Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 220: debated on Tuesday 24 July 1928

House of Commons

Tuesday, July 24, 1928

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

Private Business

Accrington Corporation Bill,

Colne Valley Water Bill,

London County Council (Money) Bill,

Regent's Canal and Dock Company (Grand Junction Canal Purchase) Bill,

Regent's Canal and Dock Company (Warwick Canals Purchase) Bill,

Stoke-on-Trent Corporation Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 6th July, and agreed to.

Bridgwater Corporation Bill [ Lords ],

Goldsmid Estate Bill [ Lords ],

Whitby Water Bill [ Lords ],

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Coal Industry

British Steamers (Bunkering)

:asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information which would show the extent to which steamships registered in this country, and maintaining regular services between this country, the Dominions, and elsewhere, are consistently bunkered abroad for the return journey so that no British coal is used; whether he is aware that the Somerset-shire coalfield is badly affected by the competition which arises from the smallness of our export market; and whether he will urge British steamship owners to use British coal?

There are no figures showing to what extent British coal-burning steamships bunker abroad for the round voyage, but it is doubtful whether it is at all considerable. The practice in such cases is to take as much coal as possible in this country and to draw abroad only the quantities, if any, necessary to bring the ship back. I am aware that the Somersetshire coalfield is, like others, adversely affected by the contraction of the export market, but in view of the general practice already referred to, I hardly think there is occasion to make a special appeal as suggested by the hon. Member.

:Having regard to the nature of the reply, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of ascertaining the facts with regard to the Union Castle Steamship Company, of which, I believe, it is true to say that the whole of its bunkering is done overseas; and will he also ascertain if there are other companies in a similar position?

If the hon. Gentleman gives me any information he has, I will gladly look into it. I have already gone generally into this matter, and the information which I got confirmed what I already believed as to the practice, namely, that almost all the lines make a point of carrying as much coal from this country as they can. If they do not, they find they have to buy abroad coal which is dearer in price and less admirable, I think, in quality.

:Is it not the case that the Union Castle line, when bunkering ships overseas, do so with Dominion coal?

:I think what happens is that where a long voyage is undertaken, bunkering has to take place abroad, but it is very often at places like Aden, where the coal in store is British coal.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the way in which this question is framed rather indicates that ship-owners are deliberately giving preference to foreigners; and is it not the fact that ship-owners are bound to buy in the cheapest market, having regard to quality?

What I wish to indicate is that, whatever consideration may animate anybody, it pays any ship-owner to carry as much British coal as he can, because he is able to buy that coal as cheap as is possible and of the best possible quality.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make specific inquiries as to the practice of the Union Castle Steamship Company in order to ascertain if it is not the fact that the whole of the bunkerings of that company is done overseas?

Railway Contracts

:asked the Secretary for Mines if he has any information showing what are the pit-head prices charged by the Five Counties Federation to the London and North Eastern Railway and to the Swedish Railways, respectively?

I regret that the information is not available.

Is it not a fact that the London and North Eastern Railway Company are charged from 8s. to 10s. a ton more than the Swedish railways?

:Is it not possible to obtain such information? Has it not a great bearing on the industrial condition of this country?

:Is it not possible for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to ascertain from the London and North Eastern Railway Company and those firms which have contracted with the Swedish railways what the pit-head prices are?

:These are matters of individual contracts, of which I have no details, and it is quite impossible for my Department to enter into details and ask for information regarding all individual contracts that are entered into.

:As this is a simple matter, why did not the hon. and gallant Gentleman, as Secretary for Mines, get this information?

:I do not agree that it is a simple matter. It is not a question of having to find out about one contract, but there are individual contracts into which the railway company have entered.

:Is it not a fact that, owing to the condition of the world coal market at the present time, the British coalowners are selling coal under cost of production in order to secure foreign contracts?

Woollen and Worsted Tissues (Exports)

:asked the President of the Board of Trade for comparative figures showing respectively the total world exports of woollen and worsted tissues, quantities and values, respectively, for the six months ending June, 1913, 1914, 1927, and 1928, or the latest available date; and the total exports of this country for the same periods?

:The answer is being prepared in tabular form, and with the hon. Member's permission, I will have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as it is ready.

Companies Act

:asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of investigations which have been held under Section 109 of the Companies Act of 1908 during the last three years; and how many applications for investigation have been refused for the same period?

:The answer to the first part of the question is four, and to the second part, eight.

:Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that more use might be made of Section 109 with great advantage to the public?

:I do not think so. This is a very exceptional power which is given to the Board of Trade, and it is only exercisable in very exceptional circumstances.

British Army

Expenditure

:asked the Secretary of State for War what reduction he proposes to make next year in his demands upon the Exchequer for the requirements of the Army, as a result of the signing of the Kellogg Pact by His Majesty's Government?

I am not prepared to make any forecast of the Army Estimates for 1929.

:Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that this is a very important matter and that the country wishes to know?

:In that case, will the right hon. Gentleman not make an effort to reply to my question?

:No; when the Estimates are usually produced—at the beginning of next year.

Sandhurst and Woolwich (Candidates)

:asked the Secretary of State for War whether there is any shortage in candidates for Sandhurst and Woolwich; and, if so, of what nature?

:I regret that there is a shortage of suitable candidates for Sandhurst and, in a lesser degree, for Woolwich.

:I am always glad of an opportunity such as this of drawing attention to the great prospects open to candidates for both Sandhurst and Woolwich. I am in hopes that candidates will be forthcoming.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very heavy cost thrown upon these cadets when they are at Woolwich or Sandhurst; and will he bring down those costs so that people may be able to send their sons there?

:I cannot reply in detail to that question, but the suggestion is not correct. No parent could have a cheaper method of placing his son in life than through Sandhurst or Woolwich.

:Is the shortage not due, in some degree, to the possibility of compulsory retirement at an early age?

:There is no doubt about it. There is a feeling of unsettlement, due to previous retirements and reductions, which does affect the parents of candidates who present themselves at Woolwich or Sandhurst.

:Is careful attention being paid to the field of non-commissioned officers; and are opportunities being given to them to fill these places?

Certainly. I explained at some length that the "Y" cadets who come from the ranks, are doing extremely well at Sandhurst.

:Could not the right hon. Gentleman select some of the out-of-work men from the Employment Exchanges?

Are not parents, as a whole, showing a greater disinclination to allow their sons to engage in this immoral business of war?

Government Departments

Imperial War Graves Commission

asked the Secretary of State for War what is the total staff at present employed in connection with the Imperial War Graves Commission and the total cost of it; when does he anticipate the main work of construction of cemeteries will be completed; and what permanent staff he estimates will be required afterwards, together with its cost?

:The total staff at present employed by the Imperial War Graves Commission is 1,271 (excluding natives) at a total cost in salaries and wages of £274,000 per annum. It is anticipated that the main work of constructing the cemeteries will be completed early in 1929. As regards the last part of the question, it is still somewhat early to give a definite forecast.

:Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the recommendation that this staff should be at once reduced and put on a permanent basis?

:I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman probably knows that while I answer for this Commission in the House, I am not responsible for its administration. I believe, however, it is a fact that the matter to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers is under close consideration.

:Is there any question as to the efficiency with which this body has discharged its duties?

:No. I believe, by general consent, it has been extremely efficient.

Temporary Clerks, Salford

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of temporary female and male clerical staffs at present employed in each Government Department in Salford?

The particulars are not immediately available. I am having inquiry made, and I will communicate the result in due course to my hon. and gallant Friend.

Scottish Board of Health (Office, Glasgow)

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the premises used by the Scottish Board of Health in Glasgow for inquiries into matters relating to health insurance, widows' and old age pensions, is almost all day grossly overcrowded and unhealthy for the staff, while lavatory accommodation is deficient; and whether he has considered the finding of more suitable and accessible premises?

The question of the accommodation to be made available for the use of the Scottish Board of Health in Glasgow is at present the subject of correspondence with the Office of Works, and I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Scotland

Drainage Grants

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the £200,000 per annum set aside for drainage grants is still being provided by the Government; whether eleven-eightieths of this sum is being made available for Scotland; and, if so, in what form the balance is being expended after paying the grants under the Board of Agriculture's drainage scheme?

The £1,000,000 promised for land drainage in England will, I understand, be spread over a longer period than the five years originally contemplated. The sum provided for land drainage in Scotland in each year since the £1,000,000 scheme started has been eleven-eightieths of the provision for that year for England. No part of these sums has been spent on purposes other than drainage.

Did not the Government inform us that this £1,000,000 was going to be spent on land drainage in five years, and does this mean that the Government have now altered that decision and their policy and are not going to spend £1,000,000 in five years on drainage?

As I say, I understand it is to be spread over a longer period than five years, simply because in England they do not require the money at the time.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is that longer period than five years?

Is it not the case that Scotland can do with this money within the five years, if England cannot?

Small Holdings

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland under what authority he exercises powers of compulsory acquisition of the whole or part of an estate for the purpose of establishing small holdings?

Under Section 1 of of the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919, as continued by successive Expiring Laws Continuance Acts.

Since he has that power, will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House why he is not exercising it in a greater degree, in order to give small holdings to the people of Scotland who desire them and have applied for them?

I am providing them within the limits of the finance which is available.

But is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman is allowing people who have had applications lodged with the Board of Agriculture for 16 years to be still without holdings, and how does he reconcile that fact with the statement that he has just made?

Many of those who have applied for land are deficient either in capital or experience, and those factors have to be taken into consideration.

Contributory Pensions Act

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of widows who received pensions under the Act of 1925 on the condition that they had children under 14 years of age; and the number of such widows who have since ceased to receive pensions because their children have reached 14 years of age?

As at 19th July, 1928, 16,014 widows had received pensions in the category mentioned and of these 3,870 had ceased to receive payment at the expiry of the statutory period of six months after their children had reached the age of 14.

In view of the great hardship that is imposed upon those widows, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the introduction of an amending Clause in order to provide for them?

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me with whom it rests? I thought he was responsible for the matter in Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of people who have applied for widows' or old age pensions under the new Act at a date some time after they became eligible for pension; whether arrears of pension are paid in such cases after the claim is established; and, if not, under what Clause or Regulation are such arrears refused?

The records of the Scottish Board of Health are not arranged on such a basis as to enable the information desired in the first part of the question to be given. As regards the second part Sub-section one of Section 28 of the Contributory Pensions Act provides that, normally, where claims are submitted within one month from the date of entitlement arrears of pension will be paid from that date, and that where the claim is not submitted within that period payment will be made as from the date of claim. Where, however, in the latter category of cases, the failure to make timeous application was due to circumstances over which the claimant had no control, such as are prescribed in Article 12 of the Claims and Payment Regulations, 1927, arrears of pension are payable as from the date of entitlement.

Could the right hon. Gentleman, in sending me the answer, send me also a copy of the Regulations?

Rating Relief

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether cooperative buildings in which fishermen cure their own fish and open spaces where fish-curing is carried on are treated as industrial subjects for the purposes of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Bill?

I would refer to the answer given to the hon. Member on the 21st June with regard to fish-curing premises generally. It is provided by Section 149 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, that a place or premises shall not be excluded from the definition of a factory or workshop by reason only that the place or premises is or are in the open air. The fact that places or premises where fish-curing is carried on are in the open air will therefore not exclude them from the category of industrial subjects for the purposes of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Bill. As regards premises used on a cooperative basis, the question whether these come within the definition of a factory or workshop depends on the circumstances of each case.

Is the definition of a factory or workshop to be based upon the parties who are owning or conducting the operations within the factory or workshop?

Does that Act define that any co-operatively-owned undertaking is not to be considered a workshop under the Act?

I cannot express any opinion. Each one of these cases must be decided on its merits.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, taking the working of the formula in paragraph 29 of Command Paper 3135, he will give the figures as they are estimated to apply to Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Dundee, and Glasgow, respectively?

The figures referred to in the question will be found in the table on page 20 of the Command Paper. These, however, I assume, the hon. Mem- ber has seen, and if he has any other point in his mind, perhaps he will communicate with me.

I have another point in mind, and I will communicate with the right hon. Gentleman.

Juvenile Offenders, Glasgow

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the difference in the number of arrests of young persons between 14 and 21 years of age in the Glasgow, Queens Park, and southern districts, respectively, for minor offences; whether he has -made or will make inquiry into the reasons for this disparity; and how far it is the result of the difference in police administration?

I am aware that the number of persons between the ages of 14 and 21 convicted in the Southern Police Court, Glasgow, is larger than the number convicted in the Queens Park Police Court. As regards the reasons for this difference, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question of the 6th March last, from which he will see that the disparity does not arise from any difference in police administration.

Education

School Accommodation, Glasgow

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of new schools at present being built in Glasgow and where they are situated; and when it is proposed to proceed with a new school for Catholic children in the Gorbals Parliamentary Division?

The number of new schools at present being built in Glasgow is nine, of which two are in Possilpark, two in Knightswood, two in Springburn, one in Parkhead, one in Robroyston and one in Hillhead. A tenth, which is for Roman Catholic children in Gorbals, will be begun within about a week.

Teachers

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of entrants, male and female, to the teaching profession in Scotland in each year from 1912 to 1927, inclusive, and the number of students, male and female, who will take the qualifying examination in 1928?

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

Following is the answer:

The number of persons awarded the Teacher's General Certificate in each of the years specified by the hon. Member was as follows:—

Year.

Number of Entrants.

Male.

Females.

1912

300

1,190

1913

234

1,127

1914

253

1,107

1915

192

1,101

1916

67

1,129

1917

48

1,052

1918

21

962

1919

63

902

1920

220

944

1921

204

825

1922

222

705

1923

301

865

1924

298

1,071

1925

240

1,045

1926

298

1,274

1927

332

1,291

The number of students who are candidates for the Teacher's General Certificate in 1928 cannot at the moment be precisely ascertained, but may be approximately stated as 1,660 (men 352, women 1,308).

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he can state the number of married women teachers, not widows, who are employed in the teaching profession?

I have been asked to reply. The only figures available relate to teachers in public elementary schools. The number of married women teachers (exclusive of widows) employed in pensionable service in such schools on the 31st March, 1927, was 14,109.

Poor Law

Relief, Glasgow and Govan

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of able-bodied men and women in receipt of Poor Law relief in Glasgow and Govan, respectively, to the latest available date, and the number last year and 1924, respectively?

As the answer involves a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The latest date for which separate figures for men and women are available is 15th May, 1928. At that date the figures were:

Men.

Women.

Dependants.

Glasgow

7,996

623

20,665

Govan

5,233

474

11,990

At 15th May, 1927, the figures were:—

Glasgow

10,676

1,002

24,623

Govan

6,930

715

14,847

and at 15th May, 1924, they were:—

Glasgow

9,699

1,740

25,907

Govan

5,723

790

15,597

Casuals

asked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to revise the regulations imposed by certain boards of guardians under which casuals are compelled to apply to the police for tickets of admission to the casual ward?

I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to him on this subject on the 28th ultimo.

Seeing that this practice is followed in some areas and not in others, is it necessary to make it applicable all over the country?

I think this system of relieving officers in certain cases is better for the casuals themselves.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that it distinctly associates unemployment with crime, both in the mind of the tramp and of the public?

asked the Minister of Health what reply he has sent, if any, to the representations from the Darlington Board of Guardians urging him to make the cost of the medical inspection of casuals a national, rather than a local, charge?

My right hon. Friend does not appear to have received representations on this subject from the Darlington Guardians. He would refer the hon. Member to the replies recently given to the hon. and gallant Members for Norwich (Captain Fairfax) and Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte), copies of which I am forwarding to the hon. Member.

Is not the object of the inspection of casuals to try and prevent the infection spreading nationally, and ought not a burden of that kind to be borne nationally?

Bread Stations

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in districts where the system of bread stations for casuals is the practice food that is stale or unfit for human consumption is sometimes imposed upon the casuals; and will he therefore require his inspectors to test bread stations with a view to preventing this abuse?

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has received no complaints to this effect, but if the hon. Member has any information of this abuse my right hon. Friend will be glad to inquire into the case.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while in most cases the magistrates treat the men very well indeed, there are cases where they do not, and may I ask whether his inspectors test these places?

The hon. Member's supplementary question points out the desirability of furnishing specific cases instead of putting general allegations on the Order Paper. If the hon. Member will refer me to specific cases my right hon. Friend will gladly inquire into them.

:Is it not desirable, in the public interest, to reduce the number of casuals wandering about the country in that way, and is it not the case that severe treatment by the workhouse authorities is a very good policy?

Transport

Savernake Forest Gates (Accidents)

asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to another accident at the forest gates, Savernake Forest; and whether he will instruct his regional officer to confer with the local highway authority on the suggestion that a short road should be made on the other side of the lodge so as to allow of one-way traffic at this dangerous point?

I was not aware of this accident, and my hon. Friend does not mention at which of the gates it occurred. The inconvenience caused to traffic at these points has, however, frequently been brought to my notice and has been the subject of correspondence between my Department and the parties concerned. I am glad to say that as a result of negotiations agreement has now been reached between the Wiltshire County Council and the owner of Savernake Forest, whereby at each of the four points where single gates now span the highway, wide double gates will be substituted with a wicket gate for foot passengers. This improvement, towards the cost of which a grant will be made from the Road Fund, will, I am sure, conduce very considerably to the public safety, and should obviate the need for the new road construction suggested by my hon. Friend.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the owner of Savernake himself is not of opinion that this is an adequate safeguard to the public, and that the best way would be to have one-way traffic on the lines I have suggested?

With all deference to the owner of Savernake Forest, I would rather take the opinion of the county council.

Has this specific suggestion been put by my right hon. Friend to his regional officer for consultation with the local authorities on it?

Arterial Roads

asked the Minister of Transport the total mileage of arterial roads constructed since the War; to what extent has development been on boulevard principles, with the provision of grass strips and trees; and what has been the cost of such tree-planting up to the present?

As I explained on the 21st June last in reply to a similar question by the hon. Member for the Abingdon Division (Major Glyn), there is no precise definition of an arterial road. It has been the general practice, in the construction of new roads outside built-up areas, to obtain a sufficient width between fences to provide room for at least one foot-path and for grass verges. There is, however, a wide range of variety in the design and dimensions of these new roads. The Annual Report upon the administration of the Road Fund gives a general survey of the more important works carried out during the year. No separate record is kept of the cost of tree-planting, and it is only since the passing of the Roads Improvement Act, 1925, that expenditure for this purpose has become eligible for grants from the Road Fund.

Royal Commission

asked the Minister of Transport the terms of reference and the names of the members who are to constitute the Royal Commission to inquire into the traffic question?

asked the Minister of Transport if he can make any statement as to the composition of the inquiry into the problems of road traffic and give the terms of reference?

I am glad to say that the Commission is now complete. The terms of reference are as follows:—

"To take into consideration the problems arising out of the growth of road traffic and, with a view to securing the employment of the available means of transport in Great Britain (including transport by sea coastwise and by ferries) to the greatest public advantage, to consider and report what measures, if any, should be adopted for their better regulation and control, and, so far as is desirable in the public interest, to promote their co-ordinated working and development."

The following gentlemen have been appointed members:—

Chairman: Sir A. S. T. Griffith-Boscawen.

Members:

The hon. and gallant Member for Dover (Major Astor).

The Earl of Clarendon.

The hon. Member for Walthamstow West (Mr. Crawfurd).

Sir E. V. Hiley.

Mr. J. Learmonth.

Sir W. G. Lobjoit.

The hon. Member for Islington West (Mr. Montague).

The Marquess of Northampton.

The hon. and gallant Member for Harrow Division of Middlesex (Major Salmon).

Mr. W. R. Smith.

Sir M. G. Wallace.

Heavy Road Traffic

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that consignments of bulky and heavy freight, suitable only for rail transport, are being increasingly carried by road, causing injury to the roads and consequent expense to the taxpayer; and whether he will set up an impartial committee, representing all interests, including the taxpayers, to consider limiting the permissible weight per axle of freight-carrying vehicles and regulating the diameter and the width of surface and tread of driving-wheels of such vehicles?

The Departmental Committee on the Taxation and Regulation of Road Vehicles has already considered and reported fully upon the use and construction of all classes of mechanically-propelled road vehicles. I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by appointing another Committee to cover the same ground, but certain aspects of the relations between road transport and transport by rail will no doubt come under review in the course of the general Inquiry into Transport.

To what extent has the recommendations of that Committee been put into operation?

Some of them have been put into operation, but I shall require notice in order to give the exact details.

Omnibuses, London (Speed)

asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the slow running of certain London General Omnibus Company's omnibuses at slack times of the day, notably after 7 p.m.; and whether, in view of the inconvenience to passengers and the increased difficulty of maintaining traffic at a steady pace, he will inquire into the necessity for this slowing down?

I am not aware that there is any slowing down in the running of omnibuses at the times mentioned in the right hon. and gallant Member's question, but if the hon. and gallant Member will send me details of such cases I will make inquiries.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman accustomed to travel on these omnibuses? If he is, he will not require details from me. It is what they call running to time.

Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will define more precisely what he means.

:Are we to understand that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) does travel, as a matter of fact, from day to day in omnibuses?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the private omnibuses, competing with the London General Omnibus Company, get along faster by not stopping at the recognised stopping places, and can he force them to do so?

I will go into that matter with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, if he so desires.

Motor Drivers' Licences (Test)

asked the Minister of Transport whether, having regard to the number of accidents in which motor vehicles are involved, he will reconsider the question of a test of -physical fitness and ability to drive before a driving licence is issued, to applicants?

I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave on this subject to my hon. Friend the Member for the Barnstaple Division (Sir B. Pete) on the 22nd May, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

One-Way Traffic (City of London)

asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the adverse Report of the Police Committee of the City Corporation on the experimental period of one-way traffic in the streets near the Mansion House, he proposes to take such steps as may be necessary to rescind the provisional Regulations so far as they affect the City of London?

I have not yet received any communication from the City Corporation upon the subject of the "one-way" traffic system in the streets near the Mansion House. I may add that such communication would be referred by me to the London Traffic Advisory Committee, and I should not be in a position to arrive at a decision until I had had an opportunity of considering their advice.

Motoring Offences (Police Warning)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is with his approval that the Commissioner of Police has decided not to prosecute motorists for first offences; and if he will give the reason, for this leniency to law breakers?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT
(Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson)

The proposal is that cases in which persons are reported for the first time for certain offences of a minor character shall be dealt with by warning instead of by pro- secution. This involves no new principle in police practice. It is based on the assumption that in the case of such minor infractions of the law it is possible to maintain due observance of the law, without subjecting members of the public to Police Court proceedings in all cases, and at the same time to reduce the burden on both magistrates and police. These are objects of which my. right hon. Friend entirely approves, and he hopes that the proposals will serve the purpose in view.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that harassed pedestrians are very much concerned about any relaxation of the law against motorists?

How can it be shown that these motorists have broken the law if they have not had a trial? Is not this a very dangerous precedent?

Would this not be an admirable precedent to apply to all other offences in this country?

Inter-Valley Road Scheme, Wales

asked the Minister of Transport if he can now grant permission to the Glamorgan County Council to proceed with the completion of the inter-valley road between Abergwynfi and Rhigos; and is he aware that there is a large number of unemployed workers in the Neath and Afan valleys?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for East Rhondda, of which I am sending him a copy.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he did not reply to the question yesterday, and that there is a sum of £40,000 after allocating the money required to complete the road now under construction; and, having regard to the enormous amount of unemployment in the two valleys, will he now take steps to expedite the release of that £40,000?

If the hon. and gallant Member will expedite the reply of the Glamorgan County Council to the communication which I sent to them last week asking for their statement of accounts, we shall be able to get on with the business.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the accounts in question were completed more than two months ago, and we have been waiting and putting questions repeatedly to the Minister with regard to the release of the money allocated for these two sections of road?

Electric Cable Standards

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the wayleave officer of the company operating in Worcestershire, Shropshire, and Staffordshire, has selected for electric cables some of the most beautiful sections, studded with ornamental timber, although there are other routes which could be selected without seriously spoiling the countryside; and whether he will invite the Members of Parliament representing those counties to confer with him and the company in order to do no more than the inevitable damage to the beauty of the country?

My hon. Friend does not state the precise locality he has in mind. I may, however, say that the company to which he refers have generally succeeded in arranging routes for their overhead lines to which no objection has been taken. If, however, objection is taken in any particular case, it would have to be determined by me in accordance with the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Acts, and in the case of disputed applications for wayleaves it is my duty to have regard to the effect on the amenities of the land of the proposed lines.

Can the right hon. Gentleman secure the co-operation of the Postmaster-General with the Electricity Commissioners and private undertakers so as to ensure joint co-operation in keeping these lines as far as possible along the main lines of communication?

The question has nothing to do with the Postmaster-General and his activities. This scheme deals with the lines for sending electric current.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it is owing to the objection of the Postmaster-General to the propinquity of the cables to telegraph lines that they have not been able so far to keep to the main lines of traffic?

Apart from that, I do not know that there is room on the highways for any more of these lines. I think that they are bound to go across country in some cases.

asked the Minister of Transport the name of the Royal Academician whom he is inviting to advise as to the high standards and other erections to be distributed over rural England in connection with the new schemes of electrification; and with what matters is he being asked to deal, with whom and by what methods will he deal, and on what terms of remuneration?

I am informed that the Central Electricity Board have appointed Sir Reginald Blomfield, M.A., B.A., to advise them on questions arising in connection with the design and colouring of the towers for carrying transmission lines. I have no information as to the methods or the terms of remuneration.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this distinguished Royal Academician's advice will be taken when it is given?

No body of people would call for the opinion of a person and pay a fee to that person without paying some attention to his advice.

Post Office

Cash-On-Delivery System

asked the Postmaster-General if he can give any return illustrating the use made of the facilities for the despatch of agricultural produce by the cash-on-delivery system?

I regret that I have no means of determining what proportion of the goods despatched under the cash-on-delivery system, whether by rail or by post, consists of agricultural produce.

Telephone Facilities, Essex

asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that at the present rate of progress it will take 58 years to instal telephones in rural stations in Essex, he will take some steps to expedite the provision of these telephones?

The Railway Companies are being urged to, have telephones in their rural stations; and throughout the country generally considerable progress has been made during the last year. I am taking steps to bring to the notice of the Companies the recent reduction in the amount of the guarantees required for unremunerative rural call offices.

Is my right hon. Friend not aware that last year only one station was provided with a telephone in Essex, and can he expedite the provision of such telephones in view of the fact that they mean a profit not only for the Post Office, but for the country generally?

Essex was singularly unlucky last year. In every other part of the country the telephones provided at rural stations were a record.

The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the guarantee system. When is his intimation going to be circulated, and has he communicated with the women's institutes in the country?

Week-End Collections

asked the Postmaster-General the number of post offices in England and Wales where there is no collection at the week-end for a period of at least 40 hours?

Detailed information is not available without considerable labour and expense, but at the great majority of Post Offices even in rural districts there is a collection on Sunday afternoon or evening. I shall be glad to make inquiry in any particular instance the hon. and gallant Member may have in mind.

Deliveries, Provincial Towns

asked the Postmaster-General what reduction has been made in the number of deliveries of letters in the larger provincial towns as compared with 1914; and what are the times of the last delivery in these places as compared with 1914.

There are now four deliveries in nearly all the larger provincial towns, and with a few exceptions the last begins between 4 and 5 o'clock. In 1914 the number varied from four to seven and the last began at times varying from 6 to 8 o'clock: one or two deliveries were in some cases confined to the business area.

Telephone Exchange, Acton

asked the Postmaster-General whether, with regard to the new telephone exchange shortly to be erected in the centre of Acton, he is aware of the desire of the council that this exchange should bear the name of the borough; and whether, although under the automatic system the department finds difficulties in carrying out this wish, he will endeavour to surmount these difficulties and satisfy the request of the Acton corporation.

As my hon. Friend doubtless knows, under automatic working subscribers obtain communication by dialling the first three letters in the name of the called subscriber's Exchange and then the number. It is impracticable therefore that the names of any two Exchanges should have the same dialling equivalent. The first three letters of the name "Acton" have the same equivalent as those of " Battersea," an existing Exchange serving more than 5,000 subscribers. Some other name than "Acton" has, therefore, to be chosen for the new Exchange.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give careful consideration to the latest suggestion which has been received by him from the Acton corporation?

Certainly. The Acton Corporation have made a suggestion for a possible name for this exchange, but, as a matter of fact, the name has to satisfy not only the mechanical requirements of the dialling apparatus, but also the requirement of the ordinary system, and I am having this particular suggestion tried out at this moment.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that I shall get into great trouble if he does not accept this suggestion?

Can the right hon. Gentleman suggest changing the name of the borough to accord with the new telephone name?

Isle of Man (Telephonic Communication)

asked the Postmaster-General if he will publish the correspondence which has passed between himself and the Government of the Isle of Man on the telephonic communication with the mainland.

No Sir, I do not think that publication, at the present juncture, of the correspondence would be helpful.

Why are we refused this correspondence when people in the Isle of Man can have it?

I am not aware that the correspondence has been published in the Isle of Man. If it has been, I should see no objection to publication, but I do not think it has been.

Telephone Cable Requirements

asked the Postmaster-General why the engineering department of the Post Office has suggested to manu- facturers of telephone cable that they should temporarily close down this section of their factories and disband their staffs?

No such suggestion was made by the Post Office. It is, however, the fact that development will be for the present more in the direction of local lines than of main cables, and, consequently, the requirements for the latter type of cable are likely to be smaller.

May I ask why it is that these people have been told that, so far as the Post Office requirements are concerned, they must ease off in their production, as the Department is determined to spend less money?

The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. There are two different types of cable used by the Post Office; one is for main line cable purposes and the other for local lines. As our trunk schemes are becoming more and more complete we want less main cable and more local cable.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at present it takes nearly an hour to get through to Manchester, on the average, and in view of that does he consider that his trunk line system is complete?

Telephone System (Extensions)

asked the Postmaster-General what additional precautions he has taken to obtain the use of all sources of information before new schemes of telephone extensions are embarked upon, with a view to avoiding a repetition of the circumstances under which the contractor for providing equipment for a relief telephone exchange at Manchester received compensation of £10,820 in respect of the cancellation of a contract for equipment in consequence of the decision to abandon the provision of that exchange?

In the case to which my hon. Friend refers, a serious falling-off in trade affected business in Manchester and invalidated the earlier forecast of telephone development on which it had been decided that this relief exchange was necessary. Elaborate measures are taken before embarking upon new schemes of telephone extension to ensure, so far as possible, accurate forecasts of future growth, and, while experience shows that the figures thus obtained are in the main reasonably accurate, it is, of course, in the nature of things impossible to eliminate all risk of error.

Naval and Military Pensions (Stabilisation)

asked the Minister of Pensions whether the proposed stabilisation of pensions refers to the rates of pension payable under the Royal Warrant of 1919 or the present assessment of the degrees of disablement; and whether he will be in a position to make a statement on the matter before the end of the Session?

If, as I presume, the hon. Member is referring to the answer which my right hon. and gallant Friend gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Hexham (Colonel Clifton Brown) on the 23rd May, the scheme of stablisation under consideration is of the present rates of pension payable under the Royal Warrant so far as they are liable to fluctuation in accordance with the cost of living. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

Ex-Service Men (King's Roll)

asked the Minister of Pensions the number of disabled ex-service men; the number of business firms on the King's Roll; and the number of disabled ex-service men employed by such firms?

I have been asked to reply. I am informed that the total number of ex-service men in receipt of disability pensions and allowances in Great Britain is approximately 427,000. A number of them are in hospitals or other institutions or are for other reasons not available for employment. The number of employers on the King's Roll is 27,500, and the number of dis- abled ex-service men employed by them is about 380,000.

Seeing that there are still a number of ex-service disabled men who are unemployed, will the hon. Gentleman get into touch with all these 27,500 firms and see whether the services of these men cannot be utilised?

My right hon. Friend has done everything he possibly can in approaching firms on the Roll, and is trying to induce others not on the Roll to join.

Willow Trees (Disease)

asked the hon. Member for Monmouth, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether he has yet considered the question of issuing an order under the Destructive Insects and Pests Act with regard to the water-mark disease on cricket-bat willow trees, in view of the rapidity with which this disease is spreading through the County of Essex?

I have been asked to reply. The question of issuing an Order under the Destructive Insects and Pests Act will be further considered on the completion of inquiries.

Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that this disease is extremely infectious, and that unless something is done very soon the whole of this very valuable timber crop will be destroyed?

Unemployment

Industrial Transference Board (Report)

asked the Prime Minister when the Report of the Industrial Transference Board was in the possession of the Government; whether he can state the cause of the delay in publication; and whether the Report has been subjected to revision?

As the hon. Member is aware, the Report of the Industrial Transference Board was published yesterday. The Government have been considering it since it was presented at the end of June. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

:Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the date when the Report was first presented to the Government, and can he also say whether the Report, as now presented, differs in any detail from the Report originally submitted?

I have answered the second supplementary question of the hon. Member. I think the Report was circulated to the Cabinet on 29th June, if my memory serves me right.

:May I ask whether any member or members of the Government had the Report in their possession before that date, and whether the right hon. Gentleman can state whether the Report, as now presented to the House, was in the hands of the "Daily Mail" before hon. Members of this House received it?

I have not the least idea what the hon. Member is insinuating, but the answer I have given is correct.

Benefit Disallowed

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that a man sent from a local Employment Exchange to seek work, which he refuses on the ground of the wages offered being insufficient for bare existence, is debarred from unemployment pay on the assumption that he is not genuinely seeking work; and if he will state under which Regulations such action is taken?

No, Sir. The point is one which is dealt with by the statutory authorities under the general provisions of the Acts and not under Regulations. I may mention that decisions given by the Umpire indicate that refusal of unsuitable employment would not be taken as evidence that a claimant is not genuinely seeking work.

Statistics

asked the Minister of Labour if he can give any statistics showing the number of women workers employed in industry and trade now compared with pre-War figures; and whether he can give the number of juveniles, both men and women, who are estimated to enter industry and commerce annually?

As regards the first part of the question, I will, with the permission of my hon. Friend,

Year.

Census of Population.

Unemployment Insurance Acts.

Total number of "occupied" Persons.

Number of Females as a percentage of Total.

Estimated number of Insured Persons. *

Number of Females as a percentage of Total.

Males.

Females.

Total.

Males.

Females.

Total.

1911

12,927,422

5,423,944

18,351,366

29.6

1921

13,655,895

5,701,424

19,357,319

29.5

1923

8,335,200

2,896,780

11,231,980

25.8

1927

8,745,500

3,130,100

11,875,600

26.4

* These figures are not comparable with those derived from the Population Census. Certain classes of occupied persons are outside the Scheme of Unemployment Insurance of which the more important include Employers and those employed in Agriculture and in private domestic service, and all persons employed otherwise than by way of manual labour at a rate of remuneration exceeding £250 a year. These figures are not comparable with those derived from the Population Census. Certain classes of occupied persons are outside the Scheme of Unemployment Insurance of which the more important include Employers and those employed in Agriculture and in private domestic service, and all persons employed otherwise than by way of manual labour at a rate of remuneration exceeding £250 a year.

Afforestation

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the serious unemployment situation, he is now in a position to state the Government's intentions regarding the afforestation programme to be commenced in April next?

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government has yet settled its afforestation programme which must be embarked upon next year?

If the hon. Members will be so good as to repeat their questions in a week's time, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make an announcement on the subject.

Kenya (Communal Representation)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether that chapter of the Donoughmore Committee's Report dealing with communal representation will be brought

circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving such information as is available from the Population Censuses of 1911 and 1921 and from the Unemployment Insurance Statistics for the years 1923 and 1927. It is estimated that of those reaching the age of 14 during the current year approximately 259,000 boys and 180,000 girls will enter employment. Statistics of the numbers who will enter employment for the first time at later ages are not available.

Following is the statement:

to the notice of the Kenya Government, in view of the similar problems now before that Government as the result of the Feetham Committee's Report?

Copies of the Report of the Special Commission on the Constitution of Ceylon are being sent to other Colonial Governments, including the Government of Kenya.

River Gipping (Pollution)

asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the serious pollution of the River Gipping caused by effluent from the artificial silk works at Stowmarket; whether he is aware that there have been numerous cases of illness among human beings and poisoning of stock as a result; and whether, to avoid the consequences of further delay in abating the nuisance, he will authorise the local authorities concerned to take immediate action without waiting for an official inquiry?

My right hon. Friend is aware of this case. He has no confirmation of cases of illness or of poisoning of stock from pollution. My right hon. Friend has, however, received from the rural district council an application for consent to take proceedings against the company and has directed a public inquiry to be held at the earliest practicable date into the application. He is afraid that an inquiry must first be held.

Has the right hon. Gentleman's Department any powers over the erection of these factories which cause pollution of rivers; and, having regard to the fact that this particular factory, rather than treat its objectionable effluvia properly, is prepared to destroy the amenities of the whole countryside, if the Department does not possess the necessary powers to intervene, will he take steps to get such powers?

Will the right hon. Gentleman also pay due deference to the great commercial interests of this country and the employment of our people?

Having regard to the constantly increasing pollution of rivers by beet-sugar factories and artificial silk factories, will not the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of early legislation to abate these nuisances more rapidly and more effectively?

I should have to have further information about these cases. This question deals with a specific case, and I should like any question dealing with policy to be put down on the Paper.

Housing (Subsidy)

asked the Minister of Health whether it is his intention to reduce the housing subsidy under the Acts of 1923 and 1924 on houses completed after March, 1929?

The statutory review of the subsidy payable under the Housing Acts of 1923 and 1924 must be undertaken after the 1st October next, and my right bon. Friend is unable to anticipate the result of this review.

Shop Assistants, Newcastle (Illness)

asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to a report by the Newcastle city analyst about the illness of at least 50 of the staff of one of the big shops in the city caused by antimony compounds contained in the lemonade which the assistants drank; if he is aware that the cause of the illness was in consequence of the enamel on the buckets which contained the made-up lemonade; and whether he intends taking any action in the matter?

My right hon. Friend's attention has been drawn to this case, and he understands that the facts are as stated in the question. The city medical officer of health is preparing a report on the occurrence, and on receipt of that report my right hon. Friend will consider what action, if any, can be taken.

Has the right hon. Gentleman got any control over lemons, and are they included in his answer?

United States Shipping Board Merchant Fleet Corporation

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that representations were made to the United States Shipping Board Merchant Fleet Corporation over two months ago by the Registrar of Companies with a view to the registration of this corporation in accordance with the requirements of Section 274 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, this corporation is now registered under the Business Names Act; and whether he proposes to take any action in respect of this failure to comply with the law?

As at present advised I have no reason to suppose that the constitution of this concern brings it within the provisions of the Business Names Act. I understand that the documents required to be filed with the Registrar of Companies under Section 274 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, are in course of registration. The last part of the question accordingly does not arise.

Can any penalties be exacted from this corporation, which claims diplomatic immunity, for not fulfilling its obligations?

Empire Settlement

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether intending emigrants accepted as suitable by the Australian authorities and assured of work by the assistance of the Salvation Army are eligible to receive assistance for the payment of fares and other expenses from any funds, at his disposal for this purpose?

Persons who can be guaranteed employment in Australia by the Salvation Army and who are accepted as suitable settlers by the Australian authorities are eligible for the grant of assisted passages under the Government scheme. Separate arrangements have been made with the Salvation Army for sharing with them the cost of any additional assistance necessary for such settlers (e.g., outfits, incidental expenses).

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs which branch of his Department has control of the business of migration, and to whom should all intending migrants apply for information and assistance; and what steps are taken by his Department to bring before unemployed persons what opportunities are available for the migration of workless men and women to the Dominions?

The Oversea Settlement Department of the Dominions Office is responsible for all matters connected with oversea settlement and emigration. Persons desiring to proceed overseas can apply to any Employment Exchange or to the migration representatives in this country of the various Oversea Governments, whose addresses are given in the handbooks and leaflets issued by the Oversea Settlement Committee. The Oversea Settlement Department works in close touch with the Ministry of Labour, and full information and advice can be obtained at any Employment Ex- change with regard to the opportunities overseas and the facilities available for the grant of assisted passages.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that that applies only to assisted migrants, and that migrants who wish to pay their own passage cannot at the present moment get any advice from any Department as to where tiny should go or what they should do?

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many applicants are now awaiting the opportunity?

Can my right hon. Friend say where people should go in order to get sound official advice?

They can get it from the Oversea Settlement Office, and also from any passage agency.

Business of the House

Ordered,

"That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, Business other than Business of Supply may be taken before Eleven of the clock, and that the Proceedings on the Post Office and Telegraph (Money) Bill be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[ The Prime Minister. ]

Public Defender

I beg to move, experts. If there were any need to argue the matter fully, I think we have had sufficient experience in the recent case tried in Gloucestershire, in which we saw arrayed against the prisoner two officers of the Criminal Investigation Department, who had been on the scene for nearly three months, prospecting and investigating in order to build up a case against the prisoner who was then being charged; and, in addition, no fewer than eight Crown experts. There was the chief expert in connection with poisoning cases, and a high Government expert connected with post-mortem examinations, and all manner of investigations and inquiries were made into the cause of death by authorities of a very high order. All of these were at the disposal of the State, and were being used against the prisoner at the Bar. The Crown was also engaged in securing evidence of all kinds, including that of even a 10-year-old child, against the prisoner, who in this case was the mother of the child.

At the trial itself four counsel were engaged for the prosecution, headed by the Solicitor-General, and I must say that, as far as I am able to judge, he dealt with the case very fairly, even from the Crown point of view, and I have no complaint to make on that score at all. He had with him three other counsel as well as the Crown solicitor, and altogether there were some 14 experts in the law, in matters of poisoning, and so on, arrayed against this solitary woman, who, but for a generous public, would have had no skilled assistance in any way equal to that which was at the disposal of the Crown. That was due to the poverty-stricken state of the family, and I repeat that, but for the generosity of the public, the prisoner would have had very little show indeed, with possible consequences which, as I think very fortunately, have not occurred in this case. I am asking for leave to bring in this Bill in order that a prisoner who is charged with a capital offence may be placed in the same position as the Crown from the point of view of legal assistance and of securing technical evidence, so that he or she may be on a par with the Crown in the matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Purcell, Mr. Lees-Smith, Mr. Malone, Mr. Windsor, Mr. W. Thorne, Mr. Dennison, Mr. Trevelyan, Mr. Grundy and Mr. George Hirst.

Public Defender Bill,

"to make better provision for the defence of poor persons," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 188.]

Criminal Law Amendment

I beg to move, From nine months to 12 months, and that is the object of this present Bill.

I bring this matter before the House as a somewhat urgent one, because in my constituency a most distressing case has arisen, in which the daughter of an agricultural labourer, a girl between 13 and 14 years of age, was seduced, and, owing to the period of nine months being allowed to lapse, through carelessness or neglect on the part of the parents or for some other reason, no proceedings could be taken against the alleged offender. The child died of convulsions in childbirth. A great deal of distress has been created in the countryside, and I have been asked to do what I can to amend the law. I brought the facts before the Home Office and they went into the matter with the police and came to the conclusion that, owing to the condition of the law in respect of nine months, no prosecution Could lie in this case. May I read one paragraph from the letter sent me from the Home Office?

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hurd, Sir Reginald Mitchell Banks, Countess of Iveagh, Mr. Rhys Davies, and Major Owen.

Criminal Law Amendment Bill,

"to amend the Law with respect to offences against persons under the age of sixteen," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 189.]

FOOD AND DRUGS (ADULTERATION) BILL [Lords]

Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 186.]

Selection (Standing Committees)

Standing Committee C

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: The Solicitor-General; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Womersley.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Betting Overseas (Prohibition) Bill,

"to prohibit the making with bookmakers of bets on events to be determined in Great Britain unless the bets are made in Great Britain," presented by Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 187.]

Publications and Debates' Reports

Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix, brought up, and read;

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

Western Highlands and Islands

Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, brought up, and read;

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

Message from the Lords

That they have agreed to,—

Betting (Juvenile Messengers) (Scotland) Bill, without Amendment.

Shops (Hours of Closing) Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to

Sheffield Corporation Bill [ Lords ],

Stretford and District Electricity Board Bill [ Lords ],

Wessex Electricity Bill [ Lords ], without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate the enactments relating to petroleum and to petroleum- spirit." [Petroleum (Consolidation) Bill [ Lords ].

Petroleum (Conslidation) Bill [Lords]

Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 190.]

Description.

January to June.

1926.

1927.

1928.

Thousand Gallons.

Thousand Gallons.

Thousand Gallons.

Petroleum—

Crude

Refined—

Lamp Oil

10,282

19,339

25,386

Motor Spirit

12,998

17,876

18,015

Spirit other than Motor Spirit

2,364

Lubricating Oil

1,158

3,443

3,772

Gas Oil

2,466

4,218

Fuel Oil

6,038

Other Sorts

( a ))

( a ) 400 gallons) 400 gallons

Food Council (Traders' Information)

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the letter from the London Flour Millers' Association to the Food Council, stating their inability to secure the demanded information, he will ask the House before it rises for compulsory powers to secure obedience?

:I have not yet received a report from the Food Council on this case, and until a report is received in this and in the other cases in which the Food Council require information from traders, the Government are

Orders of the Day

Supply

[17TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Civil Estimates, 1928

Class V

Ministry of Labour

Motion made, and Question put,

"That a sum, not exceeding £7,242,509, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the

sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour and Subordinate Departments, including the Exchequer Contribution to the Unemployment Fund, Grants to Associations, Local Education Authorities and others under the Unemployment Insurance, Labour Exchanges, and other Acts; Expenses of the Industrial Court; Contribution towards the Expenses of the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations); Expenses of Training; and sundry services, including services arising, out of the War."—[Note.—£4,375,000 has been voted on account.]

The Committee divided: Ayes, 240; Noes, 107.

Division No. 319.]

AYES.

[3.55 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

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

Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Hills, Major John Wailer

Apsley, Lord

Dalkeith, Earl of

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

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

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

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

Davies, Dr. Vernon

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

Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S)

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Astor, Viscountess

Dawson, Sir Phillip

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Drewe, C.

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Balniel, Lord

Duckworth, John

Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Eden, Captain Anthony

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Ellis, R. G.

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

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

England, Colonel A.

Hume, Sir G. H.

Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

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

Hurd, Percy A.

Bennett, A. J.

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Iliffe, Sir Edward M

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

Everard, W. Lindsay

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Berry, Sir George

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)

Betterton, Henry B.

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Falls. Sir Charles F.

Kindersley, Major Guy M.

Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

King, Commodore Henry Douglas

Blundell, F. N.

Fenby, T. D Lord

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Boothby, R. J. G.

Fermoy,

Knox, Sir Alfred

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Fielden, E. B.

Lamb, J. O.

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

Finburgh, S

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

Brass, Captain W.

Foster, Sir Harry S.

Long, Major Eric

Brassey, Sir Leonard

Fraser, Captain Ian

Looker, Herbert William

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Frece, Sir Walter de

Lougher, Lewis

Briggs, J. Harold

Ganzonl, Sir John

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Brittain, Sir Harry

Gates, Percy

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Gault Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Lumley, L. R.

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)

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

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

Buchan, John

Glyn, Major R. G. C

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

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Goff, Sir Park

McLean, Major A.

Carver, Major W. H.

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Macmillan, Captain H.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Grant, Sir J. A.

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

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

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)

Macquisten, F. A.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Chapman, Sir S.

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

Christie, J. A.

Hacking, Douglas H.

Makins, Brigadier-General S.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

Margesson, Captain D.

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Hamilton, Sir George

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A D.

Hammersley, S. S.

Meller, R. J.

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

Hanbury, C.

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

Cohen, Major J. Brunel

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Hartington, Marquess of

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Cooper, A. Duff

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Couper, J. B.

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

Monsell, Eyres, Corn. Rt. Hon. B. M

Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

Haslam, Henry C

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

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

Morden, Colonel Walter Grant

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Savery, S. S.

Warrender, Sir Victor

Nelson, Sir Frank

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Neville, Sir Reginald J.

Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

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

Skelton, A. N.

Wayland, Sir William A.

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

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-

Nuttall, Ellis

Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

Wiggins, William Martin

Oakley, T.

Smithers, Waldron

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Penny, Frederick George

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

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

Winby, Colonel L. P.

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Storry-Deans, R.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Ramsden, E.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Wolmer, Viscount

Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Womersley, W. J

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Templeton, W. P.

Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

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

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

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

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Russell, Alexander West- (Tynemouth)

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Salmon, Major I.

Tinne, J. A.

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

Sandeman, N. Stewart

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Sanders, Sir Robert A

Turton, Edmund Russborough

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Sanderson, Sir Frank

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Major Sir George Hennessy and

Major Sir William Cope.

NOES

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

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

Salter, Dr. Alfred

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

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Sexton, James

Attlee, Clement Richard

Hirst, G. H.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Baker, Walter

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield).

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Shinwell, E

Barr, J.

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Batey, Joseph

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Bondfield, Margaret

Kelly, W. T.

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Kennedy, T.

Stamford, T. W.

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

Lansbury, George

Stephen, Campbell

Cape, Thomas

Lawrence, Susan

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Charleton, H. C.

Lawson, John James

Sullivan, J.

Connolly, M.

Lee, F.

Sutton, J. E.

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Livingstone, A. M.

Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

Dalton, Hugh

Longbottom, A. W.

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

Lowth, T.

Thurtle, Ernest

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Lunn, William

Tinker, John Joseph

Day, Harry

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Dennison, R.

Mackinder, W.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Dunnico, H.

Mac Laren, Andrew

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

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Gillett, George M.

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

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

Maxton, James

Wellock, Wilfred

Greenall, T.

Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

Westwood, J.

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Montague, Frederick

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Naylor, T. E.

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Griffith, F. Kingsley

Palin, John Henry

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Grundy, T. W.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Windsor, Walter

Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

Ponsonby, Arthur

Wright, W.

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Potts, John S.

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Hardle, George D.

Purcell, A. A.

Harney, E. A.

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

Hayday, Arthur

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

Whiteley.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

Unemployment

I beg to move, have been doing their best to lull the country into a state of complacency, and when the other day we found a tremendous and unexpected upward leap in the unemployment figures, the nation was once again arrested by the fact that, so far from having done anything to solve or alleviate the unemployment problem, as a matter of fact it was more and more mastering us. There is one observation that has been made pretty frequently by various Ministers which is being palmed off as if it were a contribution to the problem, but which, as a matter of fact, has nothing whatever to do with the problem. I will quote what was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, although he is not the only one who has said it. Speaking on 19th July he said: ployed in 1924, but are not registered as unemployed now. They were included in the 1,022,000 in 1924, but have been deliberately and knowingly excluded by the action taken by the Government, and do not appear in the 1,237,000 of 1928.

That is not all. In 1924 we were hoping that there was no section of the unemployed that was hopelessly and helplessly out of employment. It was said at the beginning that that hope was based upon a very flimsy foundation. To-day, we know by the Report which was put in our hands only a few hours ago, that 200,000 miners alone are permanently and hopelessly out of work as miners. The Report goes further and says that the heavy basic industries, iron, steel, shipbuilding, and also cotton must now be considered to be permanently overmanned, and that what the nation is faced with now is not only a great mass of people who may be unemployed, but that beyond that periphery, outside the boundary of the mass, there are 200,000, or 250,000, or perhaps, even more that until the day of their death will, if, they are to live at all, have to live either upon doles or upon public or private charity. That is the position in which we find ourselves. It is no use to say that silk stockings are booming, that artificial silk is booming, and motor cars are booming. [An HON. MEMBER: "Buttons!"] Buttons are employing 10 men more than they did 12 months ago.

I would recall this very simple fact, that when the Prime Minister talked at the Election, as he did in various ways in his Election address, and in his speeches about his first concern being to deal with the unemployment problem, and to deal with it effectively, he did not mean by that, that four years after he had taken office he would be able to tell the House that there was a certain expansion in luxury and semi-luxury trades. I am certain that he meant exactly what he said, that he was going to make an attack on the problem of unemployment, and was not going to take credit for himself and his colleagues because of the fact of an increase of population, and that owing to the world's demand for goods, this country was getting a small share 'of the proportion that really belonged to it. The Poor Law figures add to the black list that overshadows our industrial position. In the 3½ years ending 1st January, 1928, there has been an increase of 225,000 people whom we call paupers in some shape or form, and that in spite of an increased stringency in administration and a refusal of out-relief to very large numbers of the unemployed.

That is the situation, and I say it is .a tragic situation. It is a situation which really does not require a vast experience of unemployment to appreciate. Those Members of this House who have never had to count their coppers in their pockets, or to put against the coppers that they held their heavy debts, or have had to walk about the streets of London not knowing what was going to happen in 10 days—such an experience whatever one's fate in life may be afterwards, will never be forgotten, but hon. Members who have not had that experience, I am sure do not require it in order that they may appreciate what the figures I have just quoted mean in terms of human experience to hundreds of thousands of families in this land. There is a consequent dulling of those finer sentiments, those nice appreciations of relationship which are easily maintained when the wolf is kept from the door, but which is not maintained when the wolf has crossed the floor, and is sitting on the hearthstone. And there is the general deterioration—deterioration in physique and deterioration of morale. Surely if there is a national concern at all, that is a primary one.

Therefore, we have to consider the question of the unemployed. We may deal with it from the point of view of migration. We may come to the conclusion, whether we like it or not—it is no use being sentimental about it—whether we like to admit it or not, that there are too many people in this country for the possible industry of this country to keep in a position of economic independence. That can be said, and the corollary from that is either a very drastic method of birth control, which, however, is not going to operate to-day or to-morrow, or some satisfactory and ample scheme for migration. Before we resort to either, we have to be very careful that our own country is being developed. Therefore, the first concern and the first field that has to be explored thoroughly and left completely explored before any other is considered is: Are we making the best use of our own material, are our own national resources being developed as they ought to be developed?

If any Minister or any hon. Member thinks that they are, I make him a sporting offer. Come with me for a fortnight, and we will start a walk across country, and we will use neither highroads nor by-roads but will make a bee-line. We will take a map in our hands, and we will go straight, and we will defy every piece of landlord's legislation we come across, but we will see our own country. We will see what our country is. We will see its capacity, we will see its neglect, we will see where it is developed, and we will see the use to which thousands and thousands of acres are put. When we have beheld with our eyes, we will lay our heads together and see if there is very much disagreement between us in the proposition that our country's resources are not being properly developed and are not being used in the way that they should be used.

There is the whole question of roads and bridges to be rebuilt. The Minister of Transport has undoubtedly been the means of carrying through a considerable programme, but nobody who has gone over our roads will be satisfied with what has happened. My hon. and gallant Friend behind put a very pertinent question to those of us who know the area. There was a sum of money unpaid, but already earmarked, quite clearly in existence and meant for the purpose of developing a certain road scheme, a part of which was opened a few months ago, and we assisted at the very interesting operation. That money is untouched and untouchable until such times as orders come down. That is only typical. That is a small sum, but from John o'Groats to Land's End there are roads to be widened and surfaces to be made new. I know a road which is a main road so badly laid that at the end of every summer, on account of the heavy motor and omnibus traffic upon it, the surface looks as it probably was when the cave men went across that road. Money is required, bridges require strengthening and broadening, and so on. There is the question of the slums. The slums have to be cleared out. How little work is being done at that, and what might be done.

I will not go into further details, because it is perfectly well known to hon. Members that it is only by systematic thought, systematic planning, by co-ordination of effort and by a complete social survey of our nation that this derelict land, this misused land, these bad houses, these slum properties, it is only by cataloguing all these essential needs that are unattended to now, or inadequately attended to now, that they can, under proper co-ordination between the Government and the local authorities, be made very substantial aids not only to the touching of the unemployment problem, but, by putting new economic forces and new moral standards into operation, by giving our people a new character, add to the wealth of our nation by increasing the demand for labour in order to satisfy the wealth that requires to be consumed.

There are 1,750,000 acres of land to be drained. I have heard very little of that for some time. We were working at it when we were in office. [ Interruption. ] Yes, for eight months. We had only eight months of effective office, and I wish to goodness the Government who succeeded us had done six or seven times the amount of our work in the four years that they have been in power. I should then have been inclined to be gratified. There is the whole question of training. Everybody knows perfectly well that you cannot jump out of one condition into another in a week or a month. If you are going to deal with the problem of the unemployed young person, either boy or girl, who seems to come up against a brick wall, you know perfectly well that you cannot simply take him or her from the end of the cul-de-sac which he has apparently reached and plant him in the middle of an open road which leads to success. You cannot do that at once.

We have to establish a very carefully-designed system of training, and we have to make up our minds that very likely the first experience of our experiment in training will be a failure, because we have made a miscalculation as to how it should be done. But that has to be gone through. If we read the report which was put into our hands yesterday, and if the report is true, if the Committee is right in the claim that it makes, apparently very little was done by way of training such as I suggest until that Committee spurred up the Government after it was appointed. The State has no adequate powers. It has never taken them. The Government have been four years in office passing legislation dealing with betting, "totes,' and gambling, but they have never asked Parliament for powers to enable them to use the land as they would have done had they really been aware of the problem that they had to handle and been making preparations to handle it as quickly as possible and as effectively as possible. That is the internal trouble.

That is not all. The unemployed problem is not going to be solved by any system of patchwork, however elaborate the system may be, and however well done the system of patchwork may be. The unemployed problem is only going to be solved by dealing with the whole flow of production and exchange both at home and abroad for which this country is responsible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That is a very old doctrine of ours, and I am very glad that it is echoed from the other side. We get the Federation of British Industries, and people put into this job and that job and so on, especially since the War. You get piecemeal development. You get new methods of accumulating capital and new methods of handling private wealth. You have upset completely your old system of the provision of industrial capital in this country. The whole proportion between divided profits at the end of a year and the re-investment of the assigned profits to individuals—that in relation to the requirements of our industry in 1912 was one thing, and in 1928 it is a totally different thing. The whole economic practice has been revolutionised. We have all been content to go on piecemeal, muddling through.

One of the most colossal sources of waste in this land is the misdirection of our capital. You get over-capitalisation with the most unfortunate results to everybody concerned, unfortunate to the workpeople, unfortunate to the managers, unfortunate to the mentality of those men who really have got business ability, but who find that the reward of business ability applied to good, honest, sound business is far less than if applied to investment, speculation and gambling. All that has changed.

I happen to be associated with a certain company—I do not care to give a personal experience—which was exceedingly successful on a comparatively small capital. When it became successful, everyone employed by it shared in various ways, endowment of leisure and so on, and its large profits really entered into the well-being of the nation. There were hundreds of employés, who were happy. Hundreds of those who were called in to do special work for it were happy. The directors and the managers were happy. One fine day, we discovered that the capital of something like £250,000 had been multiplied something like 13, 14 or 15 times, and that business now, that concern—I do not quite know how you describe it—has not had a brass farthing beyond—let me give an hypothetical figure. A quarter of a million has been put into it as industrial capital. Not a brass farthing over a quarter of a million has been put into that business to increase its efficiency, and to make it contribute to the wealth of the nation that has to bear the dividends upon £14,000,000 or 215,000,000. [ Interruption. ] No, that is my point. It is a very serious thing. The real industrial capital of the business is £250,000. It is on its profits. Perhaps I do not make it clear. I am sorry. It is sold and sold for a price which is 14, 15, 16 or 17 times the amount of the real industrial capital put into it. [ Interruption. ]

I really want to ask a question, as I want to understand the position. The right hon. Gentleman said that everybody was happy in it, and that it was doing so well. I want to know why it was sold?

I will tell the House quite candidly that I am not very anxious that this company should be identified. I hope that the hon. Member will take my word. I am giving a personal experience. My figures are not accurate, but the impression which I am giving by the use of my figures is absolutely accurate. The reason why it was sold was that the quarter of a million was yielding profits of 30, 40, 50 per cent., and somebody comes along, not to improve the business, not to give more to the people who by labour and brain, thought and imagination had built it up. They just went in to buy the 20, 30 or 40 per cent., and they bought it.

The Noble Lady had better not ask me that question. She had better ask some of her colleagues whether in their opinion the owners of the business would have been fools if they had not sold at the terms which were offered to them.

I must ask the hon. Member to allow the right hon. Gentleman to proceed, without interruption.

I must apologise. I did not mean to interrupt. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman and some philanthropist was interested in this firm which was doing so well, and I could not understand why they ever sold it.

I did not say that a certain philanthropist and myself were interested in the firm, nor did I characterise the owner as a philanthropist nor as having any interest in the firm, except in the same way as her Ladyship's kitchen maid would have an interest in her income. We ought to study these things. Any Government equipped with the functions of observation, such as Governments nowadays cannot afford to be without, would have been studying very carefully for years this misdirection of the use of capital, this over-capitalisation, this extraordinary phenomena that the reward of speculation is greater than the reward of industrial operations. Nobody knows better than the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, if he takes his transactions from the Stock Exchange, the proportion of speculative business to-day compared with the proportion of sound industrial business is ever so much greater than it was in 1912. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must know perfectly well and the Prime Minister must know perfectly well, one from one point of view and the other from another point of view, that this change in the relation between speculative business and industrial business of a proper kind is a very great national concern, and that in the end it must affect employment. I maintain that it is one of the causes of our present day unemployment.

We have only to take the Directory of Directors and study the records of the directors to see what is happening. The management of business is becoming more and more a disgrace to our common sense. When one consults the lists of directors, one finds that one director of a very important company belongs to 30 boards of directors, another to 19, another to 16, another to 16, another to 16, another to 15, another to 14, another to 10, and another to 11. That is becoming more and more common. This is really a national concern, especially when people talk about the private use of capital and the glorious development of our present system. How can any director efficiently perform his duties under such circumstances? A director of companies nowadays, instead of being a business man, instead of being what we used to call, quite rightly, a captain of industry, simply puts his card on the table where directors meet occasionally, and where on account of being directors they draw certain fees. There is nothing more degrading to our business to-day than the development of the director who is not a director, who is not an industrial man in any shape or form. That is one of the things that is doing more damage to our national trade and is making our competition with German and other competitors less and less efficient, and certainly much less efficient than it would be if that sort of thing were frowned upon by anybody whose frowns were regarded as a censure.

Further, what do we find in the great accumulation of expense that is going on? The middleman, the agent, the merchant; that middle section adds nothing to production, but by placing things in more convenient places certainly does an essential national service; but that national service does not justify what is going on now, which amounts to a settlement of prices which has no relation to the value of the services, but simply relates to the exploiting power of this middle combination which intervenes between the actual producer and the actual consumer. It is this sort of combination which is forcing up prices so that we are paying pounds for things that we ought to get for shillings, and we cannot pay good wages to the producer to enable the producer to spend his money in the most effective way. All these things are active contributors to our present day unemployment. These things are active contributors to the unfortunate position in which British industry finds itself to-day, and these things are the inevitable results of the capitalist system with which hon. and right hon. Members opposite are so closely associated.

One could give many illustrations of over-capitalisation. The cotton trade to-day is suffering from it to a very large extent. The Prime Minister, in a recent speech, practically said that. Take the list of companies whose capital has had to be reduced during the last two or three year, and reduced by millions—Vickers and Armstrong Whitworth's in engineering, Wolseley Motors, Marconi's, Sir William Arrol and so on. Does anyone mean to tell me that companies can be over-capitalised in the way that they have been over-capitalised and go on bearing the burden until the moment that they can bear it no longer and then throw it off, or throw part of the burden off—does anyone mean to tell me that the nation does not suffer on account of that over-capitalisation? It is bound to have suffered, and one of the first forms of the suffering shows itself in a slackening of demand for labour and in the upward tendency shown by the unemployment figures. I hope that every hon. Member is reading carefully the wonderfully illuminating reports of the Balfour Commission, which was appointed in 1924, to report on our trade and industry. That Commission was appointed, not by accident but by design, for the sole reason of inquiring into our trade and industry, because we had not the facts. I believe that, just as Charles Booth in his survey in the east end of London did a work which enabled very effective social reforms to be carried out, no greater service could be done to industry in this country than to have a scientific survey to enable us to see where we are strong and where we are weak and where modern and newer developments might be undertaken with safety and success. These points with which I have been dealing summarily are all referred to in the Balfour Report.

The assumption on which the Government have been going all these years is that trade is going to improve. They have been working upon the assumption that, once they get over the things which they always like to talk about such as the dispute of 1926 and so on, when trade becomes normal, when we get a level of water which is a normal line, above which it may go when there is a special boom and below which it may go when there is special depression, the average will be the normal line, and when that normal line has been reached the unemployment figure will not be above one million. The Government have another assumption, and that is that by reducing wages and increasing hours they will improve production. That was clearly shown in their coal legislation. On both points they were fundamentally wrong. They were wrong regarding their normal line with respect to the industrial situation, and their interpretation of the economic effects of their coal legislation and their attitude towards the coal problem was equally wrong. Under the influence of the error, they have been going on doing certain things. One thing was safeguarding. I originally intended to say a word or two about safeguarding, but I offer my thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for making that comment absolutely unnecessary. The Prime Minister has never been able to make up his mind where he stands in regard to safeguarding. At one time he said that it was no good, and another time he said that it was going to be the work of the Conservative party to promote safeguarding in order to improve the trade of the nation. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a significant reply to the deputation yesterday. We know the troubles that are inside parties. I sympathise with the Prime Minister, and I know what a very valid supporter in his hour of trouble last night his Chancellor of the Exchequer must have been to him. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has banged, barred and locked the door against safeguarding. The Chancellor said: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is perfectly right. Those who believe in Protection, those who believe in Safeguarding, have not now to defend themselves against us on this side, or against hon. Members below the Gangway, but against their own Chancellor of the Exchequer who has said that Safeguarding and Protection are mere humbugs so far as any support that they can give in dealing with unemployment. Under the impression that we were going to get back to the normal of 1,000,000 the Chancellor of the Exchequer withdrew £19,000,000 from the Road Fund and so limited the possibilities of road expansion. The Trade Facilities Act has been annulled, or at any rate is on the shelf, under that impression, and there is no doubt, as the Balfour Committee pointed out—and they investigated the matter—that the greater part of the benefit of the scheme has been felt by the iron and steel and engineering and shipbuilding and electrical trades, which include some of the trades hardest hit to-day. The Unemployment Grants Committee has been slowed up; the housing subsidy has been reduced, with the result that unemployment has followed immediately upon the announcement.

I do not know what is going to happen to the mining situation to-day. I am not at all sure what the decision has been, but if it is, as was the case before, an eleventh-hour conversion and a hurried plan I hope most sincerely that the economic effect of this eleventh-hour conversion is not going to be so deadly as the economic effect of the last. The rating proposals, the great new rating proposals, of the Government; two-thirds of the Petrol Duty upon which they are to be based, come from the industry which is supposed to be benefited by them. It is a pure dole; it has no reality whatever to a system of rating and taxation; it is just a dole, and like all doles cannot succeed. Probably half of the relief that is going to be given will be given to industries that do not require it, and the assistance given to industries like coal, amounting to 6½d. per ton of coal or perhaps 7d., is totally inadequate in view of the published losses that have now to be met.

If the dole, or subsidy, in any shape or form is going to be of any use to the coal trade, the Government must see that it is not used by competitor as against competitor to cut down internal prices, but that it is used for general coordinating purposes, to enable English coal, not the coal of Messrs. So-and-so, not the coal of this company or that company, but English coal, to be put effectively on British and foreign markets. If that is going to be done, then the Government must control the selling agencies themselves and that might perhaps appeal to the open-mindedness of the right hon. Gentleman who said in Yorkshire that he had no objection to adopting Socialism when it was practical. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to do anything with the subsidy, he will have to control the selling agencies; if not, he is only wasting public money. Then there is the treatment of the unemployed. These changes, all with the idea that if you increase the misery of the unemployed in that way you solve your problems, and get back to the normal. That is a survey of the whole conditions, the effect of unemployment, the Government handling of unemployment and the relation between unemployment and modern capitalistic development.

Then there is the question of migration, but that I shall leave to someone else to develop in detail should it arise in the course of the Debate. We have this Report on migration. The time has been so short that it has been impossible to examine it. It has been possible to read it, but not to check certain statements and get opinions from others except those who are our immediate colleagues on certain statements made in it. It is the Report of three men in despair, and is one of the most eloquent condemnations, though concealed in a way, of the present Government that I have ever read. And this at, the end of four years of office of the present Government. For four years they have been working, and there is no scheme for migration, no proper scheme for drainage or road development; there is nothing whatever in the pigeon-holes of the Government which show that for the last four years the Government Department concerned, or the Government as a whole, or a Cabinet Committee, has been steadily and persistently working at the extraordinary complicated problems of unemployment. This Committee, coming fresh to the subject, have had nothing to go upon, nothing systematic to go upon, only points here and there upon which they have had to build; and they are all wrong and all rotten. It is a very melancholy statement that they make about migration. Fancy a situation arising out of migration like that which is described here, and the Secretary of State for the Dominions just announcing that one of His Majesty's Ministers is to represent the Government, is going out this week, unless his departure has been postponed, in order to investigate the subject! Four years of this, and I may have as a companion this Minister who is going out to investigate the subject!

The Government have been perfectly willing to waste money on migration. There has been no scheme which has put its hands into the public purse less scrutinised than this scheme of migration; and what has happened? In 1922, the Empire Settlement Act was passed, and right through there never has been a time when there has not been more than double the number of applicants to the possibilities of migration. There are 500 applicants, men, confessed to by the Minister of Labour now. Will the Minister of Labour tell us what he has done to take them away? They have done nothing except to trust to an Act which they knew three years ago had broken down, which we were absolutely certain two years ago had broken down, and which, without a shadow of doubt, we are absolutely certain now can never be set up again on its present basis. Apart from direct applications and the applications of voluntary agencies, there are thousands of people, at least 100,000, probably 120,000, known. to the Secretary of State for the Dominions and the Minister of Labour;, but, strive as they may, do what they can, they cannot get any of our Dominions to take them. That is the position. Yet this Report suggests that something might be done. Take Canada. Last year she had a fine harvest, and there was an attempt made to get over 10,000 harvesters in order to gather in the harvest. At the last minute all arrangements had to be abandoned, and one result, amongst other things, was that the harvest was not fully reaped. There is a proposal this year to send over 5,000 men; but what has happened? Has any news been heard as-to whether Canada is going to take the 5,000 or not? Take the question of land settlement. In 1924, the idea of family settlement was worked out, and was very hopefully received at the time. There is the Report of the Committee which was appointed in Canada to advise the Canadian Government on the subject, and they say:

I am glad to hear that. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I am trying to smooth his way in this respect, and he also knows perfectly well that the information I have got is the information from his Committee. There must be some misunderstanding between the Secretary of State and the Committee. I say quite candidly that I hope the Secretary of State is right. The information I get is that there has not been a State that has put this scheme into operation, and that to all intents and purposes the scheme is a dead letter.

Take South Africa. You are at present emigrating 20 families to Rhodesia, and that is the extent of the operation of the scheme there. New Zealand has not put the scheme into operation and is not likely to put it into operation. It takes private agencies. I am talking of the particular scheme for which the Government are responsible. There again we come to a very barren land, if we are to trust to migration to deal with a million and a quarter unemployed here. When the survey is complete, when we examine as much detail as we are allowed to see—if we overlook certain things it is not our fault; it is the Government's fault—the details of the Government's actions at home, the position of the experiment at home, the condition of our knowledge of the problem gained by experience, the condition of migration, our relations with the Dominions, how far the doors are open and what sort of people will get in and what sort will not get in—I say that at the end of that survey we are bound to come to the conclusion that for four years the Government have been doing practically nothing except living from hand to mouth and working upon completely erroneous expectations of what aspect the problem will present two or three years hence.

The Government made a false estimate of its prospects. It had no foresight in its preparation. When it gave relief, as in 1925 to the coal industry, it took no steps to secure that the relief effected the purpose which the Government had in its mind; and when from that the Government went to legislation, the legislation only aggravated the situation. It was administered very largely on the assumption that unemployed people were spongers, and that the best way to deal with them and keep them in energy to work and with a will to work, was to reduce their benefits and goad them on on account of their distress. That was the whole of their assumption—stand aside; do nothing; the Government should keep out of it as much as possible unless the mine owners ask it to come in; to everyone else " every one for himself and the devil take the hindmost." Take the very last official contribution made to our knowledge of this problem. It is the most damning contribution cast against a Government and its handling of the unemployment problem.

I make no complaint that a Vote of Censure has been moved to-day, because so long as there be unemployment in this country the Opposition of the day will use it as their principal subject for moving Votes of Censure on the Government for the time being, and I know from the happy smile on the face of the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) that he is thankful that, this afternoon at least, he is safe there and not in my place. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that I regret he did not have in his own words the "damnable" volume at an earlier date.

The damning volume then. I had hoped that this Debate would have been put off for a few days, because it has been a very heavy task to review the contents of that document and the various matters mentioned in it, but I realise that the right hon. Gentleman is leaving the country in a few days, and we of course consented. I only hope that he may enjoy his time in Canada as much as I did mine, and that he will go away with the recollection of as happy a party at home as I hope to go away with. It would be very tempting to make a purely polemical speech this afternoon, but, after all, it will not be so long before the country itself will pass judgment on one side or the other, and I think I should much better occupy my time in 'taking the opportunity of this Debate of surveying the position and dwelling on some points raised in the Industrial Transference Board's Report and the steps that we propose to take in connection with it. These Debates may be of great value. It all depends on the spirit in which they are conducted. But in a Debate of this kind, when we have a volume such as has just been issued as a basis of our discussions, it may well be that from the most unexpected quarters of the House may come contributions that may be of real help, I will not say to the Government of the day, but to the country of the day, because this is a case of national emergency.

This is what I want to point out to the House: For the last six or seven years, in fact during the whole period in which unemployment has been rife, since the collapse of the boom that followed the Peace settlement, most people, certainly one Government after another thought that unemployment was due, as it was, very largely, to the general upset of credit and of trade channels between country and country, and that it would merely be by the process of time, some estimating it as a long time and some as a very short time, that business would return to the normal. Holding that opinion, certain what I might call tide-over remedies were applied, artificial assistance in the way of relief works, export credits, Government guarantees and so forth, all of value at the time and all contributing to do their work at the time; and they were utilised by successive Governments.

I am not going to complicate what I am saying by any allusion to our industrial troubles. They have played their part, but for the purposes of my argument this afternoon I am going to leave them out and leave them out quite deliberately. But I say this: That when things began to settle down after 1926, I think it became evident that the diagnoses that had been made, although true in most of the regions of the country, were not universally true, and that there were some industries and some areas which the diagnoses did not seem correctly to touch. We saw much industrial development and considerable prosperity going on in many parts of the country, but at the same time we saw depression both profound and continuous. It was a very curious phenomenon and one which by its operation was of a kind that had not been experienced by this generation.

The question that we were all asking ourselves, whether we were in a position of responsibility or not, was: What is the nature, the cause for the position in what are now called the distressed areas? Is this a new problem that we are facing? Is it a problem that belongs to the post-War era? Why should coal, shipbuilding, and cotton not recover their pre-War prosperity? Is there any contraction in the world markets for these particular goods? If it be that this depression is still going to last, what about the men who are engaged in these occupations if they are going to prove to be surplus to the requirements of these particular industries? Is there a key held in the increasing developments of other trades? Is there any truth in a view that has been expressed, that labour was anchored to these depressed areas, it may be, by old custom, by hopes that might not be realised, by the unemployment benefit, by Poor Law relief and by a dozen things? One more question. Was there any danger that the provision of relief works in those districts would hold out hopes that, as relief works are mostly of a temporary nature, there would be a possibility of the old work being found and resumed in those districts? In short, would there be any chance of normal employment in the old industry, or would there be any chance, on the other hand, of the State endeavouring to support the employment market permanently over large areas, as they had done in the smaller places, in the earlier years of unemployment?

Those were the questions that faced every one at the beginning of last winter —every one who thought seriously about these things—and they were not questions that could be answered in a moment. It was in an effort to find an answer to these questions that the Government in January last appointed the Industrial Transference Board. But before I come to that Board, I would make one observation on the increase of the unemployment figures to which the right hon. Gentleman most naturally alluded in the course of his speech, because those figures only go to confirm the necessity of finding an answer to these particular questions. If you take the large increase in unemployment between the end of May and the end of June, which is the last I have analysed, you will find that out of the 101,000 increase more than half are either wholly unemployed or temporarily stopped in coal mining; half the remainder are in cotton, woollens, and worsteds; and, if you add shipbuilding and marine engineering, you get the bulk of the unemployment that has arisen. While you have that increase of unemployment, it is worth while remembering—and you must look at all sides of the case—that the insured persons between the ages of 16 and 64 in employment at the end of June are practically the same as they were a year ago; and that in March, April, and May this year they were actually, fractionally higher.

Such figures of production as I have had taken out by the Board of Trade confirm the impression that this set-back in trade is mainly confined to the great staple industries, principally coal and cotton, but the general trade of the country has been maintained. It is small comfort to know that, while no other industrial country has suffered the same sharp set-back that we have, the depression in the principal textile industries abroad is well-marked. It does not make our problem any easier. I merely mention it, but these, the latest figures which I have been able to analyse, throw into a vivid light this fact—that the problem which we have to deal with, serious as it is, is local and confined. That in some ways makes it easier to deal with, and in some ways more difficult.

One word about the personnel of this Board. I myself chose Sir Warren Fisher as Chairman, partly because of his remarkable ability, partly for his driving powers, which old Members of the House will remember at the time of the first Insurance Act in 1911, and partly, as I did the other Members of the Board, because they are men with vision and human sympathy. I selected Sir John Cadman for the same reason. There you have a man familiar with many aspects of mining, and also a man of vision and human sympathy. Sir David Shackleton is too well known to hon. Members opposite and the House to call for any mention from me. It may suffice to say that he has been twice Chairman of the Trade Union Congress; that he has had vast industrial experience, and has, I regret to say, some considerable personal knowledge of unemployment and what unemployment means. In those three men we had a variety of gifts, and a keen appreciation of the human side of the problem which we have to deal with—the side that is, after all, the most important. We gave them no executive' powers. They had no money to spend. Their terms were to study the question of transfer.

:Were those questions mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman just now submitted to them?

I did not put them in that form, but they are, obviously, questions which anyone considering this matter must have regard to. It is quite clear that the policy of relief works certainly has outlived its usefulness in the sense that it alone can be relied upon, because the areas that we are considering are not recovering. Men are still in enforced idleness, and it is impossible in these circumstances to sit down and do nothing and simply to wait. Industrial development in this country is going on—I do not think there can be any question about that taking the country as a whole—and it ought to be perfectly possible for the growing prosperity of other areas, in the South and the Midlands, to afford some relief to the depressed areas. If the change of equilibrium really is a, fact—the equilibrium of the more prosperous industries—then it ought to be possible, where development is still proceeding, to find help for the places where development has been arrested. That really is the key to a large portion of the Report. It is a striking report; it is an interesting report, it is a report which I hope will be read widely up and down the country, and I will take the risk of it earning or keeping the epithet designed for it by the Leader of the Opposition.

The Report, broadly, answers three questions: What is the need for transfer: what are the possibilities of transfer and what help can be given to transfer? As to the need, in the earlier portion of the Report, in paragraphs 11 and 12 and later in paragraphs 16 and 18, the Board go into that question and give a very definite opinion. They mention a figure which has been quoted all over the country. In their view, there are no less than 200,000 men who cannot count on regular employment in their own industry and home area. They set out their reasons, and they state what we all know is the serious effect of concentration. When we are dealing with transfer, I think we ought to remember that in some ways the miner, in spite of the hard things that are often said about the industry of mining, is a man very closely wedded to his own industry. He feels uprooting more than most if he has to get work elsewhere.

If the unemployment that exists in these districts were spread evenly all over the country, the seriousness of the position would be far less. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh! "] It is very obvious. Not only does it concentrate unemployment but the small areas obviously are the first to suffer from poverty—I mean poverty of the local administration—and that again throws further hardship and greater difficulties on those areas. There is one other thing about which we have heard a good deal and which has something to do with unemployment. We have heard a good deal in the last two or three years about reorganisation and rationalisation. These are words not easy to define, but I think people have an idea of what they mean. They are used as comforting words. They were used very much during all the coal trouble of 1926. I think some of the leaders at that time had a pretty good idea of what reorganisation or rationalisation might mean, because as far as they were concerned, I think some of them were prepared to take the consequences—and very serious they would have been.

But, unfortunately, reorganisation or rationalisation in its process is by no means comfortable. It means really concentration in the most efficient pits or plants—according to what the works are, and it means, in addition to that, the most efficient management. Everywhere that process goes on it means a certain amount of displacement of labour. On the other side, let us remember that in world competition, in the long run, there is no room for any industry that is not efficient and has not cleared its decks for action. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to a speech which I made in Manchester on the cotton trade. I think that speech contained a very unpleasant, but a very wholesome truth. There is no doubt this process of reorganisation is now going on in this country to an extent to which it has never gone on before, and the only comfort that there is—and we are entitled to look for any that we can see—the only comfort, I think, that will emerge when we are through this task, is that I believe our industries when they have recovered will be better managed, better organised, and pulling together better than they have ever been in the past. That is the reason why, in regard to the future of industry as a whole, I am an optimist. I do not believe that this country is played out or is going to be played out. We have a horrible, and a difficult problem indeed, but, bad as it is, do not let us exaggerate.

For a time we have this surplus. The Transference Board accept the existence of the surplus as a fact, and we must accept it. Now the first aim of unemployment policy ought to be so far as possible —and this is pointed out in the report—to break up concentrated unemployment by the absorption of as many as possible in areas that are prosperous. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am going to elaborate the point, and it will be for other speakers, if they think so, to say that the process is impossible. I agree that it is a hard doctrine. The transference of a man from his own home is hard—the separation from his old surroundings and from old associations and making a new start in life. But you have to look at the alternative. There is nothing gained by not looking facts in the face frankly. They have to be courageously faced, and there are leaders in industry to-day who are facing them courageously, and if they do anything else it can only mean, in the long run, bitter disappointment. That is the " first and strongest lesson"—that is their phrase—"that their work has provided"; but their second lesson strikes the note of hope, that is, the hope of absorption. It is on that note that I wish to say a few words.

They say, as the result of their investigations, that if men are willing to move, help is possible. I said a few minutes ago that I hoped everyone would read this Report, and I said it for this reason, because it is a book which as a human document will stir the hearts of people who read it and quicken their sympathies and imagination, and also I think that to all classes it shows ways of sympathy, imagination, and unselfishness. The Board describe—and I do not think they waste time in doing it—the elastic working of labour engagement. They point out how each week there are 120,000 labour engagements, a stream up and down the country of men coming out of and going into work, a regular and normal movement of the population; and there is in that movement a very vivid contrast to which I would draw the attention of the House. London, with an insured population of over 2,000,000, has an employment figure as small as 5 per cent., many of whom are in-and-out workers. Compare that with Glamorgan, with 22 per cent.; Monmouth, with 21 per cent.; Northumberland, with 19 per. cent.; and Durham, with 22 per cent. Leicestershire has an unemployment of 4½ per cent., and Merthyr 60 per cent.; Warwickshire, under 7 per cent.; and Gateshead, 30 per cent.

Are those areas going to draw a barbed wire fence round themselves and say that no man is to come inside them? Are they going to keep men from their areas, men who have to look to continuous and continued unemployment? It might be that a slow infiltration into such districts might make some difference to an odd man here or there unemployed in a prosperous district, but not as much as has been loudly stated, for the employment market is not a field that has close limits and boundaries. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the figure of 350,000 men more in work to-day than were at work in 1924, and that in spite of the unemployment problem. That shows the elasticity of the market. It shows that production outside these areas is increasing. The industrial structure is, as the Board say, a living organism, not a corpse; it is an organism in its capacity to develop and to throw out new roots; and, after all, however much you object in these prosperous areas to men coming into them from South Wales or Durham, if those men want to come, no power will stop them. If there be work in a district for a man of vigour and enterprise who may choose to go and find it, he will surely go, and it is far better, if men do so go, that they should go with the help of the Employment Exchanges, and that the risks and hazards of their journey should be reduced to a minimum rather than that they should go penniless and find no friends on their arrival. It is a choice really between helping a man or leaving him in a position where he would be hopeless for the rest of his life; and let us remember this, that most of these men of whom I am speaking, the great majority, are men of steadiness and of fine character; they are willing and able to work. There is no charity in this; it is the duty of the community to help them.

I must pass on now to what we have in our intention with regard to certain recommendations of the Board, and I will say a few words, having dealt so far with the possibilities of absorption in this country, on the question of migraton. Members of all parties in this House and all sections of the Press have from time to time discussed the policy of overseas settlement, and, not unnaturally, during the last few years the discussions have been influenced by our own difficulties, but the point of view from which we regard migration is this We do not look upon it as a device for shifting our own unemployment burden on to the Dominions, nor do we wish to persuade men to go overseas simply because they are unemployed. The test by which we judge the desirability or otherwise of encouraging a man to leave his home here and to make a fresh start elsewhere in the Empire must always be, not his failure to secure for himself employment and a living here, but the likelihood of his making good in his new home.

The basis of our co-operation with the Dominions in this matter—and obviously the problem is one which has to be dealt with by co-operation—must always be that of identity of interests; and the interests are identical. It lies, on their side, in securing the man-power they need to develop the resources of great new countries, and, even more important—much more important—the best type of men to help them to build up a civilisation. It lies, on our side, in an improvement of the whole industrial situation by developing our overseas markets and in a general strengthening of the whole fabric of Empire by a better distribution of its population. You have to look to generations to come, and nothing strikes anyone, I think, on a visit to Canada or any other Dominion more than the opportunity given to the children—the room, the space.

The Industrial Transference Board naturally devote considerable attention to this matter. Their view—and those of you who have read the Report will recognise this—is that in the Overseas Dominions, notably Canada and Australia, with their wide territories and great natural resources, there are great possibilities for a very large number of men who are willing to turn their hand to the first job that comes along and to work hard; but they feel that the intervention of the Governments, with all the caution that is involved owing to political considerations, is gradually turning the idea of a courageous adventure—with a big chance of success, even if there may be some risk of failure—into a slow and restricted policy of migration confined to guaranteed employment. It is not in this way that the Dominions were built up or began their fine story, nor is it in this way that they will attract large numbers of British people. By all means let the Governments watch and foster the industry of agriculture overseas and get men from here to work in it; we have cooperated with them, by the provision of training in agriculture and in other ways, and we will continue to do so.

But, after all, Canada and Australia will not rest on agriculture alone, nor do the people who want to try their luck in those Dominions all wish to work in agriculture. They want to use their skill, such as they have, to the best advantage. It is not that the spirit of adventure which stirred the old pioneers has left the British people; it is that the call to adventurers has not come across as it used to in the old days. When men contemplate what is before them here and compare their prospects with their chances overseas, I want to see them have the right to choose for themselves, to be able to put their choice into practice, and when they get over there to be welcomed. These are exact points that, after this Debate, will have to be, thrashed out between the Ministers of the Dominions and the Ministers of this country. The movement should not be hampered by what the Industrial Transference Board describe as the "cumulatively discouraging effect" of a restrictive and formal procedure. There again there are differences of opinion on the two sides, and it is good that we should each know, we on our part why certain restrictions are put on, and the Dominions where it is that the restrictions are found to pinch. It is on these very things that we want the fullest and frankest communication between us.

We see our way in certain directions to the adoption of a more active policy, both under the Empire Settlement Act and otherwise. In the matter of preliminary training on this side, for instance, the experience of the last few years and the reports we have had as to the success of trainees overseas, have decided us to embark upon a substantial expansion of our policy in this direction. We intend to take up a number of other proposals, including those suggested by the Industrial Transference Board. Many of these are matters for discussion and negotiation, and it would be premature for us to-day to lay down anything in the nature of a precise programme; but the Under-Secretary for the Dominions, Lord Lovat, is going out in a few days to Canada, to Australia, and to New Zealand, to follow up the general discussions already initiated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs during his recent tour. He will discuss fairly and freely with the representatives of the Dominions all these matters which I have mentioned, and I look forward confidently to the co-operation of the Dominions with him.

The training of young people is, to my mind, one of the most important works we have undertaken, at present not on a very large scale. Juvenile unemployment centres have been opened this year throughout the depressed areas. Already over 700 boys have been successfully transferred from their own areas to other areas. For girls, there are similar training centres run by the Central Committee on Women's Training. These, too, have been extended and are providing a steady flow of recruits into domestic service. For young single men, 3,500 are being trained this year already at nonresidential centres in Birmingham, Bristol, Dudley, and Wallsend, where the general employability of these young men is improved by training and the use of tools and by shop discipline. It is extremely satisfactory to know that over 92 per cent. of the men so trained last year were placed in employment. Another similar centre is going to be opened this autumn in Scotland. There are two residential centres in East Anglia where they teach the rudiments of agriculture to young men ready to go overseas. They have been an unqualified success, and another school is going to be opened in Scotland.

I am afraid I have not got the details. I had the pleasure of seeing, not long ago, a party of Scotch Canadian farmers who had been at this training school in East Anglia, and they were delighted with the quality of the men they saw and the efficient way in which they were learning their work. They said they would be glad to have as many men as they could get if they were all of that calibre, and they were amazed to learn that they came from the ranks of what in America they call the men "on the dole." I spent a good deal of my time in Canada explaining what that phrase really meant.

In regard to training facilities generally, the Government adopt the suggestion of the Industrial Transference Board as to extensions wherever they may be required, and they endorse the Board's views as to the efforts of the Employment Exchange service to find openings for these young men and boys and girls, efforts which, I trust, will receive a fine, whole-hearted response.

If men are willing to transfer, and are made suitable for work in other industries by training, they cannot always afford the cost of the transfer. This is particularly true of married men who wish to move their homes. To help them the Government have authorised the Employment Exchanges to advance the cost of travelling both for the man and his family, to advance the charges for removal expenses, to advance to a married man for a limited period money which he can send to his family while he is fixing himself up in another area, and in suitable cases, where wages will not be paid until some days after starting work, an advance against his next wages. These payments are by way of loan recoverable by easy instalments. That has been deliberately chosen, because many men are averse from any form of charity. With reference to what I said in the earlier part of my speech about employment at home, I want to make an appeal not only to the employers of labour in this country, but to all the people in this country whom my voice may reach. The machinery of transfer cannot stir without an impulse and a motive power. The power comes from two sources, the willingness of the men to take advantage of the facilities—and I agree that they will do so—and the willingness of all employers, big and little, industrial, commercial and private, to hold out a helping hand.

This permanent unemployment in these areas is a sore in the whole body politic. To cure it, or to relieve it—for it cannot be cured in a short time by any power on earth, governmental or otherwise—but to cure it or to relieve it will need the help, as it ought to be given, of the whole community. Whatever the Government can do it will do, but no Government can do the whole. For the boys and girls, I appeal to all those who can imagine their own children in a similar plight, and to all who have a concern for the future of our race. It requires only a short but strong co-operative effort to lift the load of this particular anxiety from the hearts of the parents in those areas. That difficult problem of the boys will help to solve itself in the next few years, because of the fall in the birth rate. [ Laughter. ] Well, it makes it easier for those who have to fight their way. For the young men, too, I appeal to employers, great and small, to give them their fair chance. They are willing, and every day the Ministry of Labour are receiving letters from young men who have been helped to work in other areas. They are making good in large numbers, and are contented where they are. I appeal, lastly, for the most difficult class—the married men with families. There is a striking paragraph which everyone will read in that Report. It is the duty of the community—

—as far as they can, to find work for the boy, girl or single man and to make the same efforts for the married man. I appeal for this help—immediate, practical, sustained, with nothing spectacular. This can be done inch by inch in accumulations of offers of work. Where people can offer work for one or two in accordance with their power, they will give the best help that can be given. I hope that employers, large and small, will do their best to provide employment, and that just as they found employment after the War for the wounded and ex-Service men, so to-day they will find employment for men who are strong, able and willing to work, and whose wound is in their spirit.

I have only two more points to make. With regard to export credits, the Government have had under consideration the Export Credits Guarantee Scheme. That will come to an end next year in the absence of further legislation. The Estimates Committee of this House have conducted recently a searching investigation into the working of the scheme. They have expressed themselves as satisfied with its great practical advantages to the export trade. This is certainly not the time in which we can allow any assistance of that kind to be dropped, and we propose in due course to institute legislation extending the Scheme for a further two years from September of next year. We shall also set up an inquiry into the administrative expenses connected with the Scheme, as recommended by the Estimates Committee.

I come last to the question which was raised by the Leader of the Opposition, and that has reference to what was called the anticipation of the rating scheme or part of the scheme. The House will recall that, as an integral part of the Government scheme for the relief of productive industry, it is proposed that the freight-carrying railways shall receive the benefits of de-rating on condition that the relief thus afforded is devoted to the reduction of the freight charges on certain selected traffics. One of the traffics which will benefit under this part of the scheme is coal, and it has been suggested to the Government from various quarters, and more particularly from the basic industries and from the distressed mining areas, that the freight relief on coal would be more effective if confined to coal for export and foreign bunkers, and for blast furnaces and steel works. This suggestion has received exhaustive consideration, and the Government have come to the conclusion that it would be in the public interest to concentrate the freight relief on coal in this manner. It is obvious that the more relief is concentrated, the greater will be the relief to the traffics concerned, and as, under the present suggestion, the traffics concerned are related to the more depressed sections of our basic industries, we agree that this part of the freight relief should be focussed in this way.

In connection with the question of freight relief, we have also considered whether it will be possible to expedite its operation in any measure. If this could be done, it would again affect depressed industries and distressed areas, and therefore the proposal is deserving of the most serious examination. The cost of the freight reductions under the Government scheme was, as the House will recall, estimated by my right hon. Friend at roughly £4,000,000 a year, and the question we have examined is that of applying freight reductions equivalent to this sum in annual cost, at some date prior to 1st October, 1929. These freight reductions, I may add, would apply to all the selected traffics, agricultural and industrial, which were named by my right hon. Friend in the Budget statement, except that as regards coal the traffics to be relieved would be confined in the way which I have just described. It is impossible to forecast with any precision how far reductions of freight charges on these lines would of themselves succeed in stimulating the particular traffics concerned. But such reductions should be of some assistance both to export coal and to the iron and steel industry, itself the greatest industrial user of coal, and we are therefore disposed to regard the proposal favourably.

On the other hand, our adoption of this proposal must be contingent on our being satisfied that the railway companies themselves are making a genuine effort to effect economies. Moreover, it would be our intention, whether in the final scheme or in anticipation of it, to ensure that the reductions thereby effected in freight charges should not be used either by the railway companies or by the Railway Rates Tribunal as a reason for singling out those traffics for an adverse variation of the rates under the general powers of the Act of 1921. Several matters of machinery have yet to be arranged and certain negotiations have yet to take place, but no time will be lost. Subject to what I have said, and contingent upon it, we shall ask Parliament when we meet in the autumn to make the necessary provision for bringing into force these freight reductions in advance of the general Berating scheme and making them operative from 1st December of this year instead of 1st October, 1929. We shall, of course, so frame our interim proposals that they will merge in the most convenient way into the rest of the scheme on the 1st October following. I apologise to the House for the length of time I have taken in examination of the Report, and in putting before the House the various proposals of the Government.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman with reference to the clause in the document which he has just read which states that the relief in rates to be given to the railways is contingent upon themselves making a genuine effort at economies, are we to take it that that request is the reason for the present attempt of the railway companies to force down the conditions of service of their servants?

At the commencement of his speech the Prime Minister called attention to the fact that I was smiling. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I was not smiling at the end of his speech. It was so empty of what we expected, that I have a feeling of perfect dejection and a feeling that the case of my right hon. Friend has not been answered, that no attempt, indeed, has been made to answer it. I shall have to re-state it, in order that some other member of the Government may see what the position is, and may attempt an answer to the condemnation that we are moving. Why are we moving this condemnation? The Prime Minister himself has supplied a reason, for, in speaking of the Report and the subject with which he dealt, he said that this is a case of national emergency. That is our case. It is a case of national emergency with which the Government have never pretended to deal until its dying months of office, and then they deal with in in this fashion. It is because of their failure to deal with the national emergency that we bring this Motion of Censure. I cannot understand how any responsible Member of this House, much less a Prime Minister, can accept as a thing sent from Heaven, as a definite fact, that coal, shipbuilding, cotton, iron and steel are to be considered as closed occupations with surpluses of labour.

6.0 p.m.

If that be indeed the case, then our nation is in a very parlous state. I cannot accept the contention, also, that because labour happens to be anchored in certain places where it has been accustomed to doing its work that it is through any lack of desire on the part of the workers to move that this state of things exists, and that it can be remedied by getting workers to move from place to place. Where is the district in this country where there is not considerable unemployment? From John o'Groat's to Land's End is there a single district where there is an opening for labour? Is there anywhere where the unemployed can turn and say "This is a district where workers are wanted and we are willing to go." There is no district of that kind. One or two experiences have been brought out by question and answer in the House recently. Men have been sent from South Wales to go round with ice-cream trucks in London, although there are thousands of London workers willing to do the job. Men were sent from Durham to the North of Scotland, to an area where the unemployment is even greater than in Durham. If that be the principle on which any Board is going to work, the movement of unemployed men from one place to another place where there are already unemployed, I think it is a mistake in principle.

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would be the last man to wish to misrepresent the facts. The men to whom he refers as being sent to the North of Scotland were not sent by us at all. They went on their own account.

I understood the answer to be that the men had been sent from Durham to Scotland, but, naturally, I withdraw my statement at once, and accept the statement of the hon. Gentleman. But there is no question about the South Wales men having been brought to London, and of some of them having become stranded in London. If it be the policy to take unemployed men from a place where unemployment is great to another place where unemployment exists but is less great, the principle is no good; and if it be the case—and we have a feeling that it has happened in some cases—that a job which does not exist has been offered to a man for the purpose of getting the man to refuse it, and then to take him off the unemployment benefit list, I say the action of the Government and the Ministry of Labour in particular, is absolutely unpardonable. The whole statement of the Prime Minister has left us with nothing except a problematical moving of unemployed men into districts where there is slightly less unemployment but where there is still considerable unemployment. There is nothing in the statement to give rise to the hope that a single new job will be found for any man. It is a case of moving men like pawns are moved on a chess-board. When you move one pawn you move another to its place, but the pawns are still there, and both may be useless. That is the case with the unemployed who are to be moved about in this way.

Let us consider exactly what the condition of the country is. I think the right hon. Gentleman has not really tried to explain the lack of effort of the Government since they came into office. They have been in office nearly four years. What was the condition of things when they came into office? At the end of June, 1924, the unemployment figures were 1,009,000. On the 2nd of July this year they were 1,217,000. All the action, or inaction, of the Government has had the actual result of adding 208,000 to the number of the unemployed. But this was the Government which was going to stabilise things! The only thing they have stabilised is unemployment. They have made that perfectly stable; and in the last Report the stability is accepted as an act of God. We are told that the surpluses in certain trades will unquestionably exist. There was another thing which existed when this Government came into office four years ago. In 1924, the increases in wage rates during the year meant over £500,000 a week to the workers of this country. The decreases in wage rates this year, up to the end of June, were equivalent to £105,000 a week. The Government have succeeded in stabilising continual reductions in wages, whereas the Government which preceded them saw increases in wages.

The Prime Minister has made no effort at all to explain what the Government have done to deal with this state of things since they came into power. [An HON. MEMBER: "They have done nothing!"] Yes, they have made the position worse. The position is considerably worse than it was when they came into office. The percentages of the unemployed are a better guide than any other guide the Ministry of Labour figures give, and even their figures do not reveal the actual position. Everybody knows that thousands of people who would have been paid benefits under the scheme of 1924 have been refused benefits under different acts of the Administration and of the Legislature since then. But, the percentages, taking them as they come to us, show that at the end of June, 1924, the percentage of unemployed in all the trades, safeguarded and other, was 9.4, and at the end of June in this year 10.8. That shows an increase of 15 per cent. on the figure of 9.4 for 1924. Who are the people, principally, who are unemployed? Dock workers, iron and steel workers, coal miners, building trade workers, woollen and worsted trade workers. Why, even motor and vehicle workers have a higher rate of unemployment now, and theirs is a safeguarded trade.

Think of the types of trade in which this excessive unemployment exists. They are just the types of trade on which we have always depended to keep this country comparatively rich—it never has been rich—by European standards. They are the trades which manufactured goods for export, the trades which made the machines for the manufacture of the goods, the trade employing the men who have hewn the coal for the driving of the machines, and the trades employing the men who carried the goods overseas and brought back foodstuffs and other things which we cannot produce here. The trades where prosperity is great—if indeed there be a single one where prosperity is great; at any rate, the trades where there is relative prosperity are the luxury trades, and the trades which in no way produce the wealth or even distribute the wealth of the nation.

During their four years of office the Government have continually failed to forecast correctly what the developments were likely to be. Only recently the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Labour was defending an Insurance Act which was based on the assumption that there was going to be a considerable reduction in unemployment. The financial basis of that scheme, the actuary's report, was built up, upon the instructions of the Ministry of Labour, on the assumption that a considerable reduction in unemployment was going to take place. I blame the Government for their absolute failure to see where their policy, or lack of policy, was leading them, and for having failed so seriously to forecast anything like the events that have happened. The Report of the Transference Board has been drawn up by men to whom, personally, none of us take exception. I think we all agree with the Prime Minister as to the type of men of which the Board is composed. But the Report is a document more striking for what it omits than for what it contains.

According to this Report, there is only one possible avenue of development in our country, and that is afforestation. Yet everybody knows of the water-logged land in the country. Anybody who travels north can see it. They do not need to be told of it, they can see it. This Report does not say a word about water-logged land. It does not say a, word about the possibilities of crofters in Scotland. It does not say a word about the demand of people in Scotland for land which they cannot get. It does not say a word about the possibility of reclaiming for agriculture a lot of our land which is at present used for other purposes. Apparently it knows nothing of the problem of coast erosion. Apparently it knows nothing of the possibilities of land reclamation. All these things are apparently outside the ken of this Board. The Prime Minister must forgive us if we assume that the whole of the problem has not been studied by the Board. The assumption of the Board is that there is some plan which will make it possible for unemployed workers to be absorbed in some jobs, not specified, in some districts, not specified, and in a way not specified, leaves me cold. I see no justification at all for the assumption that you can put any large number of unemployed men and women to work in any district in this country. It may be possible, by the most careful arrangements, to find work here and there, to manufacture a job here and there, but not on a large scale, and we are talking now not in thousands but in thousands of thousands. To talk of a problem like this being dealt with seriously because in London you may be able to find a job for a man who is out of work in Lancashire, although next door there is a man out of work in London who could do the job, the idea that by this process of moving men on a chess-board you can create a miracle, is just as foolish as the assumption of the Ministry of Labour that it could build up an Act on the assumption that there was going to be a reduction of hundreds of thousands in the list of the unemployed. There is no guarantee of this, and there is no likelihood of it, and whether the Transference Board be composed of very excellent gentlemen, as it is, or whether it be not so composed, I can see no possibility of any large increase in employment in this country unless we have a different policy and unless we get the work which will provide the jobs which the men can fill.

We are told that the process proposed, along with emigration, will do a great deal to solve our problems. We are not told about the roads which need making, about the bridges which need building or the docks and harbours which need building. All these things could be done by the nation at wages, and they would make the nation more efficient, make the country happier and make it better able to hold its own successfully, in the competition which there must be, with other nations. Only efficiency—I am taking the word of the Prime Minister, with which I thoroughly agree—will bring a nation to the top. By the top I mean to the acquisition of such happiness as material things will give. There is no getting to the top except by efficiency. Is it efficiency to let things go on as they are? I know that the Government have a perfect right to protect themselves. There may be municipalities which see a job at their own doors which needs doing, which they can afford to pay for, and which would pay for itself, who will come and want the Government to pay for the job. They have to guard themselves against municipalities of that type. There can be no question that the doing of this useful national work would be infinitely better than anything the Government have done up to the present moment. The policy of the Government up to now has been rather to cripple and hamper that work than to help it, and that policy is bad for the nation. If I may make a suggestion in regard to palliative work, I would suggest that the whole machinery is wrong, and if the Government intend to carry on this work with its present machinery, I predict that it will take them a tremendous time.

If the Government are prepared to take a little advice from their political opponents I will make a suggestion. Instead of going on like they have done for the past four years, drifting from bad to worse, they should have done something to palliate a little of the misery that exists. The Government action has been spasmodic. I am quite aware that the Treasury cannot keep an open purse, and always be ready to find money for this and that public work. That is not to be expected. I suggest that the departments which can do this national work should be co-ordinated with the Minister of Labour as chairman of a Committee of Ministers, and the Minister of Labour should become the Minister for employment instead of being the Minister for unemployment. There should be a sum of money earmarked and paid into a fund year by year, so that we should have a co-ordinated system and method of doing this particular work.

With regard to the proposals of the Government, one of them is that training should be developed. You may train a man to be the finest workman in the world, but if you cannot give him a chance of showing his skill, you may have benefited the man but not the nation. The problem we have to face is to find jobs for the men we have now out of employment, and your system of training is merely adding to the number of those who are unemployed. Under the present system of the Government there is not a solitary job provided by the training, and it simply increases the number of skilled men who are quite helpless, because they have not an opportunity of exercising their skill. The real method of solving the unemployment problem is not by adopting palliatives or moving men from one place to another, or by adopting a system of training. The only real remedy is to make the men more efficient and make our country a more efficient competitor in the world's market.

The ex-Prime Minister spoke of the difficulties caused owing to the extraordinary watering of capital which had taken place in some of our large industries. I have been associated with the cotton trade for a good many years, and I worked in that trade for 21 years as a worker; in fact, I have been connected with the cotton trade all my life. I say unhesitatingly that there are no men and women in the world who can make cotton so well as Lancashire people can make it, and yet we have a large amount of unemployment in the cotton industry. The real reason is that men want to make profits on watered capital that was never really put into the concern at all, and they base their prices in order to give a profit on that watered capital. If the prices do not show a profit on that watered capital, then those people call it a loss. That water has got to be squeezed out, and until that is done there is no hope of prosperity in the cotton trade. We have been told that there are great possibilities for the future, but a man far more optimistic than the Prime Minister has told us that in the coal, iron and steel and shipbuilding trades there is a surplus of labour which, to a very large extent, will never again be employed in those trades.

It must not be forgotten that the whole world has developed at the same time, and it is almost certain that although we have increased in population only 5 per cent., our former customers have increased 6 per cent. Consequently, we ought to be going from better to better and not from better to worse. There is no reason why we should be in this condition, except the reason that our boasted competitive system cannot make itself effective. I would like to call the attention of practical business men opposite, and particularly the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) to this extraordinary fact, that the competitive system has managed the business of this country so well that you now have 1,250,000 unemployed, you have large industries in which the machinery is lying idle, and you cannot bring those idle hands to work those machines. We are supposed to be a practical people.

:Does the right hon. Gentleman contend that the present unfortunate economic state of affairs is the result of the competitive system?

It certainly is not the result of a Socialist system, and as you have the capitalist system in existence, I say that it is your competitive system that has caused the present state things. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is your remedy?"] My remedy will not be found in watered capital. It is perfectly clear that you cannot make your competitive system work, and for hon. Members opposite to tell us that the competitive system is better than Socialism is merely to talk with their tongues in their cheeks. Hon. Members opposite do not believe in competition at all, and the moment they get an opportunity they do their best to eliminate competition altogether. That is the capitalistic system. Money is a great power in this country, but there are great possibilities of development abroad. I believe that by a wise arrangement with the Indian people we could help India to become more efficient in regard to agricultural problems. I think the Government ought to do all it can to help in every way, even if it means paying money to that huge part of the Empire of India to enable it to develop itself more rapidly. A policy of that kind would not only enrich India, but would enrich this country at the same time.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with some of his colleagues behind him to interfere less in Indian affairs?

In reply to that interruption, all I can say is that the only person who put forward a practical scheme for helping India in regard to helping agriculture was my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston). The hon. Member for Moseley must recollect that there are one or two things that he does not know. It is idle to suggest that India is farther from our point of view than she is from the hon. Member's point of view? Does the hon. Member suggest that Canada is farther from our point of view than from his point of view? I think the hon. Member should recollect that the day has gone by when the Tory party can claim the Empire. We decline to accept the suggestion that we are not Imperialists. My opinion is that we can make a much better Empire than the Tory party. [An HON. MEMBER: "You cannot make it worse!"]

I think it is about time that we began to realise that we cannot put the Tsars back on the throne of Russia. We used to wonder what the millions we spent in attacking Russia were spent for. I believe it was the hon. and gallant Member for Handsworth (Commander Locker-Lampson) who made a speech in which he said millions of candles were burning in Russian hearts waiting for the great return. If the hon. and gallant Member thinks that you can put the Tsars back on the throne, then God help him! In my own constituency we have had one order from Russia for 5,000,000 yards of cotton goods. I am anxious for our trade with Russia to be developed, and it will not be developed until hon. Members stop making such references as the one I have quoted. I do not approve of Russians sticking their paws into our affairs and I hold no brief for our people sticking their paws into Russian affairs. I hold no brief for the Soviet system of government, but I say it is our business to do trade with every country we can. We never refused to trade with Russia when Siberia and the knout were in operation, and why should we refuse now?

:May I say that I am associated with companies which are doing a very substantial trade with Russia at the present time?

I am very glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say that. I hope that he will talk in a fraternal way with the Government, and particularly with the Home Secretary, and see if he cannot convince them that it will be much better to do a great deal more trade with Russia than we are now doing. I now turn to a matter of detail—a very important matter—namely, the condition of the unemployed themselves. There has been a tendency during the last four years—and this is one of the reasons why I shall go into the Lobby against the Government—to act as though the unemployed were in some sort of way responsible for their position; and the Administration has been deliberately trying to put more and more pressure on the unemployed. We claim that the unemployed are not to blame. They are the innocent victims of a set of circumstances which were not caused by them, and from which, as has been repeatedly urged, they should not be allowed to continue to suffer. I hope, therefore, that the idea that the unemployed are in any way blameworthy will be dropped entirely. They should be treated as innocent victims, and should receive our fullest sympathy, and, where doubt exists, they should have the benefit of the doubt. I question very much whether the unemployed man now gets the benefit of the doubt. Judging from what I hear, it is rather the other way; if a doubt exists, the opportunity is used by the insurance officers to try to take away the man's benefit. I want a reversal of that policy, so that, where a doubt exists, the benefit of it will be given frankly and freely to the unemployed man.

There is another point that I want to put to the Government. We are competing with other nations, and, speaking particularly of the European nations, there is not a belligerent nation in Europe except ourselves that has taken the same line of policy with regard to loans. In respect of War Loans, we are bearing a crushing burden, altogether out of proportion to any burden borne by any of the other nations. While, in the case of other nations, the loan-holders have been paid on the value, and even less than the value, of money at the time when the loans were made, we are paying at a much larger rate in interest than is represented by the money that was actually lent. I venture to assert, and it is for any member of the Government to disprove it, that for every yard of cloth and every pair of boots that we paid as interest on War Loans when the money was lent, we are now paying at least two yards of cloth and two pairs of boots by way of interest. How can a country go on with a burden like that? When money is in question, we pay to the uttermost farthing, and beyond the uttermost farthing; we make the loan-holder richer than he was before; but we make the unemployed man poorer. We do that in spite of the fact that we see every other European belligerent country treating its War Loan strictly in accordance with the real value that it had when the War began.

We are therefore, in the position that we are paying twice as much as we ought to pay, while others pay half, and then we wonder why it is that the burden is becoming too great. That is another beautiful little thing that was done by the party opposite. I suggest to them that there is a way of reducing very largely the burden borne by this country. It could be reduced by saving frankly, "When this money was lent, your interest would have purchased certain things; we will make your money now worth so much that you will be able to purchase exactly the same amount of goods as before." That would be a fair and reasonable thing to do, and I suggest it as a means of relieving this country of a great deal of its burden.

The Government have given no answer to our case as to the development of our own nation; they have given no answer to our case that conditions have grown worse in the last four years; they have given no answer to our case that during these four years everything of a palliative nature has been whittled down instead of improved. The Government have no case against our statement that the condition of the unemployed has been made very much worse, and, above and beyond all, the Government have no answer to the case that the industries which are really suffering in this country are the industries on which the country lives, and must live. Mere flashes in the pan in luxury industries are no good if the great essential industries of shipping, iron and steel, cotton and coal are not prosperous in this country, and, because nothing that has been done by the Government has even helped to make those industries more prosperous, we shall go into the Lobby and vote for this Censure Motion.

The views on unemployment stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) in this House have always been full of interest, and I do not think that on the present occasion he has fallen below his previous level. There was much in his speech with which I could have agreed, but he ended on two points in regard to which we must inevitably diverge. He apparently attributed some of the unemployment from which this country is suffering to-day to the fact that we are not on those terms with Russia which he would desire. I do not think that anyone will regard me as being in any way a person who is averse from either trading with Russia or making an agreement with Russia, because, indeed, I made one. My opinion on the question, therefore, may, I think, be regarded as at least impartial. If there is any country that is supposed to be doing better than ourselves in trade with Russia to-day, it is America, and yet Americao never made any trade agreement with Russia, and has never ceased to flout Russia and treat her with contempt at every possible opportunity. That is the case, not merely with the employers of America or with the United States Government, but trade congresses meeting in America have, for several years now, made a point at their annual conferences of making an attack upon a system and a method in Russia which they believe to be detrimental to civilised society. If America, in such circumstances, can gain trade with Russia, it is perfectly plain that it cannot be because of any action that we have taken in regard to Russia that we are not enjoying to-day that trade with Russia which the right hon. Gentleman would desire to see.

I pass from that point to the right hon. Gentleman's final remark upon the difficulties which have been created by our financial policy. I quite agree that there were grave doubts upon and grave consideration of this subject on both sides, and I am sure that it has worried the mind of everyone who has applied his intelligence to its solution. It is true that a considerable part of the debt which we are bearing to-day is upon a higher value than it was at the time when we borrowed the money, and accordingly, that debt is greater than it would have been if it had been repaid—though that was not practicable—to each lender on the basis of the value of the pound at the time when the money was originally lent. It will be seen that that would have been entirely impracticable, because these Government bonds have changed hands at all sorts of prices, and it would have been quite impossible to discover any way of paying out people on separate arrangements. Accordingly, some standard had to be found.

What was the standard to be? Was it to be the standard at which British credit was at the time, or was it to be some lower standard? What were the arguments on the one side and on the other? On the one side it might be said that a lower value for the pound would mean a greater export trade, and, consequently, more business for this country. On the other hand, it is plain that our industrial prosperity in this country has been built upon British credit, and our ability to lend money throughout the world has been the chief source of our export trade. Accordingly, if anything were done to hurt British credit, it would, at the same time, hurt British industry. Everybody, therefore, had to apply his mind to this problem to see on which side the balance of advantage would lie. I do not say that it was easy to come to a conclusion, but I do not think it can be said that those people were wrong who came to the conclusion that it was necessary to keep London still pre-eminent in the money markets of the world if we were to survive as a prosperous nation, if our industry was to revive and if we were to get those orders from abroad upon which in the past we have lived.

I should like now to refer to the very interesting and, as I thought, eloquent speech of the Leader of the Opposition upon this problem. I am sure that no one would disagree with the distressing picture which he drew, nor would anyone cavil at the account which he gave of the poignancy of human distress in the breasts of people who have been bereft of that employment which gives them sustenance, and who have found themselves in so much distress that they have been forced to depend upon public charity. But, at the same time, we are faced with the practical problem, and, while a solution of that problem is very difficult, there are certain things which seem to me to be obvious. Before I come to them, may I refer to some of the criticisms which the Leader of the Opposition made upon the present condition of things, which, as I understood his argument, has involved the loss of employment by our people? He pointed to the large number of firms which have had to be reorganised, with a consequent loss of capital running into many millions of pounds, and, as I understood it, the implication was that under the system of private capital to-day we have created a mass of unemployment which could have been redeemed if employment and industry and organisation had been under the aegis of the State.

The curious thing, however, is that every one of the firms which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned was in the same trade. They were all steel-makers, and I think that the chief reason why all of these organisations got into the difficulties in which they have found themselves in these recent years was because, at the instigation of the Government, they extended their works in a way that they would never have done if they had been left to look after their own private interests. The result has been that, owing to the assistance which they gave to the Government during the War by the increase of steel-making plants in this country, we are to-day saddled with an equipment which cannot, by any chance, find a consuming market for the capacity of its output. That is, at any rate, the main reason why there is this terrible distress in the steel industry. Accordingly, so far from there being any force in the argument on the theory that it would have been better that these industries should have been under the State than under private enterprise, the conclusion is all the other way; these people have met with their disasters because of the action of the State, and not because of their own private views as to the way in which their industry should be conducted.

There was even a more surprising point that I noted in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He dramatically held up a paper in which he instanced a variety of men who held directorships varying from 10 to 20 in number, and gave that as a 'reason why there is such a very large number of people unem- ployed in this country at the present time. I think, however, that he failed to notice, in the first place, that, if you examine some of these cases, you will find that a large number of the companies are mere subsidiaries of original companies, and that what is, in fact, represented by the names of seven or eight companies, is really that large kind of amalgamation which the Labour party so anxiously desiderates. But I go further. I ask this House to consider who the men are who, by their achievements and activity and industry, have been the greatest source of employment to the people of this country. I will take one who has only recently left this House, and will mention Lord Melchett. He is one of the people who must have been in the list of the Leader of the Opposition. He is a director, as I have found in the interval, of 18 companies.

But who, I ask, is doing more in this country to provide opportunities of employment for our workmen I could give a large number of instances of the same kind. Indeed, so far from there being any argument founded upon the number of directorships held by one man, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman opposite will agree that some of the greatest providers of industry are men who are masters of large combinations of people and directors of great amalgamations of companies. The last point he made on this line was that we lost a great deal in the way of industry because capital was misdirected. I have no doubt there are many instances where capital is lost. Some of us have suffered from them. But what is the history of progress? It is that, as far as research is concerned, for example, and the application of new ideas to industries, for one thing that succeeds 10 fail, and a great many losses of capital contribute to the success which urges industry forward and brings prosperity to the country. But compare the situation where you have private enterprise, where a man can lose his own capital without being indebted to anyone, and the case where a Minister is in charge and cannot lose any of the State's capital without having to face an angry House of Commons. If you compare the two systems, it is obvious that whereas you can make advances, no doubt by losses, by the use of private capital, on the other hand under a State system your progress would be like that of a snail.

The Leader of the Opposition made a rather pointed reference to myself. He attacked all those who have gone to the Prime Minister to urge some system of Protection. I think he has not very accurately realised all we were endeavouring to do. I should like to ask Members on the Labour Benches what is really their attitude towards some of the difficulties with which we are faced today. Do they regard with equanimity large importations from abroad of articles of a kind that are made by our own people but which, through these importations, become a source of large unemployment in our industrial districts, and what is going to be their remedy when they find that our people are being thrown out of employment and that we can, on the other hand, make no effort to keep up the old level of exports which previously preserved this country in a state of prosperity? What is the answer in conditions of that kind? Do they look with equanimity upon trades going under, for example? Would they be willing to see them die out, or would they use the old argument in present conditions that it does not matter, and that if one trade dies out some other gets the advantage? Is that really their attitude? If so, I should like to hear them say so.

I listened very carefully to the speech of the Chancellor. The quotation which was made to-day from that speech by no means reflects its real character. He certainly said that a considerable amount of unemployment occurred in trades in which there was really no foreign competition. I pointed out, speaking after him, that coal is one of the things that was worst affected and, while there was no coal imported into this country, there were vast quantities of manufactured goods coming 113 here which used coal and, therefore, came into competition with our coalfields. The instance of the steel trade is very obvious in this connection. If you import, as you did last year, 4,500,000 tons of steel, each of these tons of steel requires four tons of coal to make it, and you can immediately see what the effect on your coal trade is.

But I pass from that. I want to know from the Labour party what their answer is upon this situation, and what is their objection to the safeguarding of industries which I urged upon the Prime Minister yesterday. After all, how does safeguarding work out? We used to hear a great deal of theory upon this matter but now we are in a position, as the result of experience, to judge of the truth of the theory. We used to be told, for example, that any protection given to an internal industry would have the effect of making the employers slack. They would rely upon the protection of the duty and would immediately become very lazy in all their methods. Instead of that happening, what we find is that all the trades that have been safeguarded are going ahead. We were told you could not at once both produce revenue and protect industry. We have had a considerable revenue from all these duties, and at the same time our industries have been protected. We were told also that our export trade would be killed, but we find that in all the industries the export has increased far beyond what has occurred in other trades. We are not going to be overridden to-day by the doctrinal theories of people on the other side of the House. We want to hear what they have to say upon the facts and whether they are prepared to allow trades that are vital to the existence of the country to become too feeble to conduct their business.

I think at present a new attitude is being taken in the country upon ibis matter. I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs Mir. Lloyd George) is present. I wish to refer to a speech he made in Glasgow a month or so ago. It has always been said you could not be a protected country and at the same time be an exporting country. His speech in Glasgow was to the effect that he recalled a speech in which Mr. Gladstone said he never feared America as long as America adopted a tariff. I should imagine everyone to-day would think that remark had been somewhat falsified by experience, but the right hon. Gentleman quoted it with approval and went on to say we were still the greatest selling country in the world. I think he cannot have referred to the statistics of recent trade, because in fact we have been completely surpassed by America as an exporting country. Up to a year or two ago we were the greatest exporting country in the world, but last year the United States of America, although it is a protected country, and although it has the highest real wages of any country in the world, exported £200,000,000 more goods than we did. How can it be said in face of an illustration like that that we should destroy our export trade by indulging in a system of tariffs or safeguarding duties?

I was referring to the export of manufactured goods, which makes a great difference. America exports cotton and other raw materials.

I accept the right hon. Gentleman's correction at once, but I think he will admit that the export of American manufactured goods has been going up by leaps and bounds, and now she is taking a share to an extent never experienced before in the European markets which used to be ours. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will get any satisfaction for his argument by looking at the statistics of American manufactured goods.

The Leader of the Opposition said that we required to get down to the root causes of this matter, and what disappointed me in his speech was that all that he suggested, though some of the things might be beneficial, were mere palliatives. I believe we shall get very much more out of the Government de-rating scheme than from any of these palliatives, because undoubtedly the reason we have unemployment is that we have not sufficient orders in our shops. The reason we have not sufficient orders is that we cannot sell at competitive prices with others, and one of the reasons why prices are high is because we have such a burden of rates upon industry. Accordingly, I view with the greatest possible hope what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done, and I also welcome the new concession he has made to-day by which it seems to me, if it is applied by December, we shall have such a fillip to the coal trade as will not only help it but will also help the steel trade, which is in a state of great depression.

Now I should like to say something on the question of migration. The Prime Minister said we must not look upon migration simply as a method of relief for unemployment. I am certain that is so. You will engage the sympathy of our Dominions, undoubtedly, by pointing to the figures of unemployment, but you will not engage their interest in accepting your emigrants on the basis of your trying to get rid of your unemployed by foisting them on to them, and I think it is perfectly justifiable on their part to take that attitude. They also say—and I do not think there is any answer to it —that a man who has been out of employment for a long time is not the best kind of emigrant to pack off to the rough conditions of places overseas. People can only make a career overseas by working hard and there are many people who, through no fault of their own, but through the circumstances in which they have been during these depressing-years, are quite unable to give that vigorous and enthusiastic effort to the development of a new country that is required if a man is to succeed. From that point of view you must not judge too harshly—as I think the Committee did in their report —of the scrutiny the Dominions make of the people who desire to emigrate to their countries. They are very anxious, of course, to build up their new Dominions with a virile, strong population, and they are taking the means which every other country in similar circumstances is adopting. I am not sure that I do not think in many cases they are too scrutinous, but at the same time we must look on their attitude with some leniency.

7.0 p.m.

The position of some of the Dominions is difficult. When I was in Australia there were large numbers of unemployed marching through the streets in three of their great cities—Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney. The problem to me, coming from an old country, with the experience we have had during these recent years, seemed a very small one, and indeed it was perfectly obvious that there was an easy remedy for it. Unfortunately, just as in the old countries of the world so in the new countries, people tend to crowd into the towns, with the result that you have unemployment in the towns while people are languishing for labour in the country. It is very difficult to move the people from one sphere of activity to another, and the result is that you have an appearance of unemployment that is enormously exaggerated. At the same time, you can understand the reluctance of the State Government in those places to accept new immigrants, because they regard such immigrants as coming into competition with the labour already there. New Zealand in the circumstances has stopped adult immigration altogether, and most of the Australian States are going very slowly. These are the facts you have to face. I think that in the course of a few months, probably, the situation will clear, and a far better arrangement can be made than in the past. At the present time, I am glad to see there will be further opportunity for emigration to Western Australia where the conditions are perhaps more favourable than in any other part of the Dominions, and the scheme devised by the Government there gives great hope of success in the future.

There is one fact in the situation which, I think, contains great promise. As I have said, there is difficulty for adults in getting employment in Australia and getting entrance in Australia and New Zealand at the present time, but there is plenty of work for young boys and girls, and they are allowed to emigrate upon very special and cheap terms, and the organisations in this country that exist for helping such boys and girls can succeed in helping very large numbers of young people to emigrate at the present time. It has always seemed to me that the most distressing cases of unemployment are those of boys and girls emerging from school who cannot find employment at all and grow up learning no trade. I think we ought to make special arrangements for them, and I venture to suggest to the House that we ought to consider the propriety of arranging means of emigration every year for a considerable proportion of the young in this country. There have been started in several towns organisations for that purpose which have had great success. I believe that in that way you will do something, at least, to prevent increasing unemployment in this country, and you will be providing in the future opportunities for young people not only to build up careers in the new countries to which they go, but to join a free life such as cannot be afforded to them in this country at the present time.

I should like to say in connection with the Industrial Transference Board Report that it is one thing to state a problem and it is another to find a solution. In this Report we have the problem most admirably stated, and I hope it will mean the end of that rather facile optimism of which we have heard so long from the Front Bench opposite. During last session we on these Benches raised the question of the state of trade, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) gave figures and stated facts which called forth the assertion that we were deliberately blackening the situation. We never blackened it as much as it is blackened in this Report, which is an impartial document. I, myself, was taken to task for suggesting that the great mass of unemployed were unemployed year after year. I was told that that was not true. Now we find in this Report the following conclusion: Then we come to page 33 and we find the Report sniffing very contemptuously at any suggestion of agricultural small holdings, and wherever artificial relief work is proposed it is dismissed at once with contempt. What, therefore, is there in the Report? When you come to the paragraph giving the conclusion, the conclusion is that there must be a transference only. What were the Committee set up to do in the Minute appointing them They were appointed

You do not find a solution by putting unemployed men in a different place. You may make them easier to handle and less dangerous, but the only problem is to find work for them. What is suggested here is not work. One finds the same suggestion raised in regard to the training centres, but these training centres must be given some objective, some idea, of the kind of job for which the people will have to be trained. If the men have to go from one district to another, how are they ever to be trained? It is obvious that a purely negative and destructive attitude is expressed and it rules the minds of the Government. We have to remember that not only are these people to go to new areas where the jobs are not yet made for them, but no suggestion is contained in this Report as to where they are to be put. If you are going to transfer people to a district where industries are already grown up there will be houses to accommodate the workers, but if they are going to travel haphazard on the chance of employment, who is going to take the lead to provide accommodation? If I compare the conditions in the constituency that I represent with the one I once contested, Bromley, what would happen if the unemployed of Middlesbrough were taken to Bromley? My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bromley (Lt.-Col. James) knows that people are complaining in his constituency that they cannot get into houses, and if men were brought down to occupy their accommodation they would not be pleased.

There is no word or suggestion dealing with this subject in the Report. We are contemplating, apparently, a new emigration of the people. Labour is to become nomadic, but the nomads will have no tents or habitation. Therefore, I suggest that unless there is an opening for work, this haphazard transference is an extremely hazardous proceeding which will only reproduce the same conditions of misery for these men in another part of the country. It is stated on page 28 of the Report that if only a half of the 120,000 employers who normally employ more than five workers would make it their business to give employment to one or two men from the distressed areas, a real step would be taken towards the solution. But would it? If these men are in the labour market, it is because they want work, and you will not produce a solution of the labour problem by saying that you will take them from this town or from that town. The Report must be regarded as a tentative suggestion and in no way aiming at a solution. Is that really the end of what this Gov- ernment can suggest in dealing with the matter? Have they no suggestions of their own? We have heard of safeguarding very forcibly from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne). I think a practical illustration goes sometimes further than argument, and the right hon. Gentleman despises our arguments. Only a few weeks ago on the Tees there were ships launched which were being built of imported steel to an American order. If they had not used that imported steel the tenders could not have been made to secure the order, the ships would not have been built unless the importation had been allowed, with the result that the considerable portion of the Middlesbrough steel which was used would not have been used at all and thousands of men in the district obtained employment which they were only able to obtain under Free Trade.

As regards rating reform, I do not despair of some result being shown from the plans which have been enumerated. It would be a very strange thing if £25,000,000 could be collected without some of it finding its way to the people. Obviously, the extent to which the cost of production can be reduced is not large enough to make the difference which is represented by all those hundreds and thousands of unemployed, on the most optimistic basis. We who are interested in the iron and steel trades are still regarding these suggestions with very considerable suspicion for the reason given a few days ago by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. A. Greenwood), and to which no proper answer has ever been given in this House. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that in the iron and steel trades a great deal of the wages are calculated upon a sliding scale dependent upon the cost of production, and that the only way that these rating proposals can benefit industry is by lowering the cost of production. If no other step is taken, any additional employment in these trades may be bought at bitter cost by the lowering of the standard of living of other workers in industry. The answer attempted by the Minister of Health was that the freight-transport relief only came at the end, and that the wages were reckoned on the cost price of the product before the freight was added. That is an insufficient and a frivolous answer, for the relief in respect of rates directly affects the selling price at the works. And unless some kind of bargain can be made with employers in industry to secure that this advantage to them is not bought at the price of lowered wages in the iron and steel industries, then the Minister cannot expect that these proposals will be regarded in the iron and steel industries with any great enthusiasm. After all, neither in safeguarding nor in the relief of rates, is there anything possible, at any rate, for the present upon a sufficiently large scale. I suggest that the attitude of this Report against the creation of work by the active power of the State is a piece of political agnosticism in which the Government ought not to indulge. The mistake made in this Report is to regard all provision of work—artificial work as they call it—as being a mere matter of relief work, having no more object than that of offering a job to the men whom they desire to employ, and as if they were setting them to dig a hole and then to fill it again. The work which we and hon. Members above the Gangway suggest is work of a real productive character, which would increase the riches of the country and make it better able for us to compete in the markets of the world. When we are dealing with work of that kind there is no reason to bar it out merely on the question of cost.

The suggestion has already been made, but I will give a list—roads, housing, draining of agricultural areas, making harbours and docks. I am only responding to the invitation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman but here is to go on with a small list of things which may be done to increase the productive power of the country, and they may be definitely extended. This question of cost in productive work should be regarded as a national investment and not as a national loss. I claim that if this Report is the last word, if the Prime Minister's speech is the last word, the writing is on the wall not merely for them, but for a great many other people in this country. The warning is continued in the words of the Report itself, on page 32:

"A critical attitude towards, the order of society is, among the young, a natural and, in many respects, a healthy sign; but when older and more serious men are brooding over a situation so much against their wishes and efforts that it looks like an in justice imposed from without, a society which makes no effort to help them may one day be called upon to pay a heavy reckoning."

I make this urgent appeal, that if there is anything that can be done it should be done at once. Mere questions of cost should not stand arbitrarily in the way. After all, there was a time, not so long ago, when we spent millions a day to save this country from foreign invasion, and surely we can afford some millions now to save our country from internal disruption.

The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) has differed in his speech from the speech to which we listened earlier this afternoon from the benches below the Gangway. He at least devoted his speech—and, if I may say so, a very interesting one—to a close study of the proposals of the Report of the Industrial Transference Board which has just been issued. I was under the impression that we should hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. R. MacDonald) his views as to the Report of the Board and—perhaps it was too much to hope—his, constructive suggestions as to how these proposals were to be put into force, but not one word was said. He scarcely even referred to the Report at all. The right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) also scarcely referred to the Report except to produce a very interesting and sweeping gesture from which he showed that he had, apparently, not read more than the first page of the Report. If he had, he would have seen the object of the proposals contained in the Report. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not now in his place. May I suggest that if he or any other hon. Gentleman who heard his speech would turn to page 20 of the Report they will see what it is that the Board hope to achieve by means of any transference of labour. They do not make, and in no part of the Report do they pretend to make, the extravagant suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman himself. No one pretends that transference would im- mediately solve the unemployment problem. The Board say most definitely: country; tragic enough if you will, but we do not make the case better for industry in this country by painting a blacker picture than the facts justify. That is not the way to help trade recovery.

In this Report there are many references to the problem of migration. Some of us in this House have ventured from time to time to suggest to the Government, that in recent years—in fact, ever since the War—the progress of migration has been very far from satisfactory, and that the result of the Overseas Settlement Act, 1922, has been, to put it mildly, lamentable. There have been, no doubt, various causes for that fact. Some of them are causes over which no Government have any control. Others are causes which, I believe, lie within the scope of Government action. One is undoubtedly this. To-day the paraphernalia which surround migration is much too complicated. You ask the average migrant who wants to go overseas to fill up so many forms and supply so much detailed information, which in themselves mean inevitable delay and consequent loss of heart, and disappointment. If I might suggest to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Dominions, I would say that simplification in this matter of overseas settlement is essential to success. If he does not like that sentence, I will put it to him in a form which may appeal to him more—that simplification is essential if he wants to safeguard any improvement in migration to-day. The present detailed questions which are put and the regulation forms which have to be filled in, handicap the men who want to go out under the assisted migration scheme. On the other hand, the man who is prepared to pay for his passage has to pay a fare which is too much, and he cannot afford the payment.

We are therefore, in this scheme falling between two stools. The man who will pay his passage cannot afford to pay as much as he is asked to pay, and the man who wants to go under the assisted passage scheme finds too many obstacles put in his way. It is true that in several of the Dominions to-day they will not receive men except those who are willing to go on the land. That can be got over if the Government are prepared to extend their present pro- posals for testing and training. We know that the schemes that exist to-day are nothing like sufficient. It is true to say that the best migrant is often the townsman and not the countryman. The essential that we have to supply is the bridge between the townsman here, ignorant of the conditions in the Dominions and the conditions which will confront him when he arrives. We can supply that essential by the simplest method of testing and training. The Prime Minister suggested an extension of that scheme. I believe it is possible for 2,000 persons a year to pass through these training centres at present, but that is a mere bagatelle and quite useless as far as finding the solution of this problem is concerned. The figure must be nearer 20,000 than 2,000 if there is to be any material increase in migration. I hope we shall hear from the Government, as a result of this Report, some indication of what is really going to be done to extend these testing centres. I am convinced that they are in themselves the key which may produce a solution of this migration problem. In connection with migration there is the question of cost. I hope that we shall not be told by my right hon. Friend that we cannot extend these training systems because they are going to be expensive and because the Dominions will not come in and pay fifty-fifty. I am sorry that the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Somerville) did not secure Government approval. I am not tied to the fifty-fifty agreement. If it should be that for training purposes, the Dominions will not pay their share under the system of fifty-fifty, I think we should go ahead with the scheme without the Dominions' assistance so far as testing and training are concerned. I believe we do ourselves pay the cost of testing and training at the present time, and I hope that financial considerations will not compel us to refuse to extend these facilities to the men who wish to make use of them.

Apart from the special areas which are dealt with in this White Paper, there is the general problem of industry in this country, and it is the duty of the Government to do their utmost to stimulate industry, particularly, as the Report tells us, that industry is to be encouraged to absorb numbers of men from the distressed areas. Obviously, there will be difficulties to be overcome. In my own constituency, a great many men go to work in the motor trade, and, if we are to have in years to come a large influx of men from, say Middlesbrough, housing conditions and housing problems will confront us. All these factors can, in the end, be solved, and they will the sooner be solved if the Government can produce the necessary stimulus to revive industry, whether that industry be prosperous or depressed. That is why we on these benches so cordially welcome the scheme for rating reform. We are not prepared for a moment to endorse the criticism that this scheme will give assistance to prosperous industries. I hope and trust that it will, because by that means we shall be able in those parts of the country where industry is prosperous to absorb a laregr number of men from districts where industry is not prosperous. I console myself with the reflection that the criticisms of the scheme by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) are not endorsed by the members of his party who are more closely connected with industry and, therefore, may perhaps be said to have a more real knowledge of its immediate needs and necessities.

We have only to read the speech of one who once was Chief Liberal Whip, Lord Gainford, to find a very eloquent tribute to the value of the rating relief scheme. I trust that the House will not accept the Motion, which I believe has been somewhat casuistically conceived and has had a partisan presentment. I trust that we shall urge the Government and encourage them in their present endeavour to stimulate productive industry, and to encourage them all we can by our advocacy of the scheme in the country, in order that industry may be able to absorb a greater number of men than it does to-day, and thereby, not by the palliatives of the Leader of the Opposition and not by the palliatives of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, increase the prosperity of industry and enable it to find work for the people of this country.

The hon. and gallant Member who has just delivered such an interesting speech chided speakers on this side for having painted a very black picture of the conditions of the unemployed. I cannot help thinking that if the 200,000 unemployed miners who are referred to in the Report could have heard the Debate this afternoon they would not have derived a great deal of hope from the statements made on behalf of the Government. I would have liked to have heard from an unemployed miner in the Gallery, if there had been one present and the rules of the House had allowed it—a man fresh from the blackness of the conditions which prevail, say, in South Wales—his views on the statements that have been made on behalf of the Government. I do not think any statement could paint a picture too black regarding the whole condition of the people who are suffering from unemployment. The hon. and gallant Member has eulogised the training centres. For what are we to train men, boys and girls? Are we to train them for engineering, for the making of motor cars, for the textile trade? What trade can we rely on, if our basic industries are to be submerged, to be in existence five years after the training has been completed? What is the use of talking about migration as a remedy for the problems we are up against? To what country must they migrate? Canada and Australia are mentioned in the Report. Does anyone with a knowledge of the climatic conditions of Canada suggest that we can transfer 200,000 miners there to work in agriculture on the land? I wish hon. Members would face this problem seriously and realise that it is something more than the House comprehends, judging from the evidence that has been given so far.

Of all the doleful and helpless speeches that the House of Commons has had to listen to in the midst of a social crisis or any other great crisis, we have never had one more doleful or helpless than that of the Prime Minister this afternoon. Not a word of encouragement! Not a word of hope! Not even an indication that he grasped—the Prime Minister should be a realist in industrial matters—the depth and significance, even from the national point of view, leaving the humanitarian side out altogether, of the conditions that are confronting the nation to-day. He was followed by another eminent politician and industrialist, the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) who chaffed the Leader of the Opposition for not having: put forward a constructive plan, and said that he was relying upon the making of bridges and of country roads as a. solution of the problem of unemployment. What is the use of eminent Members of this House getting up at a time like this and wasting the time of the House in piffling criticisms of one another, if they cannot help with a constructive policy?

We have been told in the Report that there are 200,000 surplus miners in this country. I might add that there are 100,000 surplus men in the heavy engineering industries and the steel trades, and there are other trades with surplus labour. We are told that the railway companies believe that there are 100,000 surplus railway workers who are actually employed. I mention these facts to remind the House that we have not yet plumbed the depth of the problem with which the nation has to deal. In the face of that problem, it is not merely that there exists human suffering, but we have almost an insuperable barrier which confronts every attempt at social progress. Last week we passed a Bill dealing with betting. What was claimed as a justification for the passing of that Measure? It was said that it would cleanse the racecourses. It will throw on the streets of our towns and cities thousands of people who are now getting their living, by hook or by crook, on the racecourses. That is a state of affairs which confronts us when every step towards virtue is taken. The difficulty is what to do with the people whom we have converted to virtue. Every prostitute that we convert, every thief that we bring back to virtue adds to the number of the unemployed. We have temperance people in this House who would close the public-houses and prohibit the manufacture of drink. Are we not always faced with the problem of how we are to deal with the people who are admittedly engaged in a useless way in getting wages; how we are to deal with these men and women when they have been displaced by any reforms that we have passed?

What is the use of talking of transferring these 200,000 miners to other industries? To what industry can you transfer them? Will hon. Members mention one industry in this country to-day in which there is not a surplus of labour? The best that the Prime Minister could do to-day was to point to certain industries which have only an unemployment figure of 5 per cent. But it is 5 per cent., and those unemployed, with their dependants, are waiting for an opportunity to earn their daily bread. They are a problem in themselves. Does it matter to the man who is starving and whose people are starving whether the number who are starving side by side with him are four or twenty-four? The suffering is the same to him. Is the only contribution in helpfulness that the Government can offer to him that they will bring 20 similarly persecuted families from another part of the country and dump them down beside him to make it more difficult for him to get a job? I submit that that is only adding insult to injury in the case of the unemployed. If we pass from the basic industries to the industries which the Government claim to have made prosperous, what is the position that is likely to confront the mind of any intelligent man who examines the situation?

We have been told that by legislation the manufacturing of motor cars has been made a prosperous industry in this country, and has absorbed a considerable amount of labour which has been displaced elsewhere. Who, with an elementary knowledge of the economic situation, would say that the prosperity of motor car manufacturing in this country can maintain anything like the level in the next five years that has been maintained in the past five years? Is it not evident that we have almost reached saturation point; that many years ago our streets were empty of motor cars and that to-day they are full, and that we are rapidly reaching a point where, instead of having to deal with an industry in which there was an almost infinite demand, we are now dealing with an industry which in the immediate years before us will only require renewals and repairs.

Not merely in this country but in Canada, in Australia, in America, wherever we turn to-day, industry is choked with an abundance a goods. There are 4.000,000 people unemployed in America, as stated in the "Daily Tele- graph" this morning. Australia has its unemployed. Every part of the world has its unemployed. People are unemployed because industry is choked with an abundance of goods. If the scientists could by their ingenuity restore us to something approximating to the conditions of the Garden of Eden, how long would that remain? There would soon be a terrible problem to be solved and in face of that problem we should find people in this House talking about schemes for road making and about finding work for the unemployed. Talking about dealing with the problem in any way except to find an outlet for the goods that we can produce to-day as we never produced before.

It is the poverty accruing from unemployment and not unemployment itself which is really bad. Unemployment in itself is not bad. Within ten days from now this House of 600 Members will join the ranks of the unemployed. The Members of the House of Lords will join the unemployed. For three months every Member of this House will be on the dole. We shall be drawing our £8 a week, or whatever the figure may be, without working. Not a year passes but we spend six months, or almost six, out of the 12 in the ranks of the unemployed. We are told that the dole is demoralising in the case of the working classes. Shall we return more demoralised at the end of our three months' holiday, having drawn our salaries during the period we were not working? I submit that the procedure and proceedings of this House are much more demoralising than the dole. We shall probably returned refreshed, with greater vigour, and certainly we shall not return feeling that because we have drawn from the State the salaries which are allowed us for our services to this House, although we have not been giving those services, we are feeling the poorer, either morally, physically or mentally, than we are to-day.

Who is going to argue that the miner, the engineer, the cotton worker, or the unemployed worker, are not as useful to the nation as we are, and how can we deny them the right to their full wages when they are unemployed when we vote ourselves full wages for the period in which we are unemployed? Whether you view this problem from the humane standpoint or from the strictly materialistic economic point of view, you are driven to the conclusion that it would be good for the country, as a first step in dealing with the unemplyment problem, to grant to the unemployed full workshop wages for every day that they are out of work. It would remove from the path of millions of this country one of the greatest terrors of their lives. By increasing the purchasing power of that vast multitude you would be making a substantial contribution towards the creation of markets which would stimulate industry and help to make the wheels of commerce go round.

Let me put another suggestion to the House. On this side, we are unanimously in favour of the working years of the industrial workers of this country being reduced. There is a unanimous feeling that when a man has served his country industrially from 14 to 60 he has satisfied a claim to national reward sufficient to enable him to spend the remainder of his days in peace from the troubles of industrial life. But before we can do that, we have something else to do. We have to ensure that that man during those years is not going to have, as Burns put it— should be signing on at the Employment Exchanges and the old men of 65 and upwards trying to carry on in the workshops of the country.

When we come to the question of the raising of the school age, see how you are baffled again. I would not go to my working-class constituents and say that they are to keep their children at school from 14 years of age until 18 years of age, because I know they cannot afford to do so. It is not because they do not want their children to get the standard of education which the children of any hon. Member of this House receives, but it is because they have not the means wherewith to pay the cost of maintaining their children at school. Why not give maintenance grants to these families equal to what these children would earn in the workshops In that way, you would substantially contribute, first, by keeping the children out and letting the men in, and, secondly, by raising the whole standard of education in the country. We talk about the national improvements which will accrue from the betterment of roads and bridges, but what better national improvement could you have than the improvement in the standard of education and in the physique of the little boys and girls who are to be the citizens of this country in the next generation?

The Government may say: "How are you going to maintain that in face of the product of sweated labour in other parts of the world?" I have no hesitation in my answer. I would use my navy, were I in power, to sink the ship that brought from abroad the product of sweated labour to reduce the standard of life here. I would not apply tariffs: I would apply something stronger than tariffs. Tariffs are no solution at all. They are a silly proposal, which can only result in increasing the price of goods and the profits of the profiteers. If you want to deal with this thing in a. systematic way, you would organise your trade properly and not allow goods to come into this country that are going to lower the standard of living of the people employed here. If I am asked where I would find the finances for these social requirements, which I believe would immediately relieve unemployment, again, I have no difficulty in finding my path to where the money is.

In the small audience which I am at present addressing there are some hon. Members who are probably interested in business; I do not mean merely financially as shareholders in an industry, and I would ask them to consider this national problem of unemployment as they would consider a similar problem relating to their own workshops and industries. Is it not the fact that in every successful workshop and factory that you could in one year increase your earnings for that year by simply taking no thought of the morrow, but that you spend in advance in 1928, according to the magnitude of your concerns, in order to ensure that in 1929 and 1930 and 1931 your industry will continue to run smoothly? Is it not the fact that you have sometimes in one year to run your workshop at a financial loss in order to secure the permanency of the connections you have in your particular trade? Hon. Members opposite indicate their acquiescence in that statement in regard to the industries of this country. If that is right and proper, and no one who has any knowledge of business will question it, why not apply to the nation exactly the principles and views which you apply to your individual concerns? Why should not the rich people of this country be prepared to make sacrifices for one year or two years in order to insure their safety in the years to come?

I do not know whether there are many rich hon. Members in this House, but, if there are, can they be satisfied, even from the rich man's point of view, with the present situation? Is it not clear what is happening? People talk about putting more capital into this and that industry, that we should get more production, and less poverty. As if we were suffering from a lack of production, and a lack of capital! In talking like that we are talking in terms of the political economy of the early 19th century, not about conditions in the 20th century at all. In the Division I represent, there are hundreds of thousands of capital rusting and rotting, and they have been rusting and rotting, since 1921. What is the use of telling me that if you put more capital into the industries of my constituency that there will be less unemployment and less poverty, and more happiness? It is all nonsense. You have capital wasting away. People talk about putting more capital into the coal mines of Durham and South Wales in order to increase the production of coal in Durham and South Wales, and about putting more capital into the shipyards on the Clyde and on the Tyne, where capital is rotting at the moment.

Are we not faced with this fact, that capital is rapidly disappearing? The Prime Minister warned the capitalists to-day—I do not know whether he himself was conscious of the full significance of his warning—that in the years immediately after the War we regarded the industrial troubles as the aftermath of the War, which would disappear when the period of reconstruction had elapsed. Now the sleeper has awakened, the man who is responsible for the guidance of the nation. If there is one tragedy greater than the tragedy of the unemployed, it is the tragedy of this Government and this Prime Minister being in charge of the nation at one of the greatest moments of crisis in its history. I am pointing out, not to the representatives of the working classes, but to the rich, that even in their own interests they should be prepared to make sacrifices. The appealed to the workers in 1914 to make sacrifices of blood, limbs and human life. What is required of them now is the sacrifice of finance in order to set the industries of this country going, to increase the wages of the workers, to give full payment to the unemployed, to give the equivalent of full wages to the men of 60 years of age and full maintenance grants equivalent to the wages of the boys and girls who are kept at school.

Where would I find the finance? I would begin immediately. I hope the party on these benches is prepared to realise that a drastic situation such as this requires drastic remedies. Nothing but drastic remedies will get us out of it. Hon. Members opposite might as well have part of their wealth sacrificed to the State in setting industry going, through a policy of social reform, as to see the value of their shares and capital depreciating as rapidly as they are now, until they are on the verge of zero. Believe me, I understand this problem as well as most people. Your capital has gone, never to return again unless you are prepared to adopt drastic social re- forms as an immediate step towards the reconstruction of the whole industrial system of this country. I look to the party on these benches to take a bold step in this matter, not because it is bold, but because it is necessary, and to realise that the finance is there.

8.0 p.m.

I was telling my constituents a fortnight ago the story of a man who had fallen out of an aeroplane on his way to Belgium. The Press reported that in 18 months he had made £14,000,000. I pointed out to my constituents that a miner working for £100 a year would have to work 142,000 years to make what that man, without taking off his coat, had made in 18 months. Do not tell me or anyone who understands the condition of tills country that the wealth is not there. It is staring you in the face and insulting you in the street. Bring up your South Wales miners and ask them to go through the streets of London and attend, if they dare attend, any of your social festivals. There you have wealth in abundance. There you have great organisations tempting men, and particularly women, to spend and to buy and to revel in the wealth that exists in this country. I would drastically take that wealth here and now and give it to the people, not the next generation nor the generation afterwards, not for my children or grandchildren, but for the men who work with me in the mines, for the women who are their wives, for their sons and daughters who are there now.

I would take that surplus wealth now. I would ask them to give me a majority in the country that would enable me to take the constitutional step now. I would use that wealth to raise immediately the whole standard of living of the people of this country, and I would thus immediately create a market for goods thato would set industries going and would incidentally recoup even the people that I have fleeced by the increased value of an industry that was "going" compared with an industry that at the moment is being crushed into ruin. I would apply it, if I were the Chancellor of the Exchequer of a Labour Government and had working-class support in the country behind me. I would tax earned incomes over £2,000 at the rate of 20s. in the £ temporarily, until I had set industries going. I would tax un- earned incomes of over £1,000 at 20s. in the £, until I had set industries going. I would ask people to make sacrifices. If you go to working-class people and tell them that a man with only £40 a week to maintain himself was making an intolerable sacrifice, the working man would spit in your face. What does he know about £40 a week? He would regard it as a fortune.

In a moment of national crisis, I would consider it no great sacrifice for the minority, who control the surplus wealth of the country, to be content with a reduced income until we had put the majority on their feet and set our industry going and secured these people against the intervention of goods produced under sweated labour abroad. I would double the housing subsidy and halve the rents of working-class houses. I would enable the people who cannot afford to get into these houses to-day, to get into them. I would stimulate the building industry, and in that way alone reduce the ranks of unemployed by tens of thousands, if not by hundreds of thousands. I wish our own men would go back to the country and make an appeal to the unselfish working-classes to be bold in their demands, to shed their modesty, to have a greater belief in themselves, and to realise how much the nation depends on their prosperity. I am sure that if we did that, we would make a successful appeal and we would, through our efforts in this House, make ourselves helpful to the people, instead of making ourselves, as we are to-day, to all who listen to us, a useless institution in dealing with the problem which confronts us.

The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken was very harsh to his predecessors in the Debate for the absence of constructive suggestions in their speeches. He himself has contributed a general denunciation which has enlivened our proceedings, but of construction his only contribution, I think, was that with which we are not unfamiliar, the celebrated theory as to the increase of purchasing power. The right hon. Gentleman will convince this House and the country of the utility and of the sense of his theory when he can explain to us how you are going to benefit permanently anyone by increasing pur- chasing power, without any simultaneous increase in the goods to be purchased. All experience goes to show that there is no permanent benefit.

I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is quite serious. If he is serious, he must realise that 1 would increase the number of things to be purchased, as he puts it, when 1 increased the number of people engaged in production by abolishing unemployment.

I am very glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman's logic, at any rate, is correct. In the course of his speech he gave us no account of how the latter part of his programme was to be fulfilled. I think he will convince this House and the country of the value of his suggestions when he will explain to us why, if he gives everyone who is out of work full workshop wages, anyone should stay in work. I am afraid there will be a serious difficulty in getting anyone to go through the process of earning daily bread when, according to the right hon. Gentleman's scheme, it will be unnecessary to do so. With the rest of his argument I shall not deal, because it has been dealt with so brilliantly once and for all by the ancient writer who wrote the fable about the goose that laid the golden eggs. It was the argument of having one good meal and after that starvation.

As to the right hon. Gentleman's denunciations which, as I have said, have enlivened our proceedings, never could there have been a vote of no confidence which was discussed in an atmosphere of greater calm. I am sure we must all welcome that as a tribute to the deep sense which the House has of the gravity of the occasion and the extreme importance of seeking to get to the bottom of the troubles which we are considering to-day. The contributions of practical remedies have not been many. The most important contribution has been the contribution towards the analysis of the causes of unemployment. Both the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) would have us believe that one of the deep causes of unemployment is the over-capitalisation of industry. I believe they put that in the front of their argument.

Over-capitalisation is a great evil, but is there not a lot of confused thought on the subject? It is a great evil. Is one of its ill-effects really unemployment? It is surely not. Why should buying a thing for more than it is worth —that is what over-capitalisation is—have any effect on the working of a thing. Suppose that you buy a clock for twice its value. The clock works none the worse. So it is with industry. If you buy a factory for twice its value, that does not affect the efficiency of the factory, except in one indirect way, as to which I make a concession. It affects it in this way—that it may be that the attempt to maintain traditional dividends will prevent the setting aside of adequate funds for reserve and depreciation and renewals and modernising. That is not a necessary consequence and not an inevitable consequence in very many cases of serious over-capitalisation. It is not in fact experience. Over-capitalisation is a great evil in that it leads to working people losing their money by paying more for something than it is worth, but I believe it to be something of an illusion that it is really a basic cause of unemployment, because it has not really an effect in increasing the cost of production.

Does it not also mean that the share of labour must be less, and that therefore friction is created?

I believe not. The argument was used, I think by the right hon. Member for Preston, that the result of over-capitalisation is to lead people to try to raise prices in order to pay higher dividends.

If that were done it would lead to a reduction of wages. One finds that in industry, particularly the great staple industries in which unemployment is rife, no such effects can be produced, for wages are fixed by national or local agreements that cover whole groups of firms. Prices are fixed by the higgling of the international markets, and it is quite impossible to adjust them to meet the actual capital of the company in question. Let us pass from that to the attempted analysis of one of the causes of unemployment and some of the remedies suggested. Three speakers on the other side have chiefly contributed towards any practical suggestion to assist us in this great difficulty—the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Preston and the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith). All that any of them had to say was a return to the expedient of spending money on so-called "work of national importance," and the examples which they gave were docks and harbours, drainage and roads. This is a will-o'-the-wisp of economics by which I suppose we have all been misled at one time or another in our search for a remedy, but none the less a will-o'-the-wisp it is.

If you abandon the facile idea that there are great good things waiting to be done, what you find is this: There may be a bit of land that can be advantageously drained and made to pay. There may be a new road somewhere that would lead to economic advantage. There may be some small harbour somewhere, though I doubt this, which would actually pay its way. When you look all through the field of national exploitation, you will not find any substantial amount of work of the sort which can actually be made to pay. That is the best test of whether it is worth doing. What is the result? If you are really to embark on works of this sort on a sufficient scale to be more than a drop in the ocean as a remedy, you have to go further and spend public money on works which do not pay. If you do, you cross the line which separates work worth doing for the sake of the nation, from mere relief work. If there is one thing certain, it is that if you undertake mere relief work out of the public money, you do nothing to cure the evil of unemployment but you actually do something to make it worse. I take the instance of the roads on which so much stress was laid by the Leader of the Opposition. He says that we should put people to work on the roads. There is truth, I suggest, in the view that we have been extravagantly over-spending on the roads of this country, and that, so far from this extravagant expenditure being a benefit to the unemployed, it is one of the root causes of unemployment.

All through our Debate to-day, one has been conscious of a deep difference of opinion between what may be called two sets of ideas as to where the remedy for unemployment is to be found. There are those who think that it is to be found by dealing with the situation at home, by tightening up our home organisation, by reconstruction, at home, by introducing this or that new scheme for the reorganisation of national industry. On the other side, there are those who hold another set of ideas and who are confident that all these proposals as to home organisation represent a too narrow point of view. They hold that the remedy for the evil is to be sought in a wider field than the mere field of national reorganisation; that it is to be sought in the restoration of our foreign trade. If one looks at the immediate events which have led up to the present state of affairs, it is impossible to escape the simple conclusion that the cause of our present difficulties is that we were organised before the War, in population and in plant, to produce for a large portion of the world besides ourselves. Then came the War. Communications were cut, and the world was unable to take advantage of our powers of production. It learned to produce for itself, and it has continued to produce for itself. Our old customers have been lost and, if we are to recover our position, and provide for our advancing population, we must find new customers.

Is there any simpler way out of our difficulties of unemployment than that? It may be asked: Is there any way out of our difficulties at all? I believe there is. I would not exaggerate or say that all can be done by action upon our part to restore markets outside the country, but much can be done. We have tried to get our old markets back by every means in our power. We have not succeeded. What is the remedy? The remedy is to make new customers across the sea. Can we make them? I think we can. We have the raw material in the unexploited resources of our Colonial Empire—great fertile lands capable of producing foodstuffs and the comforts of life in a far higher degree than they are produced at present; capable of great productivity, and of bearing a thriving population, both native and immigrant, far larger than they do at present. One thing is required in order to produce these new customers for us across the seas, and that is the use of our own capital. That is the direction in which I venture to suggest, upon this occasion and on every occasion when this question of unemployment comes up for consideration, that more courage, more confidence, and more direct action is necessary on the part of the Government. We have had examples in the past. Let me quote one example of what can be done—the example of the money used for the construction of the Makwar Dam in the Sudan. It will be remembered that doubts and fears were expressed as to whether it would be wise to use public money for that work of irrigation in the Sudan. That work has most triumphantly vindicated the courage which was exhibited at the time and which provided many millions of English taxpayers' money for the purpose. The area now supports a large and thriving population, producing £3,000,000 worth of cotton every year to assist the home producer and it also provides a fresh market for our consumable goods, in the new population which is growing up there.

That is only one example. There are countless opportunities all over our Colonial Dominions for the profitable use of our capital for the development, principally of transport and power works. In that way we can be provided with immediate orders for goods for these capital works and with future orders for our consumable goods arising from the fresh purchasing power given to the population of these lands by this new productivity. It may be asked by hon. Members opposite: "Is not the suggestion of the use of public capital or credit for this purpose, contrary to the tenets commonly held by Members on the Conservative side of the House, who are nearly all supporters of private initiative?" Not so, I believe. At any rate, if it be so, it is the exception which illustrates the rule, because in these instances of the Colonial Dominions there are very special conditions. The first is that all the resources of these countries are already in the hands of the State—it is true as trustee for the native population to a large extent, but still they are in the hands of the State. Initiative must, therefore, come from the State or the Government, because it is the State or the Government which is the actual owner, and it stands in the position of a private individual. Secondly, only the resources of the State are great enough to cover the period of transition during which these weeks, which undoubtedly look far ahead, will not be actually earning a remunerative return. No private enterprise would be strong enough to cover that gap in time.

I would couple this suggestion with a reference hack to the previous periods of our history in which a similar use of our credit has been made with success. That was during the exceptional period when we made use of the Trade Facilities Act in order to develop the productivity of our own country. It was a particular condition of that Act that the State should supply the credit by means of guarantees, but that the management, the initiative, and the enterprise should always come from the private firm. Therefore, I may suggest, as a reasonable condition of the use of State credit in these Colonies, that we should make use of private enterprise and initiative in order to manage and conduct these businesses and to supply those elements which we, on this side, contend are essential to success. We have heard with interest the Prime Minister's declaration as to a continuation of the schemes of credit facilities. That interest to my mind is due to one circumstance in particular. This, at any rate, is a step in the right direction. It shows a realisation on the part of those who design our policy that it is in the direction of overseas markets, and in that direction alone, that we must look for a final return to full employment in this country. Apart from that, I confess I have never been an enthusiast for the trade facilities scheme, in comparison with the scheme of using our credit as an asset to guarantee fresh capital works. The broad difference between the two is this. Credit facilities do not achieve the inmost purpose, the most useful purpose, for which they are intended, because they create no new healthy demand for our goods. They simply facilitate the existing demand, and the consequence is, that on the whole business which is not of the best is guaranteed by the State so that a little more business may be done, but on the whole that business would probably be done in any case. There is the disadvantage of credit facilities. The advantage of using your credit as an asset to guarantee the construction of capital works is that by doing so you actually create a fresh, healthy demand for the goods of the country, first, in capital works and construction, and, secondly, in the purchasing power of the new population that grows on the new productivity of the land. In these directions, there is room for more courage in the development of the resources of the Empire, which are put into our hands as trustees, to develop for the sake of the natives, for the sake of our own countrymen who are Unemployed, and for the sake of the world at large, which will benefit from the increased production.

The hon. and gallant Member for Warwick and Leamington (Captain Eden) waxed very eloquent with respect to the Vote of Censure that had been placed on the Order Paper by the Opposition, and complained that the Leader of the Opposition had not put forward any constructive criticism or suggested any methods by which the problem of unemployment could be solved. The right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) gave a very clear and vivid description of the condition of this country under capitalism, and a very useful outline of what, if he had the power, he would put into operation in order, if not to solve, at least to mitigate the evils of unemployment. The right hon. Member for Norwich (Sir H. Young) also complained that no constructive criticism had come from this side other than from the right hon. Member for Shettleston. After listening to the funeral oration of the Prime Minister, in which practically he has buried all the unemployed of the export areas of this country, I noticed that he himself admitted that nothing further could be done. In a speech that he delivered in Dundas Castle recently, he said: If increased unemployment means that the Prime Minister has done his best, then undoubtedly his statements are true. The figures that have been given recently through the Minister of Labour are very significant in the sense that they are increasing. The increase in the numbers of unemployed is consequent, the Prime Minister said, upon the fact that he himself and others had made a mistake as to the real causes of unemployment, which he placed in two categories. First of all, he said that he and others believed that the unemployment consequent immediately upon the War would be of a temporary character, and that, as we got further away from the War and as the fabric of trade was connected again as between one country and another, naturally the problem in its exceptional aspects would gradually diminish.

The Prime Minister this evening said that he anticipated that the unemployment from 1920 to 1926 was of a temporary character and that other Prime Ministers had introduced temporary measures, but he and his Government before 1926 had taken definite and practical steps to reduce those remedies that had already been introduced. They not only reduced the remedies, such as public works and benefits, but gave instructions to the boards of guardians to reduce the relief to the unemployed. They acted contrary to what he himself realised was the real objective of introducing remedial measures at the outset, when they anticipated that the unemployment was to be only temporary, but, he said, after 1926 they came to realise that they were wrong and that the unemployment since 1926 was of a permanent character. He pointed out that one of the root causes of unemployment was the breakdown of world markets, and I think that is demonstrated clearly by the fact that the exceptional unemployment exists in the areas that produce for export. The export trade at the present time, even if we measure it by pre-War values, is much below the export for which markets were available before the War, and yet the Prime Minister, having realised that the problem to-day is of a permanent character and that it is confined largely to the trades that produce for export, suggests as a solution a reduction of the wages of the workers and an increase in the hours of employment, contending that that will give an opportunity for British traders to compete with the cheaper goods of their foreign rivals in the world's markets.

The doctrine of cheaper production may be a very convenient one for a Tory Government at the expense of the workers, but it is clearly no solution for unemployment. If a reduction in wages was a solution of, or even a means of mitigating, the evils consequent on unemployment, there would have been no need at all for the introduction of this Vote of Censure to-day, because the tremendous reduction in wages that has taken place from 1920 to the present time ought to be sufficient, not only to satisfy the greed and the avarice of capitalist employers and the Tory Government, but to absorb all the workmen into the industries of this country. The amount of reduction in wages has been about £13,000,000 per week. If we take the reduction in the miners' wages, the miners of South Wales have lost about £10,000,000 a year, and the miners over the whole coalfield have suffered a reduction of from £41,000,000 to £42,000,000 a year; and that is since the present Government have been in existence. If reduction in wages were a solution for the unemployment problem, then the miners of this country would be quite free from the evil effects of the problem, and so would all the other workers, but obviously it is an absurdity to contend that reduced wages form a solution or even a mitigation of the problem.

Then again, if increased hours of labour were a solution of the unemployment problem, surely miners would be free from its effects, because the miners of this country are to-day working longer hours than the miners of any other country in the world. The Prime Minister in enforcing long hours upon the miners at the behest of the coalowners only exhibited the complete bankruptcy of capitalism to handle the problem of unemployment. We have introduced this Vote of Censure, because of the general attitude of the Prime Minister and the Government towards this problem. Indeed, it was necessary to introduce a Vote of Censure in order to get an opportunity of discussing the question. The Government are prepared to discuss any other question, such as dog racing and the totalisator, but they are not prepared to give any time for a concrete discussion upon the important question of unemployment, and it is only by the introduction of a Vote of Censure that an opportunity is given for such a discussion. The Government have failed to realise that changed economic conditions bring with them new problems, and they have been attempting to solve the problem in the light of problems of 20 and 30 years ago on the principle of increased hours and reduced wages, without attempting to realise that these changed problems, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston said, require drastic measures for their solution.

Take, for instance, the Report of the Industrial Transference Board. The contention of the Prime Minister and the Government was that this was a problem which was consequent upon a contraction in the world's markets, so far as the export trades were concerned, and that there was no other methods of solution but the migration of the workers from one part of the country to another, and from this country to the Dominions. The policy was adopted by the Government before even the recommendations of the Transference Board were made. The Prime Minister argued that the concentration of unemployed in areas was a bad thing, and that therefore what was necessary, as unemployment in certain areas was too great was that congestion should be relieved by taking the unemployed, say, from Merthyr or Middlesbrough, or the Rhondda, and putting them in Warwickshire or Leamington. That is an attempt to equalise the unemployment throughout the country, as if that were going to be a solution of the problem.

But when the Labour party adopted it they decided it in a different way from that in which the Government have adopted it. The Prime Minister contended that, with the removal of the unemployed from the congested areas, it would reduce the financial obligations and responsibility of the local authorities in those areas, but the suffering of the individual unemployed would remain the same. The man who is being sent to the training centre is not the man who has been cut off from unemployment benefit. The man who has been cut off from unemployment benefit is not in receipt of any parish relief, and is not getting any passible means of subsistence, is not entitled to come under any training scheme. The qualification to enable a man to go to a training centre is that he must be unemployed and in receipt of benefit. Surely the man who deserves the opportunity of work, and the opportunity of going to a training centre, is the man who is really down and out, and is not receiving unemployment benefit. He has been out longer, and it is because he has been out for a long time that he has been cut off from his unemployment benefit. Where do we send the men? The Prime Minister shed crocodile tears about the miners and the necessity of miners being sent from good homes. Where are they being sent to? To sell ice cream and to be sandwich men. The men deserve better treatment by the country.

The first thing that is necessary before a miner is sent from the Rhondda or from Merthyr, or from Aberdare, or anywhere else is to ascertain whether there is work for him. Again, if there is work available, notwithstanding all the suffering that is in the mining valleys, I do not believe that, from an equality point of view, it is fair to send the miners into other areas in order to give them a primary opportunity for employment, when there is unemployment already in those localities. It is argued that the unemployed in those localities are probably not suitable for the work. Just think where that argument will lead, if you send miners to work in factories in Lancashire and Yorkshire, where there has been a large number of men unemployed for years. According to that argument, the miner, who has never worked in a factory, is a more suitable employé for the factory than the experienced factory hand. If the experience of the Employment Exchanges during the past few months is to be any criterion of the operation of the Transference Board, it is not only going to be futile and senseless, but cruel as well. What is the purpose of sending men, who are in receipt of unemployment benefit, away for employ- ment and to the training centres? Simply to show that there is a reduction in the bogus figures on the live register, and to show that the Government have reduced unemployment. It is not their real intention to get employment for the most deserving, for those who are most deserving are those who are not in receipt of unemployment benefit.

Take the proposal of the Government with regard to the coal industry. At last, Rip Van Winkle has awakened. The Government are going to accelerate the rating scheme and to introduce a Bill in the autumn to, facilitate the payment by 1st December. If the emergency of the situation is such that it necessitates the Government changing their mind, and changing the date from October, 1929, to 1st December, 1928, I contend that it is such that they ought to give this relief immediately. Why wait? Surely it is not necessary to wait until the autumn in order to draft the scheme? If the money can be found by 1st December, it can be found by 1st August. An Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Warwick and Leamington suggests that the condition of unemployment is due largely to the industrial dispute of 1926, and the Prime Minister stated that no country has had such a sharp set back, so far as unemployment is concerned, as this country, and that no other country has dealt with their unemployment problem as this country has done. What do the Governments of countries where there are mining areas do compared with what the Government of this country has done? In 1926, we had the lock-out, and that was due to the working operations between this Government and the coal-owners to reduce the standard of wages of the British miner, contending that by the reduction of the standard of wages they would get cheaper production and thereby place coalowners in a better position to compete with the coalowners of Europe and America.

While our Government were concentrating their efforts upon fighting the miners, with the Cabinet itself drafting schemes and devising ways and means of fighting the miners, the Governments of Europe and of America were drafting schemes not to co-operate with the mine-owners in order to fight the miners, but to assist their own coal industries. In January, 1926, France reduced the rates on the State railway system, and, as a result, by June or October of 1927 the French coalowners were able to get their coal into markets which had previously been supplied by others. The same thing happened in Germany. In 1926 the Reichstag were devising ways and means to assist German coalowners. They reduced the railway rates not only for the export trade, but for the inland trade. The other evening, the Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to apply the special rates to the gas works of this country, but Germany's policy in 1927 took in all the electricity works and all the gas works, with the result that Germany was able to compete with Great Britain on a better basis. Poland adopted the same policy. Poland had special tariffs for coal, and Poland took away the Scandinavian markets from Great Britain—not because of the 1926 strike, but because the Polish Government were more wide awake to the interests of the mining industry in Poland than the British Government were to the interests of the British coal industry. In 1926 the American coalowners appealed to the American Shipping Corporation for the charter of 12 ships in order to ship coal abroad. The Shipping Corporation did not agree at the outset, but they consented finally, with a proviso that the House of Representatives should provide 1,000,000 dollars to meet any contingencies that might arise. In 1927 the House of Representatives granted 1,400,000 dollars to the Shipping Corporation as a subsidy for the export of coal. If this Government had been as wide awake to the interests of the mining industry as were the Governments of the mining countries of Europe and the Government of America, we should not find ourselves in the position we are in to-day.

One word on the subject of constructive proposals. The scheme of the Transference Board is not going to solve the problem, nor will it be solved by sending our people overseas. Canada and Australia have, to a great extent, closed their doors to settlers. They have not got the money for settlement schemes. Is this country going to send families from Wales to Canada or to Australia without any preparation, without any agreement made on their behalf, without any security as to employment? Are they going to send people from one part of the country here to another part without any security as regards housing accommodation? Are they going to leave them as a nomadic army to march round the streets of strange towns, villages and cities? If the Government really want to solve the problem of unemployment, let them act with the energy which the Government showed during 1914–18 in meeting the crises through which this country was passing. They should act, and should not quietly take it for granted that all the markets of the world have been closed to Great Britain, that there is no possibility of an expansion of trade, and that 200,000 miners are redundant.

The scientific treatment of coal could be developed. Private members of the Government are sending out prospectuses and forming companies for the scientific treatment of coal. One of the finest experts in this country wrote some time ago that the question of the scientific treatment of coal had passed through the laboratory stage and was now a financial proposition. He said that if the Government spent £30,000,000 in providing the retorts, this country could produce all the oil which is necessary for our use, and that we could save the £45,000,000 at present spent upon the importation of oil. That is one constructive scheme which could be taken in hand by the Government. The spending of £30,000,000 would give an impetus not only to the mining industry, but to the iron and steel trade, in the provision of the retorts. I hope the Government will concentrate upon this problem, and not be content with the recommendations of the Transference Board, which will not touch the fringe of the question. The Government must introduce practical and constructive proposals for relieving the evils from which the miners especially and many other classes in this country are suffering.

I beg to move, to leave out from the word "unemployment," in line 2, to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words: I hope I shall be excused if I do not follow the last speaker, because his speech, although very eloquent, did not give us many hopeful ideas of how to solve this question. We all hope for the day when the production of oil from coal will be brought to the stage of a commercial success. The moment these numerous inventions for the treatment of coal, which we hope are coming to fruition, arrive at the stage of being a commercial success it is certain that those who have the secret will exploit it to the fullest possible degree, because it will be one of the greatest inventions of the day. I regret that this Vote of Censure should have been tabled against His Majesty's Government. What is the use of blaming the Government for unemployment when it is very largely due to world economic facts over which no Government can have any real control? I frankly admit that in certain directions I wish to see the Government go further and faster.

No one can honestly say that this great problem of unemployment has not been exercising the minds of His Majesty's Ministers for the past four years. What I am a little bit sad about is that any of us should attempt to gain a party advantage on account of this terrible situation of unemployment. I should have preferred to think that we might have risen to greater heights and treated this question as we have treated other great emergencies in the history of our country. I think the two Leaders of the Opposition might have come down to this House together and tabled a Motion on the lines that on this question all parties in the House should give their support to the Government in doing everything in their power to improve the lot of the unemployed, and that, notwithstanding any unfortunate statements or commitments in the past, we should all be free in order that this House might proceed in the most vigorous manner to deal with this great problem.

I shall have a word or two to say later on with regard to the party of which the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) is such an ornament. When this Vote of Censure is brought forward, I am bound to remind right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Front Bench above the Gangway that the day before the general strike in this country unemployment, for the first time since the War, had been brought under the 1,000,000 figure, and this country was really on the road to prosperity. I wish to refer to the rating policy mentioned in my Amendment. I think anybody with a fair mind who has studied this policy will agree that His Majesty's Government are on the right lines, and the only possible lines, when they are making an effort in this direction in order to improve the productive industries of this country. After all, that is a policy which has received support in every section of the House during the last two or three years. Whenever I hear a Member of the Liberal party criticising this policy it always reminds me of the lady whose charms have faded and who sees other people having more attention paid to them. That is the kind of policy which the Liberal party have advocated in the past. I know that some time ago two or three Members of the Liberal party went down to my constituency the week before the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his policy and one of them said:

"There is one remedy and one remedy only, and that is to take all the rates off productive industry and pass them on to the National Exchequer."

What we object to is that relief should be given to those industries which an not depressed.

9.0 p.m.

May I remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that on the Conservative Benches we believe in aiding all productive industries, and we are convinced that you cannot successfully transfer men from the depressed areas to other areas unless you are going to help all productive industries to expand. We want to relieve not only depressed areas but to make the successful industries more successful, so that they can absorb the unemployed of the country. [ Interruption. ] Since hon. Members are so garrulous, I would remind them that every Liberal ought to support this policy, because it is part of their scheme. The vice-chairman of the Liberal Industrial Inquiry used these words:

"The rating reform is entirely in accord with the Liberal Industrial Inquiry, and it is one which should be widely welcomed by all Liberals."

Perhaps I may also be allowed to quote from some remarks made by Sir Josiah Stamp, who was a member of the Liberal Industrial Inquiry. He said:

"The Budget is one of the most constructive of modern times. It deals with a big problem and deals with it boldly."

The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows perfectly well that the policy proposed by the Government is to take certain services off the rates.

I thought that Mr. Simon and Sir Josiah Stamp arranged the Liberal policy. I think what has just taken place only proves that there is yet another split in the Liberal party. If there was one fair criticism which could be levelled against this great rating scheme, it was that there has been delay in regard to this matter, but everybody knows the reason for that. I think hon. Gentlemen will give the Government credit for making an effort to put their scheme into operation at the earliest possible moment. One thing which ought to commend this scheme to all fair-minded people is the fact that it will not come into operation until after the general election, and I think that proves the honesty of the Government. I think it will be admitted that the Government have done a big thing to-day in promising to expedite that part of the rating scheme which will give immediate relief to the coal-mining industry and the heavy industries of this country.

Of course, it would be very wrong for any one of us to imagine that this is going to be a solution of the problem, but let the Government be given credit for making a big effort in order to stimulate production, and, as many of us are well aware, even the slightest assistance at this moment may save many industries from finally going into liquidation and being completely dispersed. Therefore, all parties ought to give the Government credit for that. [ Interruption. ] British credit has risen rather considerably since these proposals were put forward, but that really has nothing to do with the point. I think that the tabling of this Motion is unfortunate when it is realised that the official Opposition—not ail of them, perhaps, but most of them, and certainly the Liberal party—have done everything that they possibly could to hinder the constructive work, and have opposed the Government on this great scheme, which we hope may be fruitful in the near future. We cannot help noticing, also, that, in every single instance in which the Government have tried to aid any particular industries, the Liberal party have done everything in their power to prevent aid being given to those industries.

I would remind the House that the Leader of the Liberal party, in one of his incautious moments, when he was carried away by his oratory from the hills, while blaming the Government, when these proposals were first introduced, for giving relief to very prosperous industries like Courtauld's, artificial silk, gramophones, and the motor industry, was good enough to speak of those industries which had come under the protection of the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth, and were naturally prosperous. It is a very remarkable fact that, when the Leader of the Liberal party was attacking the Government on their rating policy, he admitted at the same time the great work that the Government have done in improving the lot of all those industries which have received the benefit of duties of a safeguarding character. [ Interruption. ] The hon. and gallant Member for East Rhondda (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan) is very persistent about beer, but I must remind him that perhaps some of those who are deprived of their honest pint to-day may receive one if we will all pull together as a nation to try to restore the industries of our country.

I have come here to remind the House that, on every single occasion when the Government have brought before this House the case of industries which have asked us to help them in their distress and give them some measure of security, the Liberal party have attacked the Government and endeavoured to resist their policy. We must not, however, blame them too much. There is a kind of international mind which forgets its own people, and thinks that it does not matter what happens so long as you can buy cheap goods from China, or Iceland, or Timbuctoo—that as long as they are cheap it does not matter how many of our own fellow-countrymen are on the streets and on the verge of starvation. Let us give the Liberal party credit for this, that that is their consistent policy. But what of the official Opposition? Is the great Socialist party going to be the antitrade union party? [An HON. MEMBER: "It is going to be the Government before long!"] Not if they are going to put themselves in opposition to the great trade union movement of this country in saying that the standard of life of the workers of this country must be maintained and perhaps improved.

I am not going to remind hon. Gentlemen of their resolution, and of how they told the country that no goods were to be imported into this country if they were produced under lower labour conditions or by working longer hours than obtained here. They told us that very clearly. I would remind them that the most eloquent of them, their future Prime Minister, has told us emphatically this evening that he would safeguard the industries of the workers by complete prohibition. We are not extremists like that, and I suggest to hon. Gentlemen that they cannot have it both ways. They cannot profess to represent the trade unions of this country and at the same time resist the endeavours of trade unionists to save their own industries, and I say that there has hardly been a single case in which an industry has applied for safeguarding and in which the trade union leaders in the area have not supported the application. Since the word "steel" is so often thrown at me, I would remind the House that the Divisional Council of the Confederation of Iron and Steel Workers at their meeting in Yorkshire not long ago, passed by a large majority, in the presence of Mr. Pugh, a resolution advocating the safeguarding of steel as the only hope of the British steel industry. I hope, therefore, that hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Labour benches will remember that when they speak with the voice of the co-operative societies in this country, who presumably want to buy everything very cheaply, regardless of where is is produced. I ask them to remember that they claim to represent, and I hope do in some measure represent, the true ideals of trade unionism in this country.

The trade unions were formed for the purpose of protecting the standard of life of the workers of this country, and how on earth can you protect the standard of life of the workers of this country unless you are prepared to protect the products of those workers? As the Amendment points out, in every single case where the Government have given some relief to industry they have been opposed by the two Opposition parties. We are proud to say that in every single one of such cases production has been increased and employment has been increased. It is true that in some of those industries, which were almost on their last legs, like the lace industry, the saving of the industry was a question almost of inches. I myself saw two factories about to be scrapped, but, when the duty was imposed, those factories were saved. I know that it is only a paltry matter of the employment of 700 or 800 men, but that is something more than the getting rid of redundant directors suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. In what respect have these duties harmed any of the masses of the people of this country? In every case employment has increased, in every case production has increased, in no case has the price increased, and in the majority of cases the price has actually come down.

These are remarkable facts, and, if they are true, can we not, as patriots who really feel for the sufferings of our people, and sympathise with the dramatic picture drawn by the Leader of the Opposition—can we not come together as a nation and say that this problem is too great for any petty bickerings, and that, since we have already seen the success attained where these industries have had security provided for them, we will extend it further, and help the Government by this means to restore those industries which are suffering so much? I would only mention three industries, namely, motor cars, motor tyres—which were in last year's Budget—and silk and artificial silk. [ Interruption. ] Members can ask as many questions as they like, and I can always answer them on this test. I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I have raised my voice a little, but when the ranks of Tuscany all join together it is rather necessary to raise one's voice in order to try to address you. I should like to mention one fact, namely, that, since these three industries were given the security to which I have referred, 21 new factories have been established in this country in those three industries alone. Can you quote any similar comparison with that in any other industry? Actually, five foreign motorcar companies have come into this country and are employing large numbers of workers. Five foreign tyre firms are actually established, and they give employment already to some 13,000 British workers who would not have been employed if we had been merely importing those tyres from foreign countries. In addition to this, there are numerous other industries that are contemplating coming to this country. It is impossible, I know, to give the full total of the persons employed in these industries and to show the results, but we know that it is very substantial, and when the figures are finally published in November I believe all parties in the House will be surprised to see the enormous number of men who have been absorbed in these new factories which have been established here and in the expanding factories to which the Government have given some security.

I was deeply moved by the speech of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough West (Mr. Griffith), and anyone can realise that a representative of that area must indeed be suffering. The iron must have entered into his soul. In Middlesbrough there has been terrible distress for many years, and that depression is going on. I learnt only last week that a well-known firm have closed down three more blast furnaces, one steel plant, one rolling plant and one colliery. I read in yesterday's paper that as the result of the depression and lack of orders Messrs. Pease and Partners had decided to close down their Tees Iron Works at Middlesbrough and their ironstone mines next week and several hundred men will be thrown out of employment. The firm have two blast furnaces in operation at their Tees works and the number in operation on the North-East coast will be reduced to 31, or nine fewer than at the beginning of the year. Only yesterday I received an intimation that 2,000 men will have to be discharged from another great firm in the North unless something can be done shortly. Everyone in the House knows these facts. They are terrible facts. After all, if we had 1,250,000 of our fellow-countrymen who were suffering ii any country in the world from some sort of injustice we should mobilise our Army .and our Fleet in order to see that they received justice.

I beg of men in every section of the House to consider whether we cannot adopt the same kind of mind that we had in the Great War and say: "Here is a real national emergency. Let us sink our minor differences and see if we cannot do something to help these great depressed industries." The details of exports for the first six months of the year have just been got out. The exports of safeguarded goods have increased, compared with 1925, by 17.9 per cent., while the export of all other goods, non-safeguarded, have decreased by 9.8 per cent. That is a very remarkable fact. [An HON. MEMBER: "Is that the effect of Protection?"] Of course, it is. By increasing the quantity produced you are able to produce more cheaply, and therefore you are able to sell more readily in the markets of the world.

I want to refer to the gibe of the Leader of the Opposition with regard to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, referring to the speech my right hon. Friend made in the City two or three nights ago. I think the Leader of the Opposition has probably not read very carefully my right hon. Friend's words. He was endeavouring to encourage the bankers in the City, and he said there was no truth in the idea sometimes mooted that the present increase in unemployment was due to foreign importation. I presume from that he was referring to the increase in unemployment in the last few weeks. If by any chance it was intended to convey the idea that unemployment was not at its present very high figure owing to the importation of manufactured goods, the right hon. Gentleman would have had some justification for what he said. Nearly everyone in the party that supports the Government and has supported them in their fruitful experiments with regard to safeguarding, has done so because he believes foreign importation has displaced British labour. You cannot import £300,000,000 worth of manufactured goods into this great producing and manufacturing country without displacing a great quantity of British labour. We have over 1,000,000 unemployed. [An HON. MEMBER: "America has 4,0000,000!"] This is the only country where unemployment has remained constant. The hon. Member who interrupted me is very unfortunate, because a Liberal speaker only two weeks ago declared that America was a Free Trade country, and you cannot have the argument both ways. We have over 1,000,000 unemployed, and we are importing manufactured goods which give employment to over 1,000,000 foreigners. That great central fact cannot be denied. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was unjustly accused by the Leader of the Opposition. He was welcomed with open arms to this party, where his brilliant abilities were so much admired. We know he subscribes to our party programme and pledges at the election, and it is unfair to make an attack on him of that kind. In days gone by in matters of foreign policy we always stood together, and we never raised questions between each other. With unemployment so serious as it is, I hope this will be the last of the party Votes of Censure, and I hope the House can rise to its great traditions and can sink these minor differences and put our wills together to see if we cannot solve this terrible problem which is affecting so many of our people.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I support what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend, whose long and consistent record on the question of safeguarding commands the respect of all parts of the House. I, like all other Members, have read with the greatest interest the Report of the Industrial Transference Board. I am bound to say that it is one of the most staggering and depressing reports ever printed at our command. One accepts the facts without question, and, as an analysis of the facts of a tragical situation, it is a great contribution to the history of this country. The members of the Board command respect. The one I know best, Sir John Cadman, is one of the most sympathetic employers in the history of industry. Although I differ from many of the conclusions and will criticise the hectoring criticisms of the Dominions in reference to migration set out in the Report, I must say that, as an analysis of fact, it is lucid though tragic. It pays a tribute, well deserved, to miners as a whole. I had the honour to raise and command during the War, a battalion composed entirely of South Wales miners. My hon. and gallant Friend opposite the Member for Rhondda East (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan) who, I hope, will not interrupt me on this occasion—

I will if you trespass off the rails. Make no mistake about that.

was a brother colonel of mine in the same brigade commanding a similar battalion of miners. There, never could be more adaptable, loyal and courageous men. I am glad that this Report has borne a tribute to men who suffered unfairly through their tenacity in supporting a leader who, in the recent strike—[ Interruption ]—a person who set himself up to be the leader of a community, which, in my opinion, he had not the ability or leadership to command. Therefore, so far as the Report deals with a mining community as a whole, it commands our respect, but, when it talks about absorbing 200,000 miners in other industries of this country, really one is staggered at the suggestion. With the best will in the world, so far as my information goes, and I have already started to carry out the suggestion, I do not see how any practical absorption can more than touch the fringe of this problem.

The Report emphasises the fact that the iron and steel and coal industries are declining in this country. This is the only industrial country where they are declining. It is a pathetic statement of fact that 200,000 coal miners and 100,000 iron and steel workers, obviously in the prime of life, obviously skilled and able-bodied men, are told that never again can they be employed in the industries which they helped to create, industries which have helped to create and maintain this Kingdom. I do not accept that as final, but, if it be true, and if it he only true of this country, there must be something wrong, not with the men—nobody says that—nor with the mineral they produce, nor with the iron and steel they manufacture; there must be something wrong, first, with the fiscal system. The War converted me to that and converted many other people who will not say it now. There must be something wrong too in the marketing.

As to the marketing, England is in the most privileged position of any country in the world if she would take advantage of it. She has her home market if she would safeguard it. She has her Empire market, the greatest potential market in the world, because it is a growing population increasing by millions every year, and the greater bulk of it is in such an undeveloped and immature state that they are just coming into the consumption of the goods which we have to sell. Thirdly, there are the foreign markets, many of which we have lost and have not regained owing to events in the past. As to those foreign markets, there is a chance of getting some of them beck under the Government policy. I remember not long ago being in Poland, which, as Members know, is one of our most formidable competitors in the neutral markets of the Baltic in coal. The Polish Government subsidises, at the rate of two shillings or three shillings a ton, every ton of coal for export. During the unhappy events in England, now happily past, the Polish exporters got the Baltic markets. The Government's policy will help us to be equal competitors in those markets. That will be only a small portion, though a vital portion, of the coal trade of this country.

I myself am a believer in the safeguarding of the iron and steel industry. There are 200 Members on this side of the House in favour of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "More!"] I am glad to hear that. The movement is certainly growing, and personally, although a loyal supporter of the Government, I feel that Members who loyally support the Government, many of them speaking from experience longer and wider travelled than that of the ordinary Members of this Government, cannot be expected to sink their views on that question at any time from now on. I take the view that all other suggestions which have been made to-night are trifling compared with the immediate effect of a safeguarding measure dealing with iron and steel. First of all, you have the vast majority of employers in this industry in favour of a duty. You have the great Iron and Steel Workers' Union in favour of it.

Is the right hon. Member aware that one of the biggest steel manufacturers in. the country is against it?

I do not care. I would rather have the support of the trade unionists than of the employers. I believe the Labour party is the only one in the world that is not in favour of safeguarding the national industries. The particular union most suffering is in favour of it. Its spokesman is Mr. John Hodge, who we all remember as an able spokesman of the party opposite during his career in this House. A safeguarding duty would affect at once the coal industry and transport industry in this country. It would leave the workers in the coal and iron industries in their own homes. For many years I had the honour to represent a Durham constituency, the Borough of Sunderland. [An HON. MIMBER: "As a Liberal; as a Free Trader."] All right, I will make the hon. Gentleman a gift of that. I said at the beginning of my speech that the War converted me. In that great borough, pride in industry, whether it be steel, shipbuilding, iron, electrical or coal, is a great factor in holding a man to his local town or his local area. These men are as proud of the achievements of their own industry as the Attorney-General is of the law, or a surgeon is of his profession. I must say that the suggestion that a man should spend half his life in becoming a skilled workman in a basic industry, not in the luxury trade of silk stockings, not in a trifling business, but in a basic industry, basic in time of war as well as in time of peace, that he should quit it and his home and come South to work in some silk factory or in another factory is, to my mind, a policy that is not in contact with reality. It is a policy that would not be acceptable to the men involved, and should, in any event, only apply to those whose home ties were not yet fixed and who belonged to the younger members in a particular calling.

Another reason why I am in favour of the safeguarding of iron and steel is this—and I listened with great interest to what, I think, was an admirable speech by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith)—that the shipbuilders before the War were one and all against a tax or a safeguarding duty on iron and steel. That is not true now. I am told that over 50 per cent. are in favour of this duty. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Wait a moment. Let us come to the reasons. Unless they can count on a larger supply of homemade steel they may sooner or later be at the mercy of foreign exporters of steel. The second point is, that a very great number of ships, to my personal knowledge, are constructed out of British steel by order. While parts of them may be of Krupp steel or some foreign steel, the suggestion to-day that the shipbuilders of this country are unanimously against the safeguarding of iron and steel is simply not true. They are reinforced in their view by this further reason, which is characteristic and human, whatever their calling, they do not want to see this continuous, pathetic and demoralised unemployment in the allied basic industries. For those reasons, the shipbuilders are no longer unanimously against a safeguarding duty on iron and steel.

I want to say a few words on the alternative scheme of this Report, which is divided into two parts—one absorption, and the other migration. On the question of migration, if the House will permit me to say so, I have studied the subject on the spot in different Dominions, except South Africa, where our migration is naturally limited by the fact that most of the normal labour is done by the natives on the spot. As far as Canada, Australia and New Zealand are concerned, I do hope the House will remember that these are now independent Dominions with their own Parliaments, their own Oppositions, just as keen, just as alert, just as ready to put down votes of censure and to criticise as the Opposition in this Mother of Parliaments. In these Dominions you have universal respect for this old country, although the proportion of people of our blood is diminishing, much as I regret it, and I think that even now the majority of the people in the Dominion of Canada cannot be called of British descent. But in these Dominions they have their problems. While they have great respect for England and Britain, respect amounting in most cases to affection, they try to regulate the flow of migration from this country and from other countries according as they think the needs of industry of all kinds demand. Any Member of this House, if he were in the Dominions, would take exactly the same view.

There is another point. The history of England, with its unrestricted alien emigration that went on until quite recent times, and the history of the United States with a hundred years of unrestricted alien emigration, and war experiences—these have convinced our Dominions, and rightly so, that an essential in building up a nation is to build it up from high physical standards of ancestry. Therefore the rules governing admission to these Dominions are very strict. They sometimes work very cruelly. I know of a case now that I have had before me—and I have had many of them—of a woman who has prospered in Canada and wants to bring out a sister who is held not to be quite normal. The regulations are strict, and it is not fair to expect that these Dominions will take people from this country unless they are able to pass the standard set up by the Dominions. I can assure the House—and I speak with personal knowledge—that it is not out of lack of appreciation of the difficulties of this country, it is not out of lack of affection, but in self interest, reinforced by political considerations, that every Dominion—as we do now in this old country—is compelled to fix its own standard for its own migrants. I hope that that will disabuse the minds of many people who are inclined to think that the Dominion of Canada, and those other Dominions, are harsh when they set up these regulations. I think that they might be relaxed in some respects, and I have advocated that course in the Dominions myself. One answer I always get in the Dominions when I emphasise the difficulties of unemployment is this: "Why do you not try our remedy"?—Their remedy is safeguarding on a large scale—" Why do you not try our remedy, and then we can come into your scheme with wider schemes of preference than you now enjoy." And we must not forget that these Dominions, often criticised because of their migration policy, are the only parts of the world where we get any preference for our goods.

And more, may I say this, for I am a champion of the Dominions, that the Dominions are the only portions of the Allied world that have paid their debts and are still paying them to this old country. France defaulted, Belgium defaulted, Italy defaulted—they all defaulted, and they will default again. But these Dominions in War time never failed in men, and now are paying their debts. They borrowed from you to maintain their army. Again, it is a delusion to think that this country paid for the Canadian and Australian armies. The Dominions paid for them, and were proud to do so. They had to borrow their money from England in order to do it in some cases, but they are the only Allies that are paying back the money. I think that these things should be remembered.

In the time of war we were united in defence against the common enemy, and we can unite—I feel it profoundly—against the common enemy of unemployment. The needs of the old country are greater at the moment in regard to this problem than the needs of the Dominions. I remember the words of that great Canadian, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who said: "Call us to your councils." We called them to our councils in time of war, and they met the call and answered it. Could not we call them to our councils to help to solve this problem, and not in any niggardly way? The idea of building bridges or deepening harbours and so on is, to my mind, irrelevant, and the Government's proposals, to my mind, do not touch the fringe of the problem, when we have 300,000 able-bodied men hopeless for the future. That is almost the total population of able-bodied men in New Zealand. That gives one an idea of the magnitude of the task. Here is an opportunity to call the Dominions and the Colonies into council with us, with the credit of this Government still ranking first, or nearly first, in the councils of the world; that credit, with a House that appreciates the tragedy of unemployment and which appreciates the inadequacy of any proposal yet put forward to cure the problem. Our only hope is to call into council with us these great equal partners in the Empire, but the preliminary must be the safeguarding of the home markets, and then the Empire will be open to England.

The Motion which has been moved from this Bench is a vote of censure on the Government for their neglect to deal with the urgent problem of unemployment. I have listened to many speeches in this Debate from the other side of the House, and I have wondered at times whether it was the Labour party or the Tory party who were moving the vote of censure upon the Government. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down tells us that there are more than 200 Members of the Tory party who are supporters and advocates of a policy which His Majesty's Government have declined to approve. I shall look forward with very much interest to the development of this rebellion among the Tory Members, and, if it does develop as it has begun, we shall have a very interesting time at the next General Election. The Motion which has been moved from the Labour Benches is a vote of censure on the Government for its neglect to deal with the problem of unemployment, and no vote of censure ever moved in the House of Commons was so wholly deserved. The Prime Minister, in a speech which I cannot describe in words which would be adequate to its character, adumbrated proposals which one of his loyal supporters a few moments ago said did not touch even the fringe of the problem.

Our charge against the Government is that they have been in office for nearly four years, and that the Prime Minister at the General Election made a very definite pledge that the problem of unemployment would receive the unceasing and constant attention of the Government. I say nothing now of the unofficial pledge that was circulated in millions of leaflets at the Election, that the Unionist party had a positive remedy for unemployment. The Government have had four years in which to redeem the pledge given by the Prime Minister. At one of the aristocratic gatherings that the Prime Minister is in the habit of addressing on Saturday afternoons, he stated that the Government have tried to do their best to deal with the problem of unemployment, and to relieve the distress arising from it. They have tried to do their best, and their best, after four years, amounts to this, that there are over a quarter of a million men and women out of work to-day more than there were when the Government came into office. If that is the best that the Government can do, it is high time that they stepped aside to let somebody else have a try. I am quite sure that there is no Government, of any party, which could be constituted which, after four years of effort, would show such a tragic record of failure as this Government.

Reference has been made in this Debate to the number of unemployed as shown by the registered figures of the Employment Exchanges, but there is one thing which is never mentioned in this connection. Those figures are based upon the persons who are insured for unemployment, but there are millions of wage-earners who are not insured for unemployment. There are millions of workers, clerks and many others among whom there is a vast amount of unemployment. Agricultural workers are not included.

The hon. Member evidently does not read the Reports issued by his own Government. Only a few weeks ago an agricultural return was issued which stated that the number of people who had not been able to continue their employment in agriculture during 1927 was double the number of those who had left the industry in the year before.

The hon. Member is new to this House, and he will perhaps find that we cannot carry on a Debate by rude interruptions. The statement I Made in this House a year or two ago has often been quoted; that is the statement in which I referred to agriculture as the special darling of the Tory party.

Yes, the "pampered darling" of the Tory party. What have they done for this "pampered darling"? There are 600,000 fewer acres under arable cultivation to-day, after four years of the Government doing their best, than there were in 1924. There were over 1,000,000 cwts. of meat less produced in this country in 1927 than in 1926, after four years of doing their best. Take the iron and steel industries, which if the majority of the supporters of the Government—can I call them supporters or those who are termed the supporters of the Government—had their way would get safeguarding. Why is the Tory party ashamed of the good old word "Protection." It is because Protection has been discredited. It has had many aliases. I can remember it as Reciprocity, as Fair Trade. Then it became Tariff Reform. Now it is Safeguarding. The change of name has been taken in the hope that they may be able to bamboozle the public of this country into the acceptance of the same thing which they have over and over again rejected. Take coal. After four years of this Government there are 200,000 miners, so we are told, who can never hope to find work in the industry again. The iron and steel trade, according to the statements of the majority of hon. Members opposite, is in an unprecedented state of depression, after four years of the Government trying to do their best. And so I could go on through all the great industries of the country.

10.0 p.m.

We charge this Government with the responsibility for the present condition of the coal industry. When the crisis appeared imminent in 1925 the Prime Minister who never appears to be able to make up his mind until the last minute, until the pressure has become so strong that he cannot resist it, resisted a subsidy to the last moment. Then he gave a subsidy of over £20,000,000; and what did he do during the 12 months that the subsidy was operating? He did nothing. He allowed things to run their course, to the inevitable catastrophe which took place at the end of the 12 months, and during the eight months of that lamentable stoppage the Government showed their incompetence in the same measure. In a great national disaster like that the Government were hopeless. The only thing they did was to aggravate the situation by lengthening the hours of labour; and that undoubtedly has been a contribution to the fact stated in this Report, that there are 200,000 surplus miners to-day. The Prime Minister this afternoon asked what is the reason, the cause, of the present and continued depression in many of the great staple industries of the country. He thought that the cause is something new. The cause is not new at all. The depression is due to the influences which have been operating in industry for half a century at least, but the country has been ignorant and blind to the working of these causes; they have been allowed to operate without control until they have driven the industries of the country to this position.

Reference was made just now to unemployment in America. There you have this problem in a more aggravated and intensified form than in this country, and I will try to put it in a sentence. It is the development of machine production and standardisation at a greater rate than the increase in the purchasing power of the people of the country, and, unless you get an equilibrium between constantly increasing production and the consuming power of the people, you will have these trade crises and a continual increase in the number of unemployed. If time permitted I could give the House some striking figures on this point from the present condition of things in the United States of America, but I will confine myself to this. The year 1926 was a record year of production in the United States, and yet that record production was produced by 15 per cent. less labour than the production of 1923. That is part of the explanation of the depression in our manufacturing industries.

The last two speakers have moved and seconded an Amendment which contains a statement so audacious that I am amazed that even a safeguarder and Protectionist should have had the courage to put it before an assembly of men who are supposed to have a certain amount of intelligence—that safeguarding has increased employment in every industry to which it has been applied. I should like to hear what the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say about that when he speaks later. I will make a statement. I have no time to prove it, but I make it, and the statement is that where safeguarding, so-called, has been applied, in every case it has had a weakening effect, has reduced employment and reduced the volume of trade. Go into the Library of the House and look at the last issue of the Ministry of Labour Returns. Refer to the pottery trade, which was safeguarded a year or so ago. Thirty-four per cent. of those who were employed in the pottery trade are working on the average now 15 hours a week under the normal figure.

The only industry in which we have any exact figures, in regard to employment during the last six years, is the lace industry. The hon. Gentleman, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, gave us those figures a few weeks ago. They show that there has been a reduction of something like 3,000 from the time before the duty was imposed on imported lace. Questions have been repeatedly addressed to the Minister as to the wages in these safeguarded industries. His reply always is, "We have no figures." So much for what safeguarding has done. It has thrown a vast number of people out of employment. [ Interruption. ] Yes, of which there is no record in the official records. It has destroyed £2,000,000 of re-export trade in lace, and that re-export trade was not carried on without the employment of people. All those people have been thrown out of employment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has done the same thing, but not to the same extent, by his recent manipulation of the duty on sugar. So much for that.

I want to come to the Prime Minister's statement this afternoon—a statement which was stigmatised by the last Tory speaker as not touching even the fringe of the question. I do not want to exaggerate. I have been in the House of Commons for more than 20 years, and never have I heard a speech so inadequate to the occasion, or such a miserable exhibition, as that which the Prime Minister gave this afternoon. It is no wonder that the right hon. Gentleman sat down in the dead silence of the benches behind him. We have this tragic unemployment problem. What has the Prime Minister to do for it? [HON. MEMBERS: "What is your programmme?"] The plan of campaign lies with the men of action on the Government Benches, and when we have the responsibility we will produce our plan of campaign—[ Interruption ]—and it will not take four years to do it. What does the Prime Minister propose? In the face of this tragic problem, growing more tragic every day, what has he to offer? The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is now bowing his head in shame—he has my heartfelt sympathy—I am sure must now be examining himself, as to whether the step that he took four years ago was a wise decision. The right hon. Gentleman told the bankers the other night that the Prime Minister was going to submit to the House of Commons to-day a carefully-prepared and well-conceived plan.

What is the plan? It is an appeal from the Prime Minister to well-disposed and philanthropic people to see whether they can find employment for those who are out of work—a confession of hopelessness and incompetence on the part of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman told us about what the Government have done in the training of juveniles. I do not know the exact number, but I believe there are some hundreds of thousands of children who leave school every year, and last year the Government trained 700 boys for industrial occupations! That is the record of the Government. They were to do something for the transfer of labour from those places where unemployment is exceptionally high. They are going to bring them into the prosperous areas. The number of unemployed in London, the Prime Minister said, is 5 per cent. That is more than 100,000. Under this transfer scheme unemployed men from the necessitous areas will be drafted to London. Will the Government scheme find employment for even any considerable number of the 100,000 men who are out of work in London? The right hon. Gentleman seems to think, from what he said, that if he can equalise or spread the average more widely over the country, he has reduced the number of unemployed and solved the unemployment problem. How many do the Government expect that they are going to transfer under this scheme. How many of the surplus miners are going to be transferred? A thousand? There will not he a thousand transferred in six months from to-day.

I come to another of the Prime Minister's proposals, namely, migration. Surely this is a subject which ought to appeal to the party opposite—since they own the Empire. They claim to be the only patriotic and the only Imperial party, though the only thing the Tory party ever did for the Empire was to put the Union Jack upon their election programmes. Why, they have not the capacity of a fried-fish dealer to run the Empire! What in it the Government are going to do in regard to this migration question, after four years? They are going to send out Lord Lovat to have a talk with the Dominions. Why, Lord Lovat—certainly Lord Clarendon, who is to be called into consultation—went out to Canada for this purpose years ago, and what is the result? Fifty per cent. more emigrants are coming into Canada now from other countries, than there are migrants from Great Britain. They are going to talk to the Dominions. That is the sum and total of the Government's proposal. There are 1,250,000 registered unemployed. The staple industries of the country are getting worse—and this is their remedy. I am sorry I have not time to develop this point, but I am justified in making this statement. In the short time that we were in office, we realised the possibilities of the development of the British Empire.

I am not at all in agreement with what the Prime Minister has said this afternoon, except for one statement, which was often contradicted in the rest of his speech. The right hon. Gentleman said that this country was not played out. This country is not played out. British industry is not played out, if it would reorganise itself and make itself efficient for world competition. I have sometimes said elsewhere that world trade has scarcely yet even been scratched. Take India. What are the possibilities there? We are told that the average wage of the Indian peasant is about £4 a year. What is the purchasing power there? Raise the purchasing power of the Indian peasant by only ¾d. a week, and there would not be a loom or a spindle idle in Lancashire. They spend 7s. per head of their population on goods from this country. New Zealand and Australia, with their higher standards, spend £10, £12 or £15 per head of their population on our goods. If you want to restore the iron and steel trade, the way to safeguard it is to develop the great possibilities of the Indian Empire. Send them your machinery that they may cultivate the land. Raise money for the manures and other things which are necessary. Do that and the machine trades of this country will see an era of prosperity far beyond anything they have ever experienced in the past. Now that is something which I submit for hon. Members opposite to think about. If they try to do something on those lines, they may, in time, justify their claim to be regarded as an Imperial party.

You are not going to palliate, much less solve the unemployment problem unless you are prepared to spend money. We have spent £600,000,000 in supporting the unemployed in idleness. That money should have been devoted to the development of the Empire and of the resources of our own country. Why did the Prime Minister say nothing about two of the recommendations of this Transference Board? Why did he say nothing about the need for a more forward policy in afforestation? Why did he say nothing about the Report of the Land Drainage Committee, one of the most painful documents ever presented to the State? If these plans were adopted, they would cost money, but the Government prefer to give it in the form of a miserable dole to keep men from work. If they devoted a part of that money to carrying out the recommendations of the Land Drainage Committee, they could, in a few years' time, double the productivity of the land of this country.

The Prime Minister said that the country would soon have an opportunity of expressing its judgment upon these matters. I am quite sure what the judgment of the country will be to-morrow when it reads the Prime Minister's speech, and we will take good care that that speech is not forgotten at the next General Election. The Government have been in office for four years; they have tried their best and done nothing, and they will stand in the dock when the General Election comes. There is nothing that they have done that has palliated in the slightest degree the gravity of the position. Before we had been in office a month, they proposed a Vote of Censure upon us. We have been more indulgent to them than they ever were to us, but after the confession of abject hopelessness and failure which the Prime Minister has made this afternoon, I can promise the right hon. Gentleman that for the future we shall show to them no mercy whatever.

Among the many illusions of which the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) appears to be the victim, there is one from which I would like to free him. He said that for the future he and those for whom he acts will show us neither mercy nor indulgence. Let him dismiss from his mind the idea that we have ever asked or wished or expected any such aid or assistance. So far as co-operation in the advancement of the common interests of the country is concerned, we have always invited it, but so far as party politics are concerned, so far as the taunts and bickerings of Debate are concerned, we are quite content that the right hon. Gentleman should, on every occasion, here and out of doors, exercise to the full his gift of cold, calculated, well-phrased venom. And, Sir, surely the occasion of a vote of censure was one which was singularly appropriate to the display of this peculiar gift. He has supported a vote of censure ostensibly on the Government, but really, I think, if we look behind this frigid exhibition of malicious invective, we see that what he has really been supporting is a vote of censure on the hard times in which we live and through which we are passing; and I am bound to say that, in collecting materials for his indictment, he showed a singular lack of memory for his own past in the controversies in which we have been engaged and the events through which we have been passing. He said, for instance, that the Government, having given a subsidy to avert the coal industry, did nothing for 12 months. There was not a day in those 12 months, when the most earnest efforts were not being made, first by one plan and then by another, to arrive at some solution which would avert disaster.

These efforts are upon record, but what did the right hon. Gentleman do? He was like the deepest diving duck plunging beneath the surface of public affairs, while the vast upheaval of the general strike took place. He was as mum as a mouse, and he sat there peering round the corner nervously while some of his followers came out in the open; and he for his part lay in the background hoping to preserve inviolate his reputation as a respectable Radical, Socialist statesman. Whatever you may say of us or of some of those who sit on these Benches, at any rate we have been engaged in what has been going on, and we have not been absent from the awkward situation at the time when it looked least pleasant, and when there was the least credit or advantage to be got out of it.

This brings me back from the long and discursive tirade of the right hon. Gentleman, ranging from the supply of unlimited machinery to India to many curious and novel suggestions about land drainage, to the real practical issues which are before us in this vote of censure, and on which I should like to say a few words before we go to the Division. The immediate issue before us is coal, as has been the case so often in this Parliament, because unemployment generally, the recent increases in unemployment, and the grievous features of unemployment is so largely due to the unemployment in the coal industry. That is the core and crux of the problem. There is nothing very surprising or unexpected about what has occurred. It was clearly foreseen and stated, I think, by Mr. Cook and others in the course of the negotiations in 1926, that something like 200,000 or 300,000 men might easily be displaced by the extinction of pits which it would not be possible to work on the wage scales for which he was fighting; and, since those troubles have passed, it has been claimed on the full authority of the Labour party that there are at least 250,000 workers in the mining industry who are surplus to requirements, and that even the Labour proposals would offer no prospects of the industry keeping 1,100,000 miners further employed. These facts are concurred in by our advisers. They are set out in impressive fashion in the Report of the Industrial Transference Board. All that was known before. What was not known is how rapidly this condition of affairs would develop, and to what extent the increased unemployment in coal mining might be counterpoised by a general improvement and revival in the trade of the country as a whole. We are actually producing all the coal we can market, and we could easily produce all the coal that we re- quire in a normal year with anything between 250,000 and 300,000 men less than were employed in the industry only a few years ago.

Another serious fact which should be carefully weighed in various quarters is that if the existing mines and existing workers, let alone the unemployed coal miners, were worked to their full capacity, there would probably be a surplus potential output in those mines, even with their present defective organisation, which might well amount to 50,000,000 tons a year. That is a fact which is before us to-night, and anybody must see that a very considerable improvement in home industry would be necessary, apart from the export trade, before this very large surplus capacity of the existing coal mines could be absorbed, or before we should be able to call a larger number of miners back to the pits. This evil of unemployment, which is distressing enough when spread about in the tale of all the different trades of the country, and scattered about in different towns and districts, assumes an extremely distressing and tragical aspect when it is revealed in the concentrated form in which we see it in the depressed coal-producing areas.

The Report of the Industrial Transference Board states this case in a manner which leaves nothing to be improved upon in the forceful and courageous statement of the facts. One might easily say, Why have the Government published this report broadcast and caused it to be produced in public, when it contains undoubtedly the unflinching recital of so many harsh facts? We have done so, among other reasons, because we hope by the presentation of these facts to enlist a measure of national sympathy and co-operation in all parts of the country in liquidating and diminishing as far as possible the grievous and perfectly definite problems with which we are confronted. The problem before us is how to liquidate this 250,000 surplus mining population, and do that, let the House observe, not in a period of prosperity and financial strength, but in the after-math of the great labour stoppage and disputes of 1926, which depleted the capital resources of this country by not less than £400,000,000, and cost the Exchequer at least £80,000,000.

That is the problem, and it is being approached and dealt with at the present moment by various important methods. In the first place, there is the absorption by the coal industry of its own wastage. An agreement has been made that no adults from outside may be recruited for coal mining, and as the wastage in the mines is necessarily very large, through age and one cause and another, that has a most important effect in relieving this problem. In the second place, we are at the present time using the Employment Exchange machinery to facilitate and encourage voluntary movements of miners out of the mining industry into other areas and other trades. I am advised that, apart from the absorption of miners into vacancies within the industry, this voluntary movement of labour has attained the rate of about 3,000 a month.

But the problem we have to face is greatly complicated by the fact that the unemployment in other districts is not diminishing as we had hoped, and, of course, the general state of the basic industries at the present time is depressed. It was for this reason that I submitted on behalf of the Government the rating scheme which constituted the main feature of this year's Budget. That is the scheme which, when it is in full operation, will cost between £30,000,000 and £35,000,000 a year, all going in relief of industry and being directed principally to those very districts and those very industries, especially the mining industry, which are suffering the most at the present time. This scheme of rating reform and relief to productive industry must constitute the main effort of the Government in its dealings with the present difficult situation. It is a large scheme, and I must confess that we have not had much help in regard to it from either of the parties opposite. We have had nothing but jeers and fault-finding. We are told that it is of no value, and that it is vitiated by every anomaly and illogicality. We have not had the least help in, what after all is an effort on an enormous scale to deal with the situation. Nevertheless, appeals have continually been made to the Government to bring in a small portion of what has been described as a quite valueless scheme in order to relieve the coal industry and other industries before the time for the operation of the full scheme arrives.

I have had deputations largely consisting of Members of the party opposite begging that, at any rate, the freight reliefs should be brought into operation at an earlier stage. It has always been my earnest desire to help in this situation, and it is not a case of what the Leader of the Opposition called an eleventh-hour conversion. I have from the beginning kept open the possibility of accelerating the relief of freights. I have always found it very convenient in working out these things to remember that I carefully arrested £4,000,000 of the old Sinking Fund which otherwise would have been swept into the maw of the Commissioners of the National Debt, and I have added it to my balances to face various contingencies which I was sure would arise in the course of this year. We have now decided that the conditions of the present time require us to make this extra effort of bringing a small portion of our scheme into operation before the rest can be achieved.

What is it we are actually willing to do? [ Interruption. ] I think I might have the attention of the representatives of mining constituencies, because this is a matter of real consequence to the people they represent, and I am not dealing with this question in any polemical spirit, and I am sure that they would like to be in a position to form their own instructed judgment. In the first place, we propose what may be called not merely a concentration of relief on freights but a super-concentration, that is to say that the relief upon coal instead of being spread over all kinds of coal is to be concentrated entirely upon export coal, bunker coal, and coal for steel. That is done under the advice which we have received from the people who are interested in the trade, and we believe it will produce the best results. It certainly produces a much more powerful effect upon the cost per ton of steel. Export coal which under the Budget scheme of traffic reliefs would have received 2d. relief, receives under this scheme 7½d. relief, and coal for steel, which would have received 3d. relief, receives 10½d. per ton relief under the present scheme. The effect of the freight reliefs is actually tripled, and this new form of traffic reliefs supersedes, not merely temporarily but permanently, the traffic reliefs proposed in the Budget speech. All the other traffic reliefs proposed in the Budget will remain unaltered. Agriculture, limestone, and so on, will all remain exactly as originally described; coal alone will take this new and more concentrated form.

In addition to the concentration, we propose to accelerate the date at which this relief is to come into operation. We hope to bring it into operation, at the latest, on the 1st December, 1928, instead of on the 1st October, 1929. The only reason why we attach a contingent condition to this is that we do not wish in any way to hamper or prejudice the negotiations that are now taking place with the railway companies for effecting economies in that sheltered trade which are so urgently needed by productive industry, and also because it is necessary for us to make provision to ensure that these reliefs, which we are giving at the cost of the State, will not be taken away by the Railway Rates Tribunal as the result of an application by the railway companies. We shall certainly enact legislation providing that the Railway Rates Tribunal shall not take into consideration these rebates when they are judging what should be the alterations, if any, in the general freights charged by the railway companies.

I have been very glad to learn that so much importance is attached to this section of our policy in various quarters, but I must say that I think the House would be unwise to exaggerate the effect. After all, this is only a fraction of the policy, and the policy as a whole cannot be judged by a partial application. We are relying upon the operation of the rating scheme as a whole, with its very large reliefs to productive industry and necessitous areas, in addition to these freight reliefs, to produce, not indeed a complete cure, but some measure of sensible amelioration. In addition, we propose to extend for two years the system of export credits. We propose also to develop training centres for adults, and also, in a particular measure, the training of juveniles. [ Interruption. ] I am really astonished that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not give me a little more attention. I am afraid that it is a little painful to them to have laid before them the seriousness and strength of the case and of the policy which the Government are pursuing, but in any case these are matters which are of peculiar importance for those whom they represent.

In regard to juvenile training, it is a very remarkable fact that no fewer than 30,000 boys were taken into the coal industry last year. Thirty thousand new boys were brought into that industry last year, when there are 250,000 people for whom there is no employment, and when, even between the ages of 18 and 25, there are 37,000 men unemployed. Yet into this blind alley, into this area so full of chances of unemployment and of failure of employment, 30,000 boys are being taken in, because their labour is cheaper and more profitable to those who employ them. I should have thought a restriction, voluntary, no doubt, but a restriction, and a diversion of this influx of new labour into a congested industry at this time was a most essential part of any plan, and at any rate the opportunity is presented, because this year, as it happens, we reach the fourteenth year after the outbreak of the Great War, when the drop in the birth rate operates upon the juvenile population, reducing it by something like 300,000 a year, and therefore there is going to be a quite exceptional demand for the employment of boys and youths in all parts of the country during the next four years, and we ought to take the fullest advantage of that to encourage these boys to go into the many occupations there are in other parts of the country instead of herding in a hopeless fashion in an industry where, at any rate for the next few years, a very great measure of disappointment and unemployment can only await them. Directions will also be given to the Forestry Commissioners in the setting up of various holdings, which cannot claim very large numbers, that in so far as they can, they shall give a preference, in regard to new applicants, to men displaced from the mining industry.

Lastly, we are making a new effort of very great importance to cope with the question of migration. Already we have succeeded, under the existing machinery, during the last four years in procuring the migration of 264,000 persons at, I am credibly informed, a cost that does not exceed £15 a head. Still, no one can read the Report of the Board without feeling how many obstacles there are that have to be overcome before migration and Empire settlement can attain its proper dimensions. We are approaching this from three separate points of view. In the first place, we are going to endeavour to make the migration of the population more easy by sweeping away some of the obstacles that intervene at present. In the second place, we are going to provide a larger grant for needy migrants to enable them to start when their reach the other side and to obtain the necessary outfit. In the third place, a scheme has been framed for securing the migration of approximately 2,500 boys, 7,000 single men, 2,500 families, and 2,000 single women from the mining districts alone, if the miners are willing to go, at a cost of £600,000 a year. Finally, we have in view schemes of settlement loans to assist the migrants when they reach their new destination in certain circumstances. The whole of this policy of stimulating Empire settlement will certainly involve a new and heavy charge upon the Exchequer which may ultimately rise, though not for some years, to a total of £2,000,000 a year. I have dealt with all the definite and practical steps that we are taking at present to deal with the immediate emergency, and, after a most careful survey of the ground, I am bound to say we have approached the subject from a good many angles and with a very good hope of making a sensible impression upon the grave problem before us.

I turn now from the immediate and practical steps to say a word, if the House will allow me, upon some of the larger issues which have been referred to in this Debate. We ought not to get unduly discouraged, although the times through which we are passing are unpleasant. The history of 100 years ago will well repay a study. We had then, as now, emerged from a great war, and emerged victoriously. We found then, as now, a devastated Europe and an impoverished world. Loaded with debt, then, as now, we treated our debtors with generosity. A 100 years ago, as now, though with much more trepidation and hesitancy, we resumed the gold standard. As soon as the condition of war inflation ceased a hundred years ago, there ensued a prolonged period of hard times, and industrial dislocation, incomparably more severe in proportion to the state of our affairs than anything through which we are passing now. But through all these difficulties we made our way—not, indeed, without much suffering and hardship, but nevertheless with perseverance, and so we shall again make our way if we act with courage and resolution.

Undoubtedly, however, this new 20th century is not in many ways so favourable to us as the 19th century. A new world is growing up around us, far larger than anything previously seen, and filled with giant States and competitors. The desire of so many nations and new States, including our own Dominions, to become completely self-contained, and have within their bounds every form of productive industry, particularly basic industries, has led to a multiplication and heightening of trade barriers, and a check in the expansion of goods transported across the seas, which affects us not only as the greatest exporters of manufactured goods, but also as the world's carriers upon salt waters. I have repeatedly spoken about the unfavourable tendencies which arise from the increasing substitution of foreign imported oil for domestic British coal and of the solution which we may try to find. Taking all these tendencies, there is no one who can view them without anxiety or without vigilance.

I myself do not believe that we shall come through our difficulties by reliance on any particular logical or doctrinaire theory. I do not believe that there is any way in which, by chanting some incantation, we shall be able to produce a solution of the difficulties with which we are confronted. There is the theory of the Manchester School, that all you have to do is to follow the orthodox principles of Free Trade, and hold up your hands and let things drift, and all will be well in the best of all possible worlds. There are still some, though very few, advocates of that policy on the benches in the right-hand corner of the House. Then there is the Protectionist theory that these islands would be far richer, and give employment to all their people, so powerfully voiced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouh (Sir H. Croft), if only Protective duties were placed on all foreign imports. Then there is the belief of the currency specialist that all our evils could be cured by a manipulation of the currency. Lastly, there is the theory of the official Opposition that all you have to do is to nationalise all the means of production, distribution and exchange. I do not believe that the overwhelming majority of this House, irrespective of party and taken as a whole, will put its confidence in any of these doctrinaire solutions.

Now, indeed, I think the modern feeling is more and more against putting reliance upon logical and doctrinaire solution's. While all knowledge continues to expand, as Lord Balfour said to-day, the human faculty remains stationary, and that has induced an experimental mood in all our studies and sciences, a desire to test matters and not to yield oneself completely to clear-cut and logical definitions. At any rate, it seems to me that it is in that spirit that we have to approach our many difficulties, and it is in that spirit that we are approaching them this evening. We have to face all the facts, not only the ugly facts. After all, at the present time this island, with all its difficulties, is still not only the greatest exporting nation of manufactures in the world, but it exports twice the manufactures per head of its population—although there is all this doubt about the fiscal system, and although, undoubtedly, our wages are 50 per cent. above the Continental level, nevertheless we export, against high and hostile, tariffs, and against fierce and in many cases unfair competition, double, per pair of human hands, the manufactured goods than can be exported by any other large country on the globe. There are two countries in Europe—Switzerland and Belgium—which are exceptions to this rule. They are small countries, and they are both countries where the duties are exceptionally low, and they stand with us at the head of the list of

those nations which have the highest possible exporting capacity.

It seems to me that we ought to consider all these facts, not from the point of view of rigid pedantry, and still less from the point of view of electioneering propaganda. We ought not to hesitate to examine them in a cool and practical spirit, and to make experiments where they claim to be made. First, there is the application of science and higher organisation, not only to coal, but to every form of industrial production. Secondly, there is the removal of the burdens upon industry by the removal of rates, of uneconomic transport charges and also the reduction in the cost of production. And, thirdly, in the fiscal sphere, it seems to me that we ought not to contemplate any fundamental reversal of the fiscal system upon which the whole industrial and economic structure of this country is erected, and with which it is profoundly interwoven. But we are perfectly free, and we ought to be, to study and develop exceptional measures for the special culture of particular trades where advantage can be gained, and where we have shown that advantage can be gained, and we should also carry protective aid, perhaps by temporary measures, in cases where the strain is shown to be greatest, and where it can also be proved that we can give this aid without bringing greater evil in its train. Lastly, it is in the development of our Empire in these many combinations and in the inter-dependence of its industries that we must look to our future destiny.

The House divided: Ayes, 151; Noes, 331.

Division No. 320]

AYES.

[11.0 p.m.

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

Broad, F. A.

Dalton, Hugh

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

Bromfield, William

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Ammon, Charles George

Bromley, J.

Day, Harry

Attlee, Clement Richard

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Dennison, R.

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Duncan, C.

Baker, Walter

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

Dunnico, H.

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Cape, Thomas

Edge, Sir William

Barnes, A.

Charleton, H. C.

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Barr, J.

Cluse, W. S.

Fenby, T. D.

Batey, Joseph

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Gardner, J. P.

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Connolly, M.

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

Bondfield, Margaret

Cove, W. G

George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Gibbins, Joseph

Briant, Frank

Crawfurd, H. E.

Gillett, George M.

Gosling, Harry

Lowth, T.

Snell, Harry

Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

Lunn, William

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Greenall, T.

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

Stamford, T. W.

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Mackinder, W.

Stephen, Campbell

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

MacLaren, Andrew

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Griffith, F. Kingsley

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Strauss, E. A.

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Maxton, James

Sullivan, J.

Groves, T.

Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

Sutton, J. E.

Grundy, T. W.

Montague, Frederick

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

Hall, F. (York., W. R., Normanton)

Morrison. R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Murnin, H.

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Hardle, George D.

Naylor, T. E.

Thurtle, Ernest

Harris, Percy A.

Palin, John Henry

Tinker, John Joseph

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Hayday, Arthur

Ponsonby, Arthur

Varley, Frank B.

Hayes, John Henry

Potts, John S.

Viant, S. P.

Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

Purcell, A. A.

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Hirst, G. H.

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Riley, Ben

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

Hollins, A.

Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

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

Wellock, Wilfred

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)

Westwood, J.

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Saklatvala, Shapurji

Wiggins, William Martin

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Scrymgeour, E.

Williams. C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

Scurr, John

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Sexton, James

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe

Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Kelly, W. T.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Windsor, Walter

Kennedy, T.

Shinwell, E.

Wright, W.

Lansbury, George

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Lawrence, Susan

Slesser, Sir Henry H.

Lawson, John James

Smillie, Robert

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Lee, F.

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

Lindley, F. W.

Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

Whiteley.

Longbottom, A. W.

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

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

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

Albery, Irving James

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Buchan, John

Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

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

Bullock, Captain M.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

Dalkeith, Earl of

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Burman, J. B.

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

Apsley, Lord

Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

Burton, Colonel H. W.

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

Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

Butler, Sir Geoffrey

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Astor, Viscountess

Butt, Sir Alfred

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

Atholl, Duchess of

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Dawson, Sir Philip

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Caine, Gordon Hall

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Campbell, E. T.

Dixey, A. C.

Balniel, Lord

Carver, Major W. H.

Drewe, C.

Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

Cassels, J. D.

Eden, Captain Anthony

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Cayzer Sir C. (Chester, City)

Ellis, R. G.

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

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

England, Colonel A.

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

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

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

Bennett, A. J.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Everard, W. Lindsay

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

Chapman, Sir S.

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Berry, Sir George

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Betterton, Henry B.

Christie, J. A.

Falls, Sir Charles F.

Bevan, S. J.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Fermoy, Lord

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

Clarry, Reginald George

Fielden, E. B.

Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Finburgh, S.

Blundell, F. N.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A D.

Ford, Sir P. J.

Boothby, R. J. G.

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Cohen, Major J. Brunel

Forrest, W.

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Foster, Sir Harry S.

Braithwaite, Major A. N.

Cooper, A. Duff

Fraser, Captain Ian

Brass, Captain W.

Cope, Major Sir William

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis F.

Brassey, Sir Leonard

Couper, J. B.

Galbraith, J. F. W.

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Ganzoni, Sir John

Briggs, J. Harold

Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

Gates, Percy

Briscoe, Richard George

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

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Brittain, Sir Harry

Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)

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

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Gower, Sir Robert

Grace, John

Lumley, L. R.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Lynn, Sir R. J.

Sandeman, N. Stewart

Grant, Sir J. A.

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

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

Sanderson, Sir Frank

Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Sandon, Lord

Greene, W. P. Crawford

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)

McLean, Malor A.

Savery, S. S.

Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

Macmillan, Captain H.

Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

Grotrian, H. Brent

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

Skelton, A. N.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

Hacking, Douglas H.

Malone, Major P. B.

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

Margesson, Captain D.

Smithers, Waldron

Hamilton, Sir George

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Hammersley, S. S.

Meller, R. J.

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Harland, A.

Meyer, Sir Frank

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Harrison, G. J. C.

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

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

Hartington, Marquess of

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

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

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Haslam, Henry C.

Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

Styles, Captain H. Walter

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

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

Morden, Colonel Walter Grant

Templeton, W. P.

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Morrison H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

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

Hills, Major John Waller

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Hilton, Cecil

Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.

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

Nelson, Sir Frank

Tinne, J. A.

Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

Neville, Sir Reginald J.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

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

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

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

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

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

Waddington, R.

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng, Universities)

Nuttall, Ellis

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Oakley, T.

Warrender, Sir Victor

Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford Luton)

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)

Penny, Frederick George

Watts, Sir Thomas

Hume, Sir G. H.

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Wayland, Sir William A.

Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Wells, S. R.

Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-

Hurd, Percy A.

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

Hurst, Gerald B.

Philipson, Mabel

Williams, Corn. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Hiffs, Sir Edward M.

Pilcher, G.

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Radford, E. A.

Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Raine, Sir Walter

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

Jephcott, A. R.

Ramsden, E.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Rees, Sir Beddoe

Withers, John James

Kindersley, Major Guy M.

Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)

Wolmer, John James

King, Commodore Henry Douglas

Reid. D. D. (County Down)

Womersley, W. J.

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Remer, J. R.

Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

Knox, Sir Alfred

Rentoul, G. S.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Lamb, J. Q.

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Lane Fox, Col. At. Hon. George R.

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Wragg, Herbert

Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Long, Major Eric

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Looker, Herbert William

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Commander B. Eyres Monsell and

Lougher, Lewis

Rye, F. G.

Major Sir George Hennessy.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Salmon, Major I.

Question put, "That those words be The there added."

The House divided: Ayes, 305; Noes, 136.

Division No. 321.]

AYES.

[11.12 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Astor, Viscountess

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

Atholl, Duchess of

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

Albery, Irving James

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Penn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Bennett, A. J.

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

Balniel, Lord

Berry, Sir George

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

Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

Betterton, Henry B.

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Bevan, S. J.

Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

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

Ford, Sir P. J.

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Fraser, Captain Ian

Margesson, Captain D.

Boothby, R. J. G.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Galbraith, J. F. W.

Meller, R. J.

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Ganzoni, Sir John

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Braithwaite, Major A. N.

Gates, Percy

Meyer, Sir Frank

Brass, Captain W.

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

Brassey, Sir Leonard

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

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Briggs, J. Harold

Gower, Sir Robert

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Briscoe, Richard George

Grace, John

Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Brittain, Sir Harry

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Grant, Sir J. A.

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

Morden, Colonel Walter Grant

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

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E.)

Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

Bullock, Captain M.

Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

Nelson, Sir Frank

Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

Grotrian, H. Brent

Neville, Sir Reginald J.

Burman, J. B.

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

Burney, Lieut.-Cam. Charles D.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Hacking, Douglas H.

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

Butler, Sir Geoffrey

Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Butt, Sir Alfred

Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

Nuttall, Ellis

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Hamilton, Sir George

Oakley, T.

Caine, Gordon Hall

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

Campbell, E. T.

Harland, A.

O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

Carver, Major W. H.

Harrison, G. J. C.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Cassels, J. D.

Hartington, Marquess of

Penny, Frederick George

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings(

Cayzer Sir C. (Chester, City)

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

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

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

Haslam, Henry C.

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

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

Philipson, Mabel

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

Pilcher, G.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Chapman, Sir S.

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Radford, E. A.

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Hills, Major John Waller

Raine, Sir Walter

Christie, J. A.

Hilton, Cecil

Ramsden, E.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

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

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)

Clarry, Reginald George

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Reid, D. D. (County Down)

Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

Remer, J. R.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Rentoul, G. S.

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Cohen, Major J. Brunel

Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

Cooper, A. Duff

Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Cope, Major Sir William

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

Couper, J. B.

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Courtauld, Major J. S.

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

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

Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

Hume, Sir G. H.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

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

Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

Rye, F. G.

Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)

Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

Salmon, Major I.

Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Hurd, Percy A.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

Sandeman, N. Stewart

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Sanderson, Sir Frank

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

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Sandon, Lord

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Jephcott, A. R,

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Savery, S. S.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

Dalkeith, Earl of

King, Commodore Henry Douglas

Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Skelton, A. N.

Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

Knox, Sir Alfred

Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

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

Lamb, J. Q.

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Davison Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

Smithers, Waldron

Dawson, Sir Philip

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Dixey, A. C.

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

Spencer-Clay, Colonel H.

Drewe, C.

Long, Major Eric

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Eden, Captain Anthony

Looker, Herbert William

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

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Lougher, Lewis

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Ellis, R. G.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

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

Lumley, L. R.

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Lynn, Sir R. J.

Styles, Captain H. Walter

Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Everard, W. Lindsay

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

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Templeton, W. P.

Falie, Sir Bertram G.

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

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

Falls, Sir Charles F.

McLean, Major A.

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

Macmillan Captain H.

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

Fermoy, Lord

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Tinne, J. A.

Fielden, E. B.

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Finburgh, S.

Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

Waddington, R.

White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple

Womersley, W. J.

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Warrender, Sir Victor

Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)

Wragg, Herbert

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

Watts, Sir Thomas

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Wayland, Sir William A.

Withers, John James

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Wells, S. R.

Wolmer, Viscount

Commander B. Eyres Monsell and

Major Sir George Hennessy.

NOES.

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

Grundy, T. W.

Saklatvala, Shapurji

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

Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Ammon, Charles George

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

Scrymgeour, E.

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Hardle, George D.

Scurr, John

Baker, Walter

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Sexton, James

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hayday, Arthur

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Barnes, A.

Hayes, John Henry

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Barr, J.

Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Batey, Josepn

Hirst, G. H.

Shinwell, E.

Bondfield, Margaret

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Hollins, A.

Slesser, Sir Henry H.

Briant, Frank

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Smillie, Robert

Broad, F. A.

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Bromfield, William

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Smith. H. B. Lees (Keighley)

Bromley, J.

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

Stamford, T. W.

Cape, Thomas

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Stephen, Campbell

Charleton, H. C.

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Cluse, W S.

Kelly, W. T.

Strauss, E. A.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Kennedy, T.

Sullivan, J.

Connolly, M.

Lansbury, George

Sutton, J. E.

Cove, W. G.

Lawrence, Susan

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

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Lawson, John James

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton), E.)

Crawfurd, H. E.

Lee, F.

Thurtle, Ernest

Dalton, Hugh

Lindley, F. W.

Tinker, John Joseph

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Longbottom, A. W.

Varley, Frank B

Dennison, R.

Lunn, William

Viant, S. P.

Duncan, C.

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Dunnico, H.

Mackinder, W.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Edge, Sir William

MacLaren, Andrew

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

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Wellock, Wilfred

England, Colonel A.

Maxton, James

Westwood, J.

Fenby, T. D.

Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Forrest, W.

Montague, Frederick

Wiggins, William Martin

Gardner, J. P.

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

Murnin, H.

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Gibbing, Joseph

Naylor, T. E.

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Gillett, George M.

Palin, John Henry

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Gosling, Harry

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

Potts, John S.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Greenall, T.

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Riley, Ben

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Griffith, F. Kingsley

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

Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)

Whiteley.

Groves, T.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Main Question, as amended, proposed.

Post Office and Telegraph [Money] Bill

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Grant for development of postal telegraphic and telephonic systems.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Having regard to the large sum of money, no less than £27,500,000, involved in the Bill now before us, it would be as well that we did not pass it in silence and that some opportunity was given to the Postmaster-General to explain what is involved in the Bill. A few days ago the Postmaster-General, when the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) criticised the lack of development of the telephone system, fell back on the now much worn plea that the general strike had played some part in it. There was no opportunity then to contradict that plea, but it was carrying the matter a little too far, and nobody knew that better than did the right hon. Gentleman himself, for whatever excuse might be found in regard to other work, there is no basis whatever for that statement in regard to this work, for the Postmaster-General has been able to use all the money that has been voted to him for this work and has been able to go forward with its development so far as he has sought authority from this House. I am not going to join in the criticism that is sometimes made in comparing this country with other countries in regard to telephone development, because that can be carried too far, as there are geographical areas and a thousand and one other things which enter into consideration.

The Postmaster-General, having the control over a business that shows a wonderful resilience, which is bringing in a profit at a rate unequalled by any other business in the land, has not shown the business acumen and the desire to develop this industry in the way that might have been expected. I suppose there is hardly any industry in the country which is so resilient, which brings in such a return as the telephones, and which has such far-reaching effects on other industries and the ordinary social amenities of the country. One has only to draw attention to the Memorandum that has been issued in connection with this Bill to see that up to 1927 the capital expenditure authorised by the various Acts amounted to £116,421,083. The outstanding balance up to 31st March this year was only £69,316,998. I venture to say, without fear of contradiction, that there is no other business that will compare with this business in such results. But the Postmaster-General could have gone even further, and have done a good deal to have met in some measure the problem that has received the consideration of the House to-day. He could have done a good deal more in developing this service to have given a considerable amount of employment, not only directly in his own Department, but indirectly in the manufacture of instruments and in all the auxiliary trades, of which there are 60 or 70.

May I draw attention to an illustration? For many years, there has been some controversy with the Postmaster-General and his staff with regard to the telephone exchange at Preston, where the office is in such a condition and the staff work under such circumstances that, were it a private industry or an ordinary capitalist undertaking, all the forces of the law would have been brought to bring pressure upon them to give better conditions, to provide better amenities and working accommodation, and better accommodation for the public. This has been brought to the right hon. Gentleman's notice repeatedly for a number of years, and the staff was informed that there was to be an entirely new automatic exchange erected in Preston. Recently, they have been told that the original scheme for the establishment of the exchange was deferred on financial grounds, and because of the large amount of work involved in getting the lay-out plans. When one looks at what the Postmaster-General is asking, and sees the wonderful results that he is getting from the Post Office, the plea on financial grounds does not bear looking at for a moment. This is typical of other exchanges throughout the country, and it is not good enough for the right hon. Gentleman to make a plea of that kind while he claims, rightly, that this business is an expanding business and is giving tremendously good results. I would ask him to give some consideration to see whether he cannot go on with this scheme, because, after all, the money that is invested in the telephones is bringing him a rapidly returning revenue which, I should think, will be welcomed by his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

At this late hour one must not trespass on the generosity of the Committee by going into these matters at too great length, but there is one scientific development which concerns the Department in which I am sure the Committee would be interested. Many of us have been interested to read accounts of the experiments in the development of television, and some of us are, perhaps, a little dubious about the reports of the schemes of a certain company which is being floated. I, for one, refuse to believe that all experiments in connection with this particular scientific development have been neglected by the Post Office, and I am sure the Committee would be interested to hear from the Postmaster-General whether any attention has been given to it by his Department and whether there is any likelihood of practical de- velopments at no distant date. I welcome a Bill of this sort as showing that State-controlled and State-directed enterprises can be and are being worked with advantage to the community, bringing in cash profits to the State at the same time. The Postmaster-General is in the position, both a happy and an unhappy one, of being a pronounced believer in private enterprise and at the head of one of the most successful State enterprises which this country or any other has ever seen. It is not our intention to do anything to impede the progress of the Bill, but we do say that the Postmaster-General could have developed the telephone branch of the service very much more rapidly than he has done. Developments at this time would help the unemployment problem, and the whole service would be ready to respond. Then, when the happy revival of trade and commerce arrived, the Post Office would have all the machinery ready to take advantage of the opportunities, and not the least prominent would be the telephone service.

I am anxious to know whether the expenditure under this Bill is not smaller than under the Bill we had three or four years ago. In spite of the answer I received at Question time to-day, I still feel there is great necessity for the development of the telephone service, and that unless this is proceeded with more rapidly—and I will give all credit for what has been done—many of the establishments engaged on the manufacture of the necessary materials will experience reduced employment. Will there be a slowing down of the work by reason of the smaller sum mentioned in the Bill?

I have one or two questions to ask the Postmaster-General. Last year, there was a considerable amount of snow and many gales. Taking last year as an example, I would like him to tell us roughly how much money is expended on the re-erection of telegraph and telephone poles. The Committee ought to know that before voting money for the erection of new poles.

I am afraid that question is not in Order, because this is a Bill dealing with capital expenditure.

I have not gathered the reason. Is not this the Vote for new construction?

Repairs of that character come under the Supply Vote.

My point is that, on account of the amount of damage caused to-day and the length of life of the poles, we must carefully consider any new developments that take place. I gather that a considerable amount of money has been spent repairing the damage done by storms and in putting telegraph wires underground. I should like to know how much money has been spent in that way. If it has been found more economical to put the wires underground, I think the Committee would like to know what is the intention of the Post Office in this respect. I think the Committee would like to know whether the Postmaster-General has been in consultation with the various electricity undertakings all over the country where they are starting new electricity supplies in various areas on poles for medium and low tension wires and steel tripods for the high tension lines for longer distances. If the Post Office authorities could come to some agreement with these electricity undertakings to work in co-operation with them while they are carrying out new developments, it would save an immense amount of money in the future. The Post Office, when laying their new lines, might work in conjunction with the electricity undertakings and put their wires underground, and, in the case of overhead wires, they might adopt stronger and more substantial standards which would not be affected by weather conditions. Ferro-concrete is suggested by my hon. Friend on my right, and surely it is important for the economical running of the service that we should have poles that will last for a number of years so as to avoid continual interruptions of the service on account of the weather. In some cases, it might be possible to run archways over the roads which will allow the largest vehicles to pass under, and steel arches might be constructed which would carry the electric high tension wires and the low tension wires as well as the telegraph wires. This would have the effect of bringing what are after all means of communication along the roads and railways, that is to say, along the main lines of communication instead of allowing them to run across country to the detriment of the countryside whose beauty is jealously guarded by this House, and to the detriment of private aviation which will be seriously retarded if these lines are allowed to run across country where they will be invisible to aircraft and highly dangerous especially when landing and taking off. I would ask the Postmaster-General to consider what would have been the position if this House in the past, when powers were given to the Post Office to run their lines between towns and villages, had given them power to run all over the country, and had not, as the House wisely did, confined them to the roads. The position would then have been one of chaos, and, apart from any other consideration, there would have been no direct lines of communication, because any owner would have been free to object, if he chose, to the running of lines over his land. Happily, the House of Commons of that time was sensible of these difficulties, and restricted the lines to the roads except in a very few cases.

I suggest that we ought to try to get the electrification lines to follow the same lines of communication, so that, in the first place, the amenities of the countryside may not be spoiled, and, secondly, the course of aviation may not be interfered with in the future. This is a matter the importance of which the Air Ministry are only beginning to realise, because they are interested mainly in military matters and in the larger aerodromes. Civil aviation must, however, be thought of in the future, and regard paid to the case of the individual flying a small machine, because, if wires are run all over the country, they will be a fruitful cause of accidents to such people. I have had interviews with the Electricity Commissioners, and they assure me that the chief obstacle to their running electrification wires along lines of communication, where they would be safe from the point of view of aircraft, is the objection taken by the Postmaster-General, because, very rightly, he says that if even low-tension or medium-tension wires were run near telegraph and telephone wires, and a storm should occur, there would be trouble at once, and possibly fusing of wires and even fire in the neighbouring post offices owing to the current running out through the telegraph or telephone wires. Therefore, they keep these electrification lines at least 30 yards from the road. At this important stage, when we are dealing with new development on the part of the Post Office, I am sure the Committee would like to hear the views of the Postmaster-General on these matters, and ascertain whether some form of coordination and co-operation cannot be reached between the Post Office and the electricity authorities, in order to ensure that they shall not compete against one another, but shall both run their lines along the main lines of communication.

On the last occasion I raised certain points which, perhaps, the Noble Lord will have conveyed to the Postmaster-General. I will now simply summarise them by saying that I would like to know, in the first place, whether this capital expenditure is distributed pretty evenly over the various years. I notice that in previous years it seems to have amounted to about £10,000,000 in each year. Then I should like to know whether this increased expenditure is going to result in an increase of employment, and how many extra men we may expect to see employed. Further, I should like to ask if there is going to be a development in connection with telephones in rural districts. The telephone is such a very useful instrument, and to-day at Question Time an hon. Member for an Essex Division was complaining that there had not been sufficient development in regard to telephone facilities at railway stations. I hope the Postmaster-General can assure us that the rural districts are going to be attended to. In industrial districts, too, there is still a good deal to be done with regard to developing the telephone and giving people an opportunity to use it. I am glad we are going to get some further explanation of how this capital expenditure is going to be used.

I also want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question with regard to rural telephones. There is a good deal of dissatisfaction with the charges and with the shortage of boxes in post offices. Is it not possible to have a telephone box in each rural post office? It will not pay at present but I am confident it would pay in a year or two and they would be used more and more. I can instance certain telephones belonging to farmers and private people who receive quite a number of calls, and other people frequently ask to use their telephone. In regard to party lines again there is complaint in respect of the difficulty of getting a sufficient number of subscribers. If there were a telephone in every post office that would not occur, and I am confident there would be very little loss to the telephone service. There are telephone boxes in a number of rural post offices but in the villages there are not, and anyone who wishes to send for a doctor either has to use a neighbour's telephone, perhaps a mile off, or send a messenger. It is very inconvenient to the rural community and I think facilities might be provided, even though it would not pay at present. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will take that into consideration, because there is a considerable amount of feeling in regard to the matter in rural communities.

The point I want to draw attention to has been largely covered by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. I wanted to ask as to the progress of the extension of telephone facilities to rural areas. I notice in the memorandum accompanying the Bill the money that was voted in 1925 roughly covers three years, and the money we are now asked to vote covers roughly the same period. It is capital expenditure for new works and, therefore, it is to some extent a measure of the progress that has been made. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could tell us if there has been an advance in the amount of money expended in rural areas taking the two periods. It would not be an exact measure but it would be some indication. Perhaps at the same time the right hon. Gentleman will be able to reassure us that, even under a State-run enterprise, not only is capital expenditure made where it is asked but that steps are taken to make known the possibilities of the telephone and to extend it.

I think it would be convenient if I dealt with the various financial questions which have been asked and then pass on to the other points which have been raised. I may remind the Committee that it is three years ago almost to this very day that I suggested to the House of Commons that we should make a change in the arrangements hitherto made for the telephone service as regards capital expenditure, which had hitherto been on a year to year basis. I suggested that we should make it a three years programme. recommended that course because I thought it would be better from the Treasury point of view as regards having a regular programme for the raising of money, that it would be better from the Post Office point of view because it would conduce to more efficient spending of money, and better from the point of view of the industry in that they would have a more regular programme. On all these three heads, I can say that we have found by experience that the method of working on a three years' basis has been amply justified.

That is why I am coming to the Committee and asking roughly for provision for another period of three years. As regards the actual detailed figures, in July, 1925, the provision which I got from the Committee, together with the balance which I then had in hand, amounted to the equivalent of £35,000,000 for the period of three years. I told the Committee then that I estimated that probably I should be able to make it spread over a little more than three years and that by the middle of August of this year I should have run out of funds and have to come for more money. As a matter of fact, that forecast was not very far out. Partly, I may say, owing to the general strike, the expenditure has been a little slowed down, and instead of running out of funds in mid-August, I should at the present rate of expenditure have run out by October.

I am well aware of that fact but I am talking about the general rate of expenditure. It slowed down provision of a number of things, such as exchange equipment. I agree that the lag was not very great. As I said, I thought that this £35,000,000 would last until the middle of August. In point of fact, it will last until some time in October. The actual capital expenditure in the three years up to 31st March of this year was £32,742,000, in round figures. I had left in hand on the 1st April £6,750,000 and on 30th June £4,200,000. I am asking the Committee now to give me a further credit of £25,000,000. This, with the £4,000,000 in hand will, I estimate, last me until the end of March, 1931. I am asking for £27,500,000 but £25,000,000 of that is for telephones and £2,500,000 for other purposes. This £25,000,000, with the £4,250,000, makes £29,250,000, and I estimate as I say that at substantially the same rate of expenditure that will last until the end of the Financial Year in March, 1931. [An HON. MEMBER: "Is that a decrease on the last three years?"] No, the hon. Member will see that it is substantially the same—£35,000,000 for three years and four months, against £29,000,000 for two years and nine months. I cannot, of course, pretend to say, and I hope the Committee will not expect me to know, the exact date when this credit is actually going to run out. That depends upon the demands of the last few months of the period. No one can foresee two and three-quarter years in advance, but, roughly speaking, I think that it ought to last until about the end of the financial year 1931. I ought to explain to the Committee that these borrowings are a charge against telephone revenue. The revenue side of the commercial account has to bear a charge for interest, and for depreciation, which is calculated at a rate sufficient to amortise the prime cost of the plant at the end of its estimated term of life. In the budget accounts there is no depreciation account, but substantially the same result is achieved by charging each year a sum in respect of annuities. I have a further detailed check against any extravagant expenditure. Not only have I to satisfy the Treasury in any one year as to my general works programme, but I have so to adjust the finances that there shall not at the end of the year be a deficit on the commercial account after making proper provision for interest and depreciation such as will be made in any ordinary business. So far, we have succeeded in doing that, though not without occasional anxious moments. I hope that the Committee will bear that in mind, because sometimes I am reproached for not making more expenditure in certain directions. I beg of the Committee to remember that we are working on a comparatively narrow margin. However, so far we have succeeded in keeping within the estimated rate of expenditure and in avoiding a deficit.

12 m.

The total amount of capital actually invested from first to last in the telephone enterprise of this country has been, roughly speaking, £112,000,000, that is to say, the £116,000,000 which is mentioned in the Memorandum accompanying the Financial Resolution, and the £4,000,000 which I said I had in hand at the end of June. Of the £112,000,000, there has been repaid by the annuities of which I spoke £43,000,000, leaving an amount at present invested of £69,000,000, against which there are assets valued at their depreciated value of £91,000,000. As regards the remainder of the sum for which I am asking in the Bill, I am asking for £2,500,000 to provide for expenditure on the much smaller capital requirements for postal and telegraph services. Hitherto, these have been carried annually on the Votes, a method which has been very inconvenient in many ways, because it has resulted in arbitrary distinctions between different parts of the same work or building and which has also been very frequently uneconomical, because more than once it has resulted in levying twice on the taxpayer in respect of the same work. If for any reason the work was not begun in the year in which the money was voted, the money had to be renewed and re-voted in the next financial year, a practice which I have protested against in this House more than once. The procedure that we proposed to adopt now of charging this against capital will avoid that difficulty. This £2,500,000 and the £25,000,000 required for the telephones, pure and simple, makes up the £27,500,000, which is the figure appearing in the Bill.

The hon. Member for Camberwell North (Mr. Ammon) asked me about the telephone exchange at Preston. I have not had time to refresh my memory with regard to the details, but I do remember that one of the chief difficulties connected with that question has not been so much financial as in connection with the general lay-out. I can promise him that, so far as it is consistent with our general programme I will see whether any acceleration of the exchange can be made. The hon. Member for Southampton (Lord Apsley) asked me about provisions for putting telephone wires underground. In the last three years, we nave spent something like £10,000,000 in putting telephone wires underground. It may interest the Committee to know that, so far as underground development is concerned, we lead the world in mileage, including the United States. With regard to the question of co-operating with electric undertakings in the running of the respective lines, I admit that the suggestion sounds reasonable until we come to consider the practical effects. My one aim and object is to keep my telephone wires as far from electricity wires as I possibly can, because of the deleterious and possibly even dangerous effect of physical proximity of the telephone wires and high tension wires. Although the suggestion sounds reasonable, it is impracticable. So far as development work is concerned, my Department has had negotiations with the Electricity Board, and we have been able to meet their wishes to a considerable extent in certain directions.

I have been asked questions in regard to rural and other developments. I will give the Committee some figures about general developments, rural developments and Continental developments. With regard to .general developments, in the three years to the 31st March, the nett increase in the number of telephones has been 357,391. The total number of telephones on the 31st March was 1,631,191. The nett increase last year was 122,405, which was a record for this country. The increase in the number of call offices in the three years has been 5,224, equivalent to 27.7 per cent. The total number of call offices now open is 24,054, of which 5,244 are in London and 18,830 in the provinces, an increase last year, which was again a record, of 2,120, or 9.7 per cent. The receipts from the call offices last year were £953,428, an increase of £61,710, or 6.9 per cent.

The inland trunk telephone calls were 102,350,000, an increase of 7,689,000, or 8.1 per cent. The receipts were £4,465,000, an increase of £268,000, or 6.4 per cent. The number of rural exchanges, under the scheme, have been increased by 469, or an increase of 69.9 per cent. over the previous figures. An increase of nearly 70 per cent. in the number of new rural exchanges is a very satisfactory result. The number of rural stations on the telephone has been increased in the three years by 280, or 45.9 increase. There are now 890 rural stations on the telephone, an increase on last year of 145, equal to 19 per cent. The increase in the number of rural call offices in the three years has been 1,736, or a 29.4 per cent. increase, and the total number of rural call offices is 7,627. As regards the rate of increase, the total net increase in stations was 122,405, which is an increase of 8.5 per cent. Of these 122,405 stations, 108,225 were urban, the rate of increase being 7.8 per cent., and 14,180 were rural, the rate of increase being 12.6 per cent. Therefore the rate of increase in the rural areas was actually greater pro rata to the rate of increase in the urban areas. I hope hon. Members will not press me too hard because I am carrying on this work on a very small margin, £150,000 on a turnover of £40,000,000, and they must not expect me to carry too large an unremunerative expenditure. I think the results are extremely satisfactory from the point of view of rural development. I am ready to admit that we have a long way to go, but I hope hon. Members will believe that I am doing my best.

There have been most remarkable developments, internationally, during the past three years. Three years ago the only place to which we could telephone outside these islands was Paris, and it was a very inadequate service. The growth of Continental traffic has taken place during the past year or so, and there are now through lines to France, Belgium, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Spain, including Gibraltar, and Portugal, and by means of switches to Austria and Hungary through Frankfort, and to Czechoslovakia and Danzig, by way of Berlin, and to Luxemburg, by way of Brussels. As regards the trans-Atlantic telephone, the service has lately satisfactorily covered the operating costs and all interest and depreciation of that portion of Rugby which is used for the purpose of the service. The number of calls in one week reached its highest on 5th May, 317, but since that date the number has fallen, and last week it was 105. There is something in the nature of seasonal slackness both on this side and in America, which we must expect now, but it is satisfactory to know that at the present moment it gives evidence of financially paying its way. I have always admitted quite frankly that I am not altogether proud of the position we occupy telephonically; but we are improving. As regards the number of telephones, the United States leads us and the rest of the world with 18,500,000. Germany has 2,800,000, Great Britain 1,600,000, and Canada 1,200,000. In density of telephones, i.e., in population per telephones, we, of course, came a good way down the list. We have, however, gone up during the last three years to eighth place from ninth. What is satisfactory is that our proportionate rate of increase compares very favourably indeed with that of other countries. The rate of increase during the three years in the United States was 15 per cent., in Germany 18 per cent., in Canada 18 per cent., and in Great Britain 28 per cent.

The only other question which I was asked was as to television. I can only say that there is a good deal of confused thinking and confused language about television at the present time. "Television" itself is an extraordinary mongrel word. There are three different propositions involved. There is facsimile transmission, which means transmission of photographs or manuscript or typescript in facsimile; there is the mechanical means of reproducing through a machine objects which are exhibited at a distance and, thirdly, there is pure television, in which you may expect to look at an instrument and see with your own eyes what is happening at the other end. We are making satisfactory progress. In regard to the first, I do not say that it has yet reached the point of being completely developed on a commercial scale, but technical difficulties are being very largely solved; and commercial working seems well within reach. The second still remains in a state of imperfect achievement as regards a solution; and, in regard to the third, no one has yet achieved any solution at all.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 2 ( Short title ) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time to-morrow.

Registration (Births, Deaths and Marriages) Bill

As amended ( in the Standing Committee ) considered; read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Seventeen Minutes after Twelve o'clock.