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

I think the House will not wish me to weary it with a long explanation of what this Bill means. I explained it at some length earlier in the week, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. MacDonald) supplemented what I had to say on that occasion. I am, however, at the service of the House, and if hon. Members would like me to go into any of the details of the Measure, I am here to carry out their wishes. The Bill deals with the position in which Members of the amalgamated Diplomatic and Foreign Office Services now find themselves. The present position is neither just to the members of these services, nor is it in the best interests of the State. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon bore me out in that view the other day. This Bill is intended to rectify that position. Hon. Members will agree that it is not in the best interests of the State that, before appointing an officer to a post for which he may be particularly suited, consideration must be given to the effect which such appointment may have upon his pension prospects.

That is the position which we think ought to be remedied, and we think that officers employed in the Diplomatic and Foreign Office Services should be placed on the same footing in regard to these matters as officers in other branches of the Civil Service. That is what we are seeking to do, and we are taking what we regard as the first and obvious step of placing these valuable officers under the Civil Service Superannuation Acts, which means that they will receive the same treatment in this respect as all other officers. The Bill is a simple one of three Clauses, and I will go through them briefly. The first Clause provides that members of the Diplmoatic Service shall be entitled to be brought under the Superannuation Acts, subject to the modifications shown at the bottom of page 3 and the top of page 4 of the White Paper, No. 3,224. The second Clause allows existing members of the Diplomatic Service to remain under the present system if they prefer to do so. Clause 3 defines the persons to whom the Bill applies. I appeal to hon. Members to give this Bill a, Second Reading unanimously, and so render justice to the members of a Service which has deserved well from all parties in the State.

Before this Bill receives a Second Reading I wish to offer some observations upon it. Clause 1 seems to be the chief Clause of the Bill and to cover the whole point of the Measure and paragraphs (b) and (c) deal particularly with a matter on which we require further explanation. These paragraphs refer to the recall of a person serving abroad or to the breakdown of diplomatic relations; and it is provided that in such cases, certain payments are to be made to certain people who through no fault of their own are recalled. In the previous Debate the Financial Secretary stressed this matter and spoke about certain grave injustices but he gave us no actual cases. I do not know whether this provision is being made in anticipation of what may happen or whether something like this has happened before. It may be said that you do not dig your well before you want water. I quite agree but on other occasions the Government do not see matters in that way, and, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I want to give a comparison. I have been trying to get the Workmen's Compensation Acts amended. I have been told by the Home Secretary that data is wanted to prove my case. I have provided data but even that is not sufficient for the Government in that case. How is it that in certain other cases, action may be taken where actual cases have never happened and where it is only a matter of getting ready for them?

Another point is this. During the discussion of the Financial Resolution no mention was made of the cost of this proposal and I noticed that at the windup of the Debate no response was made from the Government Benches. On this side various figures were mentioned—one of£30,000 and another of£50,000. In trying to get at the facts, I suggested that the Bill would involve for the first ten years a cost to the Treasury of£6,600 per annum and afterwards a flat rate of£2,000 per annum. That has neither been disputed nor confirmed. I am not going to a Division on this matter to-day, but some explanation is called for and if the Government want the confidence of the House of Commons in this matter, they must tell us exactly what is the extent of the financial burden. The Financial Secretary said that the cost would not be£50,000 and I think he ought to give us the actual figures. We are entitled to have some idea of what is involved. I take it that the right hon. Gentleman has figures which are, at any rate, approximate and fairly near the mark. I hope these remarks will elicit from the Government a full explanation.

I may say at the outset on behalf of those who went into the Lobby against these pensions that we have no desire to divide the House to-day. The question was put to me by the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie), and I will tell the House as I told him, that on behalf of the Executive of the Labour party, we were asked not to do so, and on their recommendation that was what we suggested. Having said so, I now want to state to the House that we withdraw absolutely nothing of what we said from these Benches on the matter. We want to let the House know what is at stake here and what is really involved. Here you have an individual, a member of what is called the Diplomatic Service, who has had£3,400 a year of income, and when he comes to the age of 60, he is going to retire. On retiring, he gets that£3,400. But that is not all he gets. He also gets a year and a half's salary, called a gratuity. There is no gratuity for my class when we are paid off. I am here representing the working class, and when the working class are paid off or retire, there is no gratuity for them. But this individual as well as the£3,400 gets a gratuity of£5,100 into the bargain.

It does not end even there—and we have to remember that we are a working-class party, we are a Socialist party. We are out for changing all this, and this is what we are being tied up to. He not only gets the£3,400 and the£5,100, but he also, within a year, probably in a month, gets another£1,700. How much is that a year that he draws, the first year he is retired? It is£10,200, or, in simple Scottish phraseology,£200 a week. I am here representing a shipbuilding constituency, where men have to work the whole week and give of their very best, men who build the finest ships that are afloat on the seven seas, and they do not get£3 a week for doing it, yet here we are being tied up to giving an individual who has had£3,400 a year£10,200, or, in other words,£200 a week. Certainly I protest in every fibre of my body against any such thing. There is no justice here. It is the class revolt laid bare. It is the class war, and we are going to change it, because we are against the class revolt, the class war, just as we are against any other war. We are out for peace, but you never can have peace where you have men getting£200 a week while others are getting only£2 or£3 a week, and at the same time tens of thousands of as good men as any in this House now are bordering on starvation in this land. I have put forward my protest on behalf, not only of myself, but of those for whom I am empowered to speak.

I think the House has listened as usual with respect to the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), but I wish to add one remark to his. The thing that puzzles me is this, when the hon. Member is so passionately speaking for the working people and making a comparison, as he does, between the small wages of the workmen and the large pensions provided for in this particular Bill, the thing that astonishes me is that the very next Bill that was on the Order Paper when we took this particular Financial Resolution the other day was one affecting the Law Lords. The pension there was not£1,700, but£3,750, and what I cannot understand is the state of mind expressed by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs, who will strain at the diplomatic gnat and swallow the legal camel.

Just a word of explanation. I—

The hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak.

Just a second. We were tied up by our party, as loyal members of our party, not to oppose that, and that is why we did not do it. In the first instance I opposed it, just as strenuously as I did this.

There has been an exhibition of extraordinary courage, not to say effrontery, on the part of a member of the Liberal party in getting up and talking about strict logic in regard to Parliamentary situations. If there is one party in this House more than another which is frequently putting itself in a ludicrous Parliamentary position, it is the Liberal party. I only rise now just to say one or two words about what I consider to be the nonsense which has been talked about the impropriety of the opposition which was offered to this proposal by my colleagues and myself the other evening. It is said that all that the Government are seeking to do by means of this proposal is to remove an existing anomaly, so that those diplomats who serve abroad shall get pensions and be compensated in the same way as those diplomats who serve at home. We are prepared, I think, on this side to admit that that anomaly does exist and that it ought to be removed, but that was not at all the point of our opposition. What we were concerned about was this, that with a mass of anomalies existing in this country in regard to State pensions and other matters, the Government should come along and select this particular anomaly, giving it priority and precedence over all the others.

We say that there is no case for that position, and I would like to cite one or two other anomalies which exist and which, in my view and in that of my colleagues, are entitled to precedence over this one. The House must be familiar with the fact that there are many pre-war pensioners who are still labouring under disabilities, which have been brought before this House and which are admitted to be anomalies, and the reply that we have got from the Treasury Bench when those cases have been brought forward has been this: "We admit that these are anomalies and that in strict justice and equity they ought to be remedied, but there are not the funds available for this purpose." I can cite another anomaly, which must be familiar to every Member of this House. Two or three years ago we passed a widows' pensions scheme, and experience has taught every Member of this House that that scheme is full of anomalies. There are many cases of widows who ought to get a pension, who in equity and justice are entitled to it, but who cannot get it by reason of certain defects in the Act

I could cite a number of other anomalies, in connection with unemployment benefit and other matters, but I think I have said enough to show that there is a mass of anomalies in this country affecting poor people which are much more urgent in character than the one which it is proposed to remedy by this Bill; and I suggest that we are entitled to regard with a certain amount of scepticism the passion for equity and justice on the part of the Government which causes them to look around at all this mass of anomalies and then to select this particular one, affecting a comparatively wealthy and influential class, for remedy, ignoring all the others. I am in entire agreement with my hon. friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs when he says that we, who in this House primarily represent the poor people and are here as their champions, should have been lacking in our duty if we did not protest against the class bias which has selected this particular anomaly for remedy and has ignored all the others which are much more glaring in character.

I do not wish to take part in the very interesting discussions that apparently have been taking place among the party opposite on this Measure, but I think it might be in the general interest of the service and of the House to ask certain questions, because I think all parties agree that these people deserve very well of the country as a whole. There are three points about which the House in general is not absolutely clear. I believe that this injustice has been going on for a considerable time, and I wonder if the Financial Secretary to the Treasury or the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs could tell us why it could not have been remedied at any time during the past two or three years. The second point about which there has been, I think, a little vagueness is as to what is going to be approximately the cost of this measure. The third point is that we have had a great many figures hurled about in this House as to what "A" or "B" may get under given conditions, and I believe it would be in the interests of the Service itself if someone speaking from the Treasury Bench gave the facts of what one of these retired officials would get on retiring, on an average, so as to disprove what I think are possibly rather wild statements as to what he would be actually drawing during the next five years. If we could have those two figures, it would, on the whole, do away, I think, with a great deal of in- decision of mind on the part of certain people. I would like once again to emphasise this fact. Probably it is impossible for many of us to realise what men of this type and character do for the country, and you will not get good men to do this work unless you make them satisfied with the conditions of their service.

I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will give some reply on the question of cost raised by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), and emphasised by the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay (Comdr. Williams).

I will give the reply now, with the permission of the House, so as to clear away any doubt on the point. My right hon. friend the Under-Secretary or Foreign Affairs will deal with the other points. This is the actuarial calculation, in answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown). I give the figures under reserve, for this reason: We cannot tell—no one can tell—whether the option given to the existing officers will he exercised by all the existing officers. If only half of them exercise the option, of course the figures I give will need modification. But let me assume the very worst, and that everyone comes under the scheme. In the first place, the total amount of pension cost to the State for diplomatic pensions is now about£50,000 a year. If all the members of the services come in the increase upon that sum for the two services—members of the diplomatic service and members of the Foreign Office—will be, for the first year,£11,500. That will taper down gradually until, we estimate, in the fifth year it will be £5,500, and in the tenth year£3,000, and after the tenth year it will be approximately£2,000 a year. Perhaps it will help the House if I go further and repeat that the combined services under this Measure will come under the Civil Service Superannuation Acts. The reason why the amount of increase of£11,500 at the outset tapers down to£2,000 a year after the tenth year is that, under the Superannuation Acts, a lump sum benefit falls to be paid immediately on the death or retirement of the person affected, but the equivalent reduction in pension is spread over the lifetime of the pensioner. The figures I have given are the very worst that can happen if all the persons elect to come under the scheme.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us the maximum amount that the highest paid of those officials can draw in one year? Surely we may have an answer to the question.

No doubt the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will deal with that.

I should have thought the hon. Gentleman could have given these figures at a previous stage.

They are in the White Paper.

They are not fully set out in the White Paper.

On page 4.

It would have helped the Debate very much if we had all these figures before us. Also, I think, the hon. Gentleman has not given to the House quite fully what the particular anomaly is it is sought to get rid of by this Bill. He has referred to the question of amalgamation, but many Members of this House do not know exactly what he is talking about, and that question ought to be made very much clearer to the House. In old days there were two services— the Foreign Office, recruited from people who were appointed to stay at home like other civil servants, and the Diplomatic Service, recruited from people who were to spend practically the whole of their lives in posts abroad. I fought against that system when I was in the Service. I gave evidence before a Royal Commission against such a system in favour of amalgamation, because it was obvious that people who go abroad ought to have a central point of view, and also it was obvious that people working in the Foreign Office ought to have opportunities of residence in foreign countries. The proposal for amalgamation was eventually accepted, and the two schemes of pension naturally did not tally, and this Measure is to make a single scheme of pension for the two services. I agree with the hon. Member opposite in that I do not know why this scheme for a general unified system was not brought forward some time ago, because, after all, amalgamation has been going on for some years, and it seems to me rather a belated proposal.

On the general question, I agree with my hon. friend on this side that there are many other anomalies that require, perhaps, to be done away with with far more urgency, but, at any rate, I do not think that is a sufficient ground for not making a start in getting rid of this anomaly. There is one point upon which I should like to lay a little stress. These pensions and salaries for diplomats, when seen on paper, seem to be a very large sum, as my hon. friend has pointed out, and the whole question of the relative value of services in the community and the remuneration which should he accorded to people will have to come up for revision one of these days. But I would like to point out that a diplomat living abroad on what seems to be a very high salary is far from being a rich man. I have met a large number of diplomats, and I am afraid that, except in the case of those who have means of their own, on their retirement they have to take small lodgings, and spend the rest of their days in paying off some of the debts they have incurred in the service abroad. I know a great many of them. The calls on His Majesty's representatives abroad are far more numerous than people know.

They not only have to entertain the foreign diplomats and eminent people of the country in which they are residing, but they are called upon to entertain British travellers of all descriptions; while there are, in most of the capitals, British communities and colonies which conceive it to be the duty of His Majesty's representatives to give them constant entertainment. Their seemingly large salaries of£5,000 or even£10,000 a year, therefore, do not cover the cost of their duties. It is also supposed that these unfortunate officials, wallowing in wealth, have a very easy time in the Diplomatic Service, but most of them are destined to a life of exile, and their duties are very strenuous; when a mistake is made they generally get the whole brunt of it and the blame for it. I cannot help feeling that of all the branches of the public service this is not the one that should come in for a special attack as privileged and wealthy. It has struck me during the Debate that my hon. Friends are not aiming at the right target. I cordially approve when the artillery is brought against the right object, but this is a very innocent sparrow, and is merely an attempt to get rid of an anomaly, and make the pension scheme for the two branches of the service work together on an equitable basis. For that reason, we shall certainly not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill.

I must begin by referring to the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown). He apparently cannot find it in his heart to attack the Government, so, whenever the opportunity occurs, he attacks hon. Members above the Gangway. I never attack my Liberal friends, because I consider that the menace to the working people is on the other side of the House. When the hon. Member for Leith attacks my hon. Friends I remember the saying

"Who touches my brother, touches me".

and, as long as my hon. Friend is a colleague of mine, I must retort. My retort is this. Last night you, Mr. Speaker, allowed me to make some remarks about the anomalies of old age pensions, and you allowed me to develop my objection to the ridiculous cross-examination, which is very tiresome and annoying to the people concerned, before they get their pensions; and I drew attention to other anomalies. Where was the hon. Member for Leith?

Sitting here.

And silent!

But in Order!

Mr. speaker is the judge whether I am in Order. If the hon. Member was fulfilling a public engagement, I will apologise, but he was here and silent, and allowed these injustices to remain unchallenged, because it was not spectacular and would not be reported in the Press, and he has the effrontery to attack my hon. Friend. I must retort that it was a piece of political hypocrisy, and the House will agree with me. I want now to break new ground, and to address myself to something of importance—

Is that all?

I did not interrupt the hon. Member for Leith, and perhaps he will let me get on with my argument. What is really to be the action of our party on this matter? Hon. Gentlemen opposite are delighted if they see a difference of emphasis on these things. There is no difference of principle, but a difference of emphasis, and if they are hugging the idea of any kind of cave or split in this party because there is a difference of emphasis they are hugging a delusion. What is to be the position of a Labour Government with regard to the Diplomatic Service? We may find it desirable—I am sure that we will find it desirable—to put our own people in some of the key positions abroad in diplomatic posts. We may find that if these people have other responsibilities, they may not be able to afford to take up these posts; the remedy is a State entertainment allowance, a State allowance for houses, and an adequate allowance for staff paid by the State. It should be made possible for anyone irrespective of means, if he has the necessary ability and requirements, to be able to take up any diplomatic post abroad. Unfortunately, our diplomats abroad have to entertain; it is expected of them, and they have to draw on their own private means. That means that they must have private means, and that is wrong. When my hon. Friend speaks of altering all this, he does not mean that he wants to reduce everyone down to a level of penury; he wants to do away with injustices. We want to bring everyone up to the£10,000 a year level, and we want them to earn it. But I will not develop that now. I have this criticism to make about the present Diplomatic Service abroad, and it is very relevant to this Bill. Speaking from a personal knowledge, I can say that there is far too much of the old tradition of the salon diplomacy, the drawing room diplomacy, and the diplomatic representatives must move in a certain exclusive aristocratic and wealthy circle.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot develop that argument on this Bill.

Supposing the pensions are deferred emoluments, we are increasing them by£11,500, and it is admitted that Ambassadors have great expenses, and that is why these pensions are necessary. I will not, however, develop the matter. I was going on to say that it is necessary for our Ambassadors to entertain, but they should entertain every class of the community. In Petrograd before the War, I believe that it is a fact that the only two people in the Embassy who could speak Russian, and therefore could speak with the Russian middle class, were the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox), who was Military Attaché. and Commander Greville, who was the Naval Attaché. They were the only two on the diplomatic staff at the Embassy in Russia who had any kind of contact at all with even the middle class, and, as I have said, they were completely barred from—

I do not wish to interrupt the hon. and gallant Member, but I happened to be in Petrograd just before the War, and his statement is not correct.

May I ask the hon. and gallant Member to say who were the others? I was not in Petrograd before the War.

I was.

But I was in Constantinople before the War. I admit that the need in Turkey for speaking the vernacular is not so important as in Russia, but I think it was notorious that in Turkey we had not anything like the same contact with the different parties as had the German Embassy.

I cannot see how the hon. and gallant Member can possibly connect these remarks with the subject under discussion.

With regard to the charge which was made—and I think rightly, only it is not easy to see how the matter can be remedied—that we are giving a large sum of money to people who are already rich, and that too much is spent on embassies. I would ask my hon. Friends to look at the position of the Republics in Europe to-day. One Socialist Republic and not a wealthy one, is the Austrian Republic; it is a very efficient Socialist Government. Is it suggested that their representatives abroad should not keep up an establishment which would compare favourably with those of other countries of the same size?

I cannot see how these references to Socialist republics have anything to do with this particular Bill.

Surely it is in Order for an hon. and Gallant Member who has some experience of foreign Courts—[Laughter]. I know that some hon. Members will smile at that, but I will still have my say. Surely, it is right that those of us here who are members of the working-class and do not know the intricacies of this system may have it explained to us by one who knows.

Further to that point of Order. Is not the hon. and Gallant Member perfectly in Order in citing illustrations of other countries in order to show that they carry on their diplomacy effectually in a more frugal and less lavish manner than we do, and that we also might equally well spend less money upon our diplomacy.

I cannot agree with the suggestion that a breach of Order can be excused on the ground that an hon. Member is giving illustrations.

I do not wish to dispute your ruling, Sir, and I will not pursue that subject. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) has said that I have a great knowledge of courts abroad. I really have not a very great knowledge either of police courts or royal courts.

I know all about police courts; I am an authority upon them.

When my hon. Friend refers to the working classes, I hope he will include me in that category. I was at sea for 16 years, and I think a man who goes to sea is a working man. In all the circumstances I do not see how we can avoid supporting the Bill when we remember the position in which we would be placed if we had to remove injustices of this kind, but I do say that it is time that the same sympathetic treatment was given to poor pensioners as is given to rich pensioners. I beg the hon. Member the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who I know is a man of humane character, to look into the work of some of his officials and their petty cheese-paring where poor people's pensions are concerned. We are being generous to him now, where the high and great are concerned, and we hope he will inspire a spirit of generosity among his underlings where the poor and lowly are-concerned.

I fail to see why the opposition of some hon. Members to this proposal should have caused so much horror on the other side. In all sincerity, I find myself sharing the view of some hon. Members regarding this proposal. It is not that I object to paying adequate pensions to diplomatic officers, or any other officers of the State, but I do object to a proposal like this being brought forward when Parliamentary time is so short, when we are within six months of a General Election, when all the privileges of private Members have been absorbed by the Government, and when thousands of other anomalies in pensions and in other administrative matters undoubtedly exist. It is at this time that the Government come forward and say "Here are a score of diplomat- ists who are suffering hardships, and their particular grievances must be singled out to he dealt with at this time." When the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. Ponsonby) gets up and attempts to paint a terrible picture of the hardships which are suffered by diplomatic officials abroad, it makes me ill. Those officials have a comparatively comfortable time. Though I should be tile last to detract from the undoubted services which some of them render to the State, I am equally conscious of the blunders and inefficiency of which some of them are guilty.

But that is not the point. In West Africa officials are working in a climate which wrecks and ruins their health for salaries far lower than those which these diplomatic officials are getting, and performing equally good work. Recently I paid a visit to those parts, and I know that the anomalies which exist there certainly warrant the attention of those who have the interests of the Civil Service at heart quite as much as does the case of these diplomatic officials, and therefore I found myself unable, with conviction, to go into the Lobby with my hon. Friends on the last occasion, and I hope they felt that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. My final word is one of complaint about the White Paper. I regard it as disingenuous, because it does not state the case in full. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury told us what the actual figures were. He said they amounted to£11,000 in the first year. I daresay it is possible to work that out from this White Paper, but the purpose of White Papers is to explain the position clearly to busy Members, and I venture to say there is not a single back-bench Member who had deduced from the explanation given in the White Paper that it was going to cost anything more than£2,000 a year.

Another point about the White Paper is that it does not tell us the maximum pension which a retired diplomatic official can get. Hon. Members have been concentrating their attack upon a figure of£1,700 a year, but that is the maximum which was possible for a retired diplomatist to get in 1869. The new proposal is based on so many eightieths for so many years service, plus pension-able emoluments and so on, and that may amount to more than£1,700 a year. Why were not all these figures clearly and explicitly stated in the White Paper, with a table of examples giving the maximum and minimum sums which might be obtained? If that had been done we should have had a clearer idea of everything which this proposal means, and if it had been compared with the pensions paid to other equally deserving classes of civil servants in the Colonies and elsewhere I venture to say that the 33 who voted in the Opposition lobby the other night would have been multiplied by 10.

The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Brown) said that Members of the Labour party opposed the granting of pensions to the Diplomatic Service, but they did not oppose the proposal to give a pension to a Law Lord.

That is not what I said. What I stated was that I could not understand the inconsistency of an objection to a pension of£1,700 to members of the Diplomatic Service and no objection being raised to a pension of£3,750 for a Law Lord.

Whether the hon. Member made that statement or not does not matter. This morning we have the spectacle of the Liberal party being represented in this House by only two Members, and in regard to the question we are discussing one of them is on one side and the other is on the opposite side. What is worse, during the time the Liberal Member who opposed this Bill was speaking the other Member of the Liberal party went out. The hon. Member for Leith says that what he complains of is that the Labour party are dividing the House on this pension of£1,700 and neglected that duty in the case of the pension of£3,750 for a Law Lord. That question has come up to-day, and the Members of the Labour party who sit on the back benches, who divided the House on the pensions of£1,700 for members of the Diplomatic Service, do not get very much encouragement from the hon. Member for Leith on the question of£3,750 pension for a Law Lord. If the hon. Member for Leith feels so keen in regard to the pension of£3,750 for a Law Lord when the Bill comes up for discussion, I shall be pleased to act as a teller with him in the Division Lobby if he is agreeable to that course.

The hon. Member must square that matter with his own Front Bench.

Hon. Members opposite seem to delight in laughing at the position in which hon. Members on this side of the House find themselves this morning. We have criticised this Bill, and I noticed that when we stated that we did not intend to divide the House upon it, hon. Members opposite laughed at us. I am not complaining. Hon. Members may have their laugh, but they should remember that some of us on these back benches were bred and born amongst the working classes. We have suffered with them and know their needs, and we come to this House for the one purpose, that is to represent the working classes. That is why we are now opposing these pensions, and it does not matter who are to receive them. We oppose these large pensions being granted to anyone.

12 n.

The hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. Ponsonby), said that those back benchers who had voted against these pensions, seemed to have been using their artillery to kill a sparrow. The Diplomatic Service may be compared with a sparrow, but even if it happened to be an eagle we should oppose large pensions because, in our opinion, the working classes deserve more consideration in these matters than anybody else. We believe that Cod intended the working classes to live a decent life and a full life, but with the pensions they now receive they cannot live either a, decent or a full life. It is for those reasons that, on these benches, we take this opportunity of opposing these large pensions and we: shall continue to do so until something more is done for the working classes.

I want to remove one or two misconceptions. The hon. Member for Bright-side dealt more with the question of the salaries of our diplomatic representatives than the question of pensions. We are not dealing this morning with the question of salaries, and the subject we are discussing relates to pensions only. We are opposing all these large pensions. Some people are apt to give advice to the working classes, and to tell them that they ought to learn to be more thrifty. I think that advice might very well be given to the members of the Diplomatic Service and if it is a ques- tion of giving a copy of Smiles' "Self-help" it might very well be given to the members of the Diplomatic Service. I find that after the Debate on Wednesday night a good many Members of my own party had the impression that these pensions were to be given to all members of the Civil Service. One of my colleagues said to me: "I am in favour of increased pensions to the Civil Service." I understand that this Bill does not touch the other members of the Civil Service and it only applies to members of the Diplomatic Service, the rest of the members of the Civil Service being left out in the cold.

It seems to me that what the Government are aiming at in this Bill is to give to the members of the Diplomatic Service similar pensions to those now given to the members of the Foreign Office Service. The members of the Diplomatic Service seem to have come along, after observing the large pensions paid to Foreign Office servants, with a demand that they should be paid pensions on the same scale, and the only argument used by the Government in defence of their granting of this demand is that they are simply remedying an injustice and an inequality. There was a Superannuation Act dealing with pensions passed in 1919, and when that Measure was under consideration in the House of Commons it would have been far better if the Government had brought in the Diplomatic Service instead of dealing with that branch of the Service to-day. Perhaps we might not have had such a strong argument in 1919 as we have to-day, but, with the distress among the working classes, we certainly should not be justified in giving our vote for a pension of£1,750 a year to anyone, no matter in what service he is.

The Government have really taught two lessons in this Bill. I took rather an interest in the Bill that was before the House last Session, and carried it about with me for a long time, with some notes for the purpose of a speech that I never had the chance of delivering. At the end of the Session, I destroyed those notes and the Bill, because I thought we had heard the last of Diplomatic Service pensions, but, if my memory serves me rightly, that was an altogether different Bill from this one: it seems to me that, even between last Session and this, the Government have changed their minds in regard to this matter. Among all the foolish things that the Government do, however, they sometimes teach us lessons, and in this Bill they teach the Labour party two very useful lessons, which I want to point out to the Financial Secretary. Paragraph (b) of Clause 1 says:

"If the Secretary of State certifies that it was necessary, in the interests of diplomatic relations, to recall from his mission a person serving abroad as ambassador, minister or high commissioner, and if, in the opinion of the Treasury, it is, for reasons outside the control of that person, impracticable to find suitable employment for him in the public service, the Treasury may grant to him such superannuation allowance"—

and so on. The lesson that that teaches us is that if they cannot find work for him, they are entitled to pay him, and to pay him well. The point that I want to put to hon. Members opposite on that lesson is this, that, if a member of the Diplomatic Service cannot be found work when for some reason it is found necessary to recall him, the Government say that they ought to grant him a superannuation allowance, and, as I have already said, a very large superannuation allowance. If that applies to members of the Diplomatic Service, why should it not apply to the working class? If we were proposing to-day from these benches a Bill to find the working classes work, or, if that were not possible, to grant them a fair and reasonable allowance, hon. Members on the other side would be opposing that Bill and voting us down. That is a useful lesson which the Government have taught the Labour party, and, while we may differ from our own Front Bench on this question of pensions, I hope that our own Front Bench will learn the lesson that is taught by the other side, and that, when they get into power, they will be prepared to come to this House and say that the working classes are entitled to be found work, or, if work cannot be found, they are entitled to a superannuation allowance.

The second lesson is this. The Bill also says:

"If a person serving abroad is by reason of war or any interruption of diplomatic elations withdrawn from service before he has become eligible for the award of a superannuation allowance, and it is, in the opinion of the Treasury, impracticable to find suitable employment for him in the public service, the Treasury may, on the recommendation of the Secretary of State, award to him a temporary allowance …"

Here again is the same principle, which one might elaborate. It is, in my opinion, a most useful lesson, which I hope Labour will take hold of and will not be afraid to use in the future. There is another Bill that is to come before the House, dealing with a pension of£3,500 for Judges, and we shall want to criticise and raise our objection to that Bill also. In view of that, we do not want to state, on this Bill, all our reasons why we oppose it, but, broadly speaking, my opposition to the present Bill and to the next one is simply this. The working classes, in my opinion, are entitled to pensions that will enable them to live decently, and at the present time there is no one even on the other side of the House who will say that the 10s. a week, or£26 a year, which a working man receives, is sufficient to enable him to live decently. We have hundreds of cases where a man who has to retire from work is receiving 10s. a week and his wife is not eligible for the 10s., with the result that the two of them have to pay rent and exist on 10s. a week. Until a grievance of that kind can be remedied, we, as members of the working-class party, are never going to give our vote for huge pensions like this.

This pension of£1,750 a year means some£34 per week for these people, and yet we cannot get£1 for members of the working class. If hon. Members on the other side were prepared to say, "We agree that these gentlemen, when they retire, ought to have a large pension of£34 a week, and, because we believe in that, we believe also that members of the working class, when they retire from their work, ought to have a pension too"—if hon. Members on the other side would say, as some of us believe, that members of the working classes are entitled to£2 a week when they retire from work, in order to enable them to live decently, and not merely to a miserable 10s. a week which will hardly keep body and soul together, which is merely sufficient for existence, and half starves them in the latter days of their life—if they would agree to that, we might be prepared to agree with them on questions like this. But, so long as this House stands, as one gets the impression that it does at the present time, for giving to one class of the community huge pensions of£34 a week and to the working classes only 10s. a week, we shall always be in opposition to such a policy. It does not matter how many Members of the Labour party disagree with us; we shall still be opposed to it, and shall still urge that the working classes should have their pensions increased before any increase of pensions is given to members of other classes.

On a point of Order. May I draw your attention to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that, although we are discussing a matter which relates to the Foreign Office, there is no representative of the Foreign Office present; and, in view of that fact, am I entitled to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned"?

The representative of the Foreign Office was here two or three minutes ago.

At any rate, he is not present now.

Would you suggest, Mr. Speaker, that I have driven him out?

I wish to associate myself with my colleagues on the Back Benches. It has been said that last Tuesday some confusion arose as to the point at issue. As I understood the question, we were not opposed to pensions in principle, and I said so distinctly. We think the time has come for a revision not merely of pensions, but of salaries as well. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) expressed himself very freely. I understood him to be speaking entirely for himself. I want to dissociate myself from the idea that Members of Parliament are adequately paid on£400 a year. This would not be the time to reply to some of the criticisms which hon. Members opposite have made from time to time with regard to the position of Members of this party, but, speaking for myself, I am no better off than I have ever been, and, as a matter of fact, in some respects I am very much worse off. In the United States, according to a former Prime Minister, they are paid£1,600, in Canada£800 and in Australia£1,000 a year.

I do not see that this has anything to do with the Bill under discussion.

I do not wish to dispute your ruling, Sir, but I thought that would be in order as it was allowed to pass the other day. I offer my earnest and sincere opposition to this Bill for the reasons alleged by my hon. Friend, with which I associate myself, and I have no word whatever to withdraw that I uttered in my previous speech. The Press reports of a rebellion on these benches are entirely inaccurate, because we acted in accordance with the power given us at the party meeting that morning, therefore any capital made by hon. Members opposite or by the Press is entirely irrelevant to the matter. We were strictly within our rights, and as long as I am a Member of the House I shall act to the best of my ability and conscience, and I hope in accord with the views of the party of which I am a member, but if I find myself in conflict with their views, I hope I shall always have the courage and ability to express my opinion on these matters.

With regard to the Bill, I want to reply to one observation made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Torquay (Commander Williams). He said this nation is indebted to the past services of members of the Diplomatic Service That is a very double-edged argument, because it is also true that this country has sometimes been landed in very disastrous consequences due to the very grave blunders of some of these men. To give one instance of what I mean, it is now generally agreed that the Crimean War arose out of the policy pursued by the British Ambassador at Constantinople, and that he, the Emperor of France and Lord Palmerston were chiefly responsible for bringing about that war. A distinguished member of the Conservative party observed at a subsequent date that this country had put its money on the wrong horse. British Ambassadors have played a very important part in bringing about war in the past. For a period of 178 years from 1691 to 1871, according to a very eminent authority, loans and interest amounted to£2,130,882,000. The total amount in loans and interest, according to the late Canon McColl, was£3,041,000,000, and that burden is being borne by the working classes. An hon. Member opposite grins at that observation, but the gentleman who made it was at one time delegated to be the biographer of the late W. E. Gladstone. I think that is of sufficient importance to bring to the attention of the House.

So long as the working people of the country are in the terrible plight they are in, I should never support a Bill of this kind. I hope I am as earnest, as sincere and as disinterested as other Members. I think the time has come when a revision of the respective values rendered to the community should be taken into account. So long as the men who are doing the primary work of the world are treated as outcasts after years of valuable service to the community—services which cannot be dispensed with—so long will I raise my voice in protest against the treatment meted out to them. I do not regard the Socialist party as a working class party. Probably it is appealing passionately on behalf of the working classes in particular because their needs are greater, but the Socialist party consists of men and women drawn from all classes of society in ever increasing numbers. The vast number of people in the country, I am sure, including hon. Members opposite and their supporters, are conscious of the disgraceful, the shocking, the horrible conditions that prevail at present. We have no right to keep any human being in the shocking conditions that are prevailing in this land at present. I should be unworthy of the confidence of the people in the Rutherglen Division of Lanarkshire if I did not raise my voice with all the power and vehemence and passion I can against the abominable and horrible conditions that prevail, for which the responsibility largely rests on the shoulders of hon. Members.

That may or may not be so, but it does not arise on this Bill.

I again defer to your Ruling, Sir, but it arises from this point that in 1926 the wages were reduced and the hours lengthened of men who have rendered as valuable service to the community as any Ambassador at any period in the history of the land.

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

This Bill is to provide for an increase in the Judical strength of the Judical Committee of the Privy Council and of the House of Lords. The proposals are to add to the Judical Committee of the Privy Council two members with Indian experience, either a High Court judge in India or a barrister of experience in India at a salary of£2,000 a year and a pension of£1,000 a year after five years' service on retirement at 72; and as regards the House of Lords, to acid one additional Law Lord at the present salary of£6,000 a year and a pension after 15 years of£3,750. I need scarcely remind the House that the additional Law Lord will be available not only for sitting in the House of Lords but also in the Privy Council. The facts with regard to this matter were fully stated by my hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-General, on the Financial Resolution the other night, and it will, I think, be sufficient if I restate them very shortly. It is really common ground that, as far as the administration of justice is concerned, there is no more urgent problem at the present moment than that the final Courts of Appeal both for Great Britain and for the Empire as a whole should be properly manned, and that at the present moment they are insufficiently manned. I might Almost content myself with saying that the urgency was fully admitted the other day by the hon. and learned Member for South-East, Leeds (Sir H. Slesser), and that no one was more insistent with regard to the grevious necessities, as he himself called them, of the Judical Committee of the Privy Council and incidentally nobody had set a higher example of devotion in administering to these necessities than the late Lord Haldane.

But in a sentence or two I may be able to state exactly what is the present position. The House of Lords is continuously occupied with appeals from Great Britain. The increase in the Indian Appeals alone—and there are at this moment no less than 168 Indian appeals standing for hearing before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—makes it absolutely necessary that there should be one Beard of the Judicial Committee sitting continuously for the Indian appeals. Therefore, it follows that if the appeals for the rest of the Empire are to be dealt with expeditiously the Judicial Committee must sit in two divisions. It is obvious that it is most undesirable that either the House of Lords or the Board of the Judicial Committee should consist of less than five Judges. It is very undesirable that a full Court of Appeal either from England or Scotland or any other part of the Empire should be overruled at first by a majority of two to one. It is very desirable that the Court should consist of five Judges. That means that 15 Judges are continuously required. The actual establishment is the Lord Chancellor, six Lords of Appeal-in-Ordinary, and one Indian member who is not a salaried member of the Judicial Committee but who sits by virtue of the Act of 1833, a retired Indian Judge who receives a contribution towards his expenses. As far as that particular member is concerned, the existing retired Judge who is now sitting will be unaffected by this Bill, but it is proposed to abolish that particular arrangement. There is a Clause in the Bill for that purpose, but for the moment, at any rate, he is available. There are, therefore, eight persons permanently available to fill these 15 places, and, if you add the two whom it is proposed to add to the Judicial Committee and the Lord of Appeal-in-Ordinary, you will get no more than eleven persons permanently on the establishment after this Bill has passed.

Are there any other Judges available?

I am just coming to that. When I say permanently on the establishment, I mean Judges whose official duty it is to perform these functions, and, when this Bill is passed, the establishment will be 11. I come to the point with which the hon. Gentleman was dealing. For the rest, we are dependent on ex-Lord Chancellors and such retired Judges, to put it shortly, as happen to be Members of the House of Lords and are Privy Councillors. The House will see how precarious this volunteer assistance is, if I compare the position 12 months ago with the position as it is at this moment. Twelve months ago there were available three ex-Lord Chancellors, namely, Lord Haldane, Lord Buckmaster, and Lord Finlay. Lord Birkenhead is not counted in the calculation, because he has not been available for judicial duties since 1924. May I say, in passing, because there was a mention of this matter the other day, that I do suggest to hon. Members that for the purpose of dealing with this present problem it is entirely irrelevant whether Lord Birkenhead's services were not available, because he was serving in some other official capacity or because of his engagements elsewhere. The problem is a problem of securing efficient man power for these tribunals. The particular reason why any given person happens not to be available, at the moment, does not, I suggest, really go to the root of the question at all. Then, in addition to the three ex-Lord Chancellors, there were four Peers who had held high judicial office. There were Lord Wrenbury, Lord Phillimore, Lord Darling, and Lord Warrington, and in addition three Privy Councillors who were not qualified to sit in the House of Lords but were qualified to sit on the Judicial Committee. They were Lord Sinha, Lord Salvesen and Sir Lancelot Sanderson. That made 10 persons available as volunteer members, in addition to the permanent establishment. That was last year.

At the present moment, there is only one ex-Lord Chancellor available, Lord Buckmaster. Of the volunteer Peers, it is unlikely that Lord Wrenbury will sit again, and of the Privy Councillors Lord Sinha is dead. There are, therefore, only six volunteer members available. So that if we get this Bill we shall only have a margin of two, if we take the full establishment and the volunteers combined. After all, it is only right to say with regard to the volunteer Peers—and the same applies to the volunteer Privy Councillors—that of the three ex-Judges or ex-Lord Justices whom I have named—Lord Phillimore, Lord Darling and Lord Warrington—Lord Phillimore and Lord Darling were already Judges when I was a boy at school. They have earned their pensions by judicial service which long exceeded the statutory time, and some regard has to be had in making demands upon their services to their claims to leisure and to their own disposal of their time. They give their time generously and ungrudgingly, but they do not grow younger year after year, nor are their other preoccupations less insistent. This is the situation as it is at the present moment. I invite the House to allow us to take the Second Reading of this Bill.

I do not think that anybody who has heard the introduction of this Bill by the Solicitor-General can do other than recognise that it is a badly needed Bill. Indeed, I think, one may say that it is greatly overdue. It has been before the House for a considerable period, but has not been proceeded with. I do not know exactly why, but one presumes that perhaps there was some difficulty relating to the payment of the Member from India. Whatever the difficulties may have been, we are glad that they have been surmounted and that the Bill has come up for acceptance in this House. I have only one criticism to offer in regard to the details of the Bill, but it seems to me to be one of considerable importance. Apparently, the scheme of the Bill is this, that the new member of the Privy Council to be appointed is to he recruited either from an ex-Judge or from a legal practitioner in India who has been carrying on his profession for 14 years. The real drawback to the Bill which I find is that the only pension which is offered to the person who may be called upon to fill this post is£1,000 a year. What does that mean? It means, in practice, that no one will be able to accept this position unless they have already earned a pension elsewhere. That, in turn, makes it a necessity that the person appointed to the post will be in the evening of his life instead of in his full maturity. That would be a very unfortunate thing to happen.

Let us suppose that this particular Clause is put into operation and we recruit the new member of the Privy Council from practising barristers of 14 years' standing. Let us say that a man becomes a barrister at 21. After prac- tice of 14 years his age would be between 35 and 40. He is not to be retired under, this scheme until he is 72. What man of standing and position, of such position and standing as we should like to find in a member of the Judicial Committee, of the Privy Council, is going to accept a job of that kind, if he has to work 20 or 30 years for a pension of£1,000 a year? An ordinary Judge in England receives a pension of£3,500 a year and a Nisi Prius Judge in India receives I believe after 12 years' service—the English limit is 15 years—a pension the amount of which I do not know but it is considerably in excess of£1,000 a year, and yet when we are looking for someone to fulfil one of the most important positions in the whole judicial system of the country, namely, a seat on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, we are offering a man, if we are to get him, say, at 40, and he has not served a term long enough to earn a pension elsewhere, the prospect of a pension of£1,000 a year.

I do not suppose that a suggestion to enlarge the pension will meet with favour from the back benches opposite, but I would point out that this is really an important Imperial question. I should like to point out what must be within the knowledge of most hon. Members what a very wonderful institution the Privy Council is. The world has never seen anything like it. All the Empire countries overseas which have their own judicial system, their courts of first instance and their courts of appeal are content to look for their ultimate decisions to this great tribunal of the Mother Country. There has been nothing like it since the Roman Empire, nothing like since those words were used which are so familiar to us:

"Hast thou appealed unto Caesar? unto Caesar shalt thou go!"

The world has seen nothing like the voluntary system obtaining in our Empire, where all the States come voluntarily to the Mother Country for their ultimate decisions, for the ultimate settlement of quarrels in their own lands, which they bring voluntarily for final arbitrament to His Majesty's Privy Council. We cannot be too careful when we are called upon to choose those who occupy such an important position. The only way in which we can show our gratitude and appreciation is in being very careful that we get the best men available to sit in this Council, which obtains and desrves the confidence of everyone.

I suggest to those who have introduced the Bill that they might consider whether they could not increase the pension to be earned, with the view that it would give them a call on younger men. The Solicitor-General has already outlined, tactfully, what must be obvious, that if we are going to compose the Privy Council solely of men of mature experience and consequently of mature years, we must take them with nature's failings as well as nature's advantages. It is a disastrous thing to contemplate that a man may travel thousands of miles here to present his case to this ultimate tribunal and find it composed of men of mature years, and, partly through weariness, perhaps after a long sitting on a hot day, it becomes obvious that the attention of the older members of the tribunal cannot be fully concentrated upon the case. We have to take human nature as it is, and it is inevitable if we compose a tribunal of those who have ripe experience and who are ripe in years that they cannot always concentrate on the case that attention which is so essential to the dignity, the good work and the practical work of the tribunal. I suggest that the arguments which I have advanced are worthy of consideration, and I hope that those responsible for the Bill will take steps to facilitate the finding of good men for the ultimate tribunal of the Empire, by offering a little larger reward than a pension of£1,000 a year.

I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw (Sir E. Hume-Williams) as to the importance of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and I also agree that if difficulties have arisen recently in regard to the matter it only emphasises the importance of getting a tribunal which will command the highest possible respect and the services of the best people. I should like to raise a question which I hope will be in order. I do not want to be out of order, because I think the question is much too important to risk my being interrupted by any breach of the Rules, which would he accidental on my part. The question is relevant in a way to discipline, and it is this: how far is it wise for a Judge to intermingle judicial and commercial functions? I relate it to this Bill in this way—if I am ruled out of order I shall take advantage of another occasion to raise the matter—that the Solicitor-General stated that, in addition to the regular members of the Committee, there can be a call on the services of ex-Lord Chancellors, and if the services of an ex-Lord Chancellor are not available the need for a new permanent member becomes greater. That is the relevance which my remarks will have to the Bill. It seems to me highly undesirable that a man should sit in the highest possible court of the land, whether it is the House of Lords or the Judicial Committee of the Privy. Council, to-day judging great commercial cases with the knowledge in the public mind that the next day he may desert that office and himself engage in commerce, but it is far more undesirable if the knowledge exists that he may engage in commerce one day and the next day may resume his judicial office. I do not want to say any more because everyone will agree that this is a matter of public principle. Whether he considers it proper to draw a pension from the State at the same time as he is engaged in his commercial pursuits is a matter of taste, and is not so important, but I submit to the House that a very grave difficulty will arise and the dignity and authority of our courts will be seriously undermined if we are to have this new rule under which a man may mingle the two activities.

I should like in a few sentences to call attention to one point which has not been mentioned. Every hon. Member will agree with the great importance of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to the Empire. The hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw (Sir E. Hulme-Williams) has pointed out that the jurisdiction of the Privy Council is greater than that of any other tribunal in the history of the world, but it has this curious difference over every other tribunal; all other tribunals are compulsory whereas the jurisdiction of the Privy Council is a voluntary one depending on the goodwill and confidence of our people over- seas. It is because our people overseas have confidence in the Judicial Committee that they are prepared to come here and have their cases finally determined. It is therefore, of the utmost importance that we should do everything in our power to make the Judicial Committee worthy of that confidence. I think we have been somewhat to blame in the past. The provision now being made is overdue; certainly the arrangements for the meeting of the Judicial Council and the hearing of appeals are not now satisfactory.

But there is one point in the Bill which the Government no doubt have introduced for the purpose of securing the confidence of the people overseas, and that is the provision they have made that the two additional members of the Judicial Committee should retire from office at the age of 72. It must be admitted that in the course of nature with old age comes infirmity of mind and body and, consequently, in accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commission of 1914, the age of 72 has been selected as the age at which the new members of the Judicial Committee should retire from their office. The Bill proposes the appointment of a seventh Lord of Appeal. That such an appointment is necessary no one will deny, but if it is thought that the new members of the Judicial committee on attaining the age of 72 should retire why is not a similar provision made with regard to the appointment of the Lord of Appeal? It must be borne in mind that the Lord of Appeal, although he will sit in the House of Lords, will have to sit with his colleagues on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Why should one man be required to retire at 72 and another man be regarded as exempt from the infirmities which inevitably attach themselves to old age? It may be that the Government have overlooked this point, but. I hope they will give favourable consideration during the Committee stage when the point that an age limit should be fixed not only for the new members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council but also for the Lord of Appeal it is proposed to appoint.

I entirely agree with the contention that these appointments are of the utmost importance from a national point of view and also from an Empire point of view, and I agree also, in spite of what may have been said by some of my hon. Friends on this side, that we ought to appoint Judges in sufficient numbers to meet all the situations which arise; and more than that, that we ought to pay the Judges a sufficient emolument to remove from them the temptation to mix up in situations upon which ultimately they may have to decide. I have listened carefully to the sums which have been suggested should be paid to the judges. I am not sure that I am in a position to say whether the amounts suggested are right or wrong, but certainly we are confronted to-day with the spectacle of one who has been a Judge and may again be a judge of Appeal, in either a voluntary or other capacity, setting himself up to auction, seeking new positions, and making it clear in the Press in every public form that he is out for a great deal more than anything he has hitherto received. With that spectacle in front of us, we should make it quite clear in connection with our Judges of Appeal that at least there will be no place for such a man in the High Court in any future cases that may arise. If this Bill is for the purpose of getting Judges who will act on their salaries and salaries alone, not looking for further emoluments in other forms, I shall be glad indeed to support it so that we may rid our Bench of the type of person who at the present time is so openly offering himself to public auction.

I should like to add one sentence or two in support of what the hon. and learned Member for Londonderry (Sir M. Macnaghten) has said, that this is a suitable opportunity for extending the age limit not only to the Judges of the Privy Council but also to the Judges in the other Supreme Court of this country. It is rather an anomaly that out of these two Supreme Courts only one should be subjected to the operation of an age limit. One would suppose that such a provision would operate in both Courts or not at all. If it is going to operate in the case of one of these Supreme Courts it would naturally follow that it would operate in the case of the other, and I support the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Londonderry that this Bill seems to be a suitable opportunity for bringing into operation what is generally felt to be a much needed reform.

I rise to ask one question with regard to the effect of Clause 2. Probably if I had had an opportunity of consulting previous Acts, it would not have been necessary for me to put the point. Under Clause 2 His Majesty may appoint one Lord of Appeal in addition to the six which have been appointed under the Statute to which reference has been made. Is it intended that this shall be a permanent addition to the number of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary who are at present appointed? I understand that the position is that six Lords of Appeal in Ordinary are provided for under the Statute, and this Clause says that His Majesty may appoint one. Does that mean that he may appoint one now or that in future the Court is to be permanently seven instead of six? I hope it is the latter, because otherwise we shall be in a similarly unfortunate position as we are in now in regard to Judges, when the Government have to come to the House for the power to appoint one or two Judges. It happens sometimes that the Government do not like to incur the alleged unpopularity attaching to a resolution of that character. I hope that a similar position will not arise out of this Clause, but that the Clause will allow seven permanent Lords of Appeal to be appointed.

I will answer the last question first. Clause 2 has been drawn so as to avoid the necessity of the course which the hon. Member holds should not be necessary. The appointment is of a permissive character, that is to say if it should prove to be unnecessary owing to some unexpected decline in the amount of judicial business, there is no compulsion on the Lord Chancellor to appoint a Lord of Appeal. On the other hand, it will never be necessary to come to either House to carry a resolution as a condition for the new appointment. One or two other matters have been raised, and about them all I need say is that they shall receive the attention—I say this with all sincerity—which they deserve. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Sir E. Hume- Williams) raised the question of the amount of pension. He will realise how unusual it is for the Government to be invited to propose to the House a larger expenditure than that which the Government have offered to incur. The whole of the circumstances, of course, have been reviewed, and I am sure that, if this House finds that it is impossible or difficult to get the very best men for these two important positions, it will be willing on a future occasion to supplement what undoubtedly is a modest pension so far as the claim on the Consolidated Fund is concerned.

With reference to the age limit, as is well known, the matter has often been discussed, and it has generally been found that some of the most eminent and almost indispensable members of our judicial bench in the House of Lords and in one or two of the other tribunals, would have been ruled out by the age limit having been fixed at 72 years of age. I quite agree that very good cases of that sort ought not to prevent a rule, if it be a good rule, and now that this age limit has been put into this Bill, perhaps an opportunity of observing its working in practice will arise, and it may be that in future we may have an application of the same age limit to other members of the judicial bench.

I refer with a little hesitation to the general question raised, and quite properly raised, by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. W. Benn). I do not wish to say anything now about it, nor indeed do I contemplate saying anything about it at any future time. These events occur, and they make people think. I must not be taken in the least to criticise my Noble Friend, who has taken a course which, as I said on the last occasion, I think he was perfectly entitled to take, so far as the rules and constitutional practice are concerned. But I believe that on the whole the best check upon any errors of judgment will be public opinion which, coupled with the high sense of duty which has always been observed by all members—and by my Noble Friend also, I am bound to say—of the judicial bench, will ensure the same perfection of service which has most happily characterised the members of our judicial tribunals.

1.0 p.m.

It is a great satisfaction to have from the benches opposite a proposal that the emoluments of our Judges may possibly have to be considered with a view to securing the very best members of the profession that can be secured. It is a remarkable tribute to the members of our judicial tribunals that, although the emoluments to-day compared with times past are on the low side, not the least difficulty has been experienced in finding the very best and highest talents for the purpose of manning these tribunals on which we depend.

I hope the learned Attorney-General will understand that I raised the point about emoluments purely with reference to legal emoluments. I am not referring to any higher emoluments that it is possible for a Judge to get by going into commerce.

The hon. Member referred to what he called legal emoluments. I am not aware of any case where any Judge, while he has been exercising judicial emoluments, has at the same time sought to earn commercial emoluments.

What does the learned Attorney-General mean by "exercising judicial emoluments?"

Enjoying judicial emoluments.

Here is a case in point. Lord Birkenhead is enjoying judicial emoluments and exercising commercial functions at the same time.

I do not want to get into any controversy, because I recognise the important character of the observations of the hon. Gentleman. But I must not be taken to agree with the hon. Gentleman that the£5,000 pension is in consideration of the exercise of judicial duties presently performed. I tried to make that plain on the Financial Resolution, and I wish to repeat it to-day. I hope that what I have said points to sufficient consideration of the matters that have been raised, and I am obliged to the House for giving us the Second Reading of this Bill, which is so necessary.

I can appreciate the difficulty of the Labour party in making reference to this question. There are considerable differences in the figures of emoluments and the circumstances under which they are received. I do not think, however, that we should fail to note once more the situation as it stands to-day in contrast to the whole question of pensions. An hon. and learned Member referred to the age of retirement and mentioned certain very striking facts. It is contended that 72 years of age should be taken as requisite for retirement in a case where the mentality requires to be at its very best. On the other hand, in the Police Force men are obliged, or practically obliged, to retire at the age of 55. They are able, thereafter, to take up another vocation. As the Attorney-General has said in reference to another little matter, facts like these cause people to think. That is why I have sought on occasions of this kind to mark the contrast between those who are placed in high positions and the favour which they receive from all parties apparently in this House, and the situation which confronts the poorer people of our country. Special reference has been made to the outstanding personality of a Member of the other House in regard to his position in the legal fraternity. That Noble Lord has been famous in the past as one who wields, metaphorically, a silver, shining sword; but he has, in this case, shown himself to be identified rather with that cross of gold, on which, it has been said, the working man is crucified. Reference was made this afternoon to that saying which is associated with the Roman Empire:

"Hest thou appealed unto Caesar? Unto Caesar shalt thou go."

I reckon that there is a better message than that for Lord Birkenhead. It is:

"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's."

I do not think it is a very perfect example to the body of working people, who are called upon to exercise a self-sacrificial devotion and consideration for the interests of the country at large. In this case, which concerns the whole Empire, I do not think it is at all a satisfactory example for anyone avowedly to take up the position that he is intent upon securing all he can possibly lay claim to from the legal standpoint. We are told that there are some past considerations, but he evidently wants to make up for that in the future, both legally and in the commercial arena. He has also referred to certain statements made here, and his Lordship considers that it is a poor enough position for any man to reckon that he is not worth more than£400 a year. My idea is that a man is not called upon by the highest authority to put any particular price upon himself. We are counselled to walk humbly with God and to place our services at the disposal of others. We are counselled that:

"He that findeth his life shall lose it; and he that loseth his life for My sake, shall find it."

I submit that these are far more excellent and exemplary propositions not only to make profession of, but to walk therein.

Before the Second Reading of this Bill, I want to place on record my opposition to the pensions in this Bill just as I did to the pensions in the other Bill. The Attorney-General complained that£1,000 a year was too small a pension, but he forgot that it was payable after only five years' service and a man can be appointed to this position at the age of 67—after he has lived a life. If the Attorney-General is justified in saying that£1,000 a year in those circumstances is too small, what about the working man, who starts work at the age of 14 and finishes at the age of 65, and after 51 years' service gets a pension of£26 a year? My opposition applies both to those pensions and also to the pension for the Lord of Appeal. In my opinion, nobody can justify such a huge pension and, at least, before it is granted the working-class ought to be considered. Hon. Members opposite argue that these men are entitled to large pensions because they are learned; but we reply that the working man, in many instances, has to serve a long time and devote much skill to learning his trade, and, after all, that he only receives£26 a year. There is growing in this country an impression that the men who do the hardest and dirtiest work are entitled only to the lowest pensions, while the men who have the nicest and cleanest work to do are entitled to the large pensions. It reminds me that when I was working in the pit, an old gentleman who had made money out of property said to me: "Mr. Batey, never take your coat off to work. If you do, you will never make money." There was a lot of truth in that advice. Since then I have kept my coat on as much as possible, and the more I have kept it on, the bigger salary I have got. That school of thought to which I have referred, is growing in this country. Only our movement will smash it, and I want to make my protest against these large pensions.

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

This is a one-Clause Bill, founded on the Financial Resolution passed in this House on Tuesday, following a long discussion on Monday afternoon. The objects of the Bill are, first, to extend the period under which guarantees may be given under the Export Credits Guarantee Scheme by two years, up to September, 1931; and, secondly, to extend the period under which guarantees already given may remain in force by three years, up to September, 1936. We bad a long discussion on Monday in connection with the Financial Resolution upon which this Bill is founded. Many questions were asked, and they were all answered very satisfactorily.

Oh, no!

I have nothing to add to what I said on that occasion, but if anybody to-day wishes to ask any more questions, I shall be only too happy to answer them to the best of my ability. At present there is nothing to say other than I have said in the past, and I do not want to waste the time of the House, because other Members are anxious to speak on this Bill, so I will formally move its Second Reading.

As the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department has indicated, this subject was discussed at some length on Monday last on the Financial Resolution, and certainly I have no desire to review the ground which was covered on that occasion. But there are one or two features of the proposal to which I think attention should be directed. It is quite clear that we are now at a new and important stage of this form of credit insurance undertaken by the Government of Great Britain. Immediately after the War, for the purpose of stimulating employment in the export trade, what was described as the advances scheme was introduced. By common consent, although the losses were limited to one or two parts of Europe, that scheme could hardly be continued. It was then replaced by a scheme which was based on the guarantee of ordinary mercantile bills, and that continued in force for a considerable time until the Credit Insurance Committee discussed the subject in 1926. The Report of that Committee makes it plain that the scheme had been criticised on the ground that the amount of cover which was offered by the Government in these bills was insufficient, and so far that was borne out by the fact that at no time in the history of export credits, up to that point, and indeed not since that point, had the aggregate guarantee of£26,000,000 which was available been even remotely approached. I think I am right in saying that probably at the best and, of course, remembering that these are in the main short-term credits, only a few million pounds have been outstanding, and none of us dispute, while warmly sympathetic to the scheme, that it touches only a corner of the great volume of our export trade.

The next stage was the introduction of the new form of contract following that Report of the Committee, over which the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) presided. It was described by the hon. Gentleman opposite in proposing the Financial Resolutions a few days ago. Now we are at the stage in which we give not only a kind of insurance in bad debts or other cover to the export trade, but also, in this new contract, financial facilities in the form of an out-and-out guarantee to the banks, with certain conditions which turn in part upon such recourse to the exporter as may be available. I do not propose to detain the House with an analysis of the technicalities of the scheme, which are characteristically dull, but the departure is certainly important. The hon. Gentle- man may have had his attention directed to certain criticism as to whether, unless the new out-and-out guarantee is very jealously safeguarded, there may not be a tendency to revert to at least some of the difficulties of the original advances plan. I do not share that view, because I am perfectly satisfied that the Advisory Committee will exercise the very greatest care, but still that is a line of criticism which has appeared in one or two quarters in recent days.

The next point is the unfortunate addition which the Government have made to a recommendation by the Estimates Committee in their analysis of export credits. That review was largely directed to the administrative charges under this scheme, and there is no doubt it was of a very thorough-going character. But to the best of my recollection—the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department will correct me if I am wrong—the Estimates Committee did not propose that there should be an inquiry into whether at this stage, the Export Credits Scheme should be handed back after the pioneer work to private effort in this country. The hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell) made an important speech on the Financial Resolution in this connection, and the substance of his speech was, as. I understood it, that the amount of outside ordinary private business arrangement for this class of insurance had increased, and that probably it would be better if the scheme were closed down altogether and the Government were out of the business. That is hardly borne out by what is said with apparently equal authority in other quarters; and that introduces the House to a very important consideration in this class of insurance.

By common consent, the perfect business, if I may so describe it—that is, the business which is thoroughly secured and good—will be covered by the trade indemnity companies or by similar organisations. I think that is tolerably plain, whatever view we take of Government intervention. Then the speculative-business, at the other end of the scale, we all seek to exclude. That is clear in the Government's publications, and I imagine that private business would be the last to undertake it, since the losses in a field of that kind, as we all know, can be very dramatic and substantial, and they fall sometimes at very short notice. But there is an intermediate class of business. It is not just the thoroughly secured, automatic, absolutely sound class, and it is not the speculative class, but it is a quite good and healthy class, which we all want to try to encourage if we are going to use public credit to stimulate exports and to help employment. It is that class of business which may broadly fall to the Government's scheme as amended by these out-and-out guarantees to the banks. No doubt here also we have the safeguard of the Advisory Committee, and so far of the banks, although it will be observed, they 'are fully covered.

That appears to me to be an important consideration, and, therefore, I regret that there should be any element of doubt at this moment as to whether the Government scheme will continue. I make no reflection whatever upon the ability of the acknowledged experts who have been appointed to consider this problem, but it is not in the least unfair to them to say that their whole outlook and their former practice have been in the direction of encouraging purely private enterprise. I should be amazed if they presented a Report which did other than suggest that at the earliest possible moment this should go back to the City or to any company that would undertake it. Here again the public have done pioneer work and taken certain risks, and perhaps, when it might be of some benefit, though we are not out to make a profit, it will pass from our hands. The House should be perfectly clear at this stage that these questions are before us; and while it is true that we have never yet approached our contingent liability in the aggregate of£26,000,000, there may be a considerable development of this form of guarantee on the basis of that out-and-out cover in the new form of contract which the Government have devised.

Having said so much in the realm of, I trust, not unfriendly criticism of the scheme, may I conclude on a note of practical suggestion to the President of the Board of Trade and also to the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, whose little publication is an admirable summary of the main features of the scheme, and should enable even busy men to appreciate exactly what is proposed. Far more than that is required.

For a long time now the Department of Overseas Trade has been issuing valuable reports dealing with economic, industrial and financial conditions in the different countries of the world, and I think the House of Commons might very well this afternoon take the opportunity of directing attention to one feature in those reports, namely, that part now, I think, included in all, in which our representatives on the spot in those countries direct attention to the possibilities of British trade in those markets, and give chapter and verse as to the manner in which our trade could be expanded. The circulation of these reports might be increased. The fact remains—and this is, I think, our common experience—that they are not nearly well enough known to a great number of manufacturers and traders in this country and also to our trade union and labour organisations. These reports contain the most valuable information. The reports are rich in constructive suggestions, and we should make a far greater appeal on the Floor of this House for their study. Many of those markets are peculiarly susceptible to the appeal of this exports credit scheme in its amended form and as there turns on it the question of British manufactures exported from this country, affecting the employment of considerable numbers of men and women, many of whom are now out of work, it is all the more urgent that we should bring the information to the notice of those whom it concerns, and I trust the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department will agree with me in that contention.

One other word. This is an interesting illustration of the manner in which we are using public credit to stimulate export and employment. Far be it from me to suggest any form of inflation. It does not appeal to many of us on this side of the House, with all the dangers it involves. But I think it is true of our post-War experience, and certainly of the past six or seven years of profound industrial depression, that we have not made nearly the use we might have made of the undeniable strength of our public credit even in these difficult circumstances and times. After all, at the very best, we only covered£75,000,000 of con- tingent liability in the Trade Facilities Acts, and they are now closed, and the guarantees in due course will run off. We only cover£26,000,000 here, and very few millions have ever been taken up at any stage of the scheme. The other guarantees we give publicly are relatively trivial in character. Our burdens are great, and we have shouldered a very great part of post-War obligations compared with other countries, but our credit is still in the main very sound; I do not agree with that school of thought which is constantly urging that you must be so much afraid of even a contingent guarantee, because the choice on the other side is the regular payment of cash to unemployed men and women for no service whatever, and for the creation of no capital asset in this country.

Therefore, it would pay any Government to take even a greater risk, if you like, in a contingent guarantee if you provide employment, and get rid of this terrible drain in actual cash, and, more than that, in human personnel in the process. And so we, on this side of the House, while desirous of keeping these schemes on a purely public basis as a fundamental principle, will encourage a plan of this kind subject to the criticism I have offered, in the hope that it will be at least one constructive proposal for the relief of large numbers of our fellow-men now, unfortunately, without employment in the State.

I wish to raise one or two points. I cannot understand why these new guarantees are to expire in 1931, and I wonder whether or not the Government have given consideration to the question of putting the date at a much further distance than 1931. Three years certainly seem a very short period when dealing with credit, and that also applies to the period under which guarantees may remain in force, namely, till 1936. I hope the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department will explain this limitation, and why they can only think in terms of such a short period of time. The other point I wish to put forward is this. Why is there no Clause in the Bill which makes it clear that political considerations can play no part in the administration of this particular Department? More than once during the discussion hero a few days ago there was raised the question of political considerations coming in when dealing with certain parts of the world, and I hope that, even now, so as to ensure that no one in the Department may at any time think in terms of political considerations affecting business, some words may yet be inserted in this Measure. When one is concerned with some of the big industries in this country engaged in the export trade, and one finds how they are hampered by this, how they are working short time, and how some of them have had to close departments because of difficulties with regard to credits in their export, one wonders at the Government not making greater efforts than this particular Measure makes. I hope that even now some thought will be given to the period of time, and that some words will be inserted in the Bill that will prevent any Minister from introducing political considerations when dealing in the matter of credit.

I want to impress upon the Government that they should reconsider their attitude in relation to trade between this country and Russia as far as it is affected by the proposal now before the House. The only possible justification for this Bill is that it will help us to deal with the problem of unemployment, and that it will enable manufacturers to bring to this country, through the aid of the State, work which, in the ordinary, normal course of commercial enterprise, would not be likely to come to Great Britain. It is because this legislation is primarily for the purpose of dealing with unemployment that I again raise this question. As far as I know, there is nothing in the proposal, or in the Overseas Trade Acts of 1920–1926, which expressly forbids the consideration of commercial transactions between this country and Russia. The discrimination which has been continuously exercised by this Government against proposals for Russian trade has been done by means of administrative action.

The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department has been perfectly honest in stating that the Government intend to exercise a political discrimination against all proposals affecting Anglo-Russian trade. On a previous occasion the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir P. Pilditch), who at that time was a member of the Advisory Committee, stated that the Committee would be quite prepared to consider proposals relating to Anglo-Russian trade entirely on their merits as commercial propositions. The hon. Gentleman who is now the Financial Secretary to the Treasury at once said definitely that under no circumstances would he allow proposals dealing with Anglo-Russian trade to be even considered by the Committee. I appeal to the Government to change their attitude, because there is now an entirely new factor in the situation. We have ended the Trade Agreement with Russia; I do not propose to go into the question of whether that action was wise or justified; but for good or ill, we have taken that step. Therefore, we have created a condition of affairs in relation to Anglo-Russian trade which is even more unsatisfactory than that which existed prior to the break. It is now quite impossible for British firms to consider long term credit negotiations with Russia in an atmosphere that will give them that political security which is a necessary basis for confidence in transactions of that kind, simply because of the attitude of the British Government in relation to Russia. Because this has created a new factor, our exports to Russia have almost disappeared.

I therefore suggest that in the present circumstances it is the duty of the Government to consider any proposal for extending our export trade even to Russia. It is our duty to give consideration to a proposal of that kind entirely upon its commercial merits, and from the point of view of the advantage which it will be to the people of this country, rather than from the point of view of those who live in Russia. It is the plain duty of the Government to enable manufacturers, who desire to do trade with Russia, to have the same facilities that exist with regard to trade with any other country. The hon. Gentleman, when speaking on the Financial Resolution, said that he was already alarmed at the losses that have occurred under this particular piece of machinery. Where were those losses incurred? They were not incurred in Russia, and I challenge the hon. Gentleman to give a single instance in which any British citizen has lost a penny piece as a result of the present Russian Government dishonouring any of the commer- cial commitments into which they entered. Will he state a single case where a bill has been dishonoured, and where loss has fallen upon those who have done trade with Russia? If he cannot, it is a direct argument for ending the political discrimination which is preventing the development of trade, and is directly responsible for a considerable amount of unemployment.

I am not asking that credit should be extended ad libitum to the Russian Government without proper consideration and adequate guarantees. What I am asking is that proposals of a commercial character shall be considered from the purely commercial and economic point of view by the Advisory Committee. If the proposals are sound, if they will bring work to this country, they should be considered, just as proposals between this country and France or Italy or any other nation would be considered. I stress this very strongly, because the ending of the Trade Agreement has increased the difficulties; and, if the hon. Gentleman will take the trouble to see what is happening in other countries, he will find that they are not allowing their political bias to ruin their trade. For instance, imports into Russia from Germany, France, Czechoslovakia and the United States are rapidly increasing as a result of the diminution in Britain's trade. The total turnover between Russia and the United States has now reached nearly double the pre-War volume. Quite recently a contract has been concluded between the Amtorg Trading Corporation, one of the Russian trading agencies in the United States, and the General Electric Company of America, which involves a sum of 26,000,000 dollars, and provides that credit for five years shall be allowed on 75 per cent, of the value of the contract.

I appeal to the Government to drop their attitude of political discrimination. I represent a constituency which has suffered very severely by the loss of the Russian market, and by the political uncertainty which has resulted from the refusal to take any steps to end the present unsatisfactory situation. Some time ago negotiations which would have made an enormous contribution to the solution of unemployment in that constituency had reached an advanced stage. Those negotiations were based not upon Socialist propaganda, but upon a desire of the manufacturers to keep their works going and their men employed, and to sell their goods. When I asked the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to receive a deputation to see whether it would be possible to bring that volume of work into the country, they declined to receive the deputation or to go into the facts of the case. We could make a great contribution to the solution of the unemployment problem even at this late period if the Government would drop their attitude of political discrimination. Let manufacturers and traders feel in regard to _Russia that there is no danger of a political rupture, and that they have a proper protection in trading with Russia, such as they are entitled to expect from the British Government. If the Government will make their contribution to the solution of the problem I am certain that in Lincoln and other centres in this country we can secure employment for a great many people. I beg the Government to drop their stupid attitude of political discrimination.

The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taylor) has told us a good many things, but he omitted some which I had expected to hear from him. He told us about a contract which had been placed by the General Electric Company in the United States of America.

What I said was that the Amtorg Trading Corporation had concluded a contract with the General Electric Company of America.

I understood from him that that contract had gone to America when, according to his argument, it might have come to this country. He did not disclose whether behind that contract there was any guarantee from the United States Government, such as he is asking the British Government to give. If the facts of the case are examined, I think it will be found that the United States Government have consistently refused to have anything to do with the Soviet Government of Russia. He told us, also, about other countries and their trade with Russia, and it might have advanced his argument if he had disclosed such information as may be at his disposal as to which countries in Europe have given a guarantee to their traders such as he is asking our Government to give in this particular case. As one who happens to know his constituency and the orders to which he is referring—

I do not think you do.

Excuse me. I do a great deal of business there every day of my life.

You may do, but I do not think you know the facts.

I happen to be interested in a concern which is—

May I ask the hon. Member to what concern he refers?

Marshall and Sons, of Gainsborough.

I am not talking of Marshall and Sons, of Gainsborough, but the Lincoln firm of Ruston and Hornby.

I have no doubt you are Deferring to the three firms of Ruston and Hornby, Limited, Clayton and Shuttle-worth, and Foster and Company, Limited. They are the principal firms there making agricultural machinery. Knowing the facts of the case, I think that without a Government guarantee every one of those firms would have been absolutely foolish to have taken on orders; and I also say the Government would have been absolutely foolish to have given any guarantee, knowing the facts of the case as I know them.

But you do not know them.

I think there is more hot air to the square inch talked about this question of trade with Russia than about anything else. The question is whether we are going to be paid or whether we are not going to be paid; that is the question which any business man has to face. If it is not good enough for the business firms in his constituency to continue trading with Russia the Government ought not to take on risks which no private firm would take. I am surprised that the hon. Member should not have given more examples of foreign Governments who are prepared to take the risks. I believe that if we only rest quietly for a short time we shall find a different Government in Russia, one which can be trusted, and if we only wait for that to come we shall find that satisfactory trade will come to us.

That is the Tory idea—do business with those whose Governments you like.

I am amazed at the speech of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer). I always regarded the hon. Member as being a business man with considerable knowledge of the trade in which he is engaged, but if his business is carried on on the principles he has enunciated to-day, I am afraid we shall very soon have a by-election in Macclesfield, which may result unfortunately for his party. In the position in which our trade is at present we do not want more handicaps than are necessary thrown in the way of its recovery, and to import into this question of the recovery of trade these old international jealousies and hatreds is futile and disastrous to any such recovery. This Bill is one of a great series of Bills which the Government have brought forward with the object of making it easier for our manufacturers to put their goods on the markets of the world. In other words, it is one of a series of Bills directed towards cheapening production, cheapening the article sold to the consumer, in order to encourage British trade and to develop international trade. We have had Measures such as this to reduce the risk on orders sold abroad; we have had the Government's Measure for de-rating productive industries, which works in the same direction, towards cheapening production. I only wish they had carried their proposals a step further, and cheapened production still more by making all land and all raw material cheaper.

I do not see how this can be relevant to the subject under discussion.

It seems to me we ought to consider this Measure in conjunction with other Measures directed to the same object, whether it be by the taxation of land values or whether it be by the de-rating of improvements—

If this goes on I am afraid that in a short time we shall get into a Debate on safeguarding.

I cannot think that safeguarding will cheapen production or assist British manufacturers. My point is that all these Measures are directed towards improving trade, and each of them ought to be considered purely from the point of view of whether it will facilitate and cheapen production. It only complicates matters and makes them worse when what should be purely a trading department, what should be purely a Bill to facilitate marketing, introduces this age-old question of whether we are friends with the Russian people or not. The hon. Gentleman in charge of this Measure stated his position on an earlier stage of this Bill. I have read his statement and I must say that I wish he would ride on one horse or the other. I wish he would make up his mind. In answer to a question which was put to him then, he said, referring to the question of whether these facilities ought to be given to Russian trade:

"In the first regulations"—

The first regulations, mark you—

"which were ever published in connection with export credits it was positively laid down that it was not intended to apply the scheme to Russia."

Not intended! It is like Al Coolidge, who "does not intend to stand." Does he mean that it was not intended then but that it may be so intended now? Does he mean that those first Regulations have now been changed? He deliberately leaves those words ambiguous. He goes on to say:

"But my department is really a nonpolitical department, and I am speaking from that point of view."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 19th November, 1928; col. 1443. Vol. 222.]

Then he goes on to say that the sole question so far as his Department is concerned is the security of the credits which are granted. By a side wind we are told that the Russian security is not good enough and losses might occur. Is it not the case that the Government are not allowing these schemes to he extended to Russia because of the political reasons contained in the first Regulations published eight years ago. Probably the Government are not allowing these credits to be given to Russian trade because they do not think the security is good enough. It must be either one reason or the other.

Both reasons.

If that is so, why does the hon. Gentleman say that his Department is not swayed by political reasons? Obviously it is so, because he has not shown that the security of these credit schemes in Russia would be worse than the credit schemes given to Rumania, Turkey, the Balkans or other Eastern countries. If the hon. Member knows anything about trade with the Baltic States, he must know that trade with Esthonia involves us in much greater risks than trade with Russia. We have no evidence against the Russian Government except the old prejudice and spite which were embodied in the first Regulations. The scheme we are considering may be a good one, but undoubtedly it does not facilitate the placing of British goods on the Russian market. Under a Bill like this, why should we not only exclude trade with Russia but deliberately make it more difficult for people to trade with Russia. Irrespective of credits, by making this purely political exception you are putting up the backs of the Russian people against our English manufacturers. In America where they have no Acts of Parliament like the one we are discussing, the Russian people do not feel that they are being specially singled out in a prejudicial way by the United States. It is a well-known fact that the agricultural machinery being used in Russia is of American manufacture and a large trade is going on between Russia and America which is profitable to both countries.

The American Government refused to allow the Soviet representatives to enter America.

That is quite true, because the American Government take no steps at all to facilitate export trade to Russia or anywhere else.

Then why should our Government facilitate export trade to Russia?

We have discouraged trade with Russia. What must be the inevitable result of our action upon the Russian Government? They say that England gives facilities to every other Government except Russia, and naturally they are reluctant to put orders from Russia with firms in this country. We are injuring our prospects of trade with Russia by the political element which is introduced into this Bill, because you are by that means preventing trade growing up between this country and Russia. We all know that trade is developing between America and Russia, and it is very likely that trade will develop between Germany 2.0 p.m. and Russia as well. I have not been to Russia, but I have recently been in Germany and Rumania, and I have been told that the whole agricultural machinery in Russia is of American manufacture. Here we are in this country cutting off our noses to spite our faces and deliberately antagonising the Russian people by making this childish exception. Although I think this Measure may do some good to our normal trade, for the reasons I have given, I think it is likely to injure the possibility of further trade being done between this country and Russia.

I think it would have been an advantage if, under the Bill we are discussing, we had been able to do something to improve our relations with Russia. I am sure that would have had a very salutary effect upon trade between those two countries. No one can deny that our relations with Russia have been very unsatisfactory in the past, and this has acted very detrimentally to trade relations between Russia and other countries. There is one thing that we do not seem to have realised in regard to Russian trade. We had a good trade with Russia before the War, and after the revolution in that country and the introduction of new ideas there were possibilities of developing in Russia an unlimited amount of trade with this country. I happened to be in Russia last year, and I was amazed at the 'activity and the development of new industries there which were quite unknown before the War. I found out that with regard to agricultural machinery, Russia was putting up a huge works outside Leningrad for its production.

Russia is developing her agricultural industry very rapidly, and I will give just one example. Whilst I was in Russia I went into the country and I arrived in a particular village on the same day that the first tractor had been introduced into that district. I saw the village people assemble to watch the tractor being worked. Some of the women seemed to imagine that a diabolical instrument had been introduced into their midst and they crossed themselves before the machine. In this instance the tractor had just been sent down by the Russian Government to be used as an experiment in order to encourage the people of the village to purchase a tractor by co-operative methods. The tractor got to work and the people were absolutely amazed with the result. Two women and a young man were flailing wheat in the next field by the old method and the villagers had an opportunity of seeing the two methods working side by side. I know that there is a revolution proceeding in the industrial world of Russia to-day, and we might be participating in this enormous social development in Russia but for our political prejudices. When I came to the end of my sojourn in Russia, I left the port of Batoum, and there I must say I felt very humiliated, when, standing on the quay, I saw American machinery being unloaded. I saw Ford tractors and other agricultural machinery being unloaded there, and I thought of our agricultural machinery workers in Lincoln and other places who are unemployed as the result of our political stupidity. It would have a very salutary effect upon our commercial and industrial relations with Russia if Russia could be brought into this scheme, if for nothing else than as a gesture in that direction.

The fact that no other Member has risen to speak may, perhaps, be taken as an indication that it is desired that I should answer a few of the questions that have been addressed to the Government this afternoon. In the first place, I should like to make reference to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham). That speech was delivered with the right hon. Gentleman's usual charm of manner, and, moreover, was a most helpful speech in many ways. He said, among many other things, that he was afraid that the new scheme, of which the House has full knowledge owing to the distribution of the booklet a few days ago, might be open to difficulties and to the possibility of losses such as had not occurred in past days. The answer to that is that we have taken many precau- tions which were not in existence when we had less experience than we have at the present time.

One main difference between the policy to-day and the policy of some years ago is that originally the guarantee started from the moment when the goods left this country, and hon. Members can realise what that means on a falling market. If, by the time the goods reached the foreign importer, it was possible for him to buy them at a cheaper rate than that at which he had contracted to buy them originally, it was quite natural that he should, if possible, find some excuse for refusing delivery of those goods. Many excuses were made under which the goods were not taken up eventually by the importer, and, as a result, they were in many cases left in the hands of the Government, whose guarantee that payment would be made had been given from the moment the goods left this country. The position to-day is very different. On much of our business our guarantee only starts on the bill being accepted by the importer in the overseas country. Many additional precautions have been taken as the result of past experience, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman need be anxious as to the future. That is so far as losses are concerned.

The right hon. Gentleman also said that the Estimates Committee did not suggest that this scheme should revert to private enterprise. That is quite true; I do not think that the Estimates Committee did say that within a definite time this scheme should revert to private enterprise; but, nevertheless, there was a suggestion, perhaps veiled, in their Report, and, moreover, other Committees have certainly suggested, that this should he the ultimate end of the scheme. Incidentally, it is also the Government's intention that this should be the end of the scheme, and, if a Committee were set up to consider other problems, it is just as well that, they should suggest plans whereby it would be easier to hand over the scheme finally to private enterprise. There is nothing to be gained by setting up a special Committee to investigate that problem. The right hon. Gentleman also made a very constructive suggestion when he said that the reports of our overseas officers should have more publicity. We do give a great deal of publicity to the reports of our overseas officers, which are all works of very great value to the trading community of this land. If we can give them any additional publicity beyond that which we now give, I will certainly see that it is given. I will look into the matter myself to see whether or not our present policy in that connection is sufficiently advanced.

The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) asked why there was in the Bill a limitation of the period of extension of the scheme, and why it was such a modest period. During the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution I said that private enterprise was getting very much nearer to our scheme, and I added that, as private enterprise was getting nearer to our scheme, so we should work in the direction of private enterprise. I hope that by 1931 private enterprise will be giving exactly the same facilities that we give to-day.

By private enterprise, do you mean the banks?

No, private insurance companies and other companies of that nature. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman does not know that there are other insurance companies which are giving facilities at the present time in connection wth export credits, but they are not giving exactly the facilities which we give, and are demanded by the traders of the country. They are, however, getting nearer to us, and there is no use in putting a date into the Bill which is very far in advance of the time when we anticipate that they will be able to do this work. The hon. Member for Rochdale also asked whether political considerations will enter into the working of the scheme. As he knows, it is the Government who lay down the policy, and it, is the duty of the Department to carry out its work under that policy. Subject to the policy of the Government, political considerations, of course, will not enter into any scheme. The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taylor), who is specially interested in Russia, asked why Russia was not included in the scheme. I gave my business reasons on Tuesday, and I said that, in addition to the business reasons, there were reasons of policy, which were well known to the House. So far as the business reasons are concerned, we must consider the future. Looking at the present and considering the future, nobody will say that the position of Russia is satisfactory, and most people will admit—

Is Britain's?

No. Most people will admit that the future will probably be worse than the present. Russia has no available surplus of grain for export—

What about oil?

Russia's grain collection policy has been a failure, and the exports of Russia are not what they were some time ago. If you consider the present position in Russia and look to the future, as you must do, and to the probability of the position in Russia getting worse rather than better, I, personally, am not prepared to run the risk of a worse position 12 months hence, when our bills may become due.

There will be another war, I suppose.

The hon. Member mentioned that the United States are doing more export trade with Russia than we do, and he said also that the amount of export trade that the United States are doing with Russia is increasing, while ours is diminishing. He is quite right. He quoted figures to substantiate what he said. I have here the Russian official figures. In 1926–27, for the 10 months from 1st October to 31st July, we exported to Russia 118,000 tons of various goods and products. In 1927–28, in the same 10 months, we exported 66,528 tons, a difference of 52,000 tons. The main decline was in raw materials and semi-manufactured goods. It was 46,000 tons out of a total of 52,000. So there was not much difference in the actual manufactured goods. During that same period in 1926–27 the United States of America exported 152,600 tons to Russia, and in 1927–28 188,073 tons, an increase of 35,000 tons.

Can you give us the figures in dollars and pounds sterling?

I have not got them with me. This increase in exports by the United States and the decrease of our exports are not due to any difference in the treatment we give to Russia as compared with the treatment the United States give her. We treat her in exactly the same way. I want to give now the details in connection with manufactured goods, or rather divide up the total exports so that the House may appreciate what portion of that is manufactured goods. The breach with the Soviet Union took place on 26th May, 1927.

Do the American figures include imports and exports by the concession companies operating in Russia?

I am not quite certain, but I think so. As far as manufactured goods are concerned, we have not suffered very much. In 1926–27 we exported to Russia 21,527 tons. In 1927–28, most of which period was after the breach with Russia, we exported 20,862 tons, a difference of only 665 tons.

Orders en route before the break.

Not necessarily. Orders are placed with Russia at very short notice. There is very little that is in advance, and in any case Russia could have refused to accept the goods if she had not desired to have them, though they had been on the books some time. The United States do not acknowledge the Soviet Government any more than we do. In 1926–27 they exported to Russia 29,000 tons as against 40,123 tons in 1927–28, a difference of approximately 11,000 tons. I maintain that there is no difference between the way we treat Russia and the way the United States treat Russia.

We have broken off relations, whereas the Americans never had any relations.

That may be, but the United States do not to-day have any relationship with Russia, and we do not either. They do not give credit facilities to Russia, and we do not. We stand in exactly the same position. If we look for the reason of the difference in our export trade compared with that of the United States we have to look to another source, which is not our fault. We have always been, and are still, desirous of trading with Russia. If Russia wishes to trade with us, she can do so. If there is a difference it is not our fault, but the fault of Russia herself. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Benn) twitted me yesterday or the day before that policy and politics had entered into the decision to exclude Russia from these facilities. Policy is the art of government, politics is the science of government, and all we have done is to combine the art with the science. He knows our policy as well as I do, and it is not my intention to repeat it. I say again that we are anxious and willing to trade with Russia, and hon. Members know it, and if we extended these trade facilities to Russia it would make very little difference to our trade with Russia. If hon. Members would do more in the direction of telling Russia that we are anxious to trade with her instead of telling her constantly, as they do, that we are trying to put hindrances in the way of our trade with her, which is not true—

It is true, and men are unemployed because of it.

They would be doing something which would be of much greater service to our unemployed.

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

I need not put the House to the trouble of listening to a speech from me, as this is a Bill that is well known to hon. Members. The Public Works Loan Bill is a Bill that authorises the issue of money by the National Debt Commissioners to the Public Works Loan Commissioners for the purpose of making loans out of the local loans fund. Hon. Members see these Bills year after year. We had one in March, 1927, for£40,000,000, and another in December last for£25,000,000. The present Bill authorises the issue of£35,000,000 to cover the period until the next Act is passed.

This Bill may appear to be a matter of routine, but it arises out of events of very great importance in the agricultural world, and it ought not to pass without attention from the House, because matters of high policy are connected with it. It arose from the situation which we remember so well in 1923, a situation in which a large number of farmers who had bought their farms found themselves the victims of what I think has been quite fairly called an unparalleled swindle. The facts are beyond dispute, but it is just as well, as the importance of the matter is so great, to recall that situation. The Report on Agricultural Credit in 1923 put it in this way:

"Farmers were urged to increase their acreage under the plough and were promised security against resultant losses. These promises were confirmed by legislation firstly and temporarily in 1917 and finally, as a feature of permanent agricultural policy, in December, 1920. When the Corn Production Act of 1917 was before the House of Commons farmers were assured that whatever befalls, agriculture will never again be neglected by any Government.' In October, 1919, a speech delivered by the late Prime Minister at the Caxton Hall, Westminster, gave farmers reasonable assurance that the prices of the staple products of their farms would he maintained at a level which, if markets fell, would at least safeguard them against serious loss. It was in accordance with this spirit that the Agricultural Act of 1920 was placed upon the Statute Book. In the case of wheat and oats, the Act established, for a period of at least five years, guaranteed minimum prices on a sliding scale based on the 1919 costs of production."

It was on the basis of those promises—promises made, as one privately knows, in spite of the advice of some of the colleagues of the hon. Gentleman—that farmers bought the farms at prices which gave rise to the Bill of to-day. The owners got out of an immense number of farms at the expense of their tenants, and got out very well. In 1923, shortly after the repeal of the Act of 1920, it was very natural that the Government were uneasy on this question. They had it, I hope, on their consciences that something had to be done for those unfortunate victims. A Bill was brought in dressed up with considerable ornaments as a Bill on cooperative credit because half of the Bill purposed to assist the formation of credit societies. Its real object was—and in the result emphatically the effect has been—to lend money to those who purchased their farms during a certain period of time. Before this Bill passes the dangers of the proceedings for which the Bill provides in seeking to remedy bad debts arising from this cause ought to be realised. In the first place, in such a system you are, of course, involved in the risk of loss because of State money being loaned to men on a rather narrow margin. It is heads that the owner gains and tails that the State loses. Here we have set out three cases in which it was tails.

The larger point is also raised. The general question of lending money, through the agency of the State, on land with a view to increased ownership is a matter of policy discussed throughout the world and adopted in some States. The act of the Government in 1923 was a conspicuous act in the international agricultural world, so much so that the Canadian Government in a Report of their Commission of the following year gave a great deal of attention to it. They said some interesting things, of which I may remind the House. They pointed out that

"the fall in prices further produced generally a condition with regard to the farmers in England that was brought about by the fall of prices in both Canada and the United States. A great deal of the money used in the purchase of lands had been borrowed from the banks by means of overdrafts and, as the banks wore not allowed to take mortgages, the position of both banks and farmers was considered precarious."

About£46,000,000 on loans had been advanced to the farmers from the banks, and of this£26,000,000 had been advanced for the purchase of land and£20,000,000 for normal current production. They went on to deal very fully with the action of the British Government in this very special case. Although it was a special case and not a case of the adoption of a general policy of lending money on land, as was the Act of last Session, it still was a policy for bolstering up a system of multiplying ownership, and is therefore relevant to the general question of agricultural policy. That policy involves the promotion of ownership, and that again involves an attack on the rival policy of State acquisition and ownership of land. I want to point out that a particular danger is involved in a policy of this kind. It was alluded to by the English Committee on Credit in 1923. It is interesting when you think of what we have just done in relation to the Agricul- tural Credits Act of this year. The Committee said:

"A Committee under the Chairmanship of Lord Haversham enquired in 1911 into the position of tenant farmers on the occasion of any change in the ownership of their holdings. This Committee recommended the establishment of a State-assisted Land Bank or Institution to lend money to the farmer to enable him to purchase his holding. We are unable to go as far as that Committee in recommending State assistance for land purchase generally. Not only are the relative advantages of ownership and tenancy still a highly controversial subject, but it would appear that the effect of lending money on easy terms may lead to the tenant paying a higher price than he would otherwise do."

It is fitting to remind the Government, which in general is the same Government as legislated in 1923, of the dangers attaching to this policy of artificially promoting the multiplication of ownership. We on this side of the House pointed out last Session that the farmers are very likely to suffer from that very increase of prices alluded to by this Departmental Committee resulting from the system of easy loans.

There is one other point which I want to make. The Bill of 1923 provided very liberal financial aid to farmers of all kinds. But the grievance with which it sought to deal was a grievance not of every kind of farmer but of the farmer who grew corn, particularly wheat and oats. I recall moving an Amendment to make the proposal applicable to corn growing land and not to grazing land which had been quite unaffected by the Corn Production Act.

The right hon. Gentleman is going over a very wide field of discussion. I do not know whether he realises that the scope of this Bill is an extremely narrow one and concerns an item of less than£1,200.

Yes, but I think that you, Mr. Speaker, will probably agree that the cases associated with this loss are not irrelevant for brief mention. It arises in one particular case from losses on a farm in Cheshire which presumably is a grass farm. It illustrates the dangers of this kind of financial policy because here you have the State making good a bad debt on a mortgage of a farm which had in no way suffered from the injustices connected with the Corn Production Act. Let me pass at your behest, Mr. Speaker, to the general question. I want to ask the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill if he will tell us a little about the way the valuations were arrived at. We know that the conditions of the Bill were stretched to enable the loan to be as large as possible. I remember that some hon. Members urged that the mortgage ought to be based upon the price that the unfortunate farmer had to give. That, of course, had to be ruled out. The assistance was made as liberal as possible, but I submit that it was no real help, in the long run, to a great many of these men, because it encouraged them to incur expenditure and outlay which they had better not have undertaken. Were the valuers in these cases official valuers? Are they the same valuers as act under the Land Acquisition Act, or are they valuers from private firms, chosen from a panel designed for the department? It may be that the sale of this land being unsuccessful was due to the fact that it was not as well conducted as it might have been. Is there a panel of auctioneers who act in certain cases? I do not know, and I think the House would be interested to know. Will the Financial Secretary give information on this point as fully as he can, and can he tell us whether this is the end of the losses or does he think that there may be further losses in the future?

As one who took a very active part in the passing of the Agricultural Credits Act, 1923, I should like a little information before giving final assent to this Bill. I differ from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, because in my experience of the Act of 1923 the loans made thereunder have given a great deal of assistance to those unfortunate farmers, and it is limited to them, who did buy their farms prior to the passing of the Act of 1923, but after the passing of the Corn Production Act. I was under the impression that a better bargain with regard to the rate of interest charged by the Public Works Loan Commissioners might have been made and that the charge might have been at least one-quarter per cent, less to the farmers who obtained these loans. I remember the provision being made that the amount of the loan was to be two-thirds of the existing value of the farm at the time the loan was made, in the case of trustees lending money on mortgage.

I should like to know whether these three loans are the only loans on which the Commissioners have made a loss or are there any others cutstanding. I notice that the loss on these loans is only about 9 per cent. after all the expenses have been incurred in winding up the whole business and in meeting the official expenses of the lawyers, auctioneers, etc. That does not seem to me a very serious matter. If, on the ether hand, there is likely to be a number of other losses, it may become a serious charge on the taxpayers. I should also like to know whether on these loans from t he beginning, on the£4,000,000 or£5,000,000 that have been invested, the Public Works Loan Commissioners have not made a profit out of the interest charged. Have they not borrowed money from the Treasury at certain rates and charged 'a higher rate to the borrowers who borrowed under this security? If so, seeing that these loans are being paid off by steady instalments of principal and interest, the security on the outstanding loans is becoming better, and as each year passes the profit that is being made on the difference between the interest charged by the Commissioners and the interest at which the Commissioners get the money is steadily mounting up, and it may well, be that this will more than offset any loss that has been incurred or is likely to be incurred.

This is a matter of great interest to those who take some part in agricultural politics. I am particularly interested, because, differing entirely from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I have regarded and still regard the provision of loans by the Government at the cheapest rate a very great facility for the furtherance of agricultural interests. It is just as much an advantage to the State that we have these credit facilities for the tenant farmers, as it is that we have such facilities for the small-holders.

The information sought by the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) will be very interesting to hon. Members. Can the Financial Secretary say whether on the whole of the transactions a profit has been made? I should like to know who were the valuers who undertook this work on behalf of the Department in connection with the making of the loans. While the total sum to be disposed of is only£1,215, the figures shown in the forepart of the Bill seem very extraordinary. I understand that the maximum loans permissible under the terms of the Act of 1923 were to the amount of 75 per cent. of the valuation. In the first case the valuer valued a holding at£5,100, and two years later when the same farm was sold it only realised£4,150, or approximately 20 per cent. less than the valuation of two years previously. Can the Financial Secretary say whether he thinks that that was a good valuation, or whether through some abnormal reason which has not yet been explained there was a depreciation in the value of land after two years' time equivalent to 20 per cent? In the second case, the circumstances seem to be worse. The valuation arrived at was£4,360, and when the farm was available for sale the price obtained by the Department was only£2,575, so there was, approximately, a reduction of 30 per cent. in the value of the farm as determined by the valuer two years before. That seems extraordinary. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will tell us why, while the valuation exceeded the selling price by 30 per cent., the loan in this particular case exceeded the selling price by£695. Therefore, it was not a case of granting the loan on 75 per cent. of the value of the land, but the loan was well over 100 per cent. of the selling price of the land. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will tell us how it comes about that there is this great difference after two years between the original valuation and the selling price, and the amount of the loan that was granted.

In the third ease the valuation was£9,000, but in two years time the selling price was reduced to£7,000. Obviously there is something wrong either in the original valuation or in the methods of disposal to bring about these results. In this case the loan was almost 100 per cent. more than the price realised. I think we are entitled to know the names of the valuers and what they have to say with regard to their valuation. I regret that the Minister of Agriculture is not present this afternoon. After all, his Department is involved. There may be justifiable reasons for his absence, and I should not like to say anything unpleasant in his absence, but I think he ought to have been here. When the State places its resources at the disposal of agriculturists we ought to know whether some effort is being made on the part of the beneficiaries to respond to the efforts made by the State.

During, three consecutive days of this week we have had instances of the State handing over services to private enterprise. There is the case of the beam wireless service, the Overseas Trade Department, and now we get agricultural credit facilities. The State places its resources at the disposal of agriculture, and after a partial success has been made it is proposed to hand the scheme over to private enterprise. The question I want to ask is whether after loans have been granted to farmers for the purchase of their holdings or machinery, the State Department makes any inquiries as to the conditions on any farm. Do they merely grant the loan and wait for events to bring in a return, or have they any means of overlooking the conditions on these farms upon which sums ranging from£4,000 to£7,000 have been advanced? Is anything done to keep the Department in touch with the property on which a loan has been advanced in order to prevent any individual depreciating the value of the land, with the result that the State is called upon to meet the loss. If the Socialist party were involved in a business of this description in which losses were accruing to the State and the State was called upon to meet the obligations without a full reply being submitted, I am afraid the Financial Secretary, and the Home Secretary in particular, would be amongst the most virile critics of the Labour Government, and I hope they will satisfy us that the farmers have done their best to safeguard the interests of the nation.

I can only speak again by leave of the House. I do not know whether I shall be able to satisfy hon. Members, but I will do my best, and I will take the points as they have been put before me by the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley), the right hon. Member for Norfolk Northern (Mr. Buxton), and the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). In each case the valuations are made by the Inland Revenue as the hon. Member for the Don Valley will find set out in the Financial Memorandum attached to the Bill. The Public Works Loan Commissioners are the sole judges as to whether the money shall be loaned or not, and in the Public Works Loans Act he will find a list of the gentlemen who are good enough to act as Public Works Loan Commissioners. I do not think I need trouble the House by reading their names. They are men of out standing ability and more than competent to know whether a security is a good one or not. The rate of interest charged is only enough to cover the cost of the money raised for the purpose and costs of administration. In any case the total loss to the State cannot be known until all the loans have run off, because there is always the contingency that some loss may take place. If the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead will refer to page 7 of the 53rd Annual Report of the Public Works Loan Board he will see—and this is the point which I desire to impress upon the House—

"The Board desire to draw attention to the fact that in spite of the very careful valuations made on a conservative basis 10.26 per cent, of the number of loans advanced and 13.12 per cent. of the grants advanced were in arrear on the 31st March, 1928, as compared with percentages of 5.28 and 6.99 respectively on the 31st March, 1927."

That means that these losses of£1,200 do not include prospective losses: there are other losses which must be expected. After all a total of nearly£5,000,000 of money has been lent and it is to be expected that there will be more losses. The hon. Member for the Don Valley asked whether the Department examine the mortgaged properties from time to time. I cannot say off-hand whether they do so or not but I should think it would be very unpleasant to the occupier for officials of the Department to go poking about on these properties after the money has been lent. That, I think, would be most harassing and most unreasonable. I do not think the Department concerned can be expected to go overlooking in that way the properties on which money has been lent in order to find out whether everything is in proper order. That is hardly a thing which this House would desire. The hon. Member also referred to the absence of the Minister of Agriculture and regretted that he was not present. I do not know why he referred to my right hon. Friend because I must point out that when these loans were made the right hon. Gentleman opposite was Minister of Agriculture in the last administration, and instead of asking for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture the hon. Member for the Don Valley should make inquiries of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who knows as much about it as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.

Surely, if the Financial Secretary will look at the first loan he will see that it was made after the right hon. Member for Norfolk, Northern (Mr. Buxton) was turned out of office.

No. I do not think the hon. Gentleman must take that line. The date of the loan is 10th November, 1924, and one may assume that the negotiations were in progress for some weeks. Another date is 20th August, 1924.

Would those loans come before either of the right hon. Gentlemen who were Ministers of Agriculture?

I do not think they would, but when the hon. Member for the Don Valley complains that the Minister of Agriculture is not present, he should direct his remarks to the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Buxton).

The Financial Secretary has in no way attempted to reply to the main point. Here was land valued at£5,100 and two years later it was sold to the best buyer for£4,100. Will the hon. Gentleman explain the difference between the valuation in 1924 and the selling price in 1926–27? Will he also state whether instructions will be issued to valuers that where loans are granted they are not to over-value agricultural land or any other land?

If I knew when land was to go up or down in value, in the way that the hon. Gentleman would like us to know, I would make a fortune in a very short time.

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

3.0 p.m.

A few words of explanation of this Bill are due to the House. Briefly speaking, the Bill covers what we know as two sides, of Parliament Square—Abingdon Street, St. Margaret's Street and Old Palace. Yard. At present that part of Parliament Square and those streets are maintained and administered by the Office of Works. It is proposed in the Bill to hand them over to the Westminster City Council for the purposes of maintenance. In the Bill there are two points which deserve consideration. The House will see that in Clause 1, Sub-section (2), there is a reference to an ancient Act, the Metropolis Management Act of 1855. Originally the Crown property in London was administered by special ad hoc Commissioners set up in 1825. When the Office- of Works was established in 1851 the powers of the Commissioners were taken away, so far as this property was concerned, and were given to the Office of Works. But whereas the Commissioners had the power to levy a rate for the purpose of maintaining these streets, the Office of Works have never had that power and the charge for maintaining the streets falls on the Estimates. The Vestries of St. John's and St. Margaret's, who then occupied the place of the present Westminster City Council, were expressly excluded by this Act from levying a rate for that purpose because the property was not under their jurisdiction. As we are handing over this property for the purpose of maintenance to the Westminster City Council, it is obviously necessary to repeal one Section of that Act so as to enable them to levy a rate for purposes of maintenance.

The other point which the House will observe is the Sub-section by which there are retained to this House all the ancient powers and privileges which Members have had from time immemorial; that is to say, Parliament Square will remain part of the Palace of Westminster so far as the jurisdiction of the Lord Great Chamberlain is concerned. Everyone will realise that when this property was originally taken over by the Office of Works, Abingdon Street and Parliament Square were of quite a different character from that of to-day. Abingdon Street was practically a cul-de-sac; there was no St. Margaret's Street and very little through traffic. Owing to the opening of Millbank there is now an enormous amount of through traffic from Victoria Street and Whitehall. In the same way because of the adoption of the roundabout system in Parliament Square there is now a tremendous lot of traffic in the Square itself. It is most desirable from a traffic point of view that there should not be this enclave. The Westminster City Council, who are a highway authority and are entitled to a grant from the Road Fund, should administer and maintain this property rather than the Office of Works who are not a highway authority and are not entitled to a Road Fund grant.

Is the Office of Works responsible for what was Mr. Labouchere's house, now the Industrial Commissioners' Office, and for that side of Abingdon Street? Is the Office of Works parting with any of those rights to make such improvements as are desirable there? Some day that house and other houses near should be removed in order to display to the public what is called King John's Tower, which is very little known. I would like his assurance that the Office of Works is not parting with any rights which would enable it later, when finance permits, to make this public improvement.

As far as I know, I think I can give this assurance; but I will give the hon. Member my promise that I will look into this point before the Bill comes back from the Select Committee.

While these streets still remain within the jurisdiction of the Office of Works I should like to make a suggestion with regard to them, knowing that it could not be put into operation by the hon. and gallant Member if this Bill goes through, but hoping that he may use his influence to pass it on to the new authority. At present considerable delay is caused, owing to the practice—the commendable practice no doubt—of policemen holding up the traffic in order to allow hon. Members to pass on their way to or from the House. There might be constructed an underground passage at the places where that is done. An hon. Member seems to scoff at that suggestion, but I think I can make out some case for it. Before the one-way traffic system was instituted it was a comparatively simple matter for hon. Members to cross these streets, but it is now a matter of extreme difficulty to cross in safety. I feel it so myself, and, perhaps, I am not the least active of the Members of this House, and I know that some of my colleagues feel great difficulty about crossing at these places. If ever there was a case for an underground passage this is one, because it will be an advantage by facilitating the passing of hon. Members to and from the House and will save a great deal of traffic delay.

Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell the House what amount has been involved on the Estimates by the maintenance of these streets in the past, and how it will compare with what we should now have to provide out of the Road Fund to the Westminster City Council, for their maintenance in the future?

As far as I remember, the amount involved in the Estimates is generally about£2,500, but, if the Westminster City Council are to have these powers, they will have to recoup themselves to the same extent, so that the thing is as broad as it is long. As for the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones), if I can facilitate his passage underground I shall be very glad to do so.

We all appreciate the force of the last observation, but I have considerable sympathy with the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion. In my dual capacity I have to cross Parliament Square to my County Court duties constantly, and I assure the House that I feel considerable trepidation in doing so. What has a paralysing effect is the want of proper rules made by the Home Office to compel the traffic to take its proper line at a definite spot. The traffic that comes round the square from Parliament Street, intending to go down Great George Street, does not indicate its intention until it is well on its way, and the result is that those who are going to cross at a particular point never know when a vehicle is going to come out of the line to go that way. It is a very serious thing and until we have a Member of this House either maimed or killed we shall never have this thing put right. I am not going to select which side of the House the Member is to come from who is to make that experiment in order to save the rest of us, but I would impress on the hon. and gallant Gentleman the seriousness of the matter. If he consults the Chief Commissioner he will find that there is a great deal of substance in my complaint. If the lines of traffic were compelled to follow in a definite sequence and then, at a particular spot, show their intention of crossing to the other side, we should have a relative amount of safety, but I can assure the hon. and gallant Member it is a question of a very considerable source of danger.

This is really not relevant to this Bill; it is a question of traffic control.