the poor and the demand for houses are very much greater in Glasgow, the other cities I have mentioned are spending a much larger sum of money upon housing. Notwithstanding these facts the Secretary for Scotland has the audacity to tell the Committee that he is glad to be able to say that what he is asking for is not an additional sum of money, but is really a saving at the expense of the housing expenditure in Scotland. I do not want to do the Secretary of State for Scotland an injustice, but perhaps when he realises how this question presents itself to hon. Members on this side of the House he will be anxious to put his statement in a somewhat different form. This is such a serious matter for Scotland that I thought it necessary to call attention to the extraordinary position which has been taken up by the Minister.

I will now deal with the question of the increased expenditure of the approved societies. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd) put a point relating to the wretched weather that has been experienced which has had such a very adverse effect upon the health of people who are compelled to live in working-class districts and who are earning working-class wages. The Secretary of State for Scotland seems to have been obsessed with the idea that there has been laxity on the part of the medical service and the doctors, and he seems to be under the impression that the doctors have been simply handing out certificates wholesale and allowing patients to take insurance benefit when they should be back at their work. Let hon. Members recall the amount of insurance benefit which a person gets under Health Insurance. Even the miserable wages paid to an unskilled worker are preferable to any benefit granted under the Health Insurance scheme.

When a person is put upon that scale for any length of time he or she is only too glad to get back to work because they cannot live on the amount they get in this way. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that when a person cannot get unemployment benefit he goes to his doctor and says, "I am not feeling well," and the doctor immediately says, "All right," and puts him on health insurance benefit. The Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for this state of things by imposing on parish councils a very limited scale of relief which is insufficient to maintain these poor people in health and strength. That is the result of the right hon. Gentleman's administration which does not permit the working classes to get sufficient money to keep themselves in a good state of health. After this kind of treatment if these people do get employment they are physically unfit. Their condition is such that ordinary labour speedily proves too much for them and they soon get into the doctor's hands again. From the beginning the medical profession have always been very careful in working out the scheme as far as the certification of patients is concerned. The working classes have frequently complained that the doctors have been far too particular in their certification and very often these poor people have been sent back to work. If they had been members of the middle class they would have still been receiving every medical attention and the very best of treatment, but because they happen to be very poor people the doctors have insisted that they should go back to their work. Everyone knows that in regard to this question the doctors have erred on the side of strictness in certification and in sending people back to their work. Nevertheless, the Minister tells us that, having put a limit on the amount that people may get from the parish council, having cut down that amount in the way that he has, and put the people into this position, he is now going to bully the doctors, so that those people will have to work whether they are fit to do so or not.

He has already extended the period with regard to change of doctor. He thinks the doctors are such weak, flabby people that, because .a patient may threaten to change his doctor if he does not get a certificate that he is unfit for work, the doctor will say, "Oh, well, I am not going to lose a panel patient." The Secretary of State must remember that doctors and other people are not like himself, or so much influenced as he possibly would be by losing the vote of some wealthy supporter in his own division. The doctor is not necessarily just like the present Secretary of State for Scotland, and the right hon. Gentleman has no evidence to bring forward except that there has been an increase of numbers. He has no evidence to show that the medical men in Scotland are not acting properly in this matter, but he says, "I doubt they have been careless." He suspects the whole medical profession in Scotland without putting any real evidence before the Committee. I shall be interested to know what evidence he may put forward in reply, but I would submit to the Committee that, if he had any evidence, the time for him to give it was when he was making his charge against the medical profession.

To my mind the Minister has taken up a most absurd position, quite in keeping with the way in which he administers our poor country of Scotland at the present time, and quite in keeping with his actions in respect of other things. I hope that this Committee will consider very seriously before they allow the Secretary of State to impose new conditions on the medical profession, in order that they may be bullied into sending working people to work when they are unfit for work. The health of the people in our country has been affected by the fact that this Minister has not pushed on with his housing policy in the way that he might have done, and now he is going to try to take from them the little medical benefits that they have been able to get. I protest against the statement of the Minister in this connection, and I charge him with being responsible, because of the poverty of his administration, because he has done so little to make things better for the working-class people —I charge the right hon. Gentleman himself with being the individual responsible for the necessary increase in the expenditure through the approved societies. It is due to the failure of his own policy, and it is no use his trying to put it on to the medical profession.

I want to ask him, also, why in Glasgow there has not been the regular election of the medical panel committee in connection with Health Insurance. I understand that medical men in Glasgow have been pressing for that election, and yet the Minister has refused to have it. He has evidently discovered that he has some power to allow the same panel to continue as long as he is Secretary of State. Evidently, he thinks he will be able to bully them successfully in this matter. Perhaps he will be able to tell the Committee why the election has not taken place, whether he has had representations made to him that it should take place, and when he is going to arrange for this triennial election of the Medical Panel Committee which ought to have taken place before this. I say, in conclusion, that the administration of the Secretary of State for Scotland in respect of housing, in respect of health, and in respect of the way in which he has imposed upon parish councils inadequate scales of relief, is a disgrace to our country, and I hope that the time is not far distant when we shall get a real Secretary of State for Scotland, who will carry through an effective policy on behalf of his own country, which will be the prelude to a Government of Scotland in Scotland for Scotland.

I think the Committee ought to have clearly before them the manner in which this saving of about £40,000, owing to the non-construction of certain steel houses, has arisen. There are two ways in which money has been voted for the construction of steel houses in Scotland. There is the ordinary method, through the local authorities for housing schemes; but, over and above that, there was a special Vote for 2,000 steel houses in Scotland, and I believe that the 500 houses which were not erected were—I shall be corrected if I am wrong—included in the scheme for 2,000 houses to which I have alluded. Those houses were to be erected by a private limited company, with which the Government had made arrangements. I take it that that company has not been able to obtain suitable sites for the whole number of houses arranged for, and that that accounts for the shortage of 500 of these houses. In those circumstances the blame cannot possibly be laid at the door of the Secretary of State.

The type of steel house in question is one in which I have taken considerable interest. The party opposite have set their faces against the erection of these houses, but I think the plan was a very admirable one. There were not sufficient labourers to erect in brick and stone all the houses that were required in Scotland, and, therefore, this scheme was invented to come to the rescue, as it were. Because under this scheme the labourers employed were of a totally different class from those employed in building ordinary brick and stone houses, these houses could be very speedily erected and got ready, and altogether the scheme was a very admirable one if only it had been allowed to be carried out. Where it has been carried out it has been, in my opinion, extremely successful. The first batch of steel houses which I saw was in my own constituency, in the neighbourhood of Harthill, and the erection of those houses by the Middle Ward of Lanarkshire District Committee caused a labour dispute. The workmen engaged on brick and stone houses for the Middle Ward District Committee objected to houses of this new type being put up, and they ceased work. A bargain was, however, made between the district committee and the trade unions, and these 100 houses were allowed to be completed on condition that no more were to be built in that way. Then we had the scheme for 2,000 extra houses to be erected by a limited company, of which I have already spoken.

I have seen a great many of these houses, and have conversed with the people who were occupying them, and I can testify that there are no complaints whatever. The people who live in these houses are perfectly satisfied with them. It has certainly been of great advantage that this new method of construction has been put forward in Scotland, and it is a thousand pities that more of these houses have not been built. Hon. Members opposite have deplored the shortage of houses in Scotland, but their party is responsible to a large extent for the failure, if it be a failure, of this scheme for providing steel houses in Scotland. These are, I believe, the rights of this matter, and it is in this way that the Secretary of State is able to come forward and get the money required for medical services under a token Vote of £10 only, instead of asking for a very much larger sum. I think that the agitation, if I may so describe it, from hon. Members opposite, rests upon a totally wrong foundation.

It is interesting to listen to the hon. Member for North Lanark (Sir A. Sprot) acting as a sort of advertising agent for Lord Weir. He seemed to me, however, to be a little mixed when he referred to the erection of houses at Harthill, and apparently came to the conclusion that the trouble there was due to the workmen objecting to the building of these houses. It was not a building dispute at all that was the trouble at Harthill. I question whether there are any steel houses at Harthill—

I can tell the House that there is a considerable amount of insecurity in regard to health in that area, owing to the fact that, in the first place, there are not sufficient houses, and, secondly, to the fact that the people who are in occupation, or were until recently, of houses that have been built in that part of the county, have been evicted because of their inability to pay the rent. The rents of the houses that are already built and occupied in that locality, and I may say also throughout the whole of Scotland, are, in consequence of the policy pursued by the hon. Gentleman and the Government which he supports, such that men cannot pay them, because they cannot get sufficient wages to enable them to do so. There are few places in the country at present where there is more misery and poverty than in the division represented by the hon. Member who has just spoken. Poverty breeds disease. Disease is responsible for men's inability to work. When they are unable to work they are entitled to get the relief they pay for, and if the Secretary for Scotland now requires to spend more money than he anticipated on medical attendance and relief, it is due, if not entirely to his policy as an individual, largely to the policy pursued by the Government, and it is due to the poverty in that part of the country which I partly represent.

I am going to make no charges against doctors. There are doctors and doctors. There are some doctors who are die-hards and there are some who are gentlemen. There is a very clear distinction between a die-hard and a gentleman, but all the doctors I have come in contact with in our county, whether they are-of the die-hard or the gentleman variety, at least are true to their profession. I do not think you would find a single instance where any medical practitioner in Lanark has signed a line for the payment of health benefit to a person who-was not entitled to get it, so I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) in expressing my regret that the Scottish Office should even indicate a mere symptom, as it were, if nothing else, of dissatisfaction with the attitude of doctors on this question. The doctors are placed in a rather difficult position in a part of my constituency, because within the last month the parish council in Hamilton has come to certain decisions in respect to the payment of relief. They have agreed that any man or woman under 40 years of age whose unemployment benefit has been exhausted, and who has no other means of subsistence, is not entitled to relief. I challenge any hon. Member opposite, particularly Scottish Members, and the whole Department spoken for by the right hon. Gentleman, to find work for those who are idle in Hamilton. They can get no work, and if they cannot get work they cannot get wages, and if they cannot get wages they cannot buy food, and if they cannot get food disease inevitably follows.

The right hon. Gentleman has to some extent a responsibility in this matter. I want to know whether he is prepared to take any action to induce this parish council to abandon the attitude it has taken up. They have also decided that if a single man over 40 years of age is living in a model lodging house he is only to be entitled to five shillings a week. That will not pay the rent of the cubicle he occupies. If the right hon. Gentleman or any of his friends were placed in that position, how far would they be removed from the dock of a police Court? This sort of attitude on the part of a parish council is an invitation to crime. If you scratch the best of us, under the skin we are all pretty near to the cannibal, particularly if we happen to be hungry. The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to get this Vote unless he is prepared to give some indication of his willingness to use whatever influence or power he possesses to compel the parish council to adopt a different attitude from that which they have taken up to the present. I quite appreciate the difficulty in which the parish councils are placed. I know the reason they have taken this action. It is because of the increase in rates, and I know they are not responsible for the increase in. rates. I sympathise very considerably with men in their position, but the line to take to meet the difficulty of that sort is not to starve those who are unable to find employment and are compelled to apply for relief. I do not think the administration of the Widows' Pensions Act is as fair in Scotland as it is in England.

That is going rather beyond this Supplementary Estimate, which is confined to approved societies.

I am not going to charge the right hon. Gentleman in his individual capacity with the evil condition in which our county finds itself with respect to the point I have raised, but I appeal to him, if he has any influence over parish councils, to use it in an endeavour to get this parish council to recognise its responsibilities. I do not know any more serious situation a man can be placed in than that of being willing to work and unable to find it. Ho matter how anxious he may be to get it he cannot find it in the locality I am referring to. The number of unemployed in Lanark, according to statistics submitted by the Ministry of Labour, is growing. There was a very material increase in January as compared with June of last year.

I wonder sometimes what is behind the propaganda that is being carried on in the Press by certain hon. Members opposite who are trying to delude the public into the belief that there is a clear indication of a coming prosperity in trade. In that part of the country it is not so, and when you include Glasgow you are speaking for probably a third of the total population of Scotland. They are in an absolutely poverty-stricken condition through no fault of their own. The morality of the Scottish people to-day is a good as it was 100 years ago and there is not any child born and reared in a Scottish home who has any desire to draw parish relief. We want our children and ourselves to earn our livelihood, and we are willing to do it, but if the means are not at hand by which we can satisfy our own needs surely we are entitled to get a fair application of the law of our own land. I understand the law is that when a man is destitute, or if he has no other means of subsistence-, he should receive parish relief. The decision lately taken by the parish council I am referring to means that, no matter what his circumstances are, an individual shall receive no relief whatever. I cannot see how the right hon. Gentleman will be able to carry on the medical services of the country, even with the sum he is asking for, unless there is a very considerable change either in the atmosphere of the Scottish Board of Health which is dominated and controlled by himself, or in the economic conditions of that part of the country.

I was very much interested in what the Secretary of State had to say about the working of the approved societies and the observations he let drop as to some steps that are being taken to make the doctors more independent than they have hitherto been. I believe the Scottish Board of Health work in association with the Ministry of Health and I take this opportunity of saying a few words on the subject. The figures the right hon. Gentleman gave us as to the increase of sickness and disablement benefit during the last three years are very serious. The steady increase that is going on in Scotland is no doubt disturbing to the Board of Health. Although I am not prepared to-day to give the figures of what is occurring in England, we are seeing a similar increase both in sickness and disablement benefit, which is causing a little, I will not say consternation, but anxiety amongst those who are really interested in the working of National Health Insurance and have something to do with it, as I myself have. I quite agree that the events of 1926 may very likely have accounted for the greater part of the increase then.

From my connection with the working of small societies, I can say without hesitation that the doctor's position has hitherto been such that in numerous cases the desire to do his duty has brought him in conflict with his patient, and he has been placed in a very difficult position. I have no charge to make against doctors as a whole. The cure for this thing, in my opinion, is to increase his position of independence. He must, in connection with the working of this Act, and of course, subject to any medical committee that may be set up to overlook cases, be the sole person to decide. I have been told on many occasions that this sort of thing happens. A panel doctor is approached by the father of a household, and the doctor may show delay in certifying him as being unfit for work or for receiving benefit. The patient gets annoyed and changes to another panel doctor. The old panel doctor who has been attending the man's wife and child in his private practice, he being their regular doctor, loses that connection which is transferred to the other panel doctor. That is a position which, I submit to this Committee, ought not to be allowed to arise. The same thing may happen with regard to a patient who may not think that he is fit to go to work but ought to continue receiving benefit. The doctor thinks he is and certifies him as being fit for work, and the patient is annoyed, with the result that the same sort of thing happens.

I do say that for the proper working of the National Health Insurance Act this is a difficulty in which the doctor ought not to be placed. I have long thought that there ought to be a period of time elapse before a patient can change his panel doctor. I have heard suggestions that that was going to be done under the English system of administration. I was not aware that it had been done, but I understood the Secretary of State for Scotland to say that in Scotland it had been done. I should like to ask him when he replies on this Debate to tell us the period. My view is— and I have taken some part in the administration of the Act since 1910 when it was first started—that there should be even as much as a month elapse before a patient can change his panel doctor. Perhaps a little shorter time than that might be sufficient, but it certainly ought not to be left so that a patient may change his doctor immediately. If a period of a month or three weeks or something of that kind were adopted, the feeling of exasperation which a patient might have in regard to his doctor who might not be of the same opinion as himself would be got rid of, and that the relation between the doctor add the family would continue as it had in the past. This would prove to be an immense im- provement in the working of the Act. To-night, at all events until I heard the fiery speech by the hon. Member who has just sat down, there has been no charge against the doctors. There was not a word in the Minister's speech that indicated any bullying of the doctors at all.

I am perfectly certain that I understood what he said correctly and that his object was the same as the one that I am suggesting, namely, not to put pressure on the doctors at all, but to leave them independent. If the Minister will tell me when he replies what are the conditions under which they are giving this further security of position and independence to the doctors I shall be much indebted to him.

There are questions of administration directly affecting my own constituency which I desire to bring before the notice of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and which, I hope, will be in order under this particular Supplementary Estimate. We are asked to vote an additional £10 because of the increased demands for sickness and disablement benefit in Scotland. There are four outstanding causes which really lead to an increase of sickness, and to the claim for sickness benefit from insurance societies. First of all, you have insufficient houses. Then, there are insanitary houses, and insanitary local conditions, and capping the whole you have an insufficient income coming into the home. Those are four of the outstanding reasons as to the claim for increased sickness benefit as far as Scottish insured persons are concerned. I have on several occasions brought before the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary the insanitary conditions of the housing in the Gorebridge district. I have repeatedly brought the facts before the notice of the Secretary of State for Scotland by question, and I have also discussed the matter with the Undersecretary of State for Scotland. I have drawn their particular attention to the lack of a proper water supply, lack of sufficient houses, overcrowding in the district, and insanitary houses owned for a very long time by the present owner, and by his parents before him.

Let us now turn to the Arniston Coal Company. The sanitary conditions are disgraceful at this time of the day. I have repeatedly drawn the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland to the fact that the county council are not enforcing upon the authority responsible the cleansing of the ash-pits and so on in that particular district. You cannot expect to have a healthy people if you are going to allow insanitary conditions of that kind to continue. I want to appeal to the Secretary of State, in connection with the Debate in which we are now engaged, to bring more pressure to bear on the local authorities there, until such time as they can provide a proper water supply and until up-to-date sanitary arrangements can be carried out. Surely the least that the Scottish Board of Health, backed by the Secretary of State for Scotland, can do, is to enforce the cleansing of the so-called dry-closets in that particular area in the interests of common decency and the health of the people.

The second point to which I want to draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland is with reference to a complaint which has been lodged in different parts of the country—certainly in my constituency, where one medical man has done this—that medical men are forming themselves into a limited liability company, so that they can dispense the medicines which they themselves have prescribed. I know that in the original Act it is laid down that a medical man should not, unless under very exceptional circumstances, dispense the medicine he himself prescribes. The doctors, as I have said, are getting over the difficulty by forming themselves into limited liability companies. A company is started, say, with a share capital of 300 £l shares, the doctor taking 298, and his wife the other two. That is a practical illustration of what is taking place. I am prepared to hand particulars to the Minister concerning a particular case if he desires to have them. I also understand that, in the particular case to which I am referring, the prescription, instead of being handed over to the patient, is taken away by the medical man himself so that he may dispense the medicine to the insured person. I hope that an inquiry will be made into the statement which I have just made, and that the Secretary of State for Scotland will at least give inst ructions that when a medical man writes out prescriptions, they must be given .to the insured person so that they may obtain their medicine from whatever chemist they choose. The third point to which I want to make reference, is the fact that under the Rating Act we transferred the powers of rating to the town councils. These were also granted powers to give exemption to poor people from the payment of rates. I have a case in my constituency where—

Has this anything to do with the sick benefits of approved societies?

Yes, I can assure you that it has. The person to whom I am referring had been allowed a rebate of rates for six years from one authority and for two years from another authority. A daughter and a son have been ill, and both have been entitled to insurance sickness benefit. The illness in both cases, I submit, was brought on because of their attempt to try and keep their mother in the best way possible. The mother has been suffering from tuberculosis for the last eight years. Although the parish council are allowing that woman 12s. per week for the purpose of assisting the home and getting additional medicine required, the town council have absolutely refused to carry out what the parish council have done for six years. They are compelling this tubercular woman to pay rates despite the fact that the parish council are allowing her 12s. per week because of her poverty. I submit that it is the duty of the Secretary of State for Scotland at once to communicate with the town council concerned. I have sent a letter to the authority. It is the only case where, in connection with a communication with a public authority, as far as I am concerned, that authority has not had the common decency to acknowledge the letter which I have sent to them. I try to negotiate these matters, if possible, without troubling the Minister. I avoid raising in this House, by question or otherwise, any matter where it is possible by negotiation to get the work done. I think the heads of the Department will admit that. I must lodge a protest against this one body under the control of the Secretary of State for Scotland which refused to acknowledge a letter trying to negotiate a matter of this kind. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will use his power to force that particular authority to relieve the person of the payment of rates, seeing that one public body has relieved the destitution of that particular individual.

I wish to raise a protest against any saving on this Estimate, so far as the building of houses is concerned. There is one small burgh, the burgh of Laswade, where the housing conditions are intolerable. I have drawn attention to the housing conditions there and the overcrowding which takes place. The burgh is so small that it cannot possibly take on the building of houses. I understood from the Secretary of State that the Department were still considering the position of that particular burgh as far as housing difficulties were concerned. Surely, there was a way to help that particular burgh by spending some of the £39,000 which the Secretary of State is priding himself on saving. I trust that the four points of administration which I have brought forward will receive attention; that some effort will be made to relieve the situation as far as the insanitary housing conditions in Gorebridge are concerned; that fair treatment will be given to tuberculosis cases and that the matter in regard to the Bonnyrigg Council will also be attended to.

I wish to enter my protest against the action of the Secretary of State for Scotland in making a saving in regard to housing. It will be remembered that prior to the War the State had nothing to do with the housing of the people. It was left to the chance of somebody having money to invest, on which they would get a return, coming forward and building houses. If that somebody failed to materialise, there were no houses erected for the people. As a result of the War, a Commission was appointed and it reported. That Commission was appointed by a Government supported by the present Secretary of State for Scotland. They reported that we required 231,000 additional houses in Scotland. We had 62,000 people in Scotland in one- and two-apartment houses. The Scottish Board of Health—I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland will pay attention to this point, because I notice that the Press which supports him questions the statement—made the statement that in addition to the shortage mentioned by the Commission, we required 10,000 houses per year to meet the growing needs of the population. I wish to repeat that statement, because the leading newspapers in Scotland wanted to know where I obtained it. I got it from the Report of the Scottish Board of Health.

What has been the result? Up to the 31st March of this year, 50,000 houses have been erected in Scotland in six years. There was only one year when-the building met the normal needs, and that was last year. Since that time the Under-Secretary has made a flourish in connection with the number of houses to-be erected this year. I am not prepared to take statements of that kind. I would much rather judge people by their works. It is not enough for him to tell us that we shall get so many houses at such a time, and then his colleague the Secretary of State to come before the-House claiming credit for saving money in connection with housing. Scotland has always been worse treated than England or Wales in regard to houses. When the Government, for purposes of their own, scrapped the Addison scheme, Scotland was £1,100,000 short of her quota, as compared with England and Wales. Instead of giving us extra, assistance we were left with that shortage in our proportion compared with England and Wales. What about the present scheme? On the 31st March of last year, there had been 50,000 houses erected, although our proportion in comparison with England and Wales should have been 72,000. In other words, we had been cheated out of 22,000 houses. Taking the value of a house at £500, Scotland has again suffered to an extent of £110,000 less than the quota of eleven-eightieths which was generally allotted, compared with England and Wales.

I complain very bitterly of the action of the authorities on the other side of the border, and particularly against the action of the Secretary of State for Scotland. He has shown no imagination and has failed to grasp the needs of the people he represents. He has shown lack of backbone in not demanding that we, at least, ought to get our proportion as compared with England and Wales. I do not care what your politics may be; on the other side of border we are all Scotsmen, and in this House we are Scottish representatives, and when the Government tries to cheat a country out of its proportion, there should be no division whatever between one hon. Member and another. It would have been much better had we been helped to make up the shortage, instead of being treated in this way. We are told of what is likely to be done before October of this year. Owing to the statement made by the Secretary of State for Scotland that the subsidy may end at that period, there will be very few houses erected in the closing months prior to October. The Government have failed to remove the anxiety in the minds of public authorities on this subject, and the result will be that very little housing will be done, because public authorities will not fix contracts if they do not know exactly how they are going to come out of it. We are told that certain things are to happen unless the houses are completed before the 1st October.

We want additional houses for our people. I have never opposed any form of housing. The cheapest house that can be built is the brick house, when you consider the life of the steel house and the life of the brick house. I did not oppose steel houses, but I notice that certain people who are enthusiastic about steel houses have never lived in them and have no intention of living in them. What is good for one person should be good for another person. I put it to the Government that by the erection of steel houses they are adding to the burden which the country has to carry, because those houses are dearer than the brick house, considering the length of life of such houses. There are some progressive public authorities in Scotland, but, on the other hand, we have a multitude of small burghs and we have non-progressive county authorities who are prepared to do nothing unless they are driven.

What have the Department done to convince the country that they recognise the duty towards the people they represent? We claim that the Government have fallen short in the performance of their duty. I do not want to say much in regard to the steel houses, but under the slum clearance schemes the question arises as to the rent fixed for that type of house and the rent fixed for the brick house. We are passing through probably the worst period in the history of this country and it is most unfortunate that on the Scottish side of the border our percentage of unemployment is much greater than on this side of the border. In the industrial belts, we have many thousands of unemployed people. The Government so far have done little or nothing to assist there. It is in those belts that most of the houses had to be built, and the rents for the three-apartment houses are varying from £17 to £28.

The hon. Member must not go too deeply into housing questions on this Vote.

I thought that we were dealing with housing, and that we were entitled to refer to these matters. I would draw attention to the fact that you allowed an hon. Member on the other side to charge us with obstructing house building.

On this Vote there is a saving of £39,000 in regard to houses that are not constructed. That is the only point that arises.

My complaint is that the Secretary of State for Scotland is going to save at the expense of the people of Scotland nearly £250,000, in addition to the £110,000 of which we have been cheated. This makes the balance against us much worse. It is the duty of the Secretary of State to insist upon houses being erected, not only in industrial areas, but in every other part of Scotland. If he fails to do this, then it is no use his telling us what he is going to do. The hard fact is that we are short of our proportion, and I defy either the Secretary of State or his Department to prove that to be untrue. Instead of fighting for our proportion, he claims that he has saved a certain amount of money. Let me say a word or two in connection with the medical profession. I listened to the arguments put forward by hon. Members opposite, and my thoughts went back to the time when the working people had no say whatever in the appointment of a doctor. The employers always appointed the doctor. In those days we had some reason to doubt whether doctors always acted fairly towards the working man who was injured. But hon. Member after hon. Member on the other side have always claimed that the medical profession was made up of men of honour and integrity.

To-day we get the suggestion that in some cases they are putting people too readily on the sick list. That may be the case; because a man can be sick and weakly from lack of food. If he is starving over a long period he will get weak and sick, and it may be that the medical men, knowing something of the needs in connection with the housing problem in Scotland, are doing something to try to mitigate the sufferings of the people. If that is so they deserve some credit for it. The curse of our land at the present time is unemployment, due to the policy of the Government and previous Governments. Our people are the victims of circumstances. They require to live; they are getting a bad time, and instead of getting help suggestions to the contrary are being made. I hope the Secretary of State will deal with the question of our proportion of eleven-eightieths and will satisfy us that he is standing for justice for the people he represents. So far the figures are against him.

This Debate on a Supplementary Estimate for £10 has ranged over a rather wide field. We are discussing the transference of a surplus, found to be available under one heading in the Estimates, for the purpose of meeting a deficiency in another. In these days of heavy expenditure I think I have a right to call the attention of the House to the fact that this Vote is not one which makes an increased demand on the Exchequer. It is a saving. Upon what has this saving been made? It has been made on the grant of capital expenditure for a class of house to meet the necessities of the people in Scotland; an addition to the ordinary methods of house building. What was the initial cause which brought that scheme into being? It was the inability of the building trade industry to meet the necessities of building in Scotland. This is well known to hon. Members opposite, yet, forsooth, because it has been found, owing to opposition and criticism, and the impossibility of obtaining the co- operation and assistance not only of the municipal authorities in Scotland but of certain sections of the building industry, that we have curtailed this expenditure it does not lie in the mouths of hon. Members opposite to find fault with the economy. The fact remains that no economy under this particular sub-head, "Capital expenditure on steel houses," affects, or has affected, in any way the building of houses under ordinary methods.

We are not discussing ordinary methods of house building in Scotland, as they do not come under this Supplementary Estimate. What we are discussing is the deficiency which has arisen owing to the excessive demand for sickness benefit. Who are the people concerned in this sickness benefit? One would imagine, listening to some hon. Members, that it was only a flinty-hearted Government or the Scottish Board of Health. The people, however, who are as much concerned in this matter as anyone are the administrators of approved societies and the members of approved societies. If these societies are to be run upon proper lines, you must have due regard to a fair and proper administration of the system. The number of cases upon which grave doubt has arisen as to whether excessive payments were made or not has materially increased. If you take the year 1925 you will find that the number of cases referred for examination—that is cases upon which doubt was expressed—was 22,231. They rose in 1926 to 42,016, and they were as high in 1927 as 35,068. If you turn to the cases which were examined by the referee; in 1927 you will find that the practitioner's certificate was upheld in the case of men to the extent of 45 per cent, of those examined, and in the case of women to the extent of 35 per cent. The practitioner's certificate was reversed in 21 per cent, of the cases in respect of men, and 24 per cent, in respect of women. Of the cases which were referred but not examined, 15 per cent, of the cases in respect of men were declared off the fund and 19 per cent, in the case of women. Fourteen per cent, of the men failed to appear and 19 per. cent, of the women; and there were not examined, for various other reasons, 5 per cent, in the case of men and 3 per cent, in the case of women.

These approved societies are responsible for the proper administration of their funds to the members, and if there is any weakness in the machinery it is bound to act against the interests of the individuals concerned. Some of these societies have referred over 6,000 cases; others have referred over 45000 cases, and it is clear that there has been, and still remains, very anxious thought in the minds not only of the Government and this House but in the minds of those concerned in the administration of these societies that all was not well. That being so, I have felt it my duty to say to the House that we shall have to consider, and very carefully consider, what we are going to do to assist in improving it; not to the detriment of the member or in an unfair manner. Let me be perfectly clear. If the cases are genuine the doctors have full right to make their recommendations, and I do not doubt that if they are reasonable they are upheld when they are investigated.

The hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) asked what steps we were taking to deal with the problem to which I have referred. We have issued an Order by which 14 days notice of change of doctor must be given. That is an experiment we are trying with the object of placing the doctor in the position of feeling that at any rate there is a period of time during which the fairness or unfairness of his decision may be considered by himself and the referee. I have found it necessary to say quite plainly to the House that there are some members of the medical profession who, we are convinced, are not observing as carefully as they should the duties which are laid upon them. One must recognise the great difficulties under which, no doubt, many of these cases are dealt with, but the fact remains, and it is one which I desire to emphasise. I hope the medical profession will assist us and the societies concerned and that we shall not be compelled to take other and more compulsory methods.

In view of that statement will the Secretary of State consider the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the grave charges he has made against the medical profession?

I do not think a Select Committee is required. The facts are patent and well known to the assurance societies, to this House, to everybody concerned, and to the medical profession. I have been asked a certain number of questions during the course of the Debate. I was asked, for instance, about the election to the panel, although I do not think it has anything to do with this Vote. Election to the Insurance Committees was not proceeded with because there was a doubt as to whether they would be continued, in view of a recommendation of the Royal Commission. I was asked for a number of details by the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Westwood). If he will be good enough to send me any information he has upon the question of medical practitioners I will at once have it investigated. With regard to the question as to whether Scotland has been fairly or unfairly treated in the matter of housing I want to say, first, that as long as I have been in my present position I have, with the assistance of the Board of Health, striven by every means in my power to stimulate the production of houses. That is evident by the fact that we have the special grant for extra houses, and also by the fact that we retained in Scotland, during periods when reductions were made in England, the grant in Scotland. If any hon. Member will tell me any method by which we can increase the number of operatives required to build houses, or any process by which we can provide houses more rapidly, I shall be glad to consider it.

6.0 p.m.

Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the question indicated by the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Sullivan), that it is now in the minds of the local authorities of Scotland that the subsidy is to be reduced towards the end of this year? Can the right hon. Gentleman make no statement indicating that a period of grace will be allowed for houses completed after October, if the houses are begun now?

I am aware, of course, of the anxiety of local authorities to know as soon as possible what the future may hold, and I am as anxious as anyone to give them that information as soon as I am in a position to do so, but at the present moment I am not in a position to make a, definite statement. I can assure hon. Members that I shall be able before very long to consult with the local authorities and discuss this matter with them. I realise as much as they do the necessity for giving them some kind of statement as soon as the Government are in a position to do so.

I am not suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman should now give us a statement of the amended terms, but can he not say to-day that houses will be allowed a period of grace, just as the English local authorities were allowed a period of grace in similar circumstances?

All lean say is that, however small the opinion of hon. Members opposite may be as to my ability to secure for Scotland reasonable terms, I shall do my utmost to secure fair terms. I am not in a position now to make a statement upon that or any other aspects of the question, but I hope very shortly to be able to do so.

Would the right hon. Gentleman not suggest to his colleagues that if we in Scotland were short of our quota of eleven-eightieths, they should continue the subsidy in Scotland at least until we have the proper quota?

Hon. Members may rest assured that I shall not fail to use any argument which may be at my disposal.

I merely want to press upon the right hon. Gentleman before he goes the extreme urgency of the point I raised. The right hon. Gentleman who is sitting beside him represents a Division in Renfrewshire. The Renfrewshire County Council have stopped the housing scheme because they are not certain that they will be able to complete schemes by October. They have appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to get them an extension of the period and he says that he cannot do so. My point was that in England the local authorities were given a period of grace for houses started in a bona fide manner, if those houses were not completed by the time when the subsidy was stopped. Surely it would be very simple for the right hon. Gentleman to secure from the Government an assurance that a similar period of grace will be extended to Scotland. If he can do so he will immediately stimulate house building in Scotland. Cannot he get a guarantee that the local authorities will have that period of grace?

I do not doubt that there will be a period of grace. I cannot at the moment describe the length of that period or any of the circumstances attending it, but as soon as I am able to do so it will be discussed with the local authorities.

We are discussing a combination of bad housing and health, and a sum of money that is stated to be a saving. It is a very false term to give to this sum of money. Because the Government programme has failed, the Secretary of State wants to say that the money that has not been used is a, saving. The accruing of that money shows the failure on the part of the Government to continue the provision of houses in Scotland. The Secretary of State in his concluding remarks said that the Government were stimulating house production. That seems a strange statement to make in view of his other statement that he is unable to say anything to encourage the local bodies that are hesitating about going further with housing schemes. The right hon. Gentleman cannot stimulate housing if he makes a statement about a reduction in assistance. When the local bodies ask what it means, as we did first of all in October last, they are still without a definite answer. The local bodies in Scotland are not going ahead with their schemes because they can get no definite statement as to the Government's position on the housing subsidy. This supposed saving comes from only one section of what is called the Scottish housing scheme. That is the mis-named steel house. We are told that the reason why this money has accrued is that the steel house was not taken up as expected.

The hon. Member for North Lanark (Sir A. Sprot) made a statement that is absolutely incorrect. He accused this side of the Committee of being responsible for the non-use of the so-called steel house. I want to give that statement a flat denial. Those on this side of the Committee had not the power to decide on the erection of steel houses in any area. That rested with the local bodies, and all the local bodies in Scot- land, so far, have still got Tory majorities. It was those Tory majorities which refused to have anything to do with the steel house. Another statement which has been made is that we are against steel houses. That also is untrue. When the proposal was made in the first instance to this House I criticised the construction of the steel house, but I have never yet said a word against any form of house that will be as good as the houses we require. My criticism dealt entirely with the false construction of the steel house, and if what I said had not been correct there are right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who would have been very glad to bore holes in the criticism. They cannot do so because experience in the few years that have passed has substantiated my arguments against the system of construction My challenge has never been met once.

It is agreed that bad housing produces bad health, and to-day, because the Government have failed to increase the number of houses, they want to take the money that ought to have been spent on houses and to spend it on the bad health which is still being continued in houses that ought to have been closed. To say that this sum of money is a saving is to use a twisted term. Perhaps the word is used to save the face of the Government, or to prevent the public from knowing exactly the extent of the Government's failure. If the Health Department could have put forward any argument in favour of the steel house we ought to have had it, but never once have we had from the Health Department, which controls housing, anything of the kind put forward. It is well known to those who are on local bodies that visitors from the Health Department did not give the reports that were expected of them. Being experienced and practical men they told the truth about what they saw. I have raised a question that follows upon this, and that is as to people who are unable to pay the rents even in some of the steel houses. We ought to prevent these people being crushed out of the new houses and sent back into conditions that produce bad health. Surely it would be cheaper to keep the people under healthy conditions rather than increase the health rate. Just as the people in Lanarkshire are forced to go out of the houses and into dwellings from which they were supposed to be relieved, bad health is bound to increase.

The medical committee that is now investigating rheumatics, especially in children, has no doubt as to what is causing the trouble. Why talk about saving upon housing in view of these facts, when we know that we are increasing the health rate in every one of these areas and that we are bringing on diseases that have been absent from Scotland for over 100 years? Yet we find the right hon. Gentleman quite complacent; we find hon. Members opposite talking about steel houses as if something had been flung back. None of these right hon. Gentlemen has ever stayed in a steel house nor has he had experience of what it means to be in a house made of what is called an unbreathing material. The doctors can tell you what that expression means. The returns in areas where steel houses are in existence give some interesting information on that subject. The one complaint I make is this: We have the most efficient men in Departments like the Health Department, but their reports, based upon practical experience, are never used by right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench because they do not understand the purport of the reports. It will be found that the Department is against anything in the nature of a house built of unbreathing materials. The Scottish position in regard to money for housing should not be related to that of England, for the conditions are altogether different so far as the construction of houses is concerned. The whole of the area should be reviewed. If the weather prevents our getting on with the work of building, why should we fall short; why should the matter not be based on a monetary sum, so that we get our due proportion right through?

I wish to say at the outset that we on this side have no objection to an additional grant of £40,000 for sickness, maternity and disablement benefit. Our objection in this matter is to the source from which it is proposed to take the money. The necessity for an additional grant in aid of these benefits raises a very serious question so far as our approved societies are concerned. I think there is no one in any part of the Committee who fails to recognise the seriousness of the question involved in the spending of an increased sum on these benefits. The Secretary of State for Scotland has said that it is difficult to explain how the increase has arisen but in his two speeches to the Committee he has indicated that unemployment may have led persons to seek for this form of relief. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to examine that statement very closely before coming to a final conclusion upon it. There* are other things which require to be examined alongside a proposition of that kind. For example, no benefit is paid unless under a medical certificate. It may be that certain doctors in Scotland are prone to give these medical certificates too easily; but it surely requires a big stretch of imagination to suggest that the sum of money involved here has been given away by the medical profession of Scotland in the course of last year. To say so would be to lay upon the medical profession a charge which I am sure cannot be substantiated by the Secretary of State for Scotland or any other Member of this Committee.

In addition to the fact that a medical certificate is required before these benefits can be paid, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to take into account certain other considerations. It has already been pointed out in this discussion that, low as are the wages to-day in most of our industries in Scotland it would be better for our people if they could obtain work, even at the miserable wages which are being paid, instead of being dependent on sickness benefit. They will certainly have a larger sum of money at their disposal if they are able to work for wages, than they will have if they are dependent upon the amount paid by our approved societies in sickness benefit. Even if the unemployed, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests have been taking into account this form of relief, he should not forget in making such a statement that the unemployed who are entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefit—at least the married section of them—will receive more money by being paid unemployment insurance benefit than they will receive by being paid health insurance benefit. Another consideration is that even the scale of relief paid by the parish councils in a number of instances is fixed at a higher figure for the able-bodied married unemployed person, than the benefit which is being paid by most of OUE approved societies. These considerations require to be weighed along with that which the right hon. Gentleman has put before the Committee this evening. We require to look for the explanation in other directions, as well as in that indicated by the right hon. Gentleman.

Some of my hon. Friends, in the course of this Debate, have put forward reasons which call for careful examination, particularly by the Health Department. As I said at the outset, we do not object to the amount which is being asked here, but we object to the source from which the money is being taken. It is being taken from a saving on the steel houses and on the amount that has been spent on housing generally in Scotland in the course of last year. I think that saving represents a sum of over £44,000, and we object to that money being taken by the Secretary of State for Scotland for other purposes. Already the housing shortage in Scotland is very serious, and to underspend money which has been voted for the provision of houses to the extent of over £40,000, is to make matters worse than they need be. The Secretary for Scotland said that the failure to spend the money provided to this extent meant that 500 houses less were built. That is a very serious matter. Members on both sides of the Committee are in agreement that much of the sickness which causes this extra money to be spent in benefit by approved societies, arises from bad housing conditions. Therefore, in diverting money from the building of these houses we are diverting it from the root remedy which ought to be applied for the purpose of reducing sickness and disablement. If bad housing conditions are responsible for much of that sickness and disablement—and I think there is agreement upon that point—surely it is a serious mistake to divert the money which has been voted for the building of houses when it has meant the provision of 500 fewer houses in Scotland last year.

We take a very serious view of this matter and we propose to divide against this proposal as a protest against the action of the right hon. Gentleman in taking the money from this particular source. There is no doubt about the fact that the steel houses did not meet with the approval of any section of the Scottish people. The working classes, for whom they were provided, had a decided objection to them and so had the municipal authorities, almost without exception. The objection to the steel houses did not come from the building trade Operatives alone. The people of Scotland generally objected to them, and what happened in Glasgow recently proves it beyond the shadow of a doubt. As the Committee may be aware, Lord Weir offered all the plant that he had gathered together for the building of these steel houses to the City of Glasgow, but the corporation turned down the offer and would have nothing to do with it. That is one of the indications that the people of Scotland were against these houses but, that being so, why was the money which had been voted for housing purposes not devoted to some other form of house building? The people of Scotland were not averse to alternative forms of houses which could have been provided and on which this money could have been spent.

The Secretary of State for Scotland also said that the chief reason for the building of steel houses was the shortage of skilled labour in the building industry in Scotland. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the last year there has been considerable unemployment in the building trade in Scotland? Thus, the reason that was assigned two or three years ago, when these steel houses were proposed, has entirely disappeared. These unemployed tradesmen could have been utilised in the building of houses of the type wanted by the people. It is quite obvious that there is a serious

shortage of houses in Scotland. The Government admitted a considerable time ago that it was necessary to build annually 20,000 new houses, 10,000 to meet the natural increase and 10,000 to meet the shortage that has accrued in the course of years. Notwithstanding that, since 1919 we have only built 67,730 houses, whereas if we had been carrying out the programme which the Government admit to be necessary we would have built no less than 180,000 in that period, or 112,000 less than we should have built.

Instead of hon. Members opposite and the Secretary of State for Scotland complimenting themselves on the large number of houses that have been provided in Scotland in the course of the last few years, they ought to be deploring the fact that the shortage of houses in Scotland is getting gradually worse. We are losing ground instead of making up lost ground. The position in Scotland in regard to housing is a very serious one indeed, and there is no doubt that in this respect we are considerably behind any other part of the United Kingdom. It is the duty of this or of any other Government to see that the people of Scotland are placed in as favourable a position in regard to housing as the people of any other part of the United Kingdom, and I therefore hope that this matter will receive the serious consideration both of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £5, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 89; Noes, 229.

Division No. 16. ]]

AYES.

[ 6.33 p.m.

Adamson, Rt. Hon W. (Fife, West)

Duncan, C.

Mac Neill-Weir, L.

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Edwards. C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Malone, C. L' Estrange (N'thampton)

Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

Gillett, George M.

Maxton, James

Ammon, Charles George

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Murnin, H.

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Greenall, T.

Naylor, T. E.

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Oliver, George Harold

Barr, J.

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Paling, W.

Batey, Joseph

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Bondfield, Margaret

Groves, T.

Potts, John S.

Broad, F. A.

Hardie, George D.

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Bromfield, William

Hayday, Arthur

Riley, Ben

Bromley, J.

Hayes, John Henry

Ritson, J.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)

Buchanan, G.

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Rose, Frank H.

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

Kelly, W. T.

Saklatvala, Shapuril

Charleton, H. C.

Kennedy, T.

Scrymgeour, E.

Connolly, M.

Lawrence, Susan

Sexton, James

Cove, W. G.

Lowth, T.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Dalton, Hugh

Lunn, William

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

Slesser, Sir Henry H.

Day, Colonel Harry

MacLaren, Andrew

Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Tinker, John Joseph

Wheatlcy, Rt. Hon. J.

Snell, Harry

Varley, Frank B.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Wallhead, Richard C.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Stamford, T. W.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Windsor, Walter

Stephen, Campbell

Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

Wright, W.

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Sullivan, Joseph

Wedgwood. Rt. Hon. Joslah

Sutton, J. E.

Wellock, Wilfred

TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —Mr. Whiteley and Mr. A. Barnes.—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. A. Barnes.

Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

Welsh, J. C.

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Westwood, J.

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Malone, Major P. B.

Albery, Irving James

Everard, W. Lindsay

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Margesson, Captain D.

Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

Marriott, Sir. j A. R.

Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

Fenby, T. D.

Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

Appiln, Colonel R. V. K.

Ford, Sir P. J.

Meiler, R. J.

Apsley, Lord

Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

Forrest, W.

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Foster, Sir Harry S.

Moore, Sir Newton J

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Fraser, Captain Ian

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Balniel, Lord

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Neville, Sir Reginald J.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Galbraith, J. F. W.

Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Ganzoni, Sir John

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Berry, Sir George

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)

Bethel, A.

Goff, Sir Park

Nuttall, Ellis

Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

Gower, Sir Robert

O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

Blundell, F N.

Grace, John

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Pennefather, Sir John

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

Penny, Frederick George

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

Grotrlan, H. Brent

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Brass, Captain W.

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Perring, Sir William George

Briant, Frank

Hanbury, C.

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Brittain, Sir Harry

Harland, A.

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Hartington, Marquess of

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Preston, William

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

Rees, Sir Beddoe

Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th')'d., Hexham)

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Reid, D. D. (County Down)

Buckingham, Sir H.

Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxl'd, Henley)

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Henderson, Sir Vivian (Bootle)

Rice, Sir Frederick

Burman, J. B.

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

Ropner, Major L.

Campbell, E. T.

Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

Carver, Major W. H.

Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Salmon, Major I.

Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. C.)

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Hume, Sir G. H.

Sandeman, N. Stewart

Chapman, Sir S.

Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

Sanderson, Sir Frank

Charterls, Brigadier-General J.

Hurst, Gerald B.

Sandon, Lord

Christie, J. A.

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Insklp, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)

Clayton, G. C.

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Shepperson, E. W,.

Cooper, A. Duff

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).

Skelton, A. N.

Cope, Major William

Kidd. J. (Linlithgow)

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

Kindersley, Major Guy M.

Smithers, Waldron

Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)

King, Commodore Henry Douglas

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Crawfurd, H. E.

Knox, Sir Alfred

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Lamb, J. Q.

Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Little, Dr. E. Graham

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

Loder, J. de V.

Stuart, Crlchton-, Lord C.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Long, Major Eric

Styles, Captain H. Walter

Dalkeith, Earl of

Looker, Herbert William

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

Lougher, Lewis

Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Templeton, W. p.

Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Lynn, Sir R. J.

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

Dawson, Sir Philip

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

Tinne, J. A.

Drewe, C.

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Duckworth, John

MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Tomlinson, R. P.

Eden, Captain Anthony

Maclntyre, Ian

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Edge, Sir William

McLean, Major A.

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Macmillan, Captain H.

Waddington, R.

Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

Mac Robert, Alexander M.

Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)

Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Warrender, Sir Victor

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Winby, Colonel L. P.

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Wayland, Sir William A.

Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George

Wells, S. R.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain Wallace.—Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain Wallace.

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

Withers, John James

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Womersley, W. J.

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Class VI

Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £160,010, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Expenses under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, Loans to and Relief of Agricultural Co-operative Societies, Grants for Agricultural Education and Research, Grants for Eradication of Tuberculosis in Cattle, Grants for Land Drainage, Grants-in-Aid of the Small Holdings Account, and certain other Grants-in-Aid; and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew."

The first Supplementary Vote for which I have to ask is one for £160,000 to enable the Exchequer to fulfil its obligations to the local authorities under the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, and I should tell the Committee that this Vote is in no way concerned with our operations under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1926, but is entirely limited to our statutory obligations to the local authorities under the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, under which ex-service men were provided with small holdings for seven years after the War. In 1926 a valuation took place of all these small holdings for ex-service men, with a view to a final financial settlement. Until that valuation took place, the local authorities were repaid their actual losses on a yearly basis.

The basis of payment to the local authorities before the valuation was on the actual results of their yearly administration. We deducted their receipts from their loan charges, and paid them the difference. Those payments were made a year in arrear, and 80 per cent, was given to the local authorities on account, pending the certifying statements of the district auditors. The last year of the old system of payments has disclosed a much heavier loss than we had reason to anticipate, owing to the local authorities having written off in this last year very heavy expenditure for repairs, in preparation for the final valuation, and also their book debts; and the Committee will realise why this Supplementary Estimate could not have been foreseen when I tell them that in 1923–24 the amounts paid to local authorities were £834,000, in 1924–25 they were £824,000, and in 1925–26, when the local authorities were preparing for the valuation, they jumped up by £219,000 to £1,043,000. On account of these pre-valuation losses, we have to ask for an additional sum of £110,000. While the-pre-valuation claims were paid on the actual results of the administration of the local authorities year by year, subsequent payments will be based on estimates—the difference between the estimated net rents upon which the local authorities can count, and the estimated loan and other charges which the local authorities will have to meet. That service will involve us in an additional expenditure this year of £75,000 partly owing to unforeseen financial adjustments.

Yes; the £75,000 is apart from the £110,000, but it will be covered by the £160,000 owing to an adjustment in the Small Holdings Account, which is a running account.

Entirely the Act of 1919; we are not asking for any money except in connection with the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919. The money voted for the Act of 1926 is being spent on the lines which we foresaw, and we do not need any more. To come back to this post-valuation settlement. The additional amount is required largely because of the present agricultural depression, which has caused the estimate of rents obtainable from the smallholders to be lower than was expected when we framed our estimate 18 months ago.

The valuation for this settlement is entirely based on rents, and we pay the difference between the rents received, estimated in advance, and the amounts which the local authorities will have to meet in the form of loan and other charges. That is the only basis of the valuation, and it is fixed in advance like that in order to give local authorities the advantage of any economies in administration that they are able to achieve. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) was asking how it was that these two amounts came within the total of £160,000. The reason is that we have a running account, and we brought into the account more than we shall carry over into next year's account, and for that reason we need only the £160,000 for which we are asking to cover total payments of £185,000.

The second grant for which I ask is a Token Vote of £10 for the assistance of member societies who were involved in the failure of the Agricultural Wholesale Society. We shall not spend this money until the next financial year, but, as it is a new service, we cannot spend it on the authority of the Vote on account, and unless we took this Token Vote now, we should not be able to reach a settlement, as we hope to do during the early months of the next financial year. The Committee is familiar with this subject from a Debate which took place two days ago on a Bill dealing with defects in the law under which it arose. Under Section 22 of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, societies can make rules of the most far-reaching character which bind their members. The Agricultural Wholesale Society was an organisation which transacted wholesale business as dealers in all kinds of agricultural requirements and produce. In 1918 the Society amended its rules and required the member societies to be liable to take additional shares based on their membership and turnover. Six years later, the Society went into liquidation. Under the Companies Acts, when capital is increased an individual shareholder and a corporation which is a shareholder, cannot be made liable to increased subscriptions beyond their limited liability, save with their own consent. In the case of these industrial and provident societies, increased liability can be imposed on members by an alteration in the rules to which their members have not assented; and from a recent judgment it appears that societies can be called upon to pay up on a liability of which, as I will show in some cases, they were never aware and which they never accepted.

We have had very many hard cases brought to our notice. The extreme case, perhaps, is that of a nourishing agricultural co-operative society which never joined the Agricultural Wholesale Society. It, however, absorbed a much smaller agricultural co-operative society, which many years ago had taken up two five-shilling shares in the society which is now represented by the Agricultural Wholesale Society (In Liquidation). For these two five-shilling shares in the small society, the larger society are now liable to, or have been served with a claim for, £5,600. This is an extreme case, but there are many others, and if this Committee examined them they would share my opinion, I think, that the societies involved are in no way to blame. They were entirely unaware of the liability which had been put upon them. There are 30 societies which have claims against them of over £l,000 each, and there are many others against whom there are smaller claims. This incident has completely held up agricultural co-operation. The National Farmers' Union have said, and I think with reason, that, until the law is changed, they will discourage any further development of agricultural co-operation, and we are dealing with the amendment of the law by a short Bill. We feel that if the movement is not to receive a shattering blow, we must come to the rescue of the societies involved.

At this stage it would be inexpedient to discuss in detail, or indeed to discuss even in outline, the negotiations which are taking place with the liquidator, but there is one matter which I must tell the Committee. There are certain guarantors of the Agricultural Wholesale Society who will lose large sums of money. One of them is my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir L. Scott). Sir Francis Acland and Sir Henri Deterding also guaranteed large sums. The agricultural co-operative movement owes more than I can express to the public spirit shown for many years past by these gentlemen. The regrettable losses in which they will be involved by their disinterested support of the Agricultural Wholesale Society will in no way be affected by the Vote for which I am asking. The proposed grant will help only the member societies, and it will make no difference whatever to the amount which will be recovered from those societies, with the result that it. will not in any way lighten the call on the guarantors. All parties in the House are, I think, united in their support of the agricultural co-operative movement. This country has spent about £200,000 in advancing that movement, and unless we come to the rescue in this present difficulty, agricultural co-operation must suffer a disastrous, and, perhaps, even a final setback. For this reason, I hope the House will agree to this grant to save that promising movement from the unfortunate and unforeseen results of the failure of the Agricultural Wholesale Society.

I feel that the Supplementary Estimate in relation to small holdings should not be passed without a full explanation and a realisation of the blunders which led to the very great loss and expense which have been incurred by the national finances. The county councils were offered virtually a free hand to do what they liked in regard to small holdings for ex-service men. The aim was irreproachable, but the system was bad, for, owing to that free hand, in the end something like half the total amount of £16,000,000 which was laid out proved to be dead loss, and had to be written off.

7.0 p.m.

That is a serious incident which must be borne in mind when the Committee considers whether this Estimate ought to be passed. The colossal loss in regard to the ex-service holdings was due to the extremely high prices paid for land. Those prices were, of course, inflated by the artificial prices of produce due to the times and partly to the Corn Production Act. They were also due to the fact that land was acquired on a basis which I and my hon. Friends think was wrong. The valuations were neither based on income nor on net annual value, but were based on the monopoly of different kinds which attaches to land. It was thought very freely that the State was going to stand the racket, and, consequently, the country has had to pay up to the tune of some £8,000,000. The total value of the land acquired was £9,000,000, and the average, I believe, was about £42 per acre—a very high price if you look at intrinsic value. The county councils have become the greatest landowners in the country, and the land acquired under this ex-service heading was almost entirely bought by voluntary agreement in the market. Only 15,000 acres were bought under compulsory powers. The councils are now owners of about 450,000 acres, and on those acres are about 30,000 statutory holders. In a great many counties the council itself is the chief landowner.

The account, as we think, ought not to have been a disastrous transaction, but should have been a fairly economic transaction. The fact that there were in the main monopoly values—under that heading, of course, is included many factors in market values—spoilt the account. I submit that the small holding policy ought not to be an uneconomic policy, and the enormous losses are, to my mind, proof of the absurdity of acquiring land at non-intrinsic values, when it is wanted for public purposes. The pre-War holdings had been a most satisfactory transaction. They were not a bad investment from the point of view of the counties, and the State was not asked for any subsidising of small holdings. There was no reason why the ex-service holdings should not have been in the main equally satisfactory. The House ought to consider the relation of this Estimate to the present small holding policy. Under the new Act it is designed that the State shall find a very large part of the expense. It is assumed there will be losses, and it is the defect in the Land Settlement Act which led to this Estimate, which impedes progress now. We see how very little progress has been made.

The right hon. Gentleman cannot go into the merits of the new Act, which is not responsible for the increase in the Estimate.

I pass on to the Estimate itself, and ask the Minister if he will give us a further explanation before the Estimate is passed as to the reasons that the loss amounted to such a great figure. While we feel bound to criticise the Estimate, it must not be supposed for a moment that we are not enthusiastic for the policy of small holdings. I hope the whole Committee is enthusiastic for the proper provision of small holdings, which ought to be in the main an economic policy. I would suggest to the Minister that one reason for this Estimate, and why the loss has been so great, is that not enough was done in the compulsory hiring of land. In the case of hiring, the owner would not feel much hurt to himself if the rental was based on actual net annual value. He continues to enjoy the position of being the owner of the land, and a great deal of the loss arising from interest on the extra value beyond that amount would have been avoided if the policy of compulsory hiring, and perhaps letting of bare land to the tenants, had been adopted.

As to the general desirability of encouraging the policy of small holdings, we agree, and more than agree, with what has been said by the Agricultural Tribunal set up by the party opposite. They said: the Minister will speak again and show us that needless loss is not going to be incurred in connection with small holdings in the future.

May I turn to the other Supplementary Estimate in connection with co-operative societies? I would like to respond to what the Minister said as to the general desirability of helping the movement for co-operative marketing in agriculture in this country. It must be admitted that this particular need of payment is a regrettable incident in that policy. The Minister has admitted as much. It was due to an ambiguity in the law, which took a long time to discover. My hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) alluded to it in the Debate on the Industrial Provident Societies Bill. The history of that legal case, which went to the House of Lords, would take a very long time to elaborate. It was a sort of misfortune that the real bearing of the law should only, after a long time, come to life. I ask the Minister whether the plan that he has adopted fully avoids the conferring of benefit on individuals who otherwise would be mulcted, and how has he arranged that the advantage of the £35,000 shall be allotted as between the great number of persons concerned? It must be a very delicate matter to allot without partiality and without conferring benefits on individuals.

It is very satisfactory if this plan can be adopted. It is an extremely abnormal thing for the State to do without incurring any of the dangers which naturally come to the mind when you think of relieving people of their legal obligations. One naturally thinks, can such a very abnormal payment be avoided? Is this Estimate absolutely necessary? It seems to me that the question whether the State ought to find this money depends on two things— first, whether the country attaches great importance to the co-operative movement, and, secondly, whether the law is going to be altered so as to give a more satisfactory basis for co-operative organisations in future. In regard to the second point, the Bill that is before the House covers part of the ground. It would be more satisfactorily covered—and it is a condition precedent to the obligation to pay this £35,000—if the Minister could hold out hope that other defects in the law which the co-operative societies desire to be remedied are going to be dealt with—for instance, the difficulty they are in now in arranging any. sort of mortgage on their chattels.

That would involve legislation, and it cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply.

I regret that I was going beyond the proper field, but I think it important to the consideration of this Estimate that the House should feel that the co-operative movement will be provided, if this money be found and the Government pass the necessary Measure, with the encouragement that it deserves. The law is doubtful now in regard to an extremely important thing which bears on this Estimate—the question of the legality of binding a member to supply to his society alone. Without legislation, possibly the fact that the State is generous in this Estimate will not bear sufficient fruit, and the Estimate may not be worth giving unless the co-operative societies are really going to be satisfied with the legal situation. I hope the Minister can say something more on this, and promise that we are not throwing good money after bad and that it will not be done in the future.

Then, as to the other condition— whether the Ministry and the country regard the co-operative movement as really important—I think we are all agreed. We are extremely behind other countries. In Germany there are 16,500 farmers' co-operative societies, in Switzerland 7,200, and in the United States of America 15,000. The actual output of the societies in America which are selling societies has grown fivefold in 10 years, and is now about £200,000,000 a year. Our National Farmers' Union has taken up the organisation of co-operative societies, and is working at it, and through the work of the marketing department of the Ministry, and its orange-coloured books on fruits, potatoes, and other subjects, farmers are becoming more and more alive to the importance of this question. But in contrast with the numerous societies in other countries, we have less than 200 selling societies here, and only about 200 purchasing societies, and about 60 milk societies. A happy feature of the situation is that those books, which one might have thought would not have been run after by farmers, have been in great demand wherever the Minister has put them on sale at agricultural shows.

Whether this Estimate ought to be passed seems to me to depend on whether the Ministry is going to throw itself into the marketing side of this work. Farmers are coming to see the need of real co-operation. Of those societies I have mentioned, many have been cooperative only in a very partial sense, and are not co-operative as the American societies are. In the Dominions and in America farmers are now realising that they must work in more specialised ways than ours have done hitherto. They must work on a commodity basis, with a society for each commodity, they must be federated so as to produce a large volume of supplies, and they must work on a system of exclusive supply to a society by its members. Very interesting information has been given to the country, and has for the first time become well known to farmers, through the lectures by Mr. Street, of the Ministry, and the orange book of Mr. Enfield. Farmers are beginning to realise that the co-operative assembling of produce is vital to greater success, that without it even the largest farmers cannot classify, grade, pack or despatch on a big enough scale to supply markets continuously. One must feel that this payment, though it be necessary, is a regrettable necessity, and I hope the Minister can show that all the conditions of success which should follow on this generous act by the State have been provided for.

As I understand it this sum of £160,000 is required to clear up the accounts under the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919. That Act was passed at a time when everybody wished to do all that was possible for ex-Service men, and when they were encouraged to go on the land. As I thought and said at the time, I regarded it as a very doubtful way of helping a man to urge him to go on the land, especially if he were not used to that life, because the land is a very hard taskmaster; but I do not recollect that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Buxton), who now criticises the methods adopted under the Act, ever raised objections at that time. What I would like to ask the Minister is whether this payment will complete the whole of the cost, and what is the real loss under the 1919 Act?

Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to say that I was not in the House at the time, and had no opportunity of raising my voice.

I could not remember exactly when the right hon. Gentleman was outside the House; but at any rate he has deferred for many years the criticism he is now making. I repeat that I would like to know what has been the total cost of the experiment under the 1919 Act, and whether this really is the final payment. The Committee will remember that under that Act there was a provision to this effect, put shortly: that on 31st March, 1926, the lands purchased by the county council were to be valued, and the difference between the then valuation and the original capital cost and the loss in working during those seven years had to be made good by the State. That is included in the £8,000,000 which has been referred to, but I notice that in this Estimate there is a further item,

"(ii) special temporary liabilities in respect of irrecoverable debts outstanding on 31st March, 1926."

in respect of which no figure is given. I take it that that item includes all the liabilities in respect of that debt, and I would like to know how much that represents of the present sum. A little anxiety is raised in my mind, too, under the preceding Clause, by which we are asked to vote a sum of money

"under Section 27 of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, as amended by the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1925, representing (i) the excess of the aggregate amount of the councils' smallholdings charges payable during the preceding year over the net annual income of the councils' smallholdings estates."

As I understood it, the holdings formed under the Act of 1919 were to foe valued on 31st March, 1926, and that when once those estates were taken over toy the county councils the councils became responsible for any further loss on them. If that be so, what is the item referred to in the reference to the excess of the aggregate amount of the. councils' smallholdings charges payable during the preceding year—that is, the first year, I take it—over the net annual income of the councils' small holdings estate? I do recollect that in the last Small Holdings Act we passed, the Ministry, under certain circumstances, were to take over a certain proportion of the loss incurred in subsequent small holdings, but I cannot reconcile that with the statement made by the Minister in introducing this Estimate. I understood him to say the whole amount he was paying was under the Act of 1919. Am I to understand that next year there will be a similar item for this difference under the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act?

If the Minister says that is so, perhaps he will explain the position a little more clearly. As I understood the 1919 Act, a valuation of the estates was to be made on the 31st March, 1926. Against the figure of that valuation was to be set the original cost and the loss on working up to that date, and the Government were to pay over to the county councils the difference, and that this difference formed part of the £8,000,000; and I understood, further, that from that time all future loss on those particular estates would fall on the county councils. Now I understand the Minister to say that is not so, but that each year there will be included in the Estimate something in respect to those losses. Therefore, I ask how long that will go on, and what is the extent of the loss? Is it to go on in perpetuity, or for how long? I repeat that what? rose for mainly was to find out what is the total cost of this experiment made in 1919 of putting on the land a number of ex-service men, the greater number of whom, as I understand, had no knowledge of that life, and a great many of whom have failed.

To my mind, the fact which emerges on this Supplementary Estimate is that it is a payment we have to make for what may foe regarded in a certain sense as a kind of mess, possibly an inevitable mess, having regard to the circumstances with which we were faced at the time when the experiment was started. I gather that this sum of £60,000 is only part of a sum of £16,000,000 which, I believe, was involved in the policy of the Act of 1919. It is a matter of opinion as to how far the policy of the present Government and its predecessors is responsible for the unsatisfactory results with which we are faced, but one cannot help feeling that if from 1919 onwards there had been in the Ministry or in the Government a real, alert and thought-out policy on land settlement we should not have had, at any rate, a financial disaster of the extent which has followed from that Act. One is in the difficult position of having to deplore on the one hand the financial loss which has come about under that Act, and, on the other hand, to agree that there was urgent need for that work to be undertaken— at any rate that is my difficulty. I do not forget that although the Act of 1919 has called upon the general taxpayer to find about £8,000,000, the total cost of the Land Settlement Act I think I am right in saying will in round figures be about £16,000,000, of which £8,000,000 will be repaid. Although there is a substantial obligation placed upon the taxpayers, there is, on the other hand, a substantial asset in the fact that the Act of 1919 up to the year 1924 has settled some 16,000 smallholders on agricultural land in this country who were not there before 1919, and who, if they had not been provided for in this way, would have suffered hardship, and would have been a danger to industry in our towns and elsewhere. From a national point of view, although the financial results are to some extent unsatisfactory, there is the positive gain that we have been able since the conclusion of the War to achieve a substantial settlement of men on the land of this country who are doing the most useful work of land cultivation and food production. That is all to the good.

I think the Ministry of Agriculture are to be blamed for the lack of adequate supervision and oversight with regard to the conditions under which the 1919 Act was carried out. It is well known that the circumstances under which so many of the settlement schemes were inaugurated involved the men who took up the land in very high rents, and when difficult times came it was found almost impossible for these men to go on paying those high rents and other high overhead charges. I think the Ministry of Agriculture and this House will learn by experience in dealing with land settlement. May I read to the House a letter which I got only this morning from a village in Cambridge which gives some idea of the difficulties under which small holdings are working. The letter is as follows:

I do not want to postpone the passing of either of these Votes. The main object of my rising is to refer to some of the facts mentioned by the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) who seems to exaggerate very much the number of failures amongst smallholders which occurred under the 1919 settlement. The degree of success of that settlement, quite apart from the cost to the State, is of such vast importance in judging the 1919 scheme for future guidance that I do not think I ought to allow a statement of that kind to pass unchallenged. I do not think that any estimate of the failures due to economic causes, so far as England is concerned, can possibly be above 10 per cent., and I believe it is below 10 per cent. As regards Scotland the number of failures from economic causes, apart from family causes or death, the figure cannot be regarded as more than 5 per cent., and I think it might very properly be said to be smaller.

I am leaving the pre-War figures entirely alone, because I do not think they are relevant. Not only are the figures striking in themselves, but they become far more important when compared with the equivalent figures in Australia and Canada, where post-War land settlement was also carried out. A comparison between the land settlement scheme in this country and Canada and Australia is not only interesting with regard to the number of failures, but it is of great interest with regard to the cost of working the holdings. Owing to the nature of the case, I believe that a certain amount of this expenditure could be avoided in the future. The fact that some 17,000 smallholders have been placed on the land in this country must have an immense economic value. One fact which I do not think has been properly brought out before in the Debates in this House is that there is no class of person of equivalent income who spends so much of his money on productive manufactured articles as the smallholder. I would like to suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that a subject which might very well engage the attention of some of his economic experts to work out is the actual economic effect of some of those better-known groups of smallholders which have been set up. I will not labour that point, but the Committee may take it as incontrovertible that there is no class of men who spend more of their income in a productive way than the smallholder.

I would like to refer to another point which I do not think has been mentioned in the House before, and it was quite unknown to me until a year or two ago. When you talk of the men you have settled on small holdings it must be remembered that they are utilised for market gardening, poultry keeping and intensive cultivation, and these small holdings not only keep the holders themselves and their families, but they also attract an amount of permanently hired labour which is scarcely credible until you investigate the matter. May I give one example? I happen to be one of several hon. Members who some two years ago went to look over a group of small holdings at Croydon, and nothing struck us with more force than the fact that on eight, 10 and 12-acre holdings not only was a family being supported but two hired men were being kept in constant work. If hon. Members examine the actual statistics of the population of these settlements they will find that they have been very successful in providing employment wherever they have been established in suitable places and under suitable conditions. Although we must always keep most clearly in view the very heavy expenditure under the 1919 settlement, it is not a criticism based on facts to say that so far as small holdings generally are concerned a considerable proportion of them fail to make good.

I want to say a word or two on the subject of finance. I think on both sides of the House, and particularly amongst urban Members, there is a far too strong tendency to put the £8,000,000, which will undoubtedly be lost, as the last word in small holdings finance. That is not so. The bulk of that expenditure was incurred between 1919 and 1921, that is to say before the slump came in prices not only in small holdings but in every form of agricultural subject. That money was spent between 1919 and 1921. In subsequent years there was the same loss in Scotland. When you realise all this it is not fair to attribute the loss of this £8,000,000 to bad organisation or to the adoption of a bad principle. Undoubtedly some of it might have been saved along the lines by which the Scottish Board of Agriculture is now saving money. Instead of making a complete equipment of a house and buildings before the smallholder goes on to the land under Government supervision which is rather expensive, the new policy, and I think the right policy, is for the Government to complete a minimum of the equipment before the tenant goes in, and then let him put up the remainder of the equipment as he needs it by means of loans. In that way it could be done at a much less expense.

Although I rose only to deal with the statement made about the proportion of failures, I should not like to leave that topic without saying that a careful and impartial investigation can only lead to the conclusion that the expenditure of the past and the losses incurred could not possibly be repeated in the future with proper supervision. I wish to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture upon the line which he has taken. In a sentence let me say that nothing could be more important than that the co-operative movement for a combined market should not fail. This country is surrounded by a host of agricultural rivals every one of whom have adopted this new and formidable weapon. They march through our markets like a posse of police driving through a crowd. Organisation, grading, standardisation, all that means success instead of failure, and it would be pathetic if any step were avoided that could help the co-operative movement. Therefore, I congratulate my right hon. Friend most cordially on the fact that, at a time when so many of his supporters are urging economy at all costs, he should have seen that there are certain expenditures that are not only wise but vital if a movement which is in itself vital for our prosperity is not to be stamped under foot.

I should like to ask a question or two in reference to what has been said by the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton). I think that, on such a Vote as this, it was at least due to the Committee to give a more detailed explanation than has been forthcoming. I listened to the Debate on the amending Bill, but it did not afford much information as to how this business would work out, and I think we should have had a detailed explanation on the Vote to-day. If we had had such an explanation, probably I should not be asking these questions now. It seems to me that we are setting up a rather dangerous precedent, if, when certain societies fail and go into bankruptcy, as this one has done, the Government are prepared to take over the liabilities, and, by means of a Vote of £35,000, to save those people who have been connected with the society that is in liquidation from the losses which have been incurred. I should like to ask who has been successful in impressing upon the Minister the desirability of bringing in a Vote of this description for such a purpose. I wonder whether such a Vote has ever been passed by the House of Commons before?

The hon. Member for Perth said that we were all interested in co-operative organisation, particularly in regard to agriculture. I suppose we are, but are we to assume that we are so much interested in it that, when any venture has been set up and has incurred huge liabilities—as apparently has been done in this case—and does not succeed, perhaps for a variety of reasons, the Gov- ernment, because of our sympathy for co-operative organisation in agriculture, are to take over the liability? I do not know how that may be, but it appears to me to be a dangerous precedent to set up. Someone must have had some tremendous influence. When we in the mining world are talking about any help from the Government, we are always met with the plain, bald statement that it is a question of supply and demand, that the industry must stand upon its own feet, that it must find its own economic basis. This society appears to have no economic basis, and it has lost a huge sum of money, but the Government are coming to its help in order to let them out of it. That may be very desirable; I do not know; perhaps the Minister will tell us. It appears to me to be very dangerous, and he must not be surprised if in the very near future I use this as an example to get something for the industry in which I am interested. There are pits going out of production to-day, and going into bankruptcy, but no one would suggest that the Miners' Federation, or even the Mining Association itself, could prevail on the Government to give them their help by way of a subsidy of this description. Perhaps the Minister will explain who it is that has had sufficient persuasive power to get him, at a time which, as the hon. Member for Perth has said, is a time of strict economy, to come to the help of a company which has had to go through the Bankruptcy Court and find money for its assistance.

I should like to ask whether there is any connection between this company that has failed and the Government? [ Interruption. ] What I mean is, had the Government any liability? Was it because of direct Government pressure or encouragement that these people went into it? Did they do it at the instance of the Government? That is what I mean, and not what is in the minds of hon. Members when they smile. If that be so, perhaps there might be some excuse for it, but, unless there is some reason of that description, I am bound to say that I am against the whole business. It may be that there is a sufficiently satisfactory explanation, but it has not been forthcoming, and the House of Commons is being asked to make quite a new departure in these times of shortage of money and strict economy. How the Government can have been induced to come to the House and boldly ask for a sum of £35,,000, for an entirely new departure like this, passes my comprehension. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what methods were used to get him to promise this money, because, if he will, I think they might he very useful to us in the future, when we want some help from the Government for an industry which is in a much worse way than agriculture at present, badly oft as agriculture is. I claim, as a Member of the House of Commons, who has not much knowledge about this question or how it has arisen, that, before we pass this Vote, the Minister should give us a detailed explanation which may satisfy us, in spite of our fears and qualms, that the money is being wisely spent.

I dare say the queries which have been put by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Paling) may appear on the face of them to be well justified, but he will forgive me to-night if I say that I hope to help the Minister rather than hinder him in regard to this matter. The bare facts of the situation upon which my hon. Friend has put his questions do not look very well, but it is the general situation in regard to agricultural cooperation at present with which I am concerned, and which would lead me to abstain from any opposition to the Vote which the Minister brings forward. The Minister gave a general indication of the reasons for this Supplementary Estimate, but perhaps one might go a little further. In the first place, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster has raised a point which possibly may be taken as some slight justification for the sympathetic action of the Government, for—against the views of many of those connected with the co-operative movement from my point of view, that is to say, the industrial movement—the agricultural movement was largely subsidised from the start. The Agricultural Organisation Society, which did all the initial work of organising the co-operative movement among agriculturists in this country, had a very substantial subsidy for its work, and, therefore, the reply to my hon. Friend is that, probably, not only the development of agricultural societies, but also the federation of the agricultural wholesale society, could be traced indirectly to the subsidy given originally to the Agricultural Organisation Society. I suppose, therefore, one might argue that there is some case for sympathetic treatment of this matter by the Government.

There is, however, something more than that. I do not regard this payment as being in the nature of an ordinary subsidy, and, of course, my hon. Friend does not either, for he said that it is almost without precedent for the Government to come to the House of Commons and ask that a subsidy should be given in order to cover up the deficiency in what is really a bankruptcy case. In this case, however, there is no doubt that a large number of agricultural societies were misled by what was really a defect in the Statute. The industrial part of the movement, which works under the same basic law of 1893, has always been, fortunately, very much better managed, if the Minister will allow me to say so, than the agricultural movement. That is probably due to the fact, and I say it quite frankly, because one must be fair in these matters, that it is very difficult for a farmer to give the same time to the close examination of the affairs of his society that, say, the artisan does who has time to spare after finishing work at five o'clock in the afternoon. There has been, therefore, a very marked difference in the way in which the societies have been managed; but, under Section 22 of the Act of 1893, we have always laid down rules which were absolutely efficient. We took the highest legal opinion on the matter 30 years ago, and we were advised that it was intended, even if it had not been provided in the Statute, that it should not be possible to involve any member of a society, or any member society of a federation, in shareholding liability to which he or to which the society had not given consent; and for the last 30 years, in the Co-operative Union, we have operated, in the case of industrial societies, model rules which were approved by the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and which have prevented anything of this kind happening.

It has been rather amazing to me that the agricultural movement should have proceeded for so long in so slack a way as not to have a set of rules like that; but I am very anxious that the farmers concerned, some of whom have very little opportunity for really intimate connection with their society, should not be seriously damaged as a consequence of that defect in the Statute, which would have had to be remedied in the case of each society by the adoption of proper rules. I am, moreover, very much concerned in regard to the general question that we should not allow a position to be maintained in which the farmer, at a time of severe depression in agriculture, should be extremely reluctant to engage in any form of co-operative effort. I said on the Second Reading of the Amending Bill that I had had some conversations on this matter with farmers in Somerset last year, and I found the position very serious. The Minister of Agriculture knows full well that we in the industrial movement want to have a much stronger and more efficient agricultural co-operative movement in this country. We have had all kinds of conversations and attempts at contacts, but nothing seems to be fruitful of anything really tangible, largely because, in the organisation of a great market—I am thinking now of the actual distribution of the goods—such as exists in a consumers' movement covering 18,000,000 people, it is almost impossible for us to do what we want to do with the British farmer unless he can collect and grade and deliver goods on the same basis as the organised farmers overseas, with whom, as a fact, the British consumers' movement is in corporate connection.

Here we have a holding of half the share capital by the British consumers' co-operative movement, in an undertaking in which the other half is held by British-born co-operative farmers in the Dominions who actually send graded products to us. I dare say the Secretary of State for the Dominions came across instances of such contact when he was in New Zealand and Australia recently. They are actually capturing a market which in many respects ought to be the legitimate market of the home farmer, if he were really organised to anything like the same extent, and could get the same contacts with the organised markets at home which the Dominion farmer has. It is because I want to save a situation in which I find the farmer at present reluctant to engage in any further cooperation, because of his experience in agricultural societies in the past, that I would like, whatever the opinion may be on the question of subsidies, to wipe out at once anything on the debit side which is keeping the farmer from new volition in co-operation. Otherwise, the Minister knows full well, from my attitude here upon questions like that of the beet-sugar subsidy, when I have had to take a line with which my hon. Friends do not always agree—

Some of them, at any rate. There is nothing more foreign to my general views on matters of this kind than a policy of subsidies. I do not regard this really as a subsidy. I regard it as an immediate act to get rid of something that is keeping back the farming community from a real step forward in the development of agricultural cooperation. At the same time there is something very much to the point in what my right hon. Friend said earlier in the Debate, that it is not sufficient for us to clear up this point unless the House knows, at the same time it is voting the money, that really adequate steps are going to be taken to put the co-operative effort on a proper basis.

My right hon. Friend referred to what has taken place in regard to the late Agricultural Organisation Society. A good deal of the co-operative work of that body has been handed over to the National Farmers' Union. It is not sufficient for the matter to be left there, and it certainly is not sufficient when we look at what has been done in the last three years. I cannot see any great progress, although I admit that a good deal of the failure to secure progress is this psychological feeling as the result of past experience that we have to get over. Nevertheless, nobody can have read the two column letter in the "Times" of 6th February from Sir Horace Plunkett without very serious misgivings. I have had the very great privilege of discussing the matter with Sir Horace Plunkett. It is not the first time I have discussed such questions with him. I feel that if the Minister is coming forward to-night asking for the vote of this money, which many of us want him to have, he ought at the same time to tell us what is going to be the next step with a view to getting a real rehabilitation of agricultural co-opera- tion. I feel myself it is hopeless to try to do it by subsidy. I do not think we could come to ask any more grants from the Government. If co-operation is to be successful in any way in this matter it has to come from the bottom and to grow up, but there is very much more to be done to create the right atmosphere and the right feeling and view in the mind of the farmer than has yet been done. I feel very strongly with Sir Horace Plunkett that the present time, when you have such a national concern about the depressed condition of agriculture, is a time to appeal not only to the farmer but to the general public to be interested in the development of this new organisation of marketing farmers' produce. We in the co-operative movement have been in a rather peculiar position. I remember speaking at this Box in 1925 and saying that "we in the industrial co-operative movement desired to commence our share of responsibility for organisation in this matter, and that we have set up a new agricultural department. Unfortunately it has not done anything like as well as I hoped it would do. It has taken some of us all our time in the last few months—

The hon. and learned Gentleman has mistaken my point. I am not dealing with the actual operation of farming. I am dealing now with the attempt we made to set up a department for progaganda and education. Certain of the operations of the Agricultural Organisation Society were handed over to the National Farmers' Union. I plead guilty to having taken a lead in this matter inside my own movement. I felt nothing was going to be finally done unless we could get both sides, the organised consumer and the organised producer, to organise at the same time and to propagate and educate, if possible from a common platform, to get the right atmosphere upon both sides.

I was going on to explain that unfortunately we have not done as well with that department as we should have liked, but some of us have been able to save its going out of existence in the last few months and we are now in the very midst of considering its re-organisation to see if we cannot get something better done for presentation to our congress this year. But when that is done we want very much more accomplished in the direction of obtaining efficiency in the management of the actual societies that exist. I want to be perfectly plain. I do not want anything I say to-night to go forward as though I were saying the Agricultural Co-operative Societies as a whole are inefficient. That would be a ridiculous statement. I think a great deal of praise is due to a large number of the agricultural co-operative societies for the work they have done and are doing, which some of them are doing in very difficult circumstances, but we have found that where we could get an agricultural society to come to our organisation with really efficient accountancy and expert financial direction and advice, those societies have made enormous strides. I would ask the Minister to examine for himself the change that has come about by actual co-operation between the consumers' and producers' movement in the case of societies like the Southern Counties Farmers' Association, the Dorset Farmers' Association and one of the Wiltshire Societies, and I am glad to say the Cornwall Farmers' Association are now negotiating also for direct contact, and for the most part in the direction of better management and control. But how much more might be done if we could get something beyond just the issue of yellow books even though they may be of great value and written by people with great expertness. I am not criticising them at all. I am sure they will help to do a great deal to create the right feeling in the mind of the farmer. If the department would do what I urged upon the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor in August, 1925, to lend all their influence, not in giving money but in bringing the two sides together more and more, they could do an enormous amount for the development of this very essential part of the work. For these reasons I am going to support the Vote.

I bow to my right hon. Friend's great knowledge on the subject, but I am not at all sure that the conditions on the productive and marketing side of agriculture prevailing in this country are such that you can always organise entirely upon the basis of single commodities for single societies. It often happens that the marketing society will have to cover more than one commodity, from purely economic area considerations, and I hope we shall not lose sight of that. Another thing I want to say, that ought to be said from this side of the House, is that whatever may be the future of agricul-cultural co-operation one cannot allow a Vote of this kind to pass without a real testimony—this is not the first time I have said it—to the great self-sacrifice and public endeavour of the gentlemen whom the Minister has mentioned to-night. I have often stood on our own platform on our side of the co-operative movement and paid the same tribute— although I may have thought some of their enthusiasm not well directed—that these gentlemen had consistently shown that singleness of purpose and that good will which alone can achieve great public service, and when I look back and see what Sir Horace Plunkett has done, what Sir Francis Acland has done, what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir L. Scott) has done, whose losses I am sorry to say have been exceedingly heavy, we owe a very great debt of gratitude to them indeed. In regard to those gentlemen, it is plain that the House can make no material return. I feel sure they will be the last to desire it.

But there are other cases I would like to raise with the Minister. There are individuals who have lost money who are not at all sure that they will be recouped. Take an individual farmer, a member of a society which I believe was a member of the Agricultural Wholesale Society, whom I met in Somerset last year. He had been asked to pay up £50 or £60, and he had to pay. It may be that some of their liabilities could be met by this Vote, but certainly not all. I should like to know what is going to be the position of the individual shareholders of the societies who have had a call made upon them as the result of the Biddulph case in the House of Lords, and whether they are going to be recouped in any way for the response they have had to make to that call of share capital, otherwise I am afraid it is going to be exceedingly difficult to get that new volition in the matter that we all desire.

There is no man on these benches who does not long for the day when the entire agricultural system will be one unit of co-operation, North, South, East and West. It is not our fault that there is not co-operation. I do not believe, even with all the machinery or all the good will of the co-operative societies, which has been so well advocated, you could establish real cooperation in agriculture. Co-operation is strangled because of the inherently rotten land system. [ Laughter. ] That is my opinion and I hold to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Paling) has asked why these subsidies are brought into the House, and apparently everyone thinks the money should be given. He says his people, the miners, would have met with severe criticism if they asked one-half the amount. It is time the taxpayers realised what is going on quietly on behalf of the agricultural interests-beet sugar with its £20,000,000 and this drop in the bucket of £160,000. I support the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley). I want to know also whether this is a debt in perpetuity or does this £160,000 wipe it out. The Committee ought to know that, because from the speeches that have been delivered one would think this was the term of the expenditure. I want to know because if one reads the details, it reads as if there will be another call next year. That is why I have intervened, because it would make the impression go outside that even Labour men are beginning to forget that there are certain fundamental differences between us and the party opposite on this great issue. I emphasise that because the most efficient form of co-operation, with your present land system, would only increase rent and increase the Tory party, and I am not out for that.

I should like to thank the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) for the support he has given us in this Debate and also recently when we consulted him in this matter in regard to the proposal which we have brought before the Committee this evening. I think, after what he has said, it is not necessary for me to develop a further answer to the questions which were put as to why we could justify this special case. I think he has shown that it is not a case which can recur. We are amending the law so that it shall not recur, and we ask for this money because we believe that only by such a grant can we avoid the ruin of a considerable number of these struggling agricultural cooperative societies. The hon. Member for Hillsborough asked how the individual member in the society would be affected. In the case of the 12 largest societies involved in the Agricultural Wholesale Society, practically the whole of the capital is paid up, and so the individual is only affected as a member of the society. There are other smaller societies, such as the one he mentioned, where there is an outstanding liability on the shares, but I am advised that it is not likely that that liability will need to be called up on account of the demands made on these societies in connection with liquidation, and that the money which we ask the Committee to vote tonight will go to save these societies and not directly to relieve the individual member.

The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Paling) asked whether the Government are in any way responsible for the Agricultural Wholesale Society. It was ancient history long before I was a Member of the Government that former Governments were largely responsible for the Agricultural Organisation Society, and that society was very largely responsible for the development of the Agricultural Wholesale Society. There is no doubt that not only this Government but their predecessors had pressed agriculturists to take up the co-operative movement, and we cannot disguise the responsibility which rests on this Government and their predecessors for the efforts which have been made to induce agriculturists to take up co-operation. I think it will be very unwise to allow this movement, which has been faced with many difficulties to suffer a set-back which would result from allowing those societies which are members of the Agricultural Wholesale Society to suffer the full disaster which the meeting of these claims would involve.

In regard to the bankrupt society, what was the real reason for it going into bankruptcy? Was it due to difficulties in setting up the society or was it due to wastage, inefficiency, lack of organisation or any of those things? When this case is met, I presume other societies are going to go on? Are the Government making any suggestions? Have they any watching brief for these people? Are they going to encourage them in the right direction, or are they going to have any restrictive influence on them in any way whatever?

I cannot give details as to the causes which led to the failure of the Agricultural Wholesale Society. The hon. Member is no doubt aware that it took place in 1924. I think it is public knowledge that it was largely due to the? slump in agriculture and the fact that they had bought large stocks at a time of high prices and were caught by the tremendous and sudden fall. Beyond that, I really have no details whatever.

I understand it very largely to have been the reason for the failure. As to the future control of the Government over the co-operative movement, we naturally shall do all we can to encourage its development, but we feel that it is a movement which must come from the farmers themselves, and that all we can do is to help them by researches and by advice, and, to some limited extent, by finance for capital purposes. In that respect we shall continue the policy which we are already pursuing.

I should like to say how much I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton). It is very remarkable in this time of agricultural depression how the smallholder has held out under the present difficulties. I am not concerned with the present position of the small holding movement on this Vote. I am rather concerned with past history. I will give the Committee some of the details for which hon. Members have asked. The hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) wished for information as to the arrangements for recouping the local authorities for their losses under the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act and he asked whether, after the valuation, there was not to have been some final settlement, some payment of capital, to recoup the losses of the local authorities as a final end of any State contribution. There was never any such capital settlement proposed. After the valuation it was always understood, it had indeed been laid down in the Statute, that we should substitute annual payments on an estimated basis far annual payments of actual losses which were in force before the settlement. We shall continue under the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act to pay year by year the annual loss which on that estimated basis would otherwise be thrown on the local authorities in connection with the administration of that Act. The expenditure during the next 30 years or so will probably be round about £880,000 a year, but the expenditure will decrease as the loans run off. The purchase of land was generally financed on the basis of an 80 years' loan. Of that period seven years have already elapsed. The buildings were erected by loans contracted for 45 years in some cases and 60 years in others. Therefore, it is obvious that we cannot expect any large reduction in the annual charge until seven years less than the shortest period of the loan. The right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Buxton) suggested that there had been some mismanagement in the purchase of land for the settlement of ex-Service men.

I think "mismanagement" could hardly be the word. It was rather "excessive price."

I do not remember the exact words, but the suggestion was that losses had been made which need not have been made, and that was attributed very largely to the excessive price which the right hon. Gentleman alleged had been paid for the land. According to our figures, the land was bought at a price only 29 per cent., on the average, above the pre-War average cost of land for small holdings. The real cause of the great expense under the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act was the vast increase in the cost of buildings. The cost of buildings was 150 per cent., on the average, above the cost of small holding buildings before the War. Interest charges were also much higher. The money was borrowed at 6½ per cent. compared with 3½ per cent., a rise of 86 par cent. above the cost of loans in connection with, small holdings before the War. On the whole, I think that the settlement which we have reached has been a satisfactory one. It was realised that the method accepted by Parliament after the War of settling these men, as a matter of urgency, must lead to a very great cost.

I am not at all disturbed by the account which the right hon. Gentleman, gave of his conversation with county councillors, in which they said they were satisfied with the result of the settlement. We felt it to be our duty to reach a fair settlement, not a generous nor a harsh settlement; a settlement which would impose no loss on the county councils. I believe it would have crippled their finances, and would have been disastrous to the smallholding movement, if the final system of payments had left them seriously out of pocket. Even though in some respects the House may regret the precipitancy with which Parliament embarked on the provision of small holdings at a time of very great cost, that is really not the matter which we are considering to-night. Even if that system were unsatisfactory to hon. Members opposite, I think they will recognise that it could be no justification for breaking the word which was given by the nation to local authorities, that after the valuation and throughout the whole period of the loan charges, the State would see that the local authorities were not put to any expense in connection with the settlement of the ex-service men; on the land.

Question put, and agreed to.

Class II

Dominion Services

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £525,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928, for Sundry Dominion Services, for advances in certain cases on account of liabilities assumed by the Government of the Irish Free State in connection with Compensation for Damage to Property or with Land Purchase, for certain ex-Gratia Grants, and for Expenditure in connection with ex-Service Men in the Irish Free State."

The Supplementary Estimate for £525,000 which I am asking the Committee to accept to-night represents the amount which will be required in the current financial year in order to implement the announcement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Monday with regard to the Government decision on the recommendations of the Irish Grants Committee. I hope the Committee will agree with me that that announcement embodies a satisfactory and an honourable fulfilment of the obligations of His Majesty's Government to those who suffered for their allegiance to the British Government during the disturbed period immediately following the Treaty. The sum of £1,000,000 which the Government have decided to award in respect of the recommendations of the Irish Grants Committee is not, of course, the first or the only payment which they have made in compensation to those who suffered, either in property or in person, in the course of the troubles in Ireland. His Majesty's Government have already paid under one head or another a total amount of about £8,000,000 for compensation in respect of pre-truce injuries. The total awarded by both Governments to Irish loyalists, both for pre-truce and post-truce injuries, has amounted, approximately, to £10,000,000.

The particular problem with which we are concerned to-night is that of the injuries suffered during the post-truce period by Irish loyalists as a result of their allegiance to the British Government, where there has been no compensation paid or where, judging by the standard of what we conceive to be due to those who stood by us, the compensation paid has been less than equitable. The primary obligation of dealing with the troubled situation which followed from the setting up of the Free State Government in Ireland obviously did rest upon that Government, and as the Dunedin Committee observed in their report: loyalists, that we realised and accepted responsibility for seeing that full and ample justice should be rendered in their case. Lord Arnold, speaking for the Government which followed, endorsed the policy of his predecessor, and we, in pursuance of these declarations, set up in 1926 a committee under Lord Dunedin to advise us as to what action we ought to take in order to make good our promises, and to supplement, in accordance with our promises, such compensation as might already have been received.

In the report of that committee, Lord Dunedin laid down that there were two possible lines on which we could interpret our pledges. One was to deal with our pledges on a strictly legal basis; to apply the standard of the law as to compensation as it stood at the time of the establishment of the Irish Free State and to pay the difference between the awards actually given and those which might have been given if the law had not been altered by the Compensation Act of 1923. That course would, undoubtedly, have given very substantial compensation in many cases, not always cases of great hardship, but it would have excluded many of the most grevious cases of men who had suffered by dispossession of their property, by theft, by boycott, by intimidation, and by exclusion from the country which had been their home. These were in many cases the very men to whom we felt the deepest obligation.

The other line, and the line which Lord Dunedin recommended, was that we should take a broader interpretation of our pledges; that we should base them not so much on strict law as on the whole history of what had happened in Ireland and deal with every kind of hardship and suffering sustained by loyalists, taking into account no doubt either the compensation already awarded or the fact that the law had been changed since the Treaty was made, but, in the main, basing compensation on the total degree of hardship suffered over the whole field of loss sustained. Lord Dunedin's Report added that the decision upon that basis must rest with the Government itself. He suggested, however, that the Government should be assisted in investigating claims by an advisory committee. In order to comply with this suggestion the Irish Grants Committee, which had on a smaller scale been dealing with the most urgent cases of hardship, was reconstituted under the chairmanship of Sir Alexander Wood Renton, who had already acted as chairman of the Central Irish Compensation Commission which dealt with pre-truce damage to property. I think we were very fortunate that in Sir Alexander and his colleagues, Sir James Brunyate and Sir John Oakley, we were able to secure a body of advisers to whose careful and devoted labour we, and the whole body of Irish loyalists, are deeply indebted.

It is essential, however, that we should keep in mind that this is an advisory body and is in no sense an arbitral tribunal, still less a court of appeal from the Irish Courts. It has had at its disposal none of the elaborate and careful machinery at the disposal of the Wood Renton Commission, or of the Courts which have dealt with other aspects of this matter. It has not proceeded with that array of counsel and sworn evidence which would be necessary if matters of this importance were entrusted to an arbitral body. It has been an informal body, taking such evidence, written or oral, as it considered sufficient for its purpose, considering the equity of the case and not basing itself upon any strict legal interpretation. However great the confidence which the Government felt in the ability, the care and watchfulness of Sir A. Wood Renton and his colleagues, a confidence which we feel has been fully justified by all that we have learned of their work since, obviously, no Government could have treated such a body, working under those conditions, as a final arbitral Court.

The Government was bound, as Lord Dunedin reported and recommended, to keep in its own hands the final decision as to the award it should make upon the recommendations of the Committee. This was made perfectly clear to the Committee at the very outset and has always been recognised by the Committee. On the other hand, it was equally not the duty of the Committee to attempt to anticipate the decision of the Government by attempting to correlate their recommendations to any total amount, whether the amount first mentioned to them by the Government or any other The view they took—and I submit that it is the only view they were justified in taking—was that they should examine each case as it came before them on its merits in the light of their reference, and leave to the Government the decision as to what award it should ultimately make on the sum total of their recommendations. On the information which was before us in the summer of 1926 we believed that the recommendations of the Wood Renton Committee would be substantially met by a total sum of £400,000. As the work proceeded, and long before it came to a conclusion, it became evident not only that the total volume of hardship was much greater than we had anticipated but also that in very many cases, especially those of the smaller men, there was the greatest urgency. Many of these men had only been able to hang on by advances from their banks in the hope of some sort of a settlement, and it was imperative that some action should be taken at once.

In these circumstances the Government in December last decided on the immediate payment in full of all claims for sums in respect of which awards under £250 had been recommended and the payment for the larger recommendations on a sliding scale. That decision involved an increase from the original £400,000 to an estimated total of £625,000. Subsequent closer scrutiny has convinced us that the cases of the most grevious hardship and suffering are by no means confined to those where small claims have been made or where small awards have been recommended, and that in view of the care and regard for the public interest which the Irish Grants Committee have shown at every stage of the matter any drastic scaling down of their recommendations would undoubtedly involve quite unmerited hardship in many cases and would frustrate the clear and often repeated purpose of the Government. We have decided, therefore, without abandoning the position of the Government, that they cannot commit themselves to an unlimited liability, on the advice of an informal Committee, to allot a sum of £1,000,000, which we believe will be sufficient to enable us to carry out those recommendations in full, or at the very worst will involve only a slightly smaller allocation in respect of the larger recommendations. In the meantime, in order to meet the urgent needs of many claim- ants, we have decided that all recommendations up to £1,000 shall be met in full at once, and a 60 per cent. interim payment made on all recommendations above that sum. I have had an estimate prepared in the Dominions Office of the total number of claims, which will be affected by these interim payments, and I understand that, as a result of the decision come to, 83 per cent. of the awards will be paid in full immediately, and another 6 per cent. at least will get immediately between 80 and 100 per cent. of the recommendations made.

When the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his announcement the other day, certain supplementary questions were asked which suggested a doubt on the part of the questioners as to whether our estimate was not a mistaken one. My hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) asked how it was possible that we could satisfy out of £1,000,000 the sum total of claims, when last December we estimated that only about half of the claims would be satisfied on the reduced scale by £625,000. My hon. Friend asked his question under a misapprehension. The sum of £625,000 represented the estimate for meeting all the claims on the reduced scale and not only for meeting the claims that had already been heard. The actual position up to date is as follows: The total number of claims submitted has been 3,300. Up to the end of last week 1,715 of these claims had been dealt with, on which a total recommendation of £704,688 was made. It may appear that the remaining 1,585 claims would require more than £300,000 to meet them. I wish to point out to the Committee that in the first case the Committee dealt with claims in the order in which they were received, and naturally, on the whole, the more grievous and more urgent cases came in first. Over and above that, the Committee specially set aside the vacation last summer in order to get ahead with the larger claims, and over 75 per cent. of the large claims— claims for more than £10,000—have already been disposed of, and the remaining claims contain a very much larger proportion than those already dealt with of claims for quite small amounts. Certainly the belief that I have been able to arrive at after scrutiny of the facts is that we shall come out very close indeed to £1,000,000; but I should not be in the least surprised if we come out at a figure definitely below that amount.

In these circumstances, while I entirely sympathise with the resolution and the devotion which hon. Members have shown in this House in pressing forward the claims of those to whom we undoubtedly owe very much, and while I entirely understand the sense in which they have put down their Amendment to this Estimate, I should be inclined to advise them to hold their hand and await the outcome of the Committee's recommendations. I do not believe that when those recommendations are complete my hon. Friends will have any reason for disappointment. Certainly, speaking for myself, it is with a feeling of profound relief that I lay before the Committee this Estimate, which in all sincerity I believe to be a fair and honest fulfilment of our pledges and a measure of alleviation which will be deeply appreciated by those who stood by us and suffered for us in the dark and terrible years of the Irish trouble. It can be only an alleviation. No monetary compensation can ever wholly make up their loss or ever efface the scar left on their lives. If in any quarter here or in Ireland there is still some shadow of disappointment over the whole range of the transactions in which the British Government have endeavoured to do their duty in very difficult circumstances, I think we can fairly put forward the two considerations which were urged in a very striking leading article in the "Irish Times" two days ago. I will read the words of that article:

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Estimate will cover all the claims if all are paid in full?

That is the estimate. Our estimate is that £1,000,000 will cover all the claims if paid in full.

No. Let me make it clear. Our interim payments, pending the final result of the Committee's recommendations, will satisfy 83 per cent. of the claims in full, and another 6 per cent. of the claims will receive between 80 and 100 per cent. Of the claims remaining, 10 to 11 per cent. must wait until the whole of the Committee's work is done. On the estimate which we have formed all claims not rejected will be able to receive payment in full.

The total number of claims sent in has been 3,300. Of course, there is a very considerable proportion of those which the Committee entirely rejected. My calculations have been based on the claims sent in and on the character of the claims.

Yes. Of 1,715 claims dealt with, 874 had recommendations made in respect of them. The others have been rejected. Of course, I cannot say now exactly what proportion of the claims still remaining will be accepted or rejected.

With regard to the number of claims on 21st November last, the total number of claims notified was 3,036. Does the figure of 3,300 include any claims sent in after 31st January, 1927, or are they all claims which were in time and which are consequently considered by the Committee?

I am glad that question has been asked by my hon. Friend. The announcement originally made was that all claims had to be sent in by a certain date—31st January, 1927. It was found afterwards that in many cases information with regard to what the Government were doing had not reached the claimants and, therefore, we felt that, in fairness, claims subsequently submitted, if they were reasonable claims, should be taken into account.

I am sure the Committee have appreciated the very clear statement of the Secretary of State for the Dominions upon this question, which deeply touches many of us not only in this House but throughout the country. We cannot help feeling, however, that the right hon. Gentleman would not have been in the comparatively happy position in which he found himself, had he risen to move the adoption of the original Supplementary Estimate, instead of the revised Supplementary Estimate which is now before the Committee. Undoubtedly, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, coupled with the statement which we had on Monday from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, goes a long way to relieve the minds of those who felt that the earlier provision—just touched upon by the Secretary of State for the Dominions—proposed to be made by the Government, failed entirely to carry out the pledges frequently made by Governments of all parties since July, 1921. It is, therefore, a comparatively easy task for those of us who wish to interpose in this Debate to do so, compared with that which would have been imposed upon us had we been compelled to plead the case for fair and just treatment of the Irish loyalists by the Government of the day, and fulfilment of the pledges made to them. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Motion to reduce this Supplementary Estimate which appears on the Paper, and, therefore, at the outset I should make it clear that as far as I am concerned—and I believe this applies to all of my hon. Friends whose names are on the Paper in this connection— that Motion was put down in relation to the earlier Supplementary Estimate, and is not concerned with the revised Supplementary Estimate which is now before the Committee.

That at any rate is my position and I must leave my hon. Friends to deal with the matter as they think right. I am very glad that the Secretary of State for the Dominions referred to the statement which was made by Lord Arnold in another place and which is repeated in the report of the Dunedin Committee because it is extremely desirable that at the very outset we should make our position quite clear in regard to two things. The first is that we do not regard this redemption of the pledges made to Irish loyalists as a question of economy at all. You cannot begin to economise, whether as an individual or a Government, until you have paid what you obviously owe and what you have pledged yourself to pay. The second point is this. It should be clearly understood that this is, in no aspect of the matter, a party question. The party opposite when they were in office made it abundantly clear through the words of their Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies in another place that they adopted exactly the same position as the Government which preceded them, and I should like to quote from the Dunedin Report the exact words that were used:

We now understand—at least I understand—that the position of the Government is this. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that according to all the evidence which they had been able to collect £1,000,000 would satisfy these recommendations in full. Now there still remain to be heard some 1,500 or 1,600 cases—I think the right hon. Gentleman has told us that 1,715 have been heard and 1,585 remain to be heard. It would be utterly unreasonable to think that the Government can say now that a certain sum will be the exact result of the hearing of these cases. We can only say that we are glad that the Secretary of State for the Dominions has been able to go as far as he has gone in satisfying us that according to the best of his belief and according to all the evidence which it has been possible to collect the Government are making provision for the payment in full of these claims. If that were all, clearly, there would be nothing more to be said at this stage. Our difference, if any, would come at the stage of the final settlement when it might appear that £1,000,000 would or would not run out to a full and complete settlement of these cases. But there is something more, I think, to be said about it. There is the question which the Chancellor of the Exchequer touched on when he said, on Monday, that he was satisfied The Secretary of State for the Dominions, I noticed, in more or less quoting—not verbatim, as I have done—that phrase, spoke of the "loss" in the singular, and not of the "losses." It was "over the whole field of the losses," and there was nothing about the individual case, but in the Terms of Reference it said the Committee were

I can only ask the indulgence of the Committee to quote one single case, and I do so because there is a prevailing idea in some quarters that, after all, some of these claims may have been somewhat exaggerated, perhaps very exaggerated, and that probably the award has very amply met all the loss and injury really sustained. Therefore, I will give one case, that of a small farmer in the South of Ireland, who suffered continued persecution prior to the truce on 11th July, 1921, including the seizing of cattle, the destruction of crops, capture and imprisonment in the mountains, during which imprisonment he was refused permission to see his wife, who was lying dangerously ill, or to bury his child, who had died. In the post-truce period his meadows were spiked to prevent them being cut, he was again seized by armed men, who kept threatening to shoot him, and who carried him prisoner to the mountains. His property was looted, and he himself was ill-treated and threatened, until rescued by the police force, still blind-folded, three days later. A week later he was again seized by armed men, brutally ill-treated and kicked, and kept prisoner in a cattle-house, court-martialled, and sentenced to death. He was reprieved on agreeing to surrender his farm and property, but threatened that he would be shot at sight if again found in the country. He went to an adjoining district and was again discovered and ordered to leave Ireland.

He arrived in England destitute in 1922, and in 1928 he is still awaiting fulfilment of the Government's pledges. The amount of the claim in that case was £15,000, and I do not think many Members of this Committee would care to go through that man's experiences, losing everything they had in the world, and being sent out as an exile to another country, and then make so low a claim, but the amount awarded was £2,200, and the amount, under the scale previously proposed by the Government, that would have been paid to this man in total compensation was £985. The Chancellor of the Exchequer truly said that the Wood-Renton Committee, at any rate, have considered the interests of the general public, and that their recommendations cannot be considered excessive.

I am sorry to say that I have no particulars here, but I have no doubt I can get them and furnish them to the right hon. Gentleman if he so desires. There is one other aspect of the matter in regard to which I think we have a right to register a protest, and it is a matter which the Secretary of State for the Dominions rather skated over, if I may use the expression. It was really made clearer by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Monday, when he told the House that the conclusion which the Government had come to, which was that they were not going in any case to pay more than £400,000, was communicated by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs to the Committee at the time it was being set up. I think we have some cause for complaint as to the secrecy and the air of mystery with which the whole proceedings of the Irish Grants Committee, so far as this House and the actual claimants who suffered are concerned, have been invested.

We put repeated questions from this side last Session for some information, and we begged for the disclosure of the amounts recommended to be made, so that the people should know where they stood. These people wanted money to re-stock their farms, and something in order to live, after being exiled to this country; they were people who were in the direst straits, and they wanted to know where they were, but they could not get any information, and we could get practically no information in this House. It was only on the 21st December, in another place, that Lord Salisbury announced, on behalf of the Government, what the arrangement had been throughout and what the Government's decision had been, which has since been modified and extended by the provision of a further £225,000. I cannot help thinking that the fact that the Terms of Reference to the Committee were limited in the way I have described and that they were told at the very outset of their proceedings, in effect, that whatever decisions they came to, only £400,000 was going to be found to meet their recommendations, must have influenced the decisions already given.

In this connection the Sumner Commission was mentioned in another place as a parallel for the scale then proposed. I do not think it ever formed any basis whatever for comparison. The Sumner Commission dealt with the injuries that had been inflicted upon the people of this country by foreign aircraft and in other ways, and, as far as the Merchant Service was concerned, by submarine attacks and so forth. It was a risk to which every subject of His Majesty on land was equally liable, and from which the Government were doing everything they could to protect all citizens. That was not the case in Ireland. The injuries that were suffered there were suffered by a small section of the population; they could only have been suffered by the loyal section, and they were only suffered by them when the Government had withdrawn all protection from them, and had taken their arms and every other means they had of protecting themselves. Further than that, in the case of the Sumner Commission, there was a definite sum of £5,000,000 put aside by the Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was the head, because the German reparations were not coming in. It was clear that that was the sum to be allocated, and the whole thing was scaled down to make the £5,000,000 go as far as it would.

There is another matter relating to that which is more immediately in my mind, and that is that, although two years were spent before the Sumner Commission was set up in investigating claims on behalf of the Government, when the Commission was set up six months were given, for claims to come in. In the case of the Irish grants, however, the Committee was set up almost immediately after the Wood-Renton Committee had reported—16th October, 1926—and only a3½ months were given up to 31st January, 1927, for people to send in their claims. It should be remembered that these people were living in Ireland, a country where there was no free Press, no Press that did not represent the views of the Provisional Government which had been set up, and that there were many people living in the remoter parts of the south and west who had never heard of the Irish Grants Committee until long after 31st January, 1927. It was one of the most satisfactory parts of the Dominion Secretary's statement that these belated claims, if they come within the terms of reference, are not to be barred and unconsidered simply on account of the fact that they were sent in after 31st January, 1927.

I want to make the position quite clear. Cases sent in after that date up to a total of nearly 300 have been accepted. Any cases that come in up to the end of the present month will be accepted.

Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the Cabinet for the same principle to be applied to admissions in regard to soldiers' claims?

If cases have been already rejected on account of time, will they be accepted?

I will consider that, but if they were rejected on account of time only, I think it would be a reasonable ground for accepting them.

I am glad that that point has been cleared up, but I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that this is the 23rd February, and the statement he has just made would give only six days for any person, who has not hitherto thought it would be possible to send in a claim because he had not sent it in before 31st January, 1927, to do so, and it would be reasonable if he would give a slightly longer period for these people to be notified by those who are watching over their cases. It was stated on Monday that with regard to the larger cases over £1,000, 60 per cent, was to be paid immediately, and that the remaining 40 per cent, would wait until the whole of the claims had been considered. The Secretary of State has given us other percentages according to his calculations in the Dominions Office, and I would only put this in general terms to him. A great many of these people, in order to re-establish themselves, are in urgent need of the full amount of the comparatively small recommendations that have been made in their favour, and, therefore, when we get into the new financial year, could not the right hon. Gentleman see his way largely to increase the 60 per cent., because it is obvious that the Government have made provision for a much larger percentage? But do not keep them waiting; they have been waiting for a great many years in most cases.

There is only one other question I wish to ask—why, in the terms of reference to the Irish Grants Committee, was the final date up to which they could consider cases settled as 12th May, 1923? They were to consider cases that had arisen of injury and so forth between 11th July, 1921, and 12th May, 1923. As far as I can see from the Dunedin Report, the advice that was tended by Lord Dunedin to the Government as to their responsibility in this matter was certainly not limited to 12th May, 1923. That, I believe, is the date of the Irish Act, which repealed the Criminal Injuries Acts of 1919 and 1920, and gave, as Lord Dunedin's Report says, very limited possibilities of compensation to people who were to apply. I will give a quotation from Lord Dunedin's Report to show how limited under the present Act, on which the Irish Free State Government rely in this matter, are the possibilities of compensation. The Report says:

The information which has been revealed to us since the Debate began makes it clear that the cases which have to be dealt with here should be. examined with the greatest care, if not, indeed, with considerable suspicion. The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs told us that there had been 3,300 claims lodged. Something like 1,700 of these have been already examined and about 50 per cent, of them rejected. The hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House told us that the Irish loyalists had not been sufficiently well informed as to what their chances were likely to be if they lodged an appeal with the Government. That is scarcely borne out by the figures submitted by the right hon. Gentleman, because quite evidently there have been many hundreds of people in the South of Ireland who, realising that there was a chance of getting their hands into the pockets of the British Exchequer, took a very early opportunity to lodge claims for compensation which they could not justify.

All those cases were outside the Terms of Reference of this Irish Grants Committee and were either before or after the dates specified. They were not within the Terms of Reference and that is why so many were rejected.

I am afraid that I have no knowledge as to why they were rejected. I only know that they were rejected and rejected by people whom I assume would have a bias in their favour.

They were outside the Terms of Reference to that Committee, which was bound down by that particular date.

The hon. Gentleman is evidently speaking from knowledge that has not been given to the House.

No. It is because I happen to come from the South of Ireland and happen to know these cases.

I should have expected him, if he came from the South of Ireland, to have risen in the course of this discussion and to have challenged the picture of the South of Ireland which has been drawn by the hon. Member who has just addressed the Committee. One would almost have thought that the South of Ireland was inhabited by savages. The hon. Member who comes from the South of Ireland, if he likes to give the Committee the benefit of his knowledge, will be able to tell us that probably the most popular people in the South are the Irish loyalists and that the Protestant section of that community for many generations have had a very considerable proportion of the business of that part of the country, were treated in the most friendly manner by their Catholic neighbours, and at no period of the Irish agitation had they any considerable cause for discontent.

We are asked here to vote money from the British Exchequer in the most generous manner to people who are much better off than those who are asked to contribute the money. The only case quoted was that of a small farmer. The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) drew a pathetic picture of his poverty-stricken state and the claim that his poverty made upon the generosity of this nation. Then he told us that this poor little fanner had lodged a claim for £15,000. I wanted him to inform us what was the size of the farm, but he had no knowledge of that kind that he wanted or desired to disclose.

If I may interrupt, I stated it was a small farm in the South of Ireland, and I made no secret of the fact that it was small.

It is a small farmer in the South of Ireland whose losses amounted to £15,000—a small farmer who could afford to lose £15,000 and who had been evidently very generously treated by the community amongst whom he lives. In this country, we have people who suffer considerable losses and who never think of lodging a claim for £15,000. I want the Committee to re-. member that the people of Whitehaven are among those who are asked to subscribe to this £1,000,000. We have had 13 or 14 miners killed in the mines of Whitehaven within recent weeks. The miners of Britain are just as loyal as the poor £15,000 farmer in the South of Ireland. No one on the other side of the House rose and clamoured for adequate compensation and ample justice being done to the dependants of the loyal miners who have given not only their property but their lives for the country. They are being asked to contribute through taxation to the enriching —because it is nothing less—of these people, many of whom have been putting in claims which it is now quite evident they will have great difficulty to justify.

I come from a locality in the East of Glasgow, where we have tens of thousands of very poor people. If we ask the present Government for a little financial aid to relieve their property we are told that this country is too poor to afford aid to the working-class population of Glasgow. They have nothing for miners or for houses. Their representatative stood at that Treasury Bench yesterday and told us that the hardships of the orphans, widows, and old age pensioners which had been revealed in the course of discussion could not be relieved, because relief would cost something in the neighbourhood of £1,000,000. But to-night these orphans, widows, and old age pensioners and many other members of the community are asked to contribute generously to people who are much better off in worldly wealth than they are. It was interesting to hear from the Secretary of State the manner in which this sum rapidly grew. First we had the Wood-Benton committee recommending £ 400,000—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—the Dunedin Committee recommending £400,000. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] First we had a proposal for £400,000. [An HON. MEMBER: "An estimate."] Shortly afterwards that proposal, or that estimate, jumped to £625,000. Now the same figure has soared to £1,000,000. Quite evidently, if pressure can be brought to bear by the friends of the Government in this House, in the interests of the friends of the Government outside, there is no difficulty—

May I interrupt the hon. Member for one moment? Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), when he was Colonial Secretary, gave £900,000 to compensate those who had taken up arms against this country in Ireland?

We are not dealing here with what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) did in 1924. We are dealing in 1928 with the proposals of a Conservative Government for the compensation of their political friends. [ Interruption. ] The main ground on which the case of the Secretary of State for the Dominions rested was the loyalty of these people and their services to Great Britain, that we were indebted to them because they had been the British garrison in a time of crisis and must not now neglect them in their hour of comparative poverty. That was the case. Had they been members of the Irish working class we would not have had this claim. We had members of the Irish working class interned for months and for years in the prisons of this country, and the utmost hardships were inflicted on their relatives, but there was no proposal from His Majesty's Government, and no proposal from the friends of the Southern loyalists, to come to the aid of those people, who have been left destitute by their sufferings in the unfortunate internal troubles of the past. This money is being voted by men representing Northern Ireland. It is a monstrous state of affairs that people who have been given a Parliament of their own should be allowed to come here and vote to their political friends in the South money towards which they themselves And their constituents will not contri- bute a solitary penny. The people of this country object to the Members of the House of Lords interfering in their financial affairs. Whatever may be said about the House of Lords, the Members are at any rate citizens of this country; but here we have a position in which the prime supporters of a financial proposal are people representing Northern Ireland, who will not be asked to contribute a single penny in taxation towards the money which they are to-day voting for their friends. I want to enter my emphatic protest against the whole of this business.

I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman which Members from Northern Ireland he is referring to?

May I take it for granted that no Member for Northern Ireland is going to support this proposal?

I do not think I require any further evidence in support of the statement I have made than the interruption of the hon. Member, but I repeat that it is a monstrous position that the hon. Member, who will not have to pay a penny in taxation—

As I take it, this £1,000,000 is coming out of the Exchequer of Great Britain—[HON. MEMBERS: "And Northern Ireland!"] It is not coming out of Northern Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] At any rate, whatever little contribution Northern Ireland gives, it takes precious good care to get it back tenfold in grants from the Exchequer, and I want to enter my emphatic protest against the whole of this business.

We have had it stated by the Secretary of State for the Dominions that there had been an extension of the time limit, so that these alleged loyalists, one might almost call them exploiters, should have until the end of the present month to lodge claims on the grant that is being voted to-night. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) asked why the ex-service men of Great Britain could not be treated in the same way as the Irish loyalists. Whenever a claim lodged for them is outside the time limit, there is no consideration for them, because they are members of the working class; but when you are voting a million of money to people who have not given you 1 per cent. of the service that you received from the ex-service men you are prepared to extend the time limit, and to give them every consideration in order to assist them in their demands upon the Exchequer.

I am a representative in this House of tens of thousands of the British working class, who have served their country as well as any Irish loyalists ever served Great Britain, but who are poorer than the Irish loyalists are. There is not one of them who put in a claim for £15,000 because of any loss he had suffered in the service of his country. In the name of that British working class I protest against their money being used in a way which, I make bold to say, very closely resembles political corruption.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman one question. Supposing we accept what he says in the name of the British working class, will he tell us what he says, as a late Member of the Labour Government, in regard to Lord Arnold's statement in another place, when he upheld the pledges given by Mr. Bonar Law's Government in 1923?

I am not responsible for—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I thought the supporters of the Prime Minister would at least have the courtesy to sit quiet while I was answering a question put respectfully to me.

It was put to me that I am bound by the statement made in another place by Lord Arnold. I want to reply to the Prime Minister that I do not accept any obligation. Lord Arnold had no authority to pledge the electors of my constituency, thousands of whom are begging work at the Employment Exchanges, to make a compensation of thousands of pounds to the comparatively well-off farmers in the South of Ireland.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) (who has just sat down) from the beginning to the end of his speech seems to have been under an entire misapprehension in regard to the facts. The right hon. Gentleman referred to this Vote as if it dealt with a new matter, and he has compared its objects with other cases of emergency and hardship to which he said that money could have been very properly devoted. The right hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that this is not a new matter. It is a vote in redemption of pledges which, for years past, have been given by successive Governments in this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Including the Labour Government!"] I am glad to think that the right hon. Gentleman does not accurately represent the Members of his own party in regard to this question, because they have quite as honourable a record in this matter as hon. Members on this side of the Committee. May I remind the Committee of what Lord Arnold said as representing the considered judgment of the Socialist Government? In his speech in another place quoted on page 8 of the Dunedin Report he refers to the position of the Labour Government, and says:

"The present Government in this whole question are adhering to the policy followed by their predecessors, and they see no grounds for departing from that policy."

Then Lord Arnold continues:

"This Government have in no way departed from the policy laid down by its predecessors as to the British Government's responsibility for compensation, but, on the contrary, have developed that policy as circumstances required."

As I was favoured during my speech with so many questions from hon. Members opposite, may I ask if it is not a fact that we are now dealing with additional money which was not contemplated before?

I was pointing out that Lord Arnold said the Government was pledged to do all that was due in reason and fairness to the people who had suffered up to that time, and no specific amount had been mentioned. All Governments before then and since have agreed to pay whatever sum in reason or fairness was due to these unfortunate people.

No, we are not the judges. This matter was referred to a specially appointed Committee. The Secretary of State for the Colonies, in commencing his remarks, said that he hoped the proposals made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Monday last would be considered as a satisfactory and an honourable fulfilment of His Majesty's obligation to the Irish Loyalists, and he ended by a quotation from the "Irish Times," which was to this effect: being an ex gratia payment. Yes, it is an ex gratia payment in the sense that all debts of honour are ex gratia payments and in the sense that they cannot be enforced in the Law Courts. But does any hon. Member say that these debts of honour are not as binding, and even more binding, than those debts which you have a right to enforce by law? Unquestionably they are. A debt of this kind is not one that should be passed over, but it should be discharged in full because it is long overdue.

I am not putting it too strongly when I say that the country on the 22nd December last heard with feelings of amazement and indignation that the Government had decided to go back on the definite pledges which they and their predecessors in office had given to pay these claims in full, and had decided to fix £400,000 as the total amount which the British Exchequer could afford. I think it was a very grave and reprehensible thing that this Committee, which was set up to find out what in reason and fairness was due to these men, should have been secretly told that when they were assessing the claims of these people they must always have at the back of their minds that £400,000 was the utmost they could award. No matter how equitable a body of men the Committee might be, they had to realise that the total amount of claims must run between £1,000,000 and £1,500,000. They did not want to cause more disappointment than was necessary, and they took the lowest possible view in restricting their awards. As hon. Members know, there are thousands of pounds due that cannot be paid.

As hon. Members know, the sum of £400,000 was subsequently increased to £625,000, and on Monday last we were informed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a further advance of £375,000 had been made towards meeting the country's debt of honour in this matter. We were told that the Government could not afford more than £1,000,000, that awards would still not be paid in full at once, only up to £l,000, and over that figure 60 per cent. only. Why, I ask, should these unfortunate Loyalists be kept waiting any longer? Months and months ago I asked in this House that they might be informed of the awards made so that they might know where they were in starting a new life, and I was told that it was not possible to tell them. Now we have the same thing occurring again, although the award has been increased because we have been told that it may take a year before the rest of these claims have been heard, and until then they will not be paid in full. The Government have no other means of assessing what is due to these people. This Committee was appointed to tell the Government what is fair and reasonable, and the Government have no other means of knowing. It is bad enough for these people during all these months and years not to have their money, and you are telling them now that you hang up the question again. If these claims are just, why not pay what the Committee has recommended and do not dilly-dally? An hon. Member stated that the Committee were making extraordinary awards, but let me read what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on this point. He said:

I am talking to the Government, who are in charge of this matter, and your Government, I hope, would have done the same. We are told that the Government cannot incur an indefinite liability. Why is it only in dealing with the Irish loyalists that Great Britain is so impoverished that she must so strictly limit her liability? Let us compare some similar cases. I remember that, at the time of the Treaty in 1921, the arrangement made between the Provisional Government and Great Britain was that Great Britain should satisfy all claims for damage pre-truce, and that post-truce the Irish Free State should satisfy all claims. That was years ago, and there was no question of limited liability then. Great Britain agreed to pay in full, and there was no question of limiting her liability to £1,000,000, £2,000,000 or £3,000,000. The Government said that they would pay in full every proper claim pre-truce. When the police or the military thought that people were going to ambush them, they burnt down cottages or houses, and those have all been compensated for and paid for in cash by the British Treasury. That was years ago, and there was no question of limited liability.

I am saying that, whoever did the damage, whether British soldiers, or police, or whoever it was, it was paid for and discharged months and years ago by the British Treasury, without any question of saying that they could not incur an indefinite liability. That is my point, and I think the argument is a clear one. There is another case where there was no question of saying that Great Britain could not bear an indefinite liability, and that is the case of what were known as the deportees in 1923. It will be remembered that there were 110 citizens of the Irish Free State who were interned at the request of the Irish Free State by the Home Secretary in 1923, and were taken over to Ireland and interned in Ireland. They brought a writ of Habeas corpus in this country for wrongful arrest and detention, and the Courts of this country, with that fairness which we all recognise, held that they had been wrongly arrested, and that, although it would have been perfectly right for them to have been interned in this country, the Home Secretary had no right to send them across the sea to Ireland. When that decision had been given, there was no question of Great Britain saying that she must limit her liability to £1,000, £10,000, or £1,000,000. As soon as the decision was announced, the Government of the day said that they would pay compensation in full to these people who had been interned, and, more than that, they would appoint immediately a special tribunal, I think under a learned Judge, to hear their claim, and, still further, would pay their legal expenses in going before that tribunal; and, within a few weeks, the whole of those 110 people had had their cases heard, and every one of them had received compensation. I ask, why is there this differentiation against people whose only crime is loyalty and support of this country while we still remained in Southern Ireland?

10.0 p.m.

With regard to the question of in definite liability, who, more than the Southern Irish loyalists, can tax members of the present Government who, at a late hour of the night, signed the treaty which handed them over? What was the indefinite liability to which they committed those Irish loyalists? What was the position then? These men were disarmed. People who had been rebelling against Great Britain in Ireland had largely fled to the hills and buried their arms there. The British Government appealed to the loyalists that they, at any rate, must show a good example and hand over their arms, and practically throughout Southern Ireland the whole of the loyalists handed in their arms. Then, without consulting them as to the liability they were incurring, the British Government removed the whole of their troops, disbanded the Royal Irish Constabulary, and left these loyalists to the people against whom in many cases they had been fighting, or, at any rate, they had given shelter to our soldiers, and in some cases had protected the police from being run into ambush. Did the British Government think about limiting their liability? And yet now we are told that for a paltry £1,000 or £10,000 the Government cannot—[ Interruption. ] I say it is a paltry thing, and your Government has just the same record of honour that ours has. It is not a party matter, but a matter of honour to Great Britain, and British Governments, whether Socialist, Conservative or Liberal, have all said the same thing, namely, that these people who had suffered for their country's sake should receive fair and adequate compensation. I need not again quote these various letters. The first letter to which reference has been made was the letter from the British Government themselves in 1922, in which they said they— Committee, to sift these pledges and see what the pledges were, and what the Government's real liability was, and this was what the Committee were asked to decide: Renton. The reference to that Committee was:

No, she is not eligible for it. That is really an uncalled for remark, and it has nothing whatever to do with the case. They had their home burnt and their crops and land destroyed. About five years ago they sent in this claim and they got an award two or three years ago, and still they have only had a pittance. When I have read what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that the Committee acted fairly and considered the public expense, why cannot we have their decisions paid in full, even if it is necessary to bring in a Supplementary Estimate, as Governments often do when their Estimates have been exceeded? I have several letters from people who sent in claims months ago and there was a stereotyped form, "As your claim did not come in before 31st January, it is out of time and cannot be considered." There must have been a considerable number because those sent to me are in the same typewritten form with only room for the signature at the bottom. I hope any reasonable claim, which has not been purposely kept back from some improper motive, will be considered, because in places where British newspapers do not circulate and the small weekly newspaper does not contain any British news, these people were quite unaware of the setting up of the Irish Grants Committee, and in cases where it can be shown that it was through ignorance and not through neglect, I hope they will receive consideration and be attended to. It has been said that we, who always urge economy upon the Government, when it comes to a matter in which we are personally interested, throw aside all our ideas of economy. I plead guilty to urging economy on the Government in all respects, but this is not a matter where you can economise This is a debt of honour. It is not a new matter. Heavy as is our national debt and crushing as is our taxation, we had better double both than not fulfil a debt of honour to people whose only crime is loyalty and whose loss is due to a too great trust in the honour of Britain.

I rise, not for the purpose of trying to stop these people getting money or to hinder the Vote going through so much as to draw a comparison between the statements and the enthusiasm of hon. Members opposite when it is a question of this kind compared with the questions we discussed yesterday of the widows' and old age pensions and the treatment of the poor in West Ham. The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) and the last speaker worked up their enthusiasm for justice to these people and talked about a debt of honour. I dare say these people deserve all they will get out of the Government. I have watched the hon. Members very carefully, and I do not know two Members who oppose us more consistently in the things we stand for than they do. I wish they would work up the same enthusiasm for other people who stand in need of justice and to whom the debt of honour is just as great as it is to these people in Ireland. If they would mete out the same treatment to everyone, one could understand them and better appreciate the position they are taking up to-night. I have listened to some of the stories of the hon. Member for Barnstaple, and I admit that they are pitiable, and if the statements are correct, as I have no reason to doubt, they will deserve all they get. I listened last night to stories equally pitiable, but the hon. Members did not support them. They went into the opposite Lobby.

Perhaps the hon. Member misunderstands the point. The people in Southern Ireland for whom we are trying to get justice are those ex-service men and people connected with them who, when the Treaty took place, were cast off by the British Government and had no one to take the place of the British Government and look after them. The people whose interests you were advocating last night, for whom we have as much sympathy as you have, still have the British Government to look after their interests. The people in Southern Ireland have no one to look after them and we have to do it for them.

The Government are proposing to do justice to the ex-soldiers in Ireland to the extent of over £1,000,000, but the ex-soldiers in England are thrown on the scrap heap and no justice is done to them. When we discussed it last night hon. Members jeered and, without exception, went into the Lobby against them. The tales were equally pitiable. I remember a story of an epileptic woman who had 5s. a week. That was pitiable indeed. I think that was a debt of honour, but the sympathy of the Parliamentary Secretary was such that he did not deign to give an answer to it. The only thing he could do was to jeer and gibe at the people who tried honestly to deal with such cases as I have just mentioned because they, forsooth, spent about £5 in luncheons in about 12 months. I resent Members speaking as they do one-sidedly and with bias, giving no assistance to this type of case. I do not think it is quite fair.

There is another question too. There are thousands of people who merit as much attention and help as these. I have nothing to say particularly against the amount of money except that I wish we on this side knew the method that some hon. Members opposite seem to know of impressing upon the Government the need for dealing with these cases. All we say seems to make no difference. We can get nothing, but hon. Members opposite seem to know a method of not only getting the Government to give money in the first place but to increase it time after time. The sum stated at first was about £400,000. Pressure was brought to bear by hon. Members opposite, and it was raised to £600,000. They were still not satisfied, and pressure was again brought to bear, and now the sum has risen to over £1,000,000. I wish they would teach us the methods that they adopt so that we on this side can be equally successful. We have been asking for many things to be dealt with in this country, including the condition of destitute miners. We have not been able to get the Prime Minister or any Secretary of State to deal with the question of the position of thousands of miners in this country who are equally as badly off as ex-service men in Ireland at the present time.

Has the hon. Member not had a subsidy of £23,000,000 not so very long ago?

I did not have that. The coalowners had the benefit of it. To come to my last point, this is the second Supplementary Estimate to-night. We have passed one before this for £35,000. The Government appear to be spending money, as far as my knowledge is concerned, in an unprecedented manner. Now he have another Supplementary Estimate, the total of which will eventually be over £1,000,000. Hon. Members opposite support both these with acclamation. Not a word of criticism comes from them, but if we ask for justice, or for anomalies relating to the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Pension Act to be removed we meet with hostility from nearly every Member on the benches opposite. I think it is up to me to point out the difference in treatment. We shall probably support the Government in regard to this Vote on the merits of the case, because these people deserve something. When the widows and orphans, and ex-soldiers and miners, who are equally deserving amongst the working class of this country, desire something and a debt of honour has to be paid to them, I hope that hon. Members on the benches opposite will try, as we are doing, to drop bias in the matter and vote for assistance being given to those persons.

I want to draw attention to one thing that was said by the Secretary of State for the Dominions. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), I have no desire to enter into controversy at this late hour. I deprecate very strongly the kind of ill-feeling he has tried to stir up over this matter and make it a sort of class war. If he had seen the numbers of people I have seen in the outer Lobby of this House, people in humble position, penniless and driven from their homes, he would not come down here and say they were better off than the people in his constituency. The Secretary of State for the Dominions rested himself and his argument about limiting these grants on the Dunedin Report. I take out a sentence: and give pledges, and when they find the liability is larger than they expected, say, "We cannot do any more." That cannot be done; no honourable Government can do it. Once a pledge has been given it should be honoured.

The Commission have decided that the Government are the proper parties to decide what the sum shall be. The Government must decide the money value of each person's claim, looking at it as fair-minded men. The Secretary of State for the Dominions may say if the £1,000,000 is not sufficient, that the point was not made clear in Debate. I wish to make it clear that we do not accept this interpretation of the Dunedin Report. Whilst I recognise the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman has approached this matter, and hope sincerely that his calculations are correct and that the £1,000,000 will be sufficient; if not sufficient, and if the right hon. Gentleman, looking at these claims fairly, is able to say that the amount awarded is not enough, we are justified in asking the Government to pay an additional amount. It is not possible to limit your liabilities when you have made an engagement; the only time you can do that is before the engagement, and that the Government did not do.

There has been a long Debate on a subject which is quite simple. I will not add to the statements or arguments that have been already used; but I would make an appeal to hon. Members who have been raising objections and would remind them that this is not a recurring charge. It is a payment for damages, and, once for all, when that payment has been made the charge will not occur again. It has been agreed on every hand that the awards made by the Irish Grants Committee have been certainly not on an extravagant scale. To those of us who have been examining these cases with considerable knowledge of Ireland and of Irish life, the awards in some of the cases have been scaled down to the very lowest point that could possibly be called equitable. We urge upon the Government, having regard to the low scale on which the recommendations of the Irish Grants Committee were made, that they should at least be paid in full.

We understand, first from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and now from the Secretary of State for the Dominions, that the Government believe that they are now going to pay in full, and for the purpose of paying those claims in full they have fixed the amount at £1,000,000. My friends and I confess that the Government have better means of estimating what these claims will amount to than we can possibly possess. We do not know as much of the proceedings of the Committee, the number, of claims that have been put in, nor can we estimate the number of claims which remain to be dealt with. But we accept their assurance that they are going to pay these claims in full. If they are not —the margin cannot be very much—we must reserve to ourselves the full right to bring them before the House again and ask for further consideration. Hon. Members who have raised objections will, I hope, understand that these are later claims, and that the case is very different. They are chiefly for very small people in the far outlying districts of Ireland, where news travels very slowly. These claims are very small. I have looked at them and as far as I am aware there are no large outstanding claims. May I thank the Government for the considerable advance they have made towards a settlement of this matter. We rely upon them to see that their estimate is a good one, and that they mean to pay in full. If they find themselves mistaken we must reserve to ourselves the full right to raise the matter again.

I also should like to thank the Government for the great advance they have made. For years we have been pressing these claims upon the Government, and it is really astonishing that up to the present they have not realised how very true and real they are. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has often to rely upon his official advisers. Many of his official advisers were connected with the Treaty in Dublin, and to a great extent they have minimised what happened to the loyalists in Ireland. The advice he has received has been wrong on many occasions. I feel sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not have made an estimate of £400,000 had his advisers gone to Ireland in the first place, or the right hon. Gentleman himself, if in his 55,000 miles tour he had taken the trouble to cross the Irish Channel and go over to the youngest of the Dominions in order to see for himself what has happened there. A small estimate of this kind would not have been put in. He would have been able to realise the ruined countryside, the ruined houses which exist. I am often over in Ireland, and in County Tipperary I see where formerly was a small one-storied thatched cottage, which was burnt down by our troops, a great two-storied building with tiled roofs. In Tullamore the Foresters Hall was burnt down for the murder of Sergeant Cronin. That building cost about £620 25 years ago, and the large sum of £300 or £400 had been spent on repairs in the last few years. These people got £13,000 out of the British Government for replacing it. Do not the Government realize how bitter the loyalists feel when they see those who took up arms against their country flourishing, their houses being rebuilt at the expense of the British Exchequer, while they are kept waiting year after year hoping to receive the just compensation which is due.

I looked up the old parallel, the nearest parallel I could find, and that was the case of the American loyalists after the War of Independence. I was reading Lord Shelburne's life the other day. Lord Shelburne's when he wrote to the negotiators of the Treaty said, in reference to the American loyalists, that he would not let them down, that he was standing up for them before he would sign the Treaty. He said: that statements and claims were often exaggerated, but the newspapers went into case after case and found that there was a very real grievance, and though they were opposed to us at the beginning they have come round to our side and have taken up our case, and at last the Government do realise the justice of our plea.

We are very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving us this £1,000,000, but we say to him, does this sum really cover the whole of the grants that are recommended by the Irish Grants Committee? Supposing there is another £100,000 or even £200,000 necessary in another year to complete the claims, we ask that this £1,000,000 be not a final grant and that the British Government honour their pledges in full. Those who have spoken have told the Committee of the treatment that the deportees received, how free legal advice was given to them, and yet we in Ireland, when we had to come over to report before this Wood Renton Commission, had to have legal advice, and this is what happened. I have two cases here. In one £170 was spent in getting certified copies of the damage done, quantity surveyors' statements and all the other reports that were necessary. In another case the cost was £176. In these two cases the Government allowed £30 and £50 respectively. But in the case of the Irish deportees, all their legal expenses were fully and freely paid at once by the British Government. The other day I received a letter which is typical of many letters that I have received. Not a post comes that I do not get many letters after the following kind: That is the type of letter I get time after time. All we ask of the right hon Gentleman is to honour those pledges that have been made by succeeding Governments, one after the other. Before the right hon. Gentleman writes "Finis" to the chapter of the treatment, of Irish loyalists—which shall be, to many of us, a chapter of disillusion and disappointment and one that redounds little to the credit of this or other Governments—we ask him to record a generous treatment in this instance of those who were loyal to this country. We ask that their claims, which have been considered and recommended by a judicial Committee, appointed by the Government—a Committee which he himself has said was not unduly generous— shall be met.

I do not think I need detain the Committee more than a few minutes in dealing with the points raised during to-night's discussion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) made a speech with which I do not propose to deal. I think I can leave him where he left himself, in his answer to the Prime Minister, with the declaration that an announcement of Government policy, formally made by a Minister to Parliament, had no moral obligation on himself though he was a member of that Cabinet. I will now turn to some of the points very fairly put by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto). He asked why the consideration of post-truce cases should be limited to the date, 12th May, 1923. That date was fixed because, in our opinion, it marked the conclusion of the period of special unrest in Ireland, where we could feel that some moral responsibility attached to us in view of the circumstances in which the transfer of government was made. At the same time, I think he overlooked the fact that an answer was given in Parliament some time ago to the effect that I had agreed to consider exceptional cases arising even after that date. A certain number of these cases—there have been very few indeed—have been handed on to the Committee and are being dealt with by them on the same footing as the other cases.

Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to consider any other cases that are just outside these time limits if they are brought before him?

I do not know if there are any cases still outstanding. My information is that practically all the cases that could legitimately come before the Committee under the terms of their reference have already come before them. An appeal was also made by my hon. Friend on the strength of the urgency of the situation to some of the claimants, that we might make a larger interim distribution than the 60 per cent., now to be given in cases where more than £1,000 is recommended. I would say to him at once that, as soon as we can see that, with safety, we can make a further interim distribution, we shall not hesitate to do so. We thoroughly realise the urgency of the cases of these men, but I would say also that in most of the cases the banks which have assisted men through their difficulties so far, when they realise what the position is, can also help them for a further short period.

There are the bank charges. If the Government really mean to pay, the sooner they pay the sooner the bank charges will cease.

I mean that as soon as we can see from the further recommendations made that we shall be able to allocate in full, or nearly in full, then we can, of course, increase the interim allocation.

Has my right hon. Friend not already informed us that in his opinion the £1,000,000 provided will not only be ample, but that there may be a margin under the £1,000,000; and, if so, when does the position of safety arise?

The best estimate we can frame at present is that the total will amount to £1,000,000, and possibly a little less. At the same time, that estimate is not quite sufficient to enable us to make a full distribution, or an almost full distribution, at once. As I have said, in 83 per cent. of the cases we are to make a full distribution at once. In another 6 per cent. of the cases we shall be making a distribution of at least 80 per cent., and probably nearer 100 per cent. If, as we go along, we find that we can raise the amount of the interim distribution, we shall not hesitate to do so, for we realise the urgency of the cases and are anxious to help them. Another point made to which I attach importance is the position of the Wood-Renton Commission. In justice to the Commission, I must point out that a suggestion made implicitly by my hon. Friend the Member for Barn-staple and more explicitly by my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison), that the Commission were influenced by the consideration of the first estimate of the Government as to what their recommendations might amount to has no foundation. I can give the most unqualified assurance to this Committee that the Wood-Renton Committee, in all this matter, has dealt with each case purely on its merits, in the light of its reference, and has allowed no consideration of what the Government might or might not do with its recommendations to enter into its consideration of the case.

Let me remind the Committee that we are dealing with a situation of an exceptional character. My hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington drew a parallel with the compensation given to the deportees a short time ago. But these deportees had a definite legal claim. The people with whom we were confronted were people who either had received compensation under the existing law in Ireland, but whose compensation from our point of view, the point of view of what we owed to those who stood by us, was inadequate, or people who had no right to compensation under the law, but who had suffered terrible hardships. It was, therefore, a case with regard to which the Dunedin Committee quite definitely said that the decision as to what grants should be made must rest with the Government themselves. The Dunedin Committee suggested that we should be helped by an Advisory Committee, not by an arbitral tribunal, and all the charges of secrecy and of withholding in- formation with regard to the work of the Committee are based on a misunderstanding. If there had been a clear legal issue and an arbitral tribunal, obviously it would have been in public throughout, but we appointed this Committee simply to help and advise the Government.

In the first instance, it was thought that £400,000 would cover the cases. We did not state that figure publicly, and I think it as well that we did not, because, as proceedings went on, we found that it would be insufficient and would not deal with the cases. Now, on reviewing the whole position and examining closely the urgency and hardship of the cases, we have come to the decision that while, as a Government, we cannot hand over an unlimited authority to a purely advisory, informal Committee, dealing with a matter, not of law, but of general equity, yet we have set aside a sum which we believe will meet those recommendations in full. I know that some of my hon. Friends feel some doubt as to what the position may be in the final outcome of the Commission's Report. I agree with my right hon. and Gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) that he has every right to reserve to himself the position that if he is not satisfied and if there is still some margin between his point of view and ours be will be entitled to raise that matter again, but I genuinely and sincerely hope and believe that that contingency will not arise. I hope the Committee will not only help the Government, but will also help those in whom we are all interested, and let this Vote pass.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

Report [20th FEBRUARY]

Resolutions reported:

Civil Estimates, Supplementary Estimate, 1927

Class I

1. "That a sum, not exceeding £15,613, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928, to make good the Net Loss on Transactions connected with the raising of Money for the various Treasury Chests Abroad in the year 1926."

Class VII

2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £52,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928, for Rates and Contributions in lieu of Rates, etc., in respect of Property in the occupation of the Crown for the Public Service, and for Rates on Buildings occupied by Representatives of British Dominions and of Foreign Powers, and to pay the Salaries and Expenses of the Rating of Government Property Department, and a Grant-in-Aid of the Expenses of the London Fire Brigade."

3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928, for Expenditure in respect of Diplomatic and Consular Buildings."

4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928, for Expenditure in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes, including Historic Buildings, Ancient Monuments and Brompton Cemetery."

Class II

5. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1928, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies."

Class V

6. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £344,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Health; including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, Grants to Local Authorities, etc., in connection with Public Health Services, Grants-in-Aid in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Acts, certain Expenses in connection with The Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, and certain Special Services."

Resolutions agreed to.

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

Pensioner, Glasgow (Refund Claim)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Sir G. Hennessy. ]

I rise to put a question to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on a matter of which I gave him notice. It is a question affecting one of my constituents and raises an important principle of common justice. Much of to-day's proceedings were spent in discussing a grant of £1,000,000 to certain people in Southern Ireland. I am not going to raise the question of whether that was right or wrong, but I could not help thinking how the Conservative Members always claim to see that those with whom they are friendly should1 get common justice. If their claim is sincere, then they cannot refuse to do common justice to this constituent of mine just as they have to the Southern loyalists. This man's name is McTaggart, and he is a resident in Glasgow. He served not only during the last War but before that in many parts of the country in His Majesty's Army. He has a character second to none and is a clean, decent, honest man.

After serving for his full period in the Army and leaving it with an excellent character, he joined the Post Office where he worked for a number of years. Ultimately, owing to two or three complications and failing health, arising not only from his War service but from his past military service abroad, the Post Office authorities came to the conclusion that the man physically was unable to follow his employment as a postal servant. Then the question which I am raising cropped up. The man was granted two pensions. It is admitted that the man told not one syllable of a lie to any of the departments. He told them the full truth. He told them of every day and hour of his service, told them all his particulars, hid nothing from them, and the postal people and the military people, with a knowledge of all the facts and all that they implied, came to a decision, not through any pressure brought to bear upon them, but of their own free will, to grant the man a pension for his service as a postal servant and also a pension for his service as a soldier at home and abroad.

For some years McTaggart drew the two pensions, and then one bright day the postal people came along, urged on by the Treasury, they said, and told McTaggart: "The drawing of two pensions is wrong; in fact, it is illegal for a person to draw both a soldier's pension and a postal pension at the same time." They told McTaggart that he must start to repay the sum of money which, as they said, he had wrongly obtained. He is a man who served abroad and whose loyalty is at least equal to that of the Southern loyalists, a man whose character is almost without a blemish—he has an excellent character. I am speaking from memory at the moment, but his service pension amounted, I think, to 23s. 6d. a week, and his other pension to about 16s. a week, so the total income was less than £2 a week. Any one will admit that an income of that amount, teetotaller though the man be, and clean-charactered as he is, leaves no margin for saving, but, nevertheless, the Treasury came along and told him he must repay a sum of £120. Those people who are constantly talking about their patriotism, the Government Front Bench, are hounding down this man. It is admitted that he is in bad health, because he was discharged from the Post Office on that account, and though he has only 16s. a week on which to exist, he has to repay £125 paid to him, not because of any fraudulent action on his part, but through the fault of the Treasury or the Post Office or the War Office. Some time ago the hon. Member for Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) raised this question, and a predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman, who is now the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, stated that if that pension were granted through no deliberate misstatement by the man himself the Treasury would not compel him to repay the sum asked for.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Sir G. Hennessy. ]

I think it is terrible and shocking. Here is a man who through no fault of his own, with nothing against him, and this powerful British Treasury that sends armies to China and votes £l,O00,0O0to the Loyalists of Ireland, hounding this man on to the Poor Law all for the sake of a paltry £100. Here we are asking for a miserable £100. I urge the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to admit that the Government have made a mistake and say, "We will be sports; we will not screw this man down for the money to be refunded. We will wipe out this as a bad debt and allow this man to draw his pension for the rest of his life."

This is a very difficult and complicated case. I would like to point out that, as a matter of fact, if McTaggart avails himself of the promise made by my predecessor, he will have to repay nothing, and nothing will be asked from him. Besides this, he will draw £13 13s. per annum in respect of military service pension. If he takes advantage of the concession which the Treasury offers to make to him by reckoning his period of military service for civil pension he will draw £28 per annum instead.

But the £75 has been reduced. It was over £100 and it is now down to £75, and therefore my statement is correct. You have forced the man, to accept this reduced amount.

As a matter of fact, it has been reduced to £77, but, if our offer is accepted, McTaggart will be better off by £14 per annum. I have felt it my duty to go thoroughly into this case, and I have drawn up an explanation of it which I had better give to the House in order that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) my study it, and then, if he is not satisfied, he can put further questions to me.

If I make use of the terms "Soldier" and "Army," the House will understand that I do so for the sake of simplicity and that what I have to say applies equally to the Navy. Section 5 of the Superannuation Act, 1887, provides that no time shall count for both military and civil pension. Certain civil servants who were ex-soldiers served again in the Army or Navy during the period of their civil service. On leaving the Army finally, this period of common service was quite properly taken into account in deciding the amount of their military pension. At a later date these men left the Civil Service, and, owing to an error, the same period was again taken into account in assessing their civil pension. This, as I have pointed out, was contrary to the law, and when the mistake was discovered, as it was in 1926, there was no alternative but to revise their civil pensions, leaving out of account the period in question.

Before the mistake was discovered, these men had for some time been drawing a higher civil pension than they were entitled to. As, however, the over-payment was a result of a mistake on the part of Departments, it was decided not to claim from the pensioner any refund of the over-payment. As the hon. Member has said, we could have let the money that had been overpaid go by and make no claim that it should be paid back, so that Mr. McTaggart would have been allowed to continue his pension of £13 13s. 9d. to his death; but the hon. Member has referred to a promise which he says was given by my predecessor that refund of over-payments would not be demanded. I have here the statement which my predecessor made on the 3rd August, 1926. It is as follows:

There was no question of departmental error having entered into this matter. The period in question had quite properly been taken into account in computing the military pension. The pensioner was allowed to make an alteration and to have this period counted for civil pension instead of military pension, purely because it was to his advantage to do so. If he exercised this option, it will be seen that he had, for some years, been receiving military pension at a higher rate than should have been the case. Surely, then, there can be no hardship in saying to him, "If you wish to exercise this option, which is a pure concession and which is purely to your advantage, then you must refund the amount of military pension which you have been over-paid."

The subject is still further complicated by the fact that the military pension of some ex-soldiers was partly service pension and partly disability pension. I will not further confuse the House by going into this question, except to say that, where the service element of tie pension can be determined, I am advised that the provisions of the Superannuation Act must apply. Mr. McTaggart belongs to the second class which I have described. When, as in other cases, it was discovered that a certain period— in his case from 1908 to 1918—had been counted both for military and civil pension, his civil pension had to be revised in accordance with the law. By this time Mr. McTaggart had been overpaid £55 civil pension, and, in accordance with the promise made by the late Financial Secretary to the Treasury, no refundment was required of him. But it appeared that it would pay Mr. McTaggart much better to have this service counted for civil pension instead of for military pension. In fact, whereas his military pension only amounted to £13 13s. 9d., if he counted the period for civil pension he would receive instead a civil pension of £28 3s. Mr. McTaggart has therefore been given the option of counting the period for civil pension instead of for military pension. If he does so, however, he must necessarily refund the overpayment of military pension. This overpayment amounted altogether to about £110, but, owing to Mr. McTaggart's delay in coming to a decision, if he now decides to take the civil pension instead of the military the overpayment will already have been reduced to £77. I have said already that there is, in principle, no hardship in requiring refund of over-payment in these cases since the option given to the pensioner of counting the service for civil pension instead of for military pension is a pure concession. I recognise, however, the element of hardship cannot be absent from individual cases where the means of the pensioner are small. In Mr. McTaggart's case I have done my best to see how the position could be eased for him and it has been decided to permit him to make the refund by instalments at the rate of 4s. per week. The result of this arrangement will be that Mr. McTaggart will be at once Is. 6d. perweek better off than if he continues to draw a military pension, and 5s. 6d. a week better off when he has completed the refund. Beyond this, I am afraid it is not possible for me to go. I hope when the hon. Member for Gorbals considers what I have said he will find that a very considerable concession has been made.

I want to have a word on this as it has been a matter of considerable correspondence between the hon. Gentleman's Department and myself. When I took the matter up last year the point was that Mr. McTaggart was accounted to owe the Treasury £104. The alternative put before him was either a pension of £28 18s. 4d. or of £13 13s. 9d. If he elected to take the first, he had to repay the amount of arrears by certain instalments to be agreed upon; if he took the second, he would not be called upon to refund anything. On that position, I raised a question with the hon. Gentle man's predecessor as to whether, when mistakes had arisen owing to Departmental error, the man should or should not be called upon to refund. The position in regard to this man is that while he was in the Post Office he was, in fact, a soldier, an A1 reserve man, who was called on to serve in the War in which he was wounded and he has since been retired from the Service. The point overlooked was that he was assessed for pension on both civil and military grounds during the time he was in the Post Office service. Section 5 of the Superannuation Act, 1885, lays down that a man cannot draw two pensions from two Departments for the same. That is accepted. The point I want to put is this. I am not going to appeal to sentiment but we have been considering within the last hour or two the points of certain men to whom we owed something because they stood by us, who had no legal right to compensation as laid down by law and we have nevertheless made them pretty handsome compensation.

The point of this man is that undoubtedly a mistake was made and the man was granted a pension for the time being which he drew in respect of both periods of service. The man himself was not aware of that. He simply received the pension, and it went on for some time, and now he is called upon to refund it. 'What I want to put to the hon. Gentleman, to the House and to the Treasury is that while I have no case technically in law—I concede that right away—but I have a right to make a claim on behalf of this man MeTaggart, and support my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), as the mistake in the first place was made by the Treasury. This payment was made after the man had retired smashed and broken in health, and he has now had to retire from his civil employment be cause of the hurt he received while serving with the forces. He ought to be forgiven the whole amount and allowed to receive the higher pension—[An HON. MEMBER: "For how long has the man drawn the pension?"]—During the four years he served with the Colours He was an Al man and was one of the "Old Contemptibles" first called up; he belonged to one of the Highland regiments. The whole difference is this: It is a difference between £28 18s. 4d., the amount he received as pension, and £13 13s. 9d. I submit to the Treasury and to hon. Members opposite that it is a very hard thing to ask a man to refund even 4s. a week out of that £28 18s. 4d., or as an alternative, have to retire on £13 13s. 9d.

That is the simple issue, and I suggest it is parsimony driven to the very limit. It is straining the letter of the law to the very limit. I give the hon. Gentleman opposite every credit for trying to deal with this case as generously as he can within the limit of the law. I am not throwing out any charge or anything of that kind. I know the difficulty he is in. I do say he has a right and ought to look at this, and persuade his advisers to look at this, in the light that they have made a mistake, and that the man himself ought not to be compelled to find this money after he has been broken in the service of the country and has been compelled to retire. When I first wrote about this matter I said that the man would not live long, and I did so on the medical evidence that we received. Probably this man has not a long lease of life before him, and we have no right to embitter his last few years by calling upon him to make even this small refund. None of us would care to be driven to extreme necessity, but if we were forced to live on something amounting to little more than 10s., even if we had a maximum pension and we were not asked to pay back 4s., we should think it considerably hard. I ask the hon. Gentleman to review this in a generous spirit. It is a trifling matter—£104—to a great nation like ours. It will be a generous gesture which will be appreciated, not only by McTaggart, but by many other people, if it is stated that we are not going to stick to the letter of our bargain but are going to forgive this man and let him take a pension of £28 and not the miserable, paltry sum of £13.

Is there any legal difficulty which makes it impossible for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to make a further cancellation? Is there any legal difficulty which would involve us in passing a special Act of Parliament in order to get over the difficulty, or is there not a dispensing power that the Treasury is able to use that will enable us to make this further concession? The facts have been stated, I think, very clearly by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The man is entirely innocent in this matter. A mistake has been made. That being the position, I should like to know whether it means a necessity for an Act of Parliament in order to give the Treasury the power to do what we desire. If the Treasury have the power already to make a further concession I appeal to them to exercise it.

If I could go further I should be willing to do so. For a whole week I have been going through these papers, and I cannot see any way out of it except the proposal which I have made. I hope the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) when he reads in the OFFICIAL REPORT what I have said, will realise that he would be well advised to suggest to Mr. McTaggart that he should accept my proposal. It will mean in the first place, that we shall give him an additional is. 6d., and we shall give him a further 5s. 6d. a week later. Further, if I am pressed very strongly, I will try to see whether I can reduce the rate of repayment so that it will not be too hard him.

The Treasury Circular of the 11th March, 1925, will give the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the authority which he seeks.

I have seen that Circular; but I find that I can no further. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for Gorbals will read my statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, and persuade Mr. McTaggart to accept the concession which we have made.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-two Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.