Object!

Pursuant to Standing Order of the 8th May, 1929, read the First and Second time, and (the Bill having been reported and considered in Session 1928-9) ordered to be read the Third time.

The following Notice of Motion stood upon the Order Paper:

London Electric Railway Companies (Coordination of Passenger Traffic) Bill,

To be deemed to have been read the First and Second time, and (the Bill having been reported and considered in Session 1928-9 of Parliament) to be ordered to be read the Third time.

Object!

The time for raising objection is when the Bills are put down for Third Reading.

Pursuant to Standing Order of the 8th May, 1929, read the First and Second time, and (the Bill having been reported and considered in Session 1928-9) ordered to be read the Third time.

Darlington Corporation Trolley Vehicles (Additional Routes) Provisional Order Bill,

Pursuant to Standing Order of the 8th May, 1929, read the First and Second time, and (the Bill having been reported and considered in Session 1928-9) ordered to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Kilmarnock Water Provisional Order Bill,

Pursuant to Standing Order of the 8th May, 1929, read the First time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,

Pursuant to Standing Order of the 8th May, 1929, read the First and Second time, and (the Bill having been reported and considered in Session 1928-9) ordered to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill,

Pursuant to Standing Order of the 8th May, 1929, read the First and Second time, and committed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders(No. 8) Bill,

Pursuant to Standing Order of the 8th May, 1929, read the First and Second time, and committed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill,

Pursuant to Standing Order of the 8th May, 1929, read the First and Second time, and committed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill,

Pursuant to Standing Order of the 8th May, 1929, read the First and Second time, and committed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill,

Pursuant to Standing Order of the 8th May, 1929, read the First time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. l2) Bill,

Pursuant to Standing Order of the 8th May, 1929, read the First time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders Bill,

Pursuant to Standing Order of the 8th May, 1929, read the First and Second time, and (the Bill having been reported and considered in Session 1928-9) ordered to be read the Third time To-morrow.

May I take it from you, Mr. Speaker, that the objections raised in different parts of the House to the Co-ordination of Passenger Traffic Bills have been accepted by you?

What I said, when the objection was raised, was that this is not the proper time at which to raise objection, but that the time to raise objection would be when the Bills are put on the Paper for Third Reading.

I beg to move, Members to give up time which as a matter of fact it was never contemplated that they should have.

If this Motion he carried, either in the form in which I have put it down or in a modified form, I should like to assure private Members in all quarters of the House that, as a matter of fact, no time really will be taken from them; it only means that they cannot take advantage of the looseness of the Standing Order which arises from the fact that we have changed the time of beginning the Session. That, I think, is all the explanation on that point that I need make. If there be a desire to modify the Motion, I must warn the House, and the older hands will understand that the warning is necessary, that we shall simply have to repeat the request later on. It is absolutely necessary that the Government should get this privilege up to the Christmas Recess, and it is only a question whether we take one bite at the cherry or two. I must say that I think that, from a business point of view, one bite is quite enough, provided that it is accompanied by this pledge, which I give without reserve, that, if either of the parties desires time during the period in question for the purpose of raising or discussing any important matter which would be brought to us through the ordinary channels, we shall certainly provide that time. With that pledge and that proviso, I think that we might get the Motion exactly in the form in which it is on the Paper.

But I ought, perhaps, to say a little more regarding our ideas about the immediate future—the part of the Session which has just opened. The time up to the end of July will be used, if we get this Motion—perhaps the House will allow me to speak on that assumption—in the way that I am going to indicate. I should like, if it be possible, to finish this part of the Session with the month, that is to say, that, at some time towards the end of this month, we should adjourn. Hon. Members know perfectly well the tremendous strain under which right hon. Gentlemen opposite and in all quarters of the House have been since the end of April. We have gone through a very strenuous General Election, and no sooner had those of us who sit here got back after the declaration of the poll, than we had to face an exceedingly difficult and exceedingly worrying three or four weeks. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear! "] Yes, that is quite true; I think everyone understands; and it is really essential that we should bring fresh minds to bear on the very difficult problems that have to be faced—fresh minds in all quarters of the House. Therefore, I hope it will be possible to arrange the business in such a way that we should get one or two of the purely Departmental Bills and one or two of the Bills that are required in order to give us certain powers, mainly to deal with unemployment—I will give in a moment a list of the Bills that will be introduced—and that we should adjourn somewhere about the end of this month, and not cross the border of August.

It is our intention that the Session should last until, say, July of next year. We felt, and I think the House will agree with us, that it was far more convenient and far more businesslike to produce a King's Speech at the beginning of this Session, which would be uninterrupted, except in the way that I have indicated, until the end of the normal Session, so that the Prorogation of the Session would be somewhere about the end of July next year. As regards business before the end of the month, I should like to get two Bills which will enable the Lord Privy Seal to put certain big schemes in hand, or at any rate to make preparations for putting them in hand, without delay. The House will perhaps allow me to leave that there, because my right hon. Friend is going to speak as soon as this business is over, and he will give a full explanation of what he feels it is necessary to ask the House to give him. There is a Bill that is required on account of the state of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. We inherited a rather bankrupt exchequer there, and it is necessary that that fund should be straightened out. The Bill will necessitate, I am sorry to say, a Financial Resolution, but, once that is discussed and passed, I hope the Bill itself will present no further problems or difficulties. Then the position of the housing subsidy requires to be reviewed, and there will be a short Bill just dealing with the continuance of the subsidy under the 1924 Act. I am advised that something must be done before the end of this month. There is another Bill, upon which, I think, there will be general agreement, judging by the Papers on which it has been based, to give effect to an agreement with the Irish Free State on the position of ex-British civil servants transferred to that Government. That we may expect to be a non-controversial Bill in view of the Papers we found waiting for us. There are one or two minor Bills, such as the Isle of Man Customs Bill, practically Departmental Bills, which I think, again, will be non-controversial.

The other part of the Motion can be explained in a sentence. The Motion for moving Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the main Estimates relating to the Army, Navy, Air and Civil Services will not be taken in the normal course and cannot be taken until February, 1930, and we thought it would be most inconvenient if the ballots for Amendments to the Motion, " That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," were taken now. The subjects have to be announced, and we felt that the fortunate Members, whoever they were, would prefer not to be compelled to announce in a very short time the subjects upon which they are to speak in February, 1930, so we have asked in this Motion that that operation also should be postponed. That is the request I have to make to the House, and those are the reasons why I have been compelled to make them.

I agree with most of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. We are all familiar with the reasons which cause this Motion to be put down. The only query I would raise is this: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, if instead of the "Christmas" Recess, he would be willing to substitute the word "Summer." We give them freely the time until then. I am very glad he has made the offer to us which I made last year, to have a conference of the three parties as to the allocation of private Members' time in the event of the Session beginning in October. It seems to me that if you put in "Christmas Recess " you will tie the hands of that committee a little. I am perfectly willing, as far as I am concerned—doubtless the Liberal party will speak for themselves—to get on with the work at once, so that we can complete it before we separate in July. It cannot take long. But there is this point, which the right hon. Gentleman will remember: No one wants to ask for more time or less time for the private Member, but there are some advantages in giving private Members some of their time on this side of Christmas. It gives the private Member a better chance of getting on with Bills next year, and that is a point which any committee would have to take into consideration, though I do not say they would come to that conclusion. If the committee decided, and the House supported it, that some of the private Members' time should be given before Christmas, this Motion would stand in the way. If, on the other hand, the private Members' time remained as at present, there would be no need for the Motion. Otherwise, we have no objection to it. I should like to ask if the Government have any information about the Budget to give us—whether there is to be a Budget, or when it is coming in.

I should like to support the appeal of the Leader of the Opposition to the Prime Minister to limit this Motion to this section of the Session. I think we ought to have time to reconsider the matter when we meet, either in October or November—perhaps the Prime Minister will give us some sort of idea when we shall resume our task. I think it would be very undesirable at this time that the House of Commons should part altogether with its rights and privileges in this respect, and, as far as I can see, from what the Prime Minister says as to the character of the business, I should say that ought to meet his desires. What he really wishes, as far as I understand—we shall know better after we have heard the speech of the Lord Privy Seal—is that urgent legislation dealing with the problem of unemployment should be carried through to enable the Lord Privy Seal to proceed without loss of time to his task. I cannot conceive any section of Members opposing facilities being given to the Government for that purpose. We have all treated it as an urgent problem, and we ought to equip the Government with all necessary powers for dealing with it without waste of time, because it is essential that the Lord Privy Seal should be in a position to put his schemes into operation before the winter. That simply means that the Prime Minister ought to be satisfied with having facilities during the existing part of the Session.

With regard to the allocation of time to private Members, I should like to remind the Prime Minister that, during the whole of this year, private Members have had no time at all, so that, if this Motion were carried, there would be a whole year without any time being allocated to them, either in the last or the present Parliament. That would be quite intolerable, and I would, therefore, support the appeal of the Leader of the Opposition that there should be immediately a conference between the parties upon the subject of the allocation of time, and I hope the Prime Minister will agree to it. I should like to know, as a matter of Order, whether, if this Motion be carried, it will deprive a Member of the right to introduce a Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule or behind the Speaker's Chair.

Undoubtedly, if this Motion were carried, it would deprive a private Member of the opportunity of moving a Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule.

I hope the Prime Minister does not intend that. We are quite willing to grant every facility to the Government to take the time of the House, but that is carrying it too far. If the Prime Minister says he will put that right before the Question is carried, I shall have no objection, provided it is limited on the lines suggested by the Leader of the Opposition.

On that point of Order. May I remind the House that during the first few months of the year in the last Parliament several Bills were introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule in spite of a similar Motion having been carried.

That may have been so, but I looked into this question on seeing the Motion on the Paper, and I came to the conclusion that that would be the effect of it.

Mr. Speaker suggests that it would be out of Order to introduce Bills under the Ten Minutes Rule. There was certainly no intention of preventing that. I just cast my mind back as to what happened when the Government took private Members' time previously, and it was my recollection that Bills could, be introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule.

I understand that Government business only took precedence of the business of Private Members, and, of course, such a Motion did not apply to Bills introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule; but it is not so under this Motion.

I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, I was going to proceed to say that it has just been suggested that the wording of the Motion which I have now moved is somewhat different and may properly be considered to make that bar. With reference to the suggestion and the observation made by the Leader of the Opposition that we should at once set up a committee to deal with this Standing Order, I am quite at one with him. I shall make it my business to do so at once. Under these circumstances, it will only be necessary to take the time of the House until the end of this month. That will cover the point of the Ten Minute Rule Bills, because it will only operate until the end of July.

That would mean that during this month no Bills could be introduced by private Members. After all, it would not take up any time, and private Members would probably like to introduce Bills in order to get them printed and circulated. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree to the inclusion of words to make that possible. I am sorry that I am not in a position to move a form of words at the moment, but, if the right hon. Gentleman will agree to that course, I am sure he will be assisted at the Table.

The points with regard to private Members' Bills and Motions are of vital importance to minorities in the House. I have not been able to hear what was said between the Prime Minister and you, Mr. Speaker, but I should have thought that this reasonable desire, in regard to which there is a very large measure of acquiescence in this House, could have been met on the part of the Government by simply using the words " That Government business do have precedence until the Summer recess." These words seem to be ample, and it is all that the Government ought to ask.

May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should put down a Motion in a modified manner on the Paper for to-morrow. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate the importance of Members bringing in Bills behind the Speaker's Chair in addition to introducing them under the Ten Minutes Rule. I am sure that it would not be the desire of the Government that hon. Members should be precluded from doing so. I throw out the suggestion that it would be better to see the Motion actually on the Paper. There will be no loss of time if such a Motion is put down for to-morrow. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will answer the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the date when the House will reassemble?

I was hoping, as the Debate was going on, that I should get the necessary amending words. We had never any intention of placing private Members at a disadvantage. I think that the best way would be to withdraw this Motion and put down an amended Motion on the Paper for to-morrow. In answer to the question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) as to when we shall meet again, I shall be glad if he will be good enough to give us a few days so as to see how the business is proceeding. We will make an announcement perhaps earlier than is usually done under the circumstances.

What about the Budget?

My right hon. Friend has a question on this subject to answer to-morrow, and he will make a statement then.

It is rather inconvenient that we should be proceeding with the general aspects of the Debate on the Address and should remain in ignorance of what is, after all, an important part of the Government's Programme.

Cannot we be told now?

I have no wish at all to withhold that information from the House. It is, of course, a matter about which I have been thinking, and I have come to the conclusion that I shall not ask the House to proceed with the draft Finance Bill which was foreshadowed in the later stages of the last Parliament, but I shall ask the House next year to enact the Clause extending the relief from Stamp Duty on company amalgamations, which has retrospective effect, and also the Clause relating to Motor Vehicles. I do not intend to proceed with the proposals in regard to duties on bookmaker's telephones, and on totalisator stakes, nor with the proposals for the reduction of Excise Liquor

Licences, nor with the proposed concession as to the sale of. half bottles of spirits. I will consider the proposal for increased Licence Duties on brewers, distillers, and tobacco manufacturers, but I shall not be in a position to announce the final decision upon them until next year's Budget.

May I say to the House that, in view of the withdrawal of this Motion until to-morrow, it ought to be an understanding that the privileges which, without this Motion having been passed, remain available will not be taken advantage of.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

No one is more mindful of the difficulty of my task than myself. During the heat of the election, when all kinds of schemes dealing with the question of the unemployed were being debated, I never hesitated to say that there were no short cuts to a solution of the unemployment problem. I never hesitated to point out that, in my judgment, the real and ultimate solution of the problem could never be separated from the trade, commerce and industry of the country. I realised then, as I realise now, that whatever may have been said with regard to this problem five or 10 years ago, the position to-day is so serious and the effects so demoralising that no Government can afford to ignore the seriousness and gravity of the problem.

What are the facts? When we talk of the live register and deduce from those figures the fact that a million or more of our people are unemployed, that gives an entirely wrong picture of the situation to the outsider. The problem is not exactly that. Out of that total, at least 50 per cent, are men and women of many of whom it can be truthfully said, that they are unemployed it may be on Monday and find employment before Saturday. That is not a difficult problem to deal with. That is a problem with which the Unemployment Insurance Act was intended to deal. [HON. MEMBEES: "Hear, hear! "] Yes, but, when we talk of the Unemployment Insurance Act, it is too often forgotten that the finances of it and the payment of the benefit in the main do not come from the Exchequer but from industry itself—employers and workpeople.

The second half of the problem is the most serious and most dangerous, and it is this. Through causes into which I need not go this afternoon we find that 400,000 or 500,000 of our fellow citizens have been unemployed in some cases for three and four years, and even more, after all the efforts that they have made. It cannot be too strongly emphasised, at least for the benefit of foreign opinion, that the great mass of our people do desire and do want work. We find ourselves in the position that this half-million of people are not only deprived of the opportunity of work and not only deprived of the chance of earning their livelihood, but, what is far more difficult and far more important from the standpoint of trying to find a solution, at least from 300,000 to 400,000 of that number are doomed, as it were, in certain localities.

What is our experience of working-class life? Every one of us knows something about working-class homes and working-class mentality, and we know that, if the father is working in one industry, the son working in another industry, and the daughter in another, even when one is doing badly, there is always something coming into the home. That is what happens, in the main, in working-class homes. We find the son or the daughter making a contribution to the income of the household, but, unfortunately, what we find to-day is that hundreds of thousands of our fellow men and women are located in districts where there is no other industry, where all hope has gone, and where the paralysis of the one industry means utter starvation and ruination to themselves and the village. That is the serious and grave side of the problem with which we have to deal.

Difficult as I know my task to be, I am not unmindful of the fact that in all parties and in the country generally this problem is one which our people desire to see solved, and that there is good will in the country in regard to tackling the problem. My problem and the problem of my colleagues is to see how we can mobilise this good will, with a view to finding some solution. With these facts clearly in our minds, how are we to tackle them? I said to myself, first of all: "There is to be no consideration of schemes that merely mean spending money without regard either to consequences or benefit to the community." Anyone can spend money. There is a large number of people who construe work as filling a barrow and then emptying it. I do not forget, and I do not intend to forget, that there is no bottomless pit from which money can be drawn. I will not forget that fact. But, on the other side, anyone who knows the feeling in the country and who knows the demoralisation and the lost hope and desperation of our people will realise that to do nothing on that side is equally dangerous. My difficulty as between these two extremes is to look at schemes, to examine schemes and to find schemes that will not only give work to the unemployed, but will also stimulate trade at home and abroad and add, in the end, to the economic equipment of the country.

I asked myself: "What is there that we import to-day that we can make ourselves I" I am surprised that other folk who have been in Government so long had not thought of that also. When I applied myself to the task, I said to myself: "I know something of the railways. I know that the railways import £1,250,000 worth of timber from abroad for sleepers every year, and I know that no question of tariffs bothers them. I know perfectly well that when they are negotiating their only concern is to get as good an article or a better article at an economic price, and I remember the effect of every ton of steel on coal and iron ore." I said to the railway companies at once, " What is the difficulty of steel sleepers?" I discovered that there was very little difficulty at all; none so far as price is concerned, and none so far as foreign competition is concerned. There are small technical difficulties which I need not explain to the House, but which all railwaymen will understand, but they are technical difficulties which can all be got over and surmounted; and the railway companies, I am pleased to say, are now applying themselves seriously to the question and intend to give orders, and are giving orders, as far as they can, to substitute steel sleepers for the wood sleepers which we are now importing.

I then said to myself: "If that is applicable to a private concern, what about telegraph poles." It is no good saying to a private concern "you ought to help us" and then for Government Departments to make no contribution. That I felt would be unfair, and I asked the Post Office to examine not alone steel because they put up immediately a difficulty with regard to steel. I said, "Very well, let us have steel and concrete, and, if that will not do, let us have concrete." The point I am making to the House is this, that I am going to explore every avenue and see whether we can make in this country things which we are now importing from abroad. There is the question of steel wagons as well as steel coaches. I only give this as an illustration of how I approach the problem and in order to show that at least we are going to apply a new mind and hard thinking to a problem which I believe has been neglected.

When you talk of schemes, however gigantic they may be and however attractive they may be, you must remember that there will be a great deal of negotiation to take place, many engineering difficulties, local authorities to negotiate with, and experience shows that there is a happy method of " passing the bird " on to someone else. I had to say to myself: "Let me first see schemes which can be got on with at once; schemes where the sand is stopping progress at the moment, and where I can substitute engine driver's oil for the sand in the machine." I found that there were a number of schemes which required lubricating; and, when I talk of lubrication, it must not be assumed that I am always meaning the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There are many methods of getting things done. Let me illustrate one or two. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer very wisely remitted the Passenger Duty. He said to the railway companies that he would remit this duty on condition that they spent £6,500,000 capital on useful work. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer was so busy in the General Election that no one determined the principle upon which that expenditure ought to be made. The railway companies had got the money, and it was a question of my saying to them, " Your side of the bargain is all right; what about mine?" I am pleased to tell the House that they met me quite frankly, and I have agreed on the principles that are to determine that expenditure. That expenditure of £6,500,000 will be got on with as speedily as possible. That is what I will call the first stage of things that can be done. [Interruption.'] There are a number of details involved, including new engines, extensions of sidings, development of railway stations, better goods equipment: all things which they would not themselves have done but for the concession which was made.

I then turned to the question of the roads, and there I found a very good precedent from the Labour Government of 1924. The Minister of Transport, whose knowledge in this matter is only equalled by his enthusiasm to do something for the unemployed, discovered that when we were last in office we sanctioned proposals for 500 miles of main trunk roads—I need not go into details—which have now been almost completed. But I also found that there was another five years' programme which could be speeded up and got on with at once, costing £9,500,000. It has been examined by the Minister of Transport, and all the interests concerned are going most carefully and fully into the scheme, and I have said to them, "Get on with the job and only bother me when there is any difficulty." That is the second stage in things that can be done. It enables local authorities to know the programme for five years ahead. Therefore, it is not for the municipalities to complain, but for them to help us to get on with the work at once. They know perfectly well that there is a five years' programme sketched out so far as they are concerned. The same thing applies to a programme of new road construction, widenings and bridges where there is estimated work for six years, involving an expenditure of £28,000,000. That, again, has been sanctioned in principle, and the Minister of Transport is conducting negotiations. So far as the Government are concerned they have to get on with the job. Here let me say a word about the finance.

What about Scotland?

:I will come to Scotland in a moment. The expenditure is £28,000,000 under the second scheme and £9,500,000 under the first scheme. Both these schemes it is anticipated can be and will be financed out of the existing Road Fund, and, if the amount is exceeded in any one year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will introduce the necessary legislation to enlarge the resources of the Fund to meet the expenditure. The real advantage, which I want the late Chancellor of the Exchequer to observe, is that I have sanctioned both these schemes and as the money is mortgaged it will prevent any future Chancellor of the Exchequer robbing the Road Fund. So far as I am concerned, that is equally applicable to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I am sorry to interrupt again, but this is rather important. Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what contribution will be expected from the municipalities? On these schemes, will the whole of the expenditure come out of the cash which the right hon. Gentleman indicates, or does he expect contributions from the municipalities, and, if so, what?

I will deal with the contributions in a moment. I want to deal with them in connection with the transfer of workers. So far as the schemes that I have just outlined are concerned, they are on precisely the same basis as hitherto; there is no difference at all. But, with regard to the new schemes that I shall come to in a moment, I shall state the exact situation.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether his proposal refers to unclassified roads? He has dealt with first-class and second-class roads, but, particularly in the rural districts, there are the unclassified roads.

4.0 p.m.

They are dealt with as well. I do not want at this stage to be diverted. I come now to another aspect of the matter. Several years ago, after a great agitation, this House sanctioned a scheme and money was allocated or earmarked for dealing with Charing Cross Bridge. It involved an expenditure of, roughly, £11,000,000. Although there will be engineering delays and delays in connection with surveys, the importance of the subject from the immediate and practical point of view is this, that the reconstruction of Waterloo Bridge, which can be got on with at once, is dependent upon an agreement in regard to Charing Cross. Therefore, what I was concerned with was not alone the ultimate chance of getting to work on Charing Cross Bridge, but getting on immediately with Waterloo Bridge, on which, as I say, work can be started immediately. My hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has met representatives of the interests concerned, and I think I am not putting it too high to say that he desires to bear tribute to the London County Council and to the representatives of the Southern Railway Company, who have both responded magnificently. I believe that, not only has satisfactory progress been made, but that that progress enables me to say that Waterloo Bridge ought to be got on with absolutely at once.

Then next problem was what schemes there were which, while desirable, while they could be justified, while ultimately they would be of benefit, could not at the moment be undertaken, and in which finance would play a very important part. I asked the railway companies to meet me. I said to them quite frankly, "I want your help and co-operation, and I want you to let me know in what way the railways can help in finding work for the unemployed." Having met them now for nearly 30 years, I did not expect them to drop right away; I knew perfectly well that they would ask, "What does it all mean, and where is the money coming from? " I fully expected that. They said, "What have you in your mind?" I indicated what I had in my mind then, and I indicate it to the House now. When I am dealing with this kind of problem,, although it may be said that lots of these things are peculiarly applicable to London, I want to make it clear that, so far as I am concerned, the same principle will govern all parts of the country as governs the London problem with which I am dealing at this moment. We need not assume for the moment, therefore, that there will be any differential treatment.

Looking at the practical side of things, I turned, first, to Liverpool Street. There is no London Member, no London citizen who knows anything about the traffic problem of London, who has not for years asked, " Why is not Liverpool Street electrified? Why all this conges- tion? Why this struggle that takes place every morning and every evening?" I dealt also with the tube extension from Finsbury Park. Everyone who knows the London traffic problem knows the absurd situation at Finsbury Park. Hitherto, first the Great Northern Company has said, "We object to the Underground doing it," and then the Underground has said, "We object to the Great Northern doing it," and between the two no one has done it, and the problem to-day is where it was. I indicated that work as something that ought to be undertaken. I indicated also docks and harbours, always keeping in mind that the ultimate advantage of finding work now ought to be directed to seeing that the nation in the end will be better equipped when trade is better. That has been the guiding principle that has influenced me in determining the situation.

Then I outlined another scheme. I do not know whether it has occurred to hon. Members who have tried to go into the City at any time between eleven o'clock and four o'clock, to say, as I have often said, " If this is the position to-day, what is it going to be in five years' or ten years' time." The traffic problem of London is not only chaos, but it is positively dangerous. What causes it? The most absurd method of transport that exists in this country to-day. Goods which are sent from Plymouth to London come to Paddington, and are carted across London. If a Manchester merchant sends goods they arrive at Euston, King's Cross, or St. Pancras, and are carted across London. Goods coming into Waterloo from the South for somewhere in the North are carted from Waterloo, and the result is that they all meet in the centre of London. That is the chaos and the waste which is taking place today and which is affecting business and transport. If that be the situation, surely there is no better time for dealing with it than a time which coincides with the opportunity of finding useful work for your people. We are setting up a committee at once, because there are schemes in existence for outer London goods railways, whereby goods, instead of coming into Paddington, for instance, could be unloaded 20 miles out, or, instead of coming into St. Pancras could be unloaded 20 miles out, and, instead of coming right across London, could be carried on tube goods railways going right round and never entering London at all. I put to the House, very broadly, the kind of discussions that I have had, and, incidentally, it is only fair to say that the railway companies were equally frank in pointing out to me that all this would cost money. They wanted to know where the State would come in, and I will tell the House in a moment where the State is coming in.

While I am dealing with the railway situation, may I also say that one of the problems which must be faced, and faced very effectively, is the problem of what are called private wagons. When you remember that to-day, for every four wagons on your railways, three are privately-owned and cannot be used, it will be seen that the whole position is chaotic. Coal-owners, railway companies, traders and merchants all complain. They all have a grievance. They all say that it adds to their charge and their burden. For two years that problem has been examined. I myself was a member of the committee. The report of that committee will shortly be published, and, it would be unwise for me to give an indication of policy in the matter until the report has been presented. I can only say to the House that the matter will certainly be considered immediately when the report is presented, which I understand will be in a few weeks.

What I said to the railway companies in the negotiations with them, I mean to apply to all industries. T am meeting to-morrow the local authorities with the Minister of Transport. We have already met the municipal tramway authorities. I am meeting all kinds of different in terests, and my one message to them, as business and practical people is, " Let us know now what your schemes are, and how they can be considered, and bow you can be helped." That is the general statement which I make to them, and that is the spirit in which I approach them.

I come to the more tragic side of the problem to which I referred earlier. Durham, Northumberland, Lanark and places like South Wales have got this great mass of unemployed and, as far as one can see, there is no hope of dealing with those people unless we get them out of those districts. The municipalities have been encouraged hitherto by larger grants, grants to the extent of 75 per cent., conditional upon them taking 50 per cent, of transferred labour. Let us examine the problem with all its difficulties from all points of view. First, there ought to be common agreement that it should be the object of all parties, in all sections of the House, to remember that, whatever you may do in other parts of the country, unless you do something to take these unfortunate people from these areas, where you know perfectly well they will never find work, you are not only failing to apply yourself to the problem, but you are really creating further difficulties for yourselves.

Having said that, let us look at the difficulty of the municipalities. There are always two sides to these questions. How can you expect a municipality which cannot provide for its own unemployed, which cannot house its own people, to do this? Is anyone going to condemn the local authority which says, " No, it is not because I have no sympathy with these people; it is not because I do not desire to help; but it is because my first obligation is to do justice to my own people in my own town." That is the difficulty. You have, on the one hand, a clear recognition of the position of these unfortunate people and a genuine desire to spread them out, and, on the other hand, you have had municipalities saying, "No. We cannot undertake this work." Therefore, what I had to consider in that connection was this question. Was the condition too rigid? Was the condition of 50 per cent, one which we had no right to ask the local authorities to accept? Ought we not, on the other hand, while urging transfer, while keeping in mind the value of transfer, while doing all we can to assist in transfer, at the same time to make the scheme so elastic that though helping the local authorities in this, we shall not cramp the real legitimate work which can be done by the municipalities and for which they can show justification? I think the House will realise the value of keeping in mind both sides of the problem and regarding it both from the transfer side and from the authorities' side.

There is another view. The House of Commons will remember that there is the Lord St. Davids Committee, which has been doing very useful work for a long time. Their powers, in short, are to help certain public authorities to do certain work on certain clearly denned conditions. The conditions for grants to areas with severe unemployment are first that the local authority must prove 15 per cent, unemployed in the particular area. The local authority must also say that the work for which they are asking assistance is work accelerated for a period of at least five years. One can understand the value of the restriction there, because I want to make it perfectly clear to the House that I have no patience with, and will give no consideration to, the assumption that the local authority is meant to go to the State to find money to do its own legitimate work. They have no right to encourage that, and we have no right to give countenance to the suggestion. In short, I say, No, I am not going to be a party merely to opening the door to allow local authorities to assume that the State has got to find the money, and they be relieved of all their obligations.

Just as on the question of transfer I showed that there was a local authority side, so I must say that there is a local authority side here, and the figure of 15 per cent, is an absurd figure. Let me show why. Supposing a local authority had a really bad period—9, 10, 11 or 12 per cent, unemployed, as I know some have had for a period of three, four and five years, struggling all the time to meet their obligations, borrowing up to the limit, increasing the rates and all their legitimate functions, and mortgaging themselves in order to try to meet this abnormal situation of 10 and 11 per cent, unemployed. They, come along, and the St. Davids Committee says: "No, you cannot be assisted, because you do not reach 15 per cent.," whereas another area may find itself with 15 per cent., not over a. period of years, but suddenly, because of huge dismissals. I have in my mind places where the sudden dismissal of a large number of people brings them into the category of 15 per cent. Nobody is going to pretend that that is a fair or equitable system. On the other hand 15 per cent, in some little districts may mean an infinitesimal figure, but 10 II or 12 per cent, in another district may mean thousands—20,000 and 30,000.

Here, again, I say I have got to balance as between the view that a municipality can merely come to the State for money, and, on the other hand, where a municipality has got a legitimate and fair case, not on the basis of 15 per cent., but where all the factors —the period of unemployment, the borrowing powers of the municipality and all the local factors—will be considered. I have decided that the St. Davids Committee shall continue the good work they have been doing with more elasticity both with regard to the 15 per cent, and with regard to the question of acceleration than they have had in the past. I have struck as it were an even balance as between both cases, and I believe it will be to the advantage of all concerned.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say to what this figure of 15 per cent, is to be reduced?

I will tell the House the disadvantage of that. I, of course, am not a business man, and I have always to rely on business men to tell me how to use business figures, but I know sufficient of human nature, and I know sufficient of municipalities and all such bodies to realise that if I were merely to announce a figure now the House knows how the demand would spread. I put it quite frankly to the House that the real way of dealing with this is to say to the House, as I now say, that, on the one hand, you have got to guard against a municipality not doing its own work, and, on the other hand, you have got to have sufficient elasticity to take into consideration all the factors, all the difficulties and the problems. In that connection, I would say that I can rely upon the discretion of the St. Davids Committee to act fairly and impartially.

Is it going to be left to them generally to decide?

Oh, no. To leave the matter without any instructions to a Committee is not only unfair to the Department, but it is equally unfair to the Committee, because they would be accused of all manner of favouritism, bias and all that. So that I repeat to the House, without giving the figure, certainly the Committee will be instructed, and will act in accordance with their instructions.

:Secret instructions?

Oh, no. That is an observation which is really unfair and unjust. It is unworthy.

I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether the instructions would be secret, because he told us that instructions were to be given to this Committee, and he will not tell us what they are.

It is much too early in the Session for us to get annoyed, and I am not going to be. The right hon. Gentleman will know from his own experience that there must be, and will be, a scheme drawn up and a circular. I am indicating to the House this afternoon what is the broad, general view, and that is equally applicable to the municipalities and all the rest. I turn to the question of finding work and developing the natural resources of the country. In that category there are land drainage, afforestation, fisheries—yes, and I am looking very seriously 'at a proposal to make Scotland more attractive than it is at present

Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to reduce the Whisky Duty?

I have not the least idea at the moment how much that burden falls on the hon. Member. As I was saying quite seriously on this point, there are many people, business men, Labour men, people who are engaged in all manner of industries, who feel that there could be a useful development in Scotland that at least would enable our American cousins to see the thrift of the Scottish people and give evidence of it. At all events, I am merely indicating now that, as far as any and all schemes are concerned, every scheme will be considered, every scheme will be examined, and our job is to see which comes under the categories that I have already outlined.

I now come to a very important change, and it is that hitherto the Lord St. Davids Committee, in the granting of public money, has been limited in practice to certain public authorities, with the result that you have not only partially exhausted that avenue, but you have been prevented from dealing with some really big schemes, and I have come to the conclusion, after a close examination, and having in mind the kind of schemes that I have been outlining, and which ultimately have to be tackled, that we must alter that, and allow practical assistance to be given also to certain types of public utility companies. Let us have no misapprehension as to the effect of it, because it is much better to face the facts now. Take proposals for the railway developments. They all come under that category. All of them are excluded at the present time, and all would be included in the change that I now propose to make. After all, if you are going to talk of trade, if you are going to assume that there will ultimately be a better time, it is far better to prepare for it now than to continue to pay money for people who are actually doing nothing. Therefore, this change is not only a very important change, but in order to assist me, in order to guide, in order, if I may say so, to bring a real business knowledge on all these schemes, I am setting up a special committee and later on I will be able to announce the names of business men. To allay the anxiety of all people and to help in this work, I will be announcing the names of the committee whose duty it will be specially to deal with this kind of scheme. In other words, I am withdrawing from Lord St. Davids Committee the 'schemes of certain public utility companies to which the Committee have not been able to give practical help.

Does the right hon. Gentleman include under public utility companies a statutory dock company? Some of the largest schemes put up in 1922 were turned down for that reason.

I have already said that I have excluded none, but what I have done by my new proposal is to bring in those that are excluded at the moment. As the hon. Member knows perfectly well, there is more than one kind of dock authority. There is the private dock authority, there is the semi-public dock authority, and there is the municipal dock authority, and, so far as I am concerned, the whole three come within the category. Therefore, in order to meet that position, I propose to seek power in this Parliament, this month, before the House rises, to guarantee a sum of £25,000,000 for loan purposes under one category, and also to ask power to grant interest for a period not exceeding 15 years where assistance by way of guaranteed loan will not meet the case.

Let me explain to the House the exact position. There may be some schemes that a loan would enable you to get on with, but there may be schemes on the other hand where they would say, "No, we cannot go on with this scheme merely with a loan; a loan would not be enough." Therefore, I am taking the two alternatives: on the one hand, a loan where a loan will meet the situation, and, on the other, power to pay interest up to a period of 15 years. Obviously, they will not have the benefit of both. They have to choose one or the other, but I believe, and all my advice tends to confirm my view, that there is no scheme that ought to be undertaken that could be or would be excluded under the power that I am asking Parliament to give me.

I will make only one other observation on that point. While I am anxious to help to get people from these stricken areas, I am also applying myself to seeing what inducement, what help I can give, or how I can encourage businesses to go into those areas. I have already explained the difficulty of no alternative industry, when you go to South Wales, when you go into the Rhondda Valley, and know there is only the mining industry. If we had a silk works, a tobacco factory, or something else in those stricken areas, it would at least give an opportunity for alternative employment, and I am doing all that I can to see whether it is possible to get some factories started in those districts with that object in view. I am sorry to have to keep the House for so long, but the problem is too big not to be tackled boldly.

I now come to another aspect of the question on which, I am sure, all Members in this House will expect me to say something, and it is this: What is the relationship to your present unemployment problem of the children at 14 years of age going into industry? It is a pro- blem bristling with difficulties, but no one will deny that it must, by the very nature of things, have an important bearing on the unemployment problem. Let me take the other side of the case. On the one hand, what is the relation ship of boys and girls of 14 years of age going into industry and its effect on bringing older people out? On the other hand, what about the 300,000 odd people of 65 to 70 years of age who are in industry to-day, and an equal number at 25 years of age deprived of employment? I would be deceiving the House if I did not say, quite frankly, that there are many difficulties and many aspects of this question to be considered, and, there fore, I have appointed a Committee [Laughter] 1 presume the smile is because I did not announce right away that I was going to do it. It is because I want to remind the House that there are a hundred and one factors in connection with both these questions, and I do not propose to come to the House of Commons with proposals dealing with them until I am in a position to say that they have all been examined and sifted. In other words, we are going to do some thinking on this problem.

I now turn to the question of work not only at home, but within the Empire, and here let me say that I hope the House, both in speeches and in criticism, will keep clearly in mind the important difference between the Dominions and our Colonies, because my experience is that incalculable harm is done by not really understanding what is the difference. It is no good talking of self-government to our Dominions, it is no good saying they are independent and free, and then criticising them because they do not do what you tell them. You have to keep clearly in mind that, in dealing with all Dominion affairs, the best we can hope for is that, when we explain our point of view and tell them our difficulties, they at least will have a natural desire to help us; but to dictate is to make a profound mistake. Equally in dealing with the Dominions, in so far as unemployment is concerned, nothing but harm can arise by letting them believe for a moment that you want or are assuming to solve your unemployment problem at their expense. They resent it, and resent it bitterly. It is not in that spirit that I intend to approach the Dominions.

With regard to the Colonies, I found that the same principle that I applied to our home affairs was even more applicable. I found schemes held up for months and years, schemes that would give employment, schemes that were necessary, schemes that would develop and benefit our Colonies, and yet, for a hundred and one reasons, these were all in the pigeon holes. I will give one illustration. Take the Zambesi Bridge— £2,000,000 odd expenditure, mainly steel, negotiations with the Portuguese most friendly, the Portuguese even having given us an extension of time as an indication of their good will, yet this scheme was hung up. It is only one of many schemes that I could enumerate, and I want to tell the House that I approach that problem in precisely the same way as I approach those at home. As I said, I first want all schemes that can be got oh with immediately, I then want schemes that require negotiation, and then I want schemes that will lead to the ultimate development of our Empire, because it is no good merely waving the Union Jack at election time and, when it comes to practice, doing nothing for it. My experience at the Colonial Office convinced me that good schemes, useful schemes, for the real development of our Empire were handicapped by our own Government and all Governments neglecting a real development in a big way.

Having examined those schemes in conjunction with all the Departments, I am announcing to the House that I shall be asking power in this Parliament, in this Session, before July ends, to alter and amend the Palestine and East Africa Loans Act. The first object of altering that Act is because there is a million pounds' worth of schemes that can be got on with right away by allowing us to pay the interest on capital during the construction period. That will be the object of altering that Act.

Are you going to increase the total?

The total amount?

Yes.

No. It is because the money is not spent, owing to this handicap, that I am removing the handicap. Secondly, we are altering the period of loans to 60 years; but, in addition to that, we shall be taking power that in the Budget each year, as a charge not to be raided, there will be set aside a sum of £1,000,000, annually, to be used to make grants of interest for a limited period on loans raised for Colonial development. Those who know the kind of work that can be financed by interest grants of £l,000,000 each year, know the developments that can take place

Takoradi.

The development of Takoradi was paid for by the Gold Coast, and has proved of immense commercial advantage to the Gold Coast. If that is to be taken as a typical illustration, I know of none better. Incidentally, a number of other harbours will be built with this money. The point I am emphasising is that here again we are applying ourselves to see, if possible, what practical work and what practical schemes can be undertaken. We have decided to extend the Export Credits Scheme for a longer period of years. The House will know the tremendous advantages of that scheme, and we are trying to remove the uncertainty that exists in regard to the matter. I will not elaborate very much more except to point out that an examination showed that what was called the Economy Committee had actually assumed that it was good business and economy to save a few thousand pounds by knocking off our trade commissioners abroad at places where millions of pounds were spent annually. The United States had as many as four or five trade commissioners in Malaya and Australia; yet, in the interest of economy, the Government said: "Trade commissioners are unnecessary, and we will save a few thousand pounds." We have decided that this is a wrong policy, and we are sending additional trade commissioners at once, because we believe that it will be good business; and I hope our business men in the country will follow it up. With regard to the development of cotton in our Colonies, I am one of those who want to make this country independent. I did much in 1924 to encourage that. I now find that surveying in the ordinary course will take four or five years. Is it worth waiting five years for the surveys? I also find that with modern aeroplanes which are now at our disposal, these surveys can be done in four months. We shall have them carried out by aeroplane right away, wherever necessary, to save delay in valuable developments. All this is an indication of how much can be done within the Empire itself.

I have said very little about migration, because, as I indicated earlier, I believe that that is a problem which has to be negotiated on the spot. It is something which has to be discussed in all its bearings. Anyone who has visited Canada lately, and knows Canada as I know it, knows perfectly well that a remarkable change from an agricultural to an industrial population is taking place. Hitherto, our migration schemes have been based on the assumption that agriculturists alone were wanted. That is not true to-day. Also, labour hitherto has safeguarded its position by saying: "We are not going to have people forced upon us to lower our standards." All these aspects of the question can better be discussed personally, and I propose to visit Canada immediately the House rises to discuss the whole problem.

I have given some indication of how, after three weeks, we have approached the problem. Three weeks after all is the period in which I have had to review this difficult problem. I want to give one warning. I opened my speech by saying that I was satisfied that there was no short cut. All these things will only help to solve the problem provided all the time they are means to increasing trade and increasing prosperity. I could have come to the House of Commons and asked for £100,000,000. It might have been very spectacular, and to the ignorant person it might have sounded like something that was going to solve the problem. It might clearly in mind. We do not intend to bolster up inefficient concerns, but we do intend to give a chance to those which really deserve it. In the Dominions, there is raw material waiting to be used; on. this side, we have human raw material going to waste, and there is demoralisation and loss of hope among our people. I still believe that a chance ought to be given to those who believe in an independent outlook and who desire to make their battle in life in all climes. That also I am going to encourage. I will conclude by saying that in a prayer book Cromwell wrote in 1646:

Everyone will, I think, be willing to extend to the right hon. Gentleman their sympathy and good will in the task which he has undertaken. We admire the courage with which he has addressed himself to a problem so grave, perplexing, and distressing in its character. For my part, having listened to his speech, and recording only the first impressions which are possible when one hears a complicated statement made for the first time, I am bound to say that his statement and treatment of the problem are very moderate and sensible. What does it amount to after all? First of all, there is the £6,500,000 which was to be provided by the railway companies in consequence of my remission of the Railway Passenger Duty. I set out in the Budget the kind of work upon which they had proposed to spend that money. That is going to be carried out; that is not to be reversed. Then use is to be made of the ordinary normal revenue of the Road Fund during the next five years. There has been no intention of diverting those revenues; in fact, I had already said to the House that the whole of those revenues would be made available for road development. [Interruption.] I must remind hon. Gentlemen that the only reason that Fund was raided was because of the unfortunate financial con- sequences which arose from episodes which I am sure hon. Gentlemen opposite, and most of all those on the Front Bench, would gladly see buried in oblivion.

The right hon. Gentleman found these schemes of main road and secondary road development already worked out in the Department when he arrived there, and the money is flowing in under the ordinary growth of the Road Fund at the present time. I think that he is quite right to go on with road development. I have repeatedly said that we should continue to apply the whole of the remaining revenues of the Road Fund, and the increasing revenues, to that development, so, at any rate, there can be no difference between us on that point. That alone accounts for £43,000,000. Then we come to Charing Cross Bridge, Waterloo Bridge, certain developments by railway companies, such as electrification from Liverpool Street, some expenditure on an outer London goods railway, and some other matters of that kind; in the next place, there is to be a relaxation of the conditions under which Lord St. Davids Committee functions. Some of the precautionary conditions are to be swept away in order to enable it to function more freely. In addition, there is to be another Committee set up, side by side with the St. Davids Committee, in order to deal with the public utility side of State-aided enterprises, but the whole of this group—the railways, Lord St. Davids Committee and the new Committee—are all equally to be financed within the limits, so far as the immediate future is concerned, of a power to guarantee sums not exceeding £25,000,000 or to make interest remission for as much as 15 years in the alternative. With regard to the question of removing from industry the children of 14 and old people between 60 and 70 years of age, there is to be a committee on that subject. It is a very good subject for a committee. So far as the expenditure on the Colonies is concerned, there is to be no fresh money at all. The existing loan of £10,000,000, which is in process of being spent, and the expenditure of which has been very frugally and strictly watched, is to be the sole basis of development. The only thing is that some of the precautions regarding it are to be relaxed, perhaps rightly relaxed, and, in addition, a sum of £1,000,000 a year is to be provided from the Budget. It will be seen that all these schemes, many of which are attractive, many of which are useful—the worst that can be said against any of them is that they will not pay—are to be developed upon a sensible and a moderate scale, and, although we shall look into these schemes with great attention, examine the financial propositions upon which they rest, and examine their details when they are put before us, I cannot feel that any serious difference will arise between the Conservative party and the Government upon the general method of treating them. Some differences are likely be arise between the Government and the Liberal party on account of the enormous, and I think wise and proper, diminution of the Government schemes from the very expensive and audacious plans which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the party proposed.

I say this at first sight upon this statement so ably and agreeably put before us, but, I must say, what a contrast between the speech to which we have just listened and the kind of language and denunciation with which the country has been filled in the painting of the evils of unemployment! What a contrast between the awful perplexity and baffling character of that huge problem on the one hand, and these perfectly useful and practical steps, which, whether they affect unemployment or not, might quite well be considered upon their merits. Since the new Government was formed, I have always been interested in wondering whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Lord Privy Seal would be successful in the obvious collision of their political interests at the present time. I liked to look forward to the day when the Lord Privy Seal, having mounted himself on the furious horse of unemployment, armed with all the projects pulled out of the pigeon holes of the late Administration, would ride full tilt against the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who would be duly supplied with all or most of those cogent arguments by which many of those projects or similar projects had been corrected or turned down in the past. Well, the event has taken place, and I am bound to say, contrary to the opinion I formed of what would take place before I entered this House to-day, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has won. So far as the first round is concerned, the first course of the lists, he has safeguarded to a very considerable extent the financial position which was defended by the late Government, in spite of many assaults and many temptations and many unfair attacks to which I hope he will not himself be subjected.

I cannot pass from the right hon. Gentleman's speech to the more general matters with which we should deal at this stage of the Address without saying one word upon the very interesting question of whether large expenditure, or substantial expenditure, of borrowed money upon public works or upon the artificial stimulus of trade will or will not affect the numbers of persons unemployed. I should like to know at the proper time what the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks about that question. I know what the Treasury view has been in very recent times. Their view has been that unless there is financial inflation, artificial inflation of credit, State borrowings for public works do not and cannot create additional employment. Their view has been that the Government can only take from industry what they wish to spend themselves, and that unless in each case it is proved that the State will spend the money better, that is to say, that the management will be more thrifty, the employment will be more fruitful, that there will be more sagacious profit-making in the hands of the State, there is no remedy at all, and no diminution of unemployment will take place. Even if the State can spend the money better, then the diminution in unemployment is only the difference between the improved method of the State spending and the ordinary employment which would have been given had the funds been left to be directed by private enterprise. That is the Treasury view, or was the Treasury view, and I think it is a very remarkable contention.

I said when I opened the Budget this year that we had not wholly lent ourselves to that view, because we have ourselves borrowed about £100,000,000 and used it on these or very similar purposes to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred; but it is certainly remarkable that, although we were spending this money on a large scale— a much larger scale than has been mentioned to-day on anything new, though I suppose the old expenditure will have to go on—when we were spending this borrowed money and hoping to stimulate trade here and develop public works there, it did not have any effect upon the numbers of the unemployed, and this seemed to bear out the theoretical contention upon which the Treasury experts have based themselves. It is often said that the Treasury is unreasonable, but the reason the Treasury is so often criticised is not that its arguments are unreasonable but because they are unanswerable. Upon this general question of the State stimulus of industry and the cure of unemployment, I must read to the House some remarks which were made by my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman) upon the Trade Facilities Act in 1926. He said:

"Whatever good may have been done by "—

He did not say much about it at the election—

So far as my experience goes, those observations of the right hon. Member for St. Ives would be hailed by the experts of the Treasury as the purest gospel of wisdom in this matter. [Interruption.] Wisdom is a bad habit! Is that the first result of the hard thinking which is taking place? It seems to me a murky gem. Yesterday, the Prime Minister took occasion to reaffirm the general Free Trade view of his Administration, and everyone knows the strict views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon that subject. They are based on fiscal orthodoxy. If they adopt fiscal orthodoxy, let me assure them that the financial orthodoxy which is set forth by the right hon. Member for St. Ives and is endorsed every day by the experts of the Treasury is equally established on a sound and logical foundation, and that it is very unwise to adopt the one and depart from the other. I know that this will not appeal to the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), because he has never cared two rows of buttons about orthodoxy. When he wants to do a thing, be it fiscally or financially heterodox, he starts out and tries to do it. The Government, however, are going to try this moderate scheme of public works, and, although these do not show much prospect of affecting the problem of unemployment in any appreciable manner, and possibly not at all, nevertheless, from the point of view of Empire and domestic development, they contain a great many points to which I think no objection,, no opposition, will be taken from this side of the House.

In this task of dealing with unemployment, the new Government have some advantages. They are important advantages which did not fall to us. [Interruption.] Neither myself nor the hon. Member has the privilege of being a Member of the present Administration. They have three advantages; perhaps there are others. In the first place, there are still hopes of a trade revival slowly developing, and that trade revival will, this year, receive the most helpful and hopeful stimulus of the application of the rating relief scheme. Hon. Gentlemen opposite ought not to deride it; they are going to get the benefit of it. When unemployment is reduced, if it is reduced, they will be able to plume themselves upon the fact. At any rate, that is one of the advantages. In the next place, the juvenile population falls this year, and in the following years, by 200,000 or 300,000, or it may be 400,000, in consequence of these years being 14, 15 and 16 years after the opening years of the Great War, in which the birthrate was so lamentably contracted. The last advantage which the Government have over us is that they run no risk of either of the Oppositions attempting to hamper their action or endangering or embarrassing them by letting off a general strike or anything of that kind.

Then I may take it that the statement made at Glasgow by the right hon. Gentleman that the capitalists would take their capital out of the country was merely electioneering, and had no serious intention?

5.0 p.m.

I think the hon. Gentleman has misquoted or misinterpreted what I said at Glasgow. That is all I wish to say about the able and interesting speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). Obviously, these proposals must be carefully examined in detail, and we shall have ample time to discuss them. I now turn to take a more general survey of the political scene. I want to say now what I think is quite proper in the Debate on the Address. I will begin by saying that I think the Government certainly cannot complain of the treatment which they have received from the Press, the public, or the House in regard to the working of our Constitution. We are assured that they are a Government of very able men actuated by the highest motives, and I am sure everyone is very glad to know that. Speaking for myself, politics apart, having lived the greater part of my life in this House, I am glad to see old parliamentarians whom I have known for a quarter of a century, who have played so distinguished a part in our proceedings, having at last their turn and their share in the responsibilities of Government, and tasting what are called by those who have not long experienced them " the sweets of office.'

I look forward to hearing the Chancellor of the Exchequer defending the new reparation settlement. I recall the right hon. Gentleman's unmeasured denunciation of the treaties made with France and the United States for the settlement of the Debt. I know the lively expectation which his attitude created in many quarters that there would be a notable improvement in our affairs and the burdens we have to bear should the right hon. Gentleman be able to assume control. Of course, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer can persuade the French to pay more, or the Americans to take less, he will receive from all quarters of the House our moist sincere and cordial congratulations, but it would be rather hard if the first important act of his tenure, or almost the first, was to have to defend a European arrangement which left us actually worse off than when the right hon. Gentleman described the position as being " scandalous to the last degree." I shall reserve any further comments upon that subject until the proper time actually arrives.

I also look forward to hearing the Financial Secretary to the Treasury deliver to us a clear exposition of the gold standard and the solid advantages which it will confer upon the country; and generally to defend orthodox views upon financial matters. No doubt the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be able to do this when his education by the Treasury officials, the Bank of England, and the high financial authorities of the City has been completed. I look forward with interest to events in the future now that the Labour Socialist party has been reinforced by a band of notable converts from the Labour party, of whom the most distinguished are the Secretary of State for India, the Attorney-General, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I ask myself, are they converts or are they missionaries? The life of a missionary is one of hazard; he leaves his home and his friends and goes out to dwell among the heathen, living their lives, adopting their customs, sharing their victuals, and hoping that by precept and example he may gradually raise them to a higher outlook of existence and destiny. Certainly, his life must be very exciting, because he is dependent upon the caprice or temper of the natives or their chief. Witness, for example, the sad fate of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), who, after being indulged in a fleeting share of tribal festivities, has now been unceremoniously put into the pot.

Anxiety is also felt for the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), but his friends, and he has many—some of them on his own side of the House—all trust that the Prime Minister will arrange that his parting moments will be cheered by a refreshing draught of that vodka which the Soviet Government is spreading throughout Russia, together with other reforms. I confess that my chief compassion is reserved for victims of a different order. There is also that little band of representatives from the Clyde, including the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) and the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Mr. Maxton), who have played such an important part that their lot appears to require our sympathy. Anyone who chooses to read the pathetic Amendment which they have placed upon the Paper will see how pitiful is their cry. They dreamed that they were clearing a pathway along which the toiling millions were to advance towards Utopia, but they wake to find that all they have been doing was to set up a ladder by which the hon. Baronet the Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley) could climb into place and power.

Having taken this preliminary survey of what I may describe as the raw material with which the Opposition has to deal, let me come to grips with some of the points raised in the Speech from the Throne. The first subject I wish to question the Government about is one of procedure. The Debate on the Address is the traditional Parliamentary opportunity for reviewing the whole political situation, and it is the one great opportunity of the year upon which grievances can be discussed. On this occasion the Debate is necessarily somewhat unreal; indeed, it is mainly a ceremonial affair. The new Government have not had time to cause many grievances up to the present, and they have not thought out many of their plans. The Prime Minister has not yet emerged, as he will have to emerge some day, from that region of cloudy generalities and vague ambiguous platitudes in which he likes to indulge and in which he excels.

This Debate has not been a really effective vehicle of discussion, and yet we are told that it is to be the only Debate on the Address which we are to have until October or November, 1930, which is some 15 or 16 months away. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made a request yesterday for further facilities, and he used the expression, which I hope the Prime Minister did not overlook, that he would not be willing to lose control of the Address until he had received some assurance that better facilities would be offered for debating the Address. If the Prime Minister had not been speaking with all the responsibility of his office, I should almost have said that he treated the question rather cavalierly. Everyone knows that if the leaders of parties put down Votes of Censure the Government of the day make a practice of according facilities. We all know that Supply days or general discussions are arranged by the Whips on both sides, and in that way we choose the topics for discussion; but really those facilities cannot be compared with Debates on the Address, and they do not restore to the private Member, or to the House, the loss which we should suffer if for nearly 16 months there is no general Debate upon an Address to the Crown. No one wishes to delay or interrupt the business by having Autumn Sessions. We do not want to obstruct the progress of the important Measures which have to be debated, but we do ask, specifically and formally, that in January or February the Government will put down a general Motion of Confidence to which not only leaders of parties but private Members may move Amendments with all the latitude. which a Debate on the Address accords them. I hope the House will be accorded at least a week to enable hon. Members to take a further and a fuller review of the political situation which may have developed by that date.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accede to this request. He invited us yesterday to join, as it were, in a council of State. I am giving him my counsel now. My counsel, my advice to him is to carry the House of Commons with him in this matter. After all, we who sit on this side represent 14,000,000 electors, and on the opposite side 8,000,000 electors are represented. Fourteen millions to eight is ah enormous preponderance. If I may put it in terms which the Lord Privy Seal will understand, it is seven to four. [ Interruption. ] I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to defer to this feeling and accede to this request, which I think is only what is right and fair, and, if he will do so, the necessary details can no doubt be satisfactorily arranged through the usual channels.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the odds were in the last Parliament?

On a very hasty computation, I think they were very nearly even money.

Oh, no!

May I ask if it is in order to quote the odds across the Floor of the House?

I was speaking, not at all in a sporting sense, but in a purely Parliamentary sense. The second topic on which I should like to address the Government is the treatment which is to be meted out to the Safeguarding and so-called McKenna Duties. There, again, I am sorry to say I think the Prime Minister's answer yesterday was unsatisfactory, both to Free Traders and to those who favour Safeguarding. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which do you do?"] I do both; I am a Free Trader who favours Safeguarding. Of course, I know perfectly well that it will be said that these matters are usually reserved for the Budget; no one has said that more often than I have, and it is perfectly true as regards ordinary financial questions; but this question of the McKenna Duties is not an ordinary financial question—it has nothing to do with finance. No one can conceive that a Chancellor of the Exchequer would repeal these duties and sacrifice £4,000,000 of revenue, if he were in his senses, on grounds of finance. No, the repeal of the McKenna Duties, if it be undertaken, is pure politics. If the duties are removed, they will be removed as part of a political manoeuvre designed to cause friction and antagonism between the forces that are gathered upon the Opposition side of the House.

The right hon. Gentleman, in the days of his irresponsibility, made savage declarations about how he would repeal the McKenna Duties if he had the power. We have heard a great deal about the zeal of the party opposite to reduce unemployment. Here are trades which employ scores of thousands of men. How can anyone deduct those trades, how can anyone make forward contracts —on which steady employment depends —how can they get out the new designs upon which the renewed competitive power of these industries from year to year depends, when there is the threat hanging over them, and the uncertainty enveloping them, as to whether they are suddenly going to have a very high tariff of 33⅓ per cent., a very high protective tariff, pulled away from them at a single stroke? To remove the duties would be foolish, but it would be wanton and callous in the last degree to prolong the uncertainty and to make the livelihood and the wages of scores of thousands of workmen a mere pawn in a possible party intrigue. I will say no more now, because an Amendment is going to be moved on that subject, and we hope to elicit a further declaration from the Government; but I do say that the Government, in their own interest as well as in the interests of trade, would do well to consider whether, even if they are not going to make any declaration which will relieve the uncertainty at the present time as to what their intentions are, they will not nevertheless give an assurance that, should the duties be removed, prolonged notice will be given before that decision becomes operative. That, at any rate, would give these people some chance of making their plans ahead, and keeping up the supply of work and wages for the very large number of people who are employed in these trades.

While I am within the sphere of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, may I say that I am glad to have elicited from him at Question Time to-day his intentions about the Supplementary Budget. It had three provisions. There was the licence duty on telephones which the bookmakers were to pay. The right hon. Gentleman, by dropping that, makes a needless sacrifice of £500,000 a year of revenue which they were quite ready to pay, which it had been agreed with them that they should pay, and which, at any rate, would provide one-half of the fund of £1,000,000 a year for Empire development about which the Colonial Secretary is so pleased. That is to be thrown away merely, I suppose, because of pique, or not wanting to do anything which might lead to taunts of inconsistency. In the second place, there are the manufacturers' licence duties on liquor and tobacco, which the right hon. Gentleman is going to drop. He said he was perfectly indifferent on the matter, except that, perhaps, he would consider it next year; and now, in spite of the campaign of calumny that there was on the ground that these manufacturers of alcohol and of tobacco— these wealthy and prosperous trades— were to receive large sums of money under the de-rating scheme and so on, when a Measure has been introduced which would neutralise that, the new Government, when they come in, brush it aside as if it were of no account, and thereby show the utter insincerity of all that they have said. Lastly, the licence holders' remission has been swept away. I am sorry for that; it was, I think, absolutely justified. It was a relief which had been announced definitely, and the people concerned, many of whom are not at all wealthy people—for it was arranged that this money should reach the licence-holder, and not be retained by the brewer—had no doubt been counting upon it as if it were already theirs by the will and decision of Parliament. I think that to sweep it away is a harsh act, and I dare say it is an act which will long remain un-forgotten. I dare say the right hon. Gentleman has been influenced by an unfortunate remark which I made in the course of my Budget speech, when I said: [Interruption] —and I think the Government are very-unwise to stir this subject again. No doubt they will plead that they do it under duress, and I am sure they would not have liked to do so if they could have left it alone.

We do not yet know how they propose to amend this Act. Surely, they cannot possibly intend to widen the restricted scope of intimidation which it involves. Surely, they are not going to challenge Parliament and the country upon the legality of a general strike directed for the purpose of bringing pressure to bear either upon the community as a whole or upon the executive Government. [Interruption.] Is it the contracting-in in respect of the political levy that is to be dealt with? If that be so, I am bound to say that I think it quite doubtful whether the right hon. Gentleman will be able to carry that Measure through this House. Why should a Conservative or a Liberal trade unionist be compelled to go through the invidious process of contracting out, and facing all the odium inseparable from it, if he does not wish any funds of his to go to support a party to which he may have a perfectly sincere conscientious objection? We have all been through a Parliamentary election, and we know what pains are taken there to ensure the secrecy of the ballot. Every precaution is taken to protect the voter from undue pressure, and yet it is a far less invidious thing to record a vote among all the millions that are cast at a General Election than for a man, if he differs from his mates and his fellows, to stand up and definitely contract out of the levy, thus bringing odium upon himself. Certainly, it is much better that we should know at the outset, because, unless these matters are raised, the Government have no means of seeing what their position will be. As I have said, this is a Measure that ought to be resisted in the most strenuous manner, and I predict that, whatever changes may be introduced, the House as a whole will not allow a reversion to the old vicious conditions which prevailed in this respect.

I have one more topic to deal with, if the House will bear with me. There is a curious paragraph in the Speech which refers to an examination of the experience of candidates at the General Election. The Prime Minister has explained that an inquiry will be set up into the working of the present electoral law, but his language was, in this respect as in others, studiously vague. Like Agag, who, I believe, afterwards came to an unhappy end. he walked delicately, and I think he was quite right, because it is a very critical subject. The Liberal position is clear. They think that they are unfairly treated under the present electoral law, and they demand relief— they demand a second ballot, or some reform which will secure a greater degree of majority representation in the constituencies — [Interruption] — a greater degree of majority representation in more constituencies—and they demand it before the next General Election. The position of the Government is also clear. They are the favoured, privileged darlings of our present electoral system; they have had greater advantages than any other party in the country. Naturally, they do not want to give up their favour and their privilege, and do not want a second ballot or anything of that kind; and they do not mean to have it, if I rightly interpret their intentions, before the next General Election takes place.

The Conservative position is different from that of either of these two parties. It is more detached, and it is less determined. We should not have sought for this inquiry or pressed for it, although we are not so favoured under the present system, and have not the same advantages as the Socialists. For instance, although there are, I am told, 280,000 Conservative voters in Wales, Wales only succeeded in returning a single Conservative Member to this House. Although we are not so favoured, the matter, nevertheless, is not a Conservative issue, or one which we should have taken any steps to raise.

It is not a grievance from which we suffer. But now that the Government have declared their intention of holding an inquiry, we are bound to take part in it, and we shall take part in it in all good-will and in all good faith. We certainly could not lend ourselves to any solemn farce of killing the question by delay or by dragging in all sorts of extraneous issues, nor could we join with the Socialist party in trying to extinguish a weaker party. The Prime Minister has opened this question in the gracious Speech and it will have to go forward to a solution. We presume that the precedent of the former Speaker's conference will be followed, apart from the question of the occupant of the Chair, and we presume that the parties will be given representation in accordance with their parliamentary strength and that the reference and other details of procedure will be settled by consultation between the three party leaders. On this basis we shall take our part with a sincere desire to preserve and foster the enduring vitality of those fair and free Parliamentary and representative institutions for which this island is renowned.

I am obliged to the House for giving me such a very patient hearing. I have had to bring a number of topics before them and have not always succeeded in practising that complete restraint which my right hon. Friend said we should all have to observe, but, nevertheless, I feel it is necessary that we should join issue on some of these topics immediately, and I must in conclusion say this. There are gulfs between us in this Parliament. It is no use supposing that we can simply meet together as a council of State. I hope and believe that the floor will prove to be broader than the Gangway, but the gulf between the Socialist party and the rest of the country is in any case impassable. There never has been such a gulf in my experience between a Government and an Opposition. The creation. of the Socialist party has been an astonishing thing. I have seen it grow in the course of 30 years from a handful to the largest party in the House of Commons. Many if not most of the men responsible for it are now on the Front Bench, but not all. There is the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton), with whom I remember discussing all these matters 30 years ago. It is certainly an astonishing feat, and they are entitled to rank their life's work as historic. But I cannot say, they would not expect me to say, I think it has been a good or a helpful work.

They have ranged great masses of British people under false and foreign conceived standards. They have built up their power upon doctrines of monstrous error. They have built it up by fomenting class hatred and organising industrial strife. They have dabbled in subversive agitation. They have pandered to rapacious appetites which they know they can never satisfy. It is now their fate, it is indeed their punishment, to have to disappoint those who have believed in them and have believed what they have said, and to discard or explain away the doctrines by which they have risen to great power. It may well be that every British Government, however derived or constituted, has services to render to our common country. It may well be that the impulse from a new angle will be stimulating in our affairs. Those who are the strongest defenders of the existing system of society should also be the first to study the corrections that are necessary of its many abuses and shortcomings. Nevertheless, the central dominating fact of this Parliament remains. As long as His Majesty's Ministers are content to administer and, by administering, to fortify the capitalist system of civilisation on which we have grown great, and on which the United States is growing greater, there is no reason why they should not enjoy, although they are a substantial minority in the country, a lengthy tenure of office. But the moment they attempt to carry into the realm of action any of those fundamental vices and fallacies upon which the whole structure and progress of their party have been built up, and which have been their main inspiration, from that moment they will be swept from power.

I crave the indulgence of the House, which is always accorded to a maiden speech. Although I was a Member of a previous Parliament, I took the advice of the previous Speaker, who urged on all young Members that the quality of listening was more important than the quality of speaking. While I was still listening, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. Baldwin) decreed my execution. One should not start without expressing what is certainly my delight, and must be the delight of every Member of the House, at hearing the late Chancellor of the Exchequer free from all the trammels of office. Now that he has thrown off the Treasury we hope he will be as gay and as optimistic as we have heard him to-day. I thought that behind all his speech there was that note of unconquerable optimism which so endears him to the House. He was rather like a schoolboy who, having scored no figures in his first innings, is still looking forward with lively anticipation to his second knock.

I have listened with very great interest to the speech of the Lord Privy Seal. The appointment to that office was on© of the best appointments of the present Prime Minister. I wish to address my remarks to the question of unemployment. By unemployment the Government will stand or fall. The right hon. Gentleman has been exercising all his ingenuity to make a little go a long way. I do not wish, to be critical, but I confess to a sense of disappointment. I was led to believe, by people who heckled me at the Election, furnished with up-to-date information from Labour headquarters, that Labour schemes were ready in 1906, that in 1918 they were still further ready, and that in 1924 they were absolutely ready, and after eight months of cogitation, when we heard that the Liberals did not give them a chance, we were told that, had they remained in office another month, all the Labour schemes would have been put into operation. I confess to a certain disappointment that the ingenuity of the Lord Privy Seal has made a little go a long way.

I had better correct at once this impression that there is a limited amount of expenditure. I made it perfectly clear that I am taking power in my Bill to finance any and every scheme of any sort that is approved.

As far as I can understand the Lord Privy Seal, he is now sanctioning an expenditure of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 a year on road development for five or six years—a total of £37,000,000. I do not wish to criticise him, because one has to read the whole of his speech before one gets an impression of it. I wish to speak as one who fought in an industrial area. Anyone who fought in an industrial area and survived the conflict must have been amazed at the extent and the magnitude of the problem of unemployment. It is not only the effect on the rates and the crippling effect on industry; it is the life to which millions of our citizens are doomed, and only anyone euphemistically gifted can call such a living life. We are assured by a Labour paper that we are a tiny, ragged regiment, but it is not the first time a tiny, ragged regiment has saved Britain, and at least we can claim this credit that, thanks to the lead given by our leaders, the question of unemployment was the sole issue of the Election, and on that we fought. For myself, I believe the fact that Labour has put unemploy- ment in the forefront of the King's Speech means that they also have learned something from the efforts of the Liberal party.

I have listened in various capacities for some 10 years to Debates on unemployment. I do not think I have missed one in that period. I confess to an impatience at the apathy and supineness of successive Governments. I have heard the same arguments. Either there are no unemployed or, if there are men, there is not work, or if there are men and work, this country could not finance schemes of work. As regards there being no men, I can take any Member here to any street in my constituency where the shadow of unemployment rests on every house. It has fallen like a sword. It is useless talking and explaining away the figures, as the late Minister of Labour tried to do. I believe that the last Government fell because they failed to grapple adequately with this problem. It is true that the de-rating scheme may one day or other bring relief—it is a matter on which there must be differences of opinion—but " hope deferred maketh the heart sick," and very often renders the Front Bench tenantless. As regards work, I wish the Lord Privy Seal would pin "We can conquer Unemployment" as an appendix to the King's Speech. I notice that he has already borrowed one or two ideas from it, but he will find out sooner or later that he will take the lot. As far as I am concerned, he can take it, and all the credit for it. I believe that I speak for many Liberals on these benches when I say that we do not care who is the author of these schemes; we want to see this problem tackled. I will venture to make this humble prophecy, that anyone who does tackle this scheme will have to tackle it on the lines suggested in "We can conquer Unemployment."

I do not believe that the orthodox view taken by the Lord Privy Seal will succeed in dealing with this problem. It is not an orthodox problem. The right hon. Gentleman the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the unorthodoxy of my Leader. I have never heard of any man who is orthodox getting things done. It is only the extreme unorthodoxy of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) that has enabled him to tackle problems that have baffled other people. Consider- ing that we are dealing with a problem such as this country has never faced before, it is very distressing to hear the Lord Privy Seal adopting what one might call the extreme Treasury attitude. After all, there are two theories. One theory says that you can solve unemployment only by cutting down expenditure and reducing taxation, that you must always have an eye on the money market, and that the Government must borrow as little as possible even in doing schemes that only a Government can do, because if you deplete the money market you jeopardise the chances of conversion. I have worked it out and have calculated the utmost you can, obtain in remission of interest charges. If you could redeem at 4 per cent, all your loans and all your debts by 31st March, 1933, the utmost saving you could get would be £28,000,000 a year. That excludes the £2,000,000,000 5 per cent. War Loan redeemable 1929-1947, and which everyone knows cannot be redeemed so soon. Excluding that chunk of £2,000,000,000 of War Loan, the utmost saving you could get is the £18,000,000 a year. There are many brilliant economists, and they are backed by many men of great business experience, who believe the contrary, namely, that instead of reducing expenditure by your saving in interest on conversion schemes, you can save more than that £18,000,000 if you use your money to develop the national estate so that you will increase revenue. And you will save an the long run in gained revenue more than you will save by reduction of interest. That is the essence of our scheme.

I am not able to speak with authority on these matters, but from a common-sense point of view I cannot see how anyone can defend the waste of £500,000,000 since 1921 on unemployment relief, or the expenditure of £60,000,000 a year. Every penny of this has gone down the drain. It has not brought work to a single soul. It may have saved this country from revolution. Surely this money might have been spent in a hundred and one ways, and in the common-sense point of view, which is backed by many economists and big business men, I cannot believe that it is the essence of statesmanship that we should go on wasting this money, continuing this orthodox view, saying you must never borrow money when, in fact, you are borrowing money and wasting it by perpetuating this misery and degradation.

May I refer to the greatest experiment in employment which, I think, the world has ever seen, and I recommend it to the right hon. Gentleman? It is a lesson of what can be done by a country that puts its whole heart into a problem. I refer to the case of the Greek settlement. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that in 1922, after the shambles of Smyrna, hundreds of thousands of Greeks who had lived in Asia Minor fled across to the country of their fathers. Under the Treaty of Lausanne, I think in 1923 there was an arrangement made for the exchange of population so that the Turks living in Greece could go back to Anatolia and the Greeks living in Anatolia could go back to Greece. Under this Clause something like 1,200,000 souls were transferred from Anatolia back to Greece. I happened to be in Smyrna in 1921, and I saw the type of men— peasants, 'and the merchants selling in the bazaars of Smyrna. Greece, with a population of 5,000,000 persons, and burdened with 10 years of continuous war, was suddenly confronted with the task of finding employment for more than 1,000,000 souls. It is true that 200,000 or 300,000 of them died before the League intervened. In 1923 the League appointed a Commission, sanctioned a loan and set to work to settle 1,000,000 persons in Macedonia. They provided for urban settlement and rural settlement, they provided land, they built houses, they provided the machinery, live stock, seed, fertilisers and so forth. What has been the result?

Did you give them the trade union rate of wages?

I will deal with my hon. and learned Friend in 'a moment. The point I am making is that in four years Greece doubled the cultivated area of her soil, increased her wheat production by 50 per cent., doubled the yield of her tobacco crop, and found employment for 1,000,000 souls, 70 per cent, of whom have made good in four years.

They got the land for nothing, you know.

6.0 p.m.

They got the land for nothing. They were not paid British trade union rates of wages, and no one expected that they would be so paid. I am not suggesting for a moment that the standard of life" one is urging for the unemployed in this country can be compared with the standard of life of the Anatolian peasants, but I do suggest that if Greece with a population of 5,000,000 and a territory half the size of Great Britain, can add one-fifth to her population, that at least Great Britain, with her infinite resources and her vast interests spreading over one-quarter of the globe, with her restored credit, should be able to find work for 500,000 or 600,000 men. Taking area for area and population for population in comparing Great Britain with Greece, it is just as if 16,000,000 souls were suddenly dumped down from Europe on to the shores of Great Britain and we had to find jobs for them. It sounds impossible, yet that is the scale on which Greece accomplished it. Therefore, considering the easier task that confronts us, I suggest that a start might be made in providing work for 500,000 men of our own kith and kin. I hope that the Government will realise that in any schemes they put forward they will have the unequivocal support of the Liberal Back Benches. Speaking for myself, I would not criticise them at the start of this difficult task. One does realise, and one must realise, the difference between the board room and the platform. I want to see the Labour Government have a scrupulously fair chance in tackling this urgent problem. I am sure the House would welcome the whole nation as a council off State if out of the pool of wisdom something might come to bring some consolation to the men and women who have been going through this agony of mind for three or four years.

May I make two suggestions which will help my constituency? As regards the problem of roads, we have heard much of road construction and of arterial roads running North and South. There is an urgent need for a road running from the Midlands opening up East Anglia. If you want to go by train from East Anglia to the Midlands it is a very tedious and a very lengthy business, and there is a very inadequate service. If you go by car, by a "baby" Austin, it is extremely hazardous, and if you happen to be on a char-a-banc it is dangerous to life. What is wanted is a great arterial road running from the heart of the Midlands into East Anglia, opening up my own constituency, which is an industrial constituency, and, being a cathedral town, has a culture of its own and more scheduled monuments than any other city in the country. My colleague in the representation of the city of Norwich strongly approves of and agrees that the opening up of East Anglia is necessary, because we are bounded on one side by the sea and on the other side by the London and North Eastern. We are a great manufacturing county. All the seaside towns manufacture sun and sea and air, and if they cannot place these commodities before the public owing to inadequate transport, they naturally suffer. I suggest in all seriousness, that if the right hon. Gentleman will consent to motor or to go by train from Norwich to the Midlands he will immediately approve of the scheme which I am suggesting.

The other suggestion is for the mitigation of the law relating to test work. Anyone who represents an industrial constituency knows of the horror of test work. In my constituency there are 900 persons whose only job in life is to dig holes and fill them up again. Owing to the inadequate laws of Queen Elizabeth, they have to do test work. They have to tramp nine miles for the pleasure of seeing that the laws of Queen Elizabeth are carried out. One saw the men at the start a year ago, and one has seen them at the end of the year deteriorated in morale and physique. I do not believe that the solution of the problem of unemployment or test work is to raise the scale of relief. I do not believe that hope lies along those lines, but there are certain mitigations that can be made. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works is an expert on this matter and he knows the problem first-hand. In my own constituency any test worker who has 45 shillings a week coming into his house is disqualified from relief. Obviously, some scale must be fixed, but I would like the right hon. Gentleman or the Minister of Health to consider whether it is fair to count as income coming into the house money which does not, in fact, come into the house. It is only fair that part of the income of a boy or girl should count towards rent or payment for food, but the balance which at present counts as income coming into the house of the test worker, and which does not, in fact, come in, should not count. I wish the Minister of Health would issue instructions to guide the local guardians, so that more generous treatment might be given. At the present time the effect of the regulations is, that if a father has to board out his son or his daughter he has to keep three establishments instead of one. In the hope that they will receive attention, I put forward the suggestion as regards the making of arterial roads and the suggestion as to the mitigation of the lot of the test worker.

I hope the House will concede to me the same consideration that it has shown towards the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Shakespeare). It is rather a pity that the hon. Member does not represent Stratford-on-Avon, in view of the classical association of his name. There is one point in the Gracious Speech which I should like to stress. There are in this country many districts where the livelihood of the people is almost entirely drawn from expenditure upon military or naval armaments or from dockyard expenditure, and I am sorry to say that in the Gracious Speech there is no mention of any proposal that the policy of the late, and somewhat unlamented, Government shall be reversed with regard to these Service and dockyard areas. Let me refer particularly to two or three areas. The last Government closed down two dockyard centres, Pembroke and Rosyth, with scarcely a thought given as to the welfare of the workers in those areas. These men have been pitched out on to the industrial scrap-heap, without so much as a day's consideration for them having been given by the late Government.

In Chatham, one of the dockyard towns, during the last four and a-half years 1,700 men have been discharged, in the name of economy, by the last Government, and not a thought has been given as to whether other employment could be found for these men, so that the sufferings and hardships resulting from dismissals might be diminished to a considerable extent. More than that, the late Government economised on Navy Estimates and Army Estimates by invaliding men out of the Services on flimsy excuses, and bringing in new entrants at reduced rates of pay. I do ask that the present Government, when considering disarmament schemes and unemployment schemes, will bear in mind the fact that the disarmament schemes will cause an increasing amount of unemployment in the dockyard and Service towns. In the Rochester and Chatham area the amount of unemployment has doubled in the last two years, without a step having been suggested or proposed by the late Government with a view to reducing the unemployment which was caused deliberately by the Government. I feel convinced that the present Government will tackle the problem in a much more satisfactory way and see to it that the men at present employed upon armaments or in the Services shall not be cast upon the industrial scrap-heap as a result of the conferences which are going on with America.

In the Gracious Speech, it is stated that an investigation is to be made into the results of the last election. I hope that the Government will go further than that, and make an investigation into the disreputable way in which certain parties in this country acquire the funds with which they contest elections. I hope that the inquiry in regard to electoral reform will be supplemented by an inquiry into the way in which honours have been sold by past Governments in this country, and that the matter will be faced fairly and squarely so that we may have a clean bill, politically.

It falls to me to express congratulations on behalf of the House to the two hon. Members who have just addressed it for the first time. We are all agreed in admiring the skill of the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Shakespeare) and the way in which he introduced a very happy reference to his constituency. We are also interested in the difficult task which the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Markham) has set himself in trying to reconcile naval disarmament with the interests of the dockyard towns. I am sure that we shall look forward to hearing the two hon. Members on many occasions. The speech of the Lord Privy Seal will be a great disappointment to many of his supporters who will read it to-morrow, because the policy which he outlined was the policy to a large extent along the lines of his predecessors in office. It is full of schemes of one kind or another, but the only difference that one could see between the Labour policy of 1929 and their policy of 1924 is that in 1924 we were told that schemes could not be produced out of a hat, and to-day we are told that committees are to be set up to consider schemes. Nothing is apparently ready to hand.

It is a pity that the moderate policy which has been outlined to us to-day is not the same policy as that by which so many Labour Members obtained their seats in this House. The general line of argument that was used in the constituencies was very different from the line of argument of the Lord Privy Seal to-day. Perhaps nothing was more startling than his remarks in regard to setting up a Committee to investigate the age at which boys and girls should leave school, or the age at which old people should leave industry, having regard to the very definite pledges that were given to the country by the Labour party during the month of May. To do this at once was one of the chief planks in the Socialist platform, and now we find that it is relegated to a Committee. I started to count the new committees mentioned by the Lord Privy Seal, but when he had mentioned eight I gave it up. I shall, however, have to take a more strict account of these committees in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow morning, in view of the detailed discussion which, as the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer said, is bound to follow the statement that was made by the Lord Privy Seal to-day.

The policy of the Socialist party was outlined a year ago in an epoch-making document called "Labour and the Nation." On that occasion an hon. Member who had then greater freedom and less responsibility, but who is to-day the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, said of that policy: nouncement of policy by the Government in the King's Speech consists of ingredients, on the one hand, from members of the Socialist party who want to see " Socialism in our time " and, on the other hand, from those members of the party who do not want anything of the kind. It all depends upon what kind of essence of ginger is applied to the mixture as to what will be its final taste. If the ginger of "Socialism in our time " is to be applied, then the conclusions we shall reach in this Parliament will be very different from what they will be if the ginger is to be applied from the Liberal benches. For that, we shall have to wait.

In considering the Government's pronouncement of policy, I would remind hon. Members of one or two things that have disappeared. I heard in my own constituency that in the agricultural world practically everything was to be rectified at the earliest possible moment. The wages of the agricultural worker were to be raised, and all sorts of benefits were to accrue. Definite pledges were given. I think it was the present Minister of Agriculture who said that the wages were to be 47s. a week. The tied cottage system was to be abolished. These things were promised on the platform, but those aspirations are very far removed from anything that is to be found in the programme as set forth in the Gracious Speech. I am afraid that the agricultural community will find itself back to where it was last October when the present Prime Minister was asked by the Socialist conference to give a message to the agricultural labourer, and he sent the message that: and one to let. He never explained who was going to live in the house that was to let. Everybody was to have two houses. [An HON. MEMBER: "Rot! "] Exactly. I agree with that description, but that was what was told to my constituents by a Socialist speaker. My point is, that if any sympathiser voted for the Labour candidate on the strength of that statement he or she will be deeply disappointed by the pronouncement made in the Gracious Speech from the Throne.

Another astonishing statement was made and I repeat it now in the presence of the hon. Member who used the elegant phrase, "Rot!" which, I am afraid, is hardly a Parliamentary expression. The statement was made that it was all very well for the Conservative party to have abolished the Tea Duty, but that they had put a tax of 6d. per lb. on bacon. If there was any word of truth in that statement, which there was not, there would have been some reference to it in the King's Speech. We are not really surprised at the programme of the Government, because we remember the Prime Minister saying that: "In the Labour programme, what mattered was not the items put into it." Therefore, we are not going to bother ourselves unduly about the catalogue of the mass of verbiage of which we heard so much yesterday or about the Bills and committees which may never see the light. The Prime Minister must wish that he had 40 pairs of hands and 40 pairs of eyes in which to distribute gestures and glad eyes in this country and throughout the world.

If we take this Socialist programme and apply to it one or or two tests which a Conservative Member would naturally apply, we shall find the extraordinary way in which it betrays its origin. Take, for example, what it says with regard to Imperial policy. When all is said and done that is one of the points upon which we have always laid stress, particularly from the point of view of dealing with the problem of unemployment. In the gracious Speech there are only two references, one to the "economic development of the Overseas Dominions," and the second, "for greater opportunity for overseas migration." In themselves they are adequate statements as aspirations, but what about the Prime Minister's own views on these matters? As regards the economic development of the Empire it is only two years ago that he said:

When it comes to Safeguarding, the pronouncement of the policy of the Government will be subjected to far greater scrutiny later on, but I would remind the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has repeatedly stated that he intended at the first moment to withdraw these Duties and that his first possible moment is now because he would have the support of most of the Liberal party and so would be able doubtless to carry it in spite of our opposition. Although he has pledged himself on these lines to us, I put it to him that it is rather hard, whatever his present responsibilities might be, on an issue like this to have gone out of his way to deceive a friendly nation like the Norwegians, because only last January writing in the Norwegian Press he told them that if there is one thing that a free trader is, it is that he is a one-eyed and one-idea man. We are prepared to discuss these questions as they come up and in doing that we are only following the advice of the Balfour Committee, which was set up by the Prime Minister when he was previously in office and which in its final Report said clearly that they felt that this side of the House who sit for agricultural constituencies want to know exactly what they mean. I rather suspect, from the absence of any information, that they do not mean anything at all. We do not expect very much because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that "agriculture is a parasite on the industries of this, country," and if he looks upon it as a parasite how is his party going to do very much to improve its condition? Most likely they will squash it in the way that parasites are usually squashed.

The great question with which we are faced to-day is that of unemployment, and we shall not do anything to make difficulties for reasonable schemes, as opposed to unreasonable schemes, being brought to fruition. I am wondering what the right hon. Gentleman for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) feels about it all, because his recent pronouncement on this subject was:

Wait and see.

It was one of the things about which Socialist orators waxed most eloquent during the election; and it is one of the things which is most conspicuous by its absence from the King's Speech. We shall no doubt see many interesting developments in this Parliament as time goes on and we shall have an opportunity of again referring to points like this. I should like to say this, that the Lord Privy Seal need not think that everybody is going to oppose everything he does. Many hon. Members on this side of the House, and many of those of my friends who fell by the wayside six weeks ago, entirely endorse the statement with which I propose to conclude and upon which I can safely base myself because it was made by the greatest of all Conservative statesmen. He said:

" In a progressive country change is constant, and the great question is not whether you should resist a change which is inevitable—we all realise that changes are bound to come—the question is, not whether you should resist a change which is inevitable but whether that change "—

and this is what I want to impress on the present Government and on the Lord Privy Seal in particular—

" should be carried out in deference to the manners and customs, the laws, and traditions, of our people, or whether it should he carried out in deference to abstract, principles and arbitrary and general doctrines."

In this pronouncement of the present Government we see some change of heart. It looks as if the changes are to be brought about by the view that we must develop according to our national characteristics and not according to abstract and theoretical principles.

The hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down will not, I hope, regard it as any discourtesy on my part if I do not follow him in his discussion about Free Trade, whether free traders wear monocles, and what particular glasses are worn by those who support Safeguarding. I want, not merely to make some observations upon the speech which has been delivered this afternoon, but to follow the example of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer and make some comments on the King's Speech as well. With regard to the speech of the Lord Privy Seal, I confess in so far as I followed it—I shall study it more carefully to-morrow—to some sense of disappointment. It seemed to meet with the whole-hearted approval of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer; at any rate, he could not conceal the satisfaction it gave him, and he assured the Lord Privy Seal that on the whole the schemes which had been sketched out would receive the support of the Conservative Party. I assume that the outline given will give satisfaction to hon. Members opposite. I am not quite sure that the unemployed will be equally pleased.

I know the difficulties which have confronted the Lord Privy Seal. I had to go through an examination of the same situation myself when I was Prime Minister, and I have devoted a good deal of time since to an examination of the problem. I know that it is full of difficulty; and it is very easy to theorise about it. You may start on a great many paths; find that you come to a blind end and have to abandon that particular avenue and start afresh. A great many suggestions come to you which are ex- tremely promising. You are rather captivated by them, but when you begin to probe and pursue them you find that the end is disillusionment. I fully realise that, but at the same time I thought that the Lord Privy Seal and those associated with him would have sketched out a bolder scheme for dealing with this urgent problem. After hearing the speech and having consulted others who listened to it, I am not very clear as to what the proposals are. I am not criticising the right hon. Gentleman, but there was a great deal of confusion as to what his proposals were. He himself does not pretend that this is his last word. I earnestly hope that it is not.

I hope I shall be in office longer than three weeks.

The right hon. Gentleman indicated more in his interruption than in his speech when he said that he was prepared to examine fully any scheme at any time and would not impose any limit. It would be reassuring if we could know that this is not the final word of the Government on their plan for dealing with the urgent problem of unemployment. The right hon. Gentleman has had only three weeks' time to consider the position, and I am not going to make the point as to why schemes were not ready, but I think it would have been better for the right hon. Gentleman if he was not ready to have taken a little more time and presented his scheme as a whole so that we should have really understood what it was that the Government contemplated.

Take the question of roads. After all, the right hon. Gentleman gave very large figures. I want to know exactly what they mean. Do they mean anything more than a multiplication of the surplus on the Road Fund by the number of years which it will take to spend it? I do not know what the surplus of the Road Fund now is, but take it as £5,000,000. It is accumulating and increasing by £2,000,000 each year. Is the right hon. Gentleman's proposal simply to spend the money that is available as a surplus, or is there any new money, any money to be borrowed on the strength of the Road Fund? I agree with the statement that there is nothing more here than even the former Chan- cellor of the Exchequer, who was not a particular friend of the Road Fund, was prepared to do. But we ought to know the facts.

There is another question I wish to ask. I did put it to the right hon. Gentleman in the course of his speech, and he rather resented the fact that I interrupted. But I was asking for information, and I press the question now because it is very important. The right hon. Gentleman said, in reply to my interruption, that he would deal with it later on, but he did not do so. The question is this: Take trunk roads, main roads, where municipalities and county councils have schemes for widening. Are they to find a percentage of the capital expenditure for those schemes even when those roads are through roads? In the case of many of these roads most of the traffic is not county traffic; it is through traffic from other counties and is passing on, it may be, to a third or fourth county. These roads are really in the nature of national roads. In France, the whole of the expenditure on such roads would be borne by the Exchequer. It is not really a question of taking away from the municipalities a fair share of their burden. These are national roads in every sense of the term, and they have become more so since the development of motor traffic. In the old days, they were more or less county roads, but they are now national roads. Many a time, both in England and Wales, I have heard complaints that the ratepayers in a particular area had to bear the burden of the cost of widening and improving roads for other people often coming from counties a long distance off and passing over those roads to other counties, perhaps to the seaside.

It is right that we should know what are the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the apportionment. It is not a municipal question; it is a question of the unemployed. You are not going to get these roads improved and widened if you impose upon the local authorities the burden of 25 per cent, of that capital expenditure. For instance, I know perfectly well one particular scheme. It is the case of a road which is very dangerous. But it is a through road, and most of the traffic is through traffic. It will cost about £750,000 to improve. Under the present arrangement, 25 per cent, of that sum has to be found by the county. The county cannot find it and ought not to be called upon to find it, for it would. be a crushing burden upon a rather poor county. That work will not be done unless the right hon. Gentleman considers the point I have put to him. It is a vital matter, not merely from the point of view of local government and the relation between Imperial and local finance, but vital also if the right hon. Gentleman is to find work by developing these essential means of transport. I hope that before the Debate ends we shall have a clear indication as to what is to be done in that respect.

The same remark applies to the unclassified roads which were referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson). It is not merely a Scottish question. It is a question of rural areas and of unclassified roads. I see in the King's Speech some proposals by the Government for improving marketing facilities for agriculture. That is most important, but the Government are not going to do it unless they improve the unclassified roads in areas which are now quite unfit for the traffic of the lorries that pick up produce on the way. One would like to know the details. The counties cannot spend that money without much larger grants. It is not right for the Lord Privy Seal to imagine that the counties and municipalities are trying to pass on to the Exchequer some liability which ought to be theirs. The work will not be done at all unless the Exchequer shoulders the responsibility to a very much larger extent.

Let us be quite clear on the point. Do I gather that the right hon. Gentleman is now proposing something that was not even in the Yellow Book? I have read the book very carefully, and I would ask him what he means. Does he mean that the Government should consider at once what roads are to be a charge wholly on the Exchequer and what roads are to be municipal or partly a charge on the municipality and partly on the Exchequer? Up to now no Government has accepted that view; there is no definition, and no road for which the Exchequer is absolutely responsible. The maximum that has been done is that I have asked for particulars, for instance, of dangerous corners. These show that there are hundreds of dangerous corners to be dealt with. In some cases the landowners have offered the land, and in others they are asking an extravagant price for it. These things are being considered in the same category as those mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. But before a decision is reached there should be a clear border-line as to what is Government responsibility and what is municipality responsibility.

I am very glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that he has read our book. I thought he had, but that he had not read it very carefully. In fact, his speech was rather like a blurred copy of that book. As a matter of fact, if he had read it very much more carefully, he would have known that we had urged there that a very much larger proportion of the expenditure in respect of roads which are really national roads should fall on the Exchequer, and that there should be an increased contribution from the State in respect of unclassified roads as well. I am urging that now. So much with regard to that. But there was one part of the speech of the Lord Privy Seal about which I was still less clear. We ought to have it made clearer in this discussion. I did not quite understand what his proposals were with regard to lending money to new enterprises. That is a very important matter. It was the one new idea that the right hon. Gentleman had in the whole of his speech.

The Road Fund is an old system. The right hon. Gentleman rather indicated that it started in 1924. As a matter of fact, it started in 1909. It was developed in 1920, and the fund that was available in 1924 was that established in 1920. The one new idea in the right hon. Gentleman's speech was that money should be advanced for the purpose of starting new enterprises. What that means ought to be made clear to the House. It is a very serious departure from anything which has been attempted before. Advances to public utility concerns are not new. Though the right hon. Gentleman did not give them the proper name, they are purely an application of the Trade Facili- ties Act. Under that Act, £12,000,000 was guaranteed in respect to the making of a tube in London. But the right hon. Gentleman, as far as I can understand, intends either to advance money or to guarantee money for the starting of private enterprises in this country. If I am not correct, it is very important that we should know what it is that he meant. He talked about providing alternative employment by means of new enterprises.

Either I did not make myself clear or the right hon. Gentleman did not understand me. When I spoke about new enterprises, I was dealing with distressed districts like the Rhondda Valley and other places, where I said I would like to see encouragement given to businesses—for instance, a tobacco factory or a silk factory to open in those districts—and I said I would have to consider what inducement would be made for them to do so. That is what I meant. I said nothing about £25,000,000 to start new enterprises.

I know. I do not think I misinterpreted the right hon. Gentleman if that is the case. A new tobacco enterprise or a new silk enterprise—is that to be an enterprise which the State is to run?

No, I said so.

Very well. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to mean that this was not a State enterprise, but a private enterprise, a private venture by someone in the Rhondda Valley, to start a silk factory or a tobacco manufactory, or some scheme of that kind, and that the Government would offer inducements. What is the inducement? Is it a cash inducement? Is it that the Government are going to advance money to set up a silk factory or a tobacco factory in the Rhondda Valley, for instance, that they are going to guarantee either the profits or the debentures? We really ought to know. Anyhow, it is a very remarkable proposal to come from a Socialist Administration, seeing that Socialists want to nationalise all private enterprises. The Government are really going to advance money in order to start more of them. I welcome the conversion. But really, when we have a novel idea of that kind, and a very dangerous one, and a very risky one, I think we ought to have an explanation which is more elaborate and more careful from the point of view of finance of what it is that is really proposed. I rather gathered from a phrase in the speech of the Prime Minister yesterday that he had something of that kind in mind, but I thought his idea was rather to assist enterprises which are already in existence, if they recast their works and re-equip them in cases where they are not able to find the necessary finance for re-equipment. That was the impression conveyed by the Prime Minister yesterday.

This is a totally different idea. This is that we are to advance money for starting new and speculative enterprises in the Rhondda Valley or elsewhere. [HON. MEMBERS: "No! "] Well, then, what is the inducement, if it is not financial? The inducement must be a financial one for the purpose of starting concerns of that kind. I am not at all sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has taken more time to think over the question of the age of boys, and as to whether be is going to raise the age limit. That is a matter which we considered very carefully a year or two ago—a committee of us—and we consulted a great many authorities. We found that there were many more practical difficulties than we had anticipated, and that the opposition would come very largely from the workmen themselves. For that reason, although we were ourselves predisposed to raise the age limit for educational reasons, we found there were practical difficulties which, at any rate, made us rather shrink from recommending a course of that kind. I am glad that the Government, before committing themselves definitely to that course, have re-examined the proposition, and I am not in the least in the mood to taunt them with the fact that they promised it at the General Election, but no, on reexamination, find, as a matter of fact, that there are difficulties in the way of carrying it out. I am also very glad that the export credits scheme is to be extended. I think 15 years was the period mentioned, but, at all events, I am all in favour of the extension.

I do not know that it is fair to ask at this stage—and I shall not ask it if it is in the least embarrassing—to what extent the Export Credits Scheme can be used for the purposes of trade with Russia? That was a very difficult question which we also had to examine. I am not in the least deprecating it, but I should like to know the view of the Government upon that subject before we part with this Address. I think it is very difficult, until one has read very carefully the speech of the Lord Privy Seal, to know exactly what it means—whether it is a large scheme or a very small scheme, whether there is anything new in it or whether it is purely the carrying on of old ideas; whether you are going to say to the railway companies, " Substitute steel sleepers for wooden ones "; where you are going to buy them and whether any steps are to be taken to ensure that they are manufactured here? It is quite impossible, until we are able to see the thing as a whole, to come to any conclusion with regard to it as a whole. When the details are filled in, it may not be a much more formidable scheme than it has appeared to the House at the time. For the moment, it struck me as being rather nebulous, but it is gratifying to know that limitations are to be imposed upon the nebulae. There is to be no nationalisation of mines; there is to be no nationalisation of railways. On the contrary, private enterprise is to be helped, and subsidised. This Milky Way is apparently going to lead away from "Socialism in our time."

With the permission of the House, I should like to say a few words upon the general position as revealed by the King's Speech and the speech of the Prime Minister. I would like to support very strongly what was said yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition and to-day by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the great importance of giving this House an opportunity in January to subject to review the Parliamentary position and any subject which the House of Commons is fairly entitled to examine and discuss. The King's Speech, as anybody who has been in the House for a long time knows, is the only opportunity for discussing every topic relevant to good government. For one reason or another, all other opportunities have been more or less curtailed, whether in Committee of Supply or on Motions for the Adjournment which in the old days would enable Members to raise almost anything. We have passed new rules, many of which I have seen carried through in my time in the House, which have restricted, I will not say the liberties of debate, but the opportunities of debate. The opportunities for private Members have been curtailed, and the debate on the King's Speech is the only one in which there is full and free opportunity for discussing every subject which it is important we should pass in review.

I agree with the right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken from this side that it is very important that we should not part with this King's Speech until we have a guarantee from the Government that they will give an equally good opportunity, in the form of a Resolution, which will enable the House of Commons to raise exactly the same issues as are raised on this occasion, and will enable Mr. Speaker to give the same permission to speakers in the Debate as he gives them in a discussion on the Address. There is a precedent for it of which I may remind hon. Members. I am not at all sure that there are more than two other Members of this House who were here when that precedent was created in 1893. There was no time for a Debate on the King's Speech because the Session had run right through to March, and it was very important that the financial business should be concluded by 31st March. There was an agreement between the then Opposition and Mr. Gladstone that a Motion should be tabled, which would enable the Opposition to raise exactly the same issues as they would have raised had the King's. Speech been debated. The King's Speech went through in the course of a single night, and there was no Debate beyond a few hours. But after 31st March a Motion was tabled, and the Opposition were in a position to raise any question they liked. I think the Government ought to give us that undertaking before we part with the Address on this occasion.

I shall have to be discursive, because one must refer to the various subjects which have been raised in the King's Speech, and I should like to say a word regarding the negotiations with the United States of America. There is no one in this House who will not wish well to the Government in that matter. I am very glad that the Prime Minister seems to have made a very good beginning in establishing contact with the new Ambassador and with the United States of America. In the Washington Conference of 1921, we had an agreement with the United States which cut down battle ships. It was the only Disarmament Conference ever held which ended in a practical reduction, and I think the world owes a debt of gratitude to Mr. Hughes, the then Secretary of State in America, and to Lord Balfour who represented us at that Conference for that extra ordinarily fine achievement. Now I am trusting that in this Conference the Government, in conjunction with the United States of America and other naval Powers, will not merely succeed in limiting cruisers, but will press forward Lord Balfour's appeal made in 1921 for the abolition of the submarine. At that time, the United States of America were not prepared to give support to that proposal. Now they are. They have already indicated, I believe, that they are prepared to do it, and it would make an enormous difference if that were accomplished. It is the most brutal method of modern war fare, and the most perilous to all—[HON. MEMBERS: " They are all brutal."} I am only putting it in this sense, that it is an attack upon civilians and not upon combatants, just like bombing from the air. [HON. MEMBERS: " It is all murder."] I do not wish to quarrel about that. I agree that all warfare is brutal.

There is one word I would like to say in reference to what the Leader of the Opposition said. I hope the Prime Minister will consider twice before he enters a one-sided Conference. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, a Conference between this country and the United States, without others being present. I would like to utter a word of caution about that. There are susceptibilities, and there are suspicions, and I think that was one of the worst features of the Anglo-French Pact. It was entered into in all sincerity—I am sure of that—and it was hoped that it would help to clear the way, by having an agreement or understanding between England and France, but what was the result? The result was a crop of rumours. America said: "You are facing us with an accomplished fact," and, after all, a rumour which is believed is a fact, and creates suspicion in foreign politics. It was one of the things that created an atmosphere of suspicion before the Great War—these one-sided discussions between Powers. I hope that the Prime Minister will consider carefully before he definitely commits himself, whether it is desirable to enter into discussions merely with one of the naval Powers in the absence of the others. If it is not a practicable discussion, it is no use. If it is a discussion that comes to a practical conclusion, you are facing the other Powers with an accomplished fact. I am sorry to have uttered that word of warning with regard to something which in itself would appeal to popular sentiment, but it is a real danger.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will help me thus far—by admitting that I have spoken in precisely the same way as he has done; otherwise, what he is now saying will only strengthen the suspicion which I know he wants to avoid.

7.0 p.m.

I am very glad to hear it, and therefore I want to emphasise the words of caution which he himself seems to have uttered. I think it very important. I believe that something will be achieved by means of a naval Conference. From what I know of President Hoover, he is not the man to enter into a Conference without a sincere and firm determination to put it through and make it successful. Then I should like to say another word with regard to disarmament. I trust that the Government, if they succeed—and I think they will—in getting an agreement to reduce the navies of the world, will not imagine that they have accomplished the whole task of disarmament. I am sure they will not. When you have done that, when you have reduced cruisers, when you have limited submarines or even if you abolish them, you will only have touched the fringe of the disarmament question. At the present moment in Europe there are eight Powers great and small that have more powerful military equipment than before the War. The Disarmament Commission up to the present has been a perfect farce. There has been no reduction affected; there is no indication that there is a desire or intention to do so, and, unless the Government succeed in carrying out the policy which is the basis of the League of Nations and secure a drastic reduction of armaments on the Continent of Europe, the peril to peace will remain. The American Army is not a formidable one in comparison with the armies of the Continent. The continental armies are huge armies, and it is no use talking about referring disputes to arbitration as long as we have these enormous armies with their gigantic equipment.

Abolish them.

You cannot achieve that; but reduction is a different matter. The Government are embarrassed at the present moment by a commitment of their predecessors. Their predecessors committed themselves not to include Reserves in the competition of the military armaments of the Continent. As long as that remains as a condition of discussion, any Disarmament Conference will be a perfect farce. Four-fifths of the armies of the Continent consists of Reserves. There is only one way to secure disarmament, and that is the way in which disarmament was ensured with regard to Germany. All agreed, when we proposed to disarm Germany, that it was not sufficient merely to reduce the number of her army, but that we should insist upon scrapping her armaments. Anyone knowing anything about armaments knows that it takes five times as long to get the equipment as the men. As a matter of fact, even in regard to artillery, it took you two years to get the guns but you were able to train the men in a few weeks. Therefore, equipment is a more important matter even than number, and, when the French and ourselves and the rest insisted upon the disarmament of Germany, we insisted upon scrapping all the equipment.

With regard to our own country, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for War what has happened to our equipment. Unless I am mistaken, we have equipment which would enable us to put a million in the field as soon as the men were trained. The same applies to other countries. The only difference between ourselves and other countries is that other countries are keeping that equipment up to date—France, Italy—and improving it year by year. The result is that the armaments of the Continent are far more formidable than they were in 1914. Unless this Government or some other Government insists in the Disarmament Commission on that problem being faced oil the solemn undertaking we all gave in 1919, in writing, all the Allied Powers and all who signed that document engaging themselves solemnly to reduce their armaments to the limit compatible with security—unless that operation is carried out, it is no use talking about arbitration or optional clauses. I hope the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary will bear that in mind when confronted with the situation in Geneva.

I should like to say a word with regard to the Rhineland. I regret that the Government should have mixed up evacuation of the Rhineland with reparations. It has nothing to do with it. The Rhineland had to be evacuated from the moment Germany was carrying out the Treaty. No one can say Germany has not been carrying out the terms of the Treaty for several years, even with regard to reparation, and therefore I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that, so far as we are concerned, we are going to clear out as soon as possible and will bring pressure on the other parties to carry out their obligations under the Treaty.

I also rejoice at the death of the White Paper on Safeguarding; it has nothing to do with the original Safeguarding Act. There were all kinds of conditions introduced which have nothing to do with it, and were never contemplated, and I am delighted that that stumbling block has been removed. May I say here that it was not fair to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reveal what would be in his Budget in April next year. I think he is entitled to time to consider that and to reveal it in due course. Therefore, in that respect we are in entire accord with him, and all I say is all power to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I also welcome what has been said—we have not yet heard any details—and I am delighted the Government are going to undertake the task of clearing the slums. I should like to know later on when we are going to get some sort of sketch and some indication of the Government's intention regarding it, as it has an important bearing on the problem of unemployment, because there is a good deal of unemployment in the building trade. I also welcome what was said about the Government being prepared to correct anomalies under the Widows and Orphans Act, 1925. We were pressed during the recent contest with regard to hard cases, and I am convinced that there are hard cases. There are always hard cases under every Act; it may be that sometimes it is a question of interpretation, or sometimes it may be a matter of things being overlooked. I am delighted that this will be put right.

The Government, with regard to the mines, again, were rather vague, and the right hon. Gentleman yesterday left out one word which I think would have helped to disperse the mist and give us a fairer insight into the Government's intention. He talked about "co-ordination of mines." If I am right in my interpretation of their intentions, they propose to have what they call co-ordination of the mines. We call it grouping and by the Conservative party it is called amalgamation, but it all comes to the same thing. They also propose to purchase the royalties and to reduce the hours. The question is by how much? What is the reduction to be? There are right hon. Gentlemen here who cannot object to this programme. There are Members present who were prepared to do all this in 1919. Purchase of royalties, grouping and co-ordination of mines, reduction of hours—all this we proposed.

Why did not you do it?

I am going to tell the hon. Gentleman. In the first place, in regard to hours, we did do it. Probably the hon. Gentleman never heard about that. Probably he thought that was something done by the Labour Government in 1924. That is a bit of information that may be useful to him. We offered, moreover, exactly this scheme in 1919 to the Miners' Federation. The Miners' Federation backed up by the Trade Union Congress, backed up by the Labour party, all unanimously said they would not have it, and they passed a resolution to say that, if we carried it, they would not operate it. Now the hon. Gentleman knows.

Those proposals are the views of the Liberal party and not Socialism.

No, they are not Socialism. I never said they were. I am welcoming the process of conversion now going on in the party opposite. In 1919, I put the question to Mr. Smillie, the then leader of the miners, and a singularly able man he was. I have just been reading his speech on the subject. I put the question to him: "Would you rather, if we cannot give you nationalisation "—I was in the same position as the right hon. Gentleman, and, if I wished it, I could not have carried it—"have the existing system than the grouping of mines, the purchase of minerals, with miners on the Board? " He said, "Yes, my friends and I prefer the existing system." Now the hon. Gentleman will know why they did not carry it through. That was in 1919, 10 years ago. We were charged, because I put forward the proposals, with betraying the miners. What about the right hon. Gentlemen who were there and refused those terms in 1919, because they said they would take nothing but nationalisation? I have read the speech by the Lord Privy Seal, as well as others who were at the Trade Union Congress. I do not say they are betraying the miners, because they cannot carry nationalisation. They are going to carry what they can, and I think it right, but I am bound to point out that they are proposing to do now what they rejected in 1919.

Now I come to my very last point—and I apologise to the House very much for going on at such length—and that is with regard to electoral reform, which naturally concerns us very considerably. At the last election, there were 5,300,000 votes which were cast for our party. That only enabled us to return 58 Members. That means that the party opposite had one Member for every 27,000 or 28,000 votes, and that the party above the Gangways had one Member, I think, for every 33,000 votes. They had a majority of votes, but they are the second party. We had one Member for every 91,000 votes. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer said that in Wales the Conservatives had only one Member for 289,000 votes. That is quite correct, and I think it is unfair. We may have had the benefit of it. Hon. Members opposite had most of it, but, even if we had had the whole of the benefit, I say it is unfair. It is not enough for those Welsh Conservatives to be told that some other part of the country is over-represented. Welsh Conservatism has its own point of view and its own pride, and it wants to feel that it is represented in this House.

The right hon. Gentleman yesterday said that you cannot have a mathe- matical, scientific process on which you can return one Member for, say, every 40,000, or whatever it is. I quite agree, but that is not what we are suggesting. He says the electorate are considering one thing, and that is the return of a Government. Yes, but Governments under the present system are put in by a minority of the electorate. In the United States of America you have a plebiscite, practically, and the majority of the votes returns the President. That is the Government of the day. But here you may have a minority of votes choosing a Government. You have had two Governments more than half the time since the War. dealing with the gigantic post-War problems, returned by a minority of the electorate. I know what the right hon. Gentleman and his friends have in their minds, and it is a great temptation. If they had had another 500,000 or 600,000 votes, they might have bad a majority in the House, but they would still be in a minority of over 4,000,000 votes as far as the country is concerned.

That is a very serious thing. The right hon. Gentleman says that revolutions now overthrow, not Kings and Thrones, but Parliaments. If you get a Parliament returned, with an Administration, although the majority of the people of the country may be against it, which will not bring forward a King's Speech like this one, fairly moderate, but will bring in a King's Speech which will satisfy my hon. Friends opposite—[An HON. MEMBER: " Still more moderate!"] The hon. Member is frankly not merely a Socialist, but he believes it is no use having a Socialist party unless you carry out Socialist ideas. If the right hon. Gentleman had not been fortunate enough to be in a minority of 20 or 30—I congratulate him upon it—he could not have had that Front Bench, he could not have had this King's Speech. I am certain that if he had had a Socialist majority behind him, he would have been compelled to bring in Socialist schemes and carry out Socialist doctrines. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] That is absolutely right, if you have a majority in the country. If you have a majority of votes in the country in favour of Socialism, I am enough of a believer in democratic institutions to say that you must take your luck. [ Interruption. ] Hon. Members opposite must listen. We are just as much returned to this House as they are, and we mean to be heard.

What I am afraid of is that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues hare it in their minds that next time, without having a majority of votes, the little roulette ball—because it is a real gamble —may just tip into his 12. [An HON. MBMBEE: " Or yours!"] I am quite prepared to discuss that question, hut undoubtedly the more powerful parties have the advantage in a gamble of this kind. But it might be that he might get a majority here without having a majority of votes. I cannot conceive anything which would be more dangerous to Parliamentary institutions than that. He would be bound to carry out the ideas of his followers, but he would have no majority in the country, and it would discredit Parliamentary institutions, and there is not a long way between discrediting Parliamentary institutions and their downfall.

The right hon. Gentleman said he is going to give us an inquiry. He must not mind my putting questions quite frankly to him. I am not going to do it, I can assure him, offensively, but I am going to put searching questions to him about this inquiry. There was an inquiry in 1924 set up to investigate unemployment and trade depression, and it reported in 1929—it was his own Committee—and then it made no recommendations. We do not want that. I am going to ask him: Does he really mean business with this inquiry? What I mean by that is, does he mean to inquire into this thing fairly, with a view to remedying it in time? The best plan is for me to give my apprehension and that of my friends. Our apprehension is that their inquiry will be set up, that it will investigate all sorts of subjects—I am not objecting to it in the least, and I am not challenging any of them, so long as he gets a report upon this and in time—and that it will be prolonged, as you can prolong inquiries, until the time comes when the right hon. Gentleman will find it convenient to dissolve Parliament and appeal to the country upon the old system.

We really ought to have a clear understanding with the right hon. Gentleman about that. Will there be a prompt examination of the problem, no unneces- sary delay upon this subject, no putting it off? I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it would be far better if the old process of the Speaker's Conference were adopted this time. The right hon. Gentleman was not well-informed when he said that there was no inquiry into corrupt practices. There was, and there were very drastic recommendations in regard to corrupt practices by the Speaker's Conference of 1917. Therefore, there is a precedent, but the advantage is that, instead of having a body of conflicting partisans sent in to fight each other, Mr. Speaker, or some other impartial person sitting there, will pick men—in proportion, if you like, to the number of Members in the House—men of standing and authority and influence, who will go there to assist him to examine this problem. The decision of the Government must affect the general attitude of Liberal Members. It cannot help it. It makes a good deal of difference whether a group of Members feel that the Government of the day mean to deal fairly with them. It makes a very great difference to them. It is not a question of whether we are for or against particular proposals. There is an attitude of mind, and if we were convinced that the Government were in earnest in their endeavour to find the best method of redressing this electoral wrong, we should assist them with good will, with sympathy, to overcome the innumerable Parliamentary difficulties with which they were confronted.

Anyone who listened to the speech of the Lord Privy Seal must realise—and he undoubtedly has realised it—what very great difficulties there are, and what great Parliamentary difficulties there are. But, on the other hand, if we had reason to believe that the Government were just trifling with it, fobbing us off with an inquiry, to gain time until it suited them to go to the country under the old conditions, then suspicion and antagonism would inevitably be engendered, which would be fatal to the usefulness of the Government. We are not trying to make conditions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh! "] In all sincerity, I say that I am trying to speak frankly to the right hon. Gentleman without in the least attempting to humiliate him, and he can believe me in all sincerity—and I am speaking not merely for myself, but for all my colleagues—when I say that I am simply stating, quite frankly, and I hope without any suggestion of menace, but merely to prevent any future misunderstanding, that we mean to use our Parliamentary opportunity and position to the full, in order to ensure that the 5,000,000 and more of electors, citizens of this country, whom we represent here should have this wrong redressed.

The last part of the speech of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who has just sat down, dealt with the very intricate question of electoral reform, and I am heartily glad that there is going to be a thorough inquiry into that matter, but it is quite clear that you cannot expect the Conservative party to consent to a reform which is merely designed to improve the prospects of the Liberal party.

Fairness has nothing to do with it?

I should have thought fairness had something to do with it. There is undoubtedly a very strong case, an overwhelming case, for saying that the present system of representation does not make a representative body corresponding to the constituent body, but it is, of course, not necessary to representative government that the representative body should resemble the constituent body. It never did, or never purported to until quite recently. It is only within the last 40 years that we began to pursue the ideal of one vote one value, and before that time small boroughs elected a Member just as much as did great populous cities or great counties, and that was not thought an anomaly. The theory of representation was that the House of Commons was a body of typical Commons, who, as a body, represented the whole Commons of the realm. That is still the constitutional theory, and as long as you had persons who represented the whole Commons of the realm, it was not thought necessary that the constituent body and the representative body should divide in the same proportion; but, if you are to do it, you must have proportional representation, and, if you are to have proportional representation, you create a very difficult situation about the choice of the Government of the day. The Prime Minister was perfectly justified in calling attention to that fact. You would have to limit, certainly, the Royal Prerogative of Dissolution, because you could not go on with Parliament perpetually turning out Government after Government. The problem is an intricate one and deserves an inquiry. As the House sees, I am walking in the steps which more distinguished people have marked in the sands of debate already; I am become an inquirer. The Prime Minister yesterday inaugurated what is sometimes called a study circle; we were invited to mutual instruction in all sorts of difficult economic subjects. He welcomed and accepted with enthusiasm my right hon. Friend's suggestion that the Government's policy was to think. He thought that a compliment, an unintended compliment perhaps, but none the less a real one. We are all glad that the Government intend to think, but one cannot help feeling that the process has been postponed rather late in their career.

They propound a certain mitigation of the great evil of unemployment. It seems somewhat like a bowdlarised version of the plan of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs; it is conceived on the same lines, but does, not go quite so far—it is something for little children. This plan and that of the right hon. Gentleman are open to the criticism that they consist in moving wealth about from one place to another, as it were, from one pocket to another, and not increasing wealth. Those who recommend roads and so on often sketch out vaguely how there is to be a great economic effect from improved transport. That might be so in respect of the congested transport of London, because there, plainly, trade is greatly hindered by the want of facilities in transport. It is one thing, however, to say that improvements in transport and in roads will be useful in a general sense and will increase the opportunity for trade and industry one day or another, and it is another thing to say that they will so immediately increase the wealth which is available for creating a demand for labour that they will solve the unemployment problem or even affect it.

There are only two ways of solving unemployment. There is indeed only one way, and that is to create a greater demand for labour, and there are only two ways of doing that. One is by diminishing the cost of labour, which would be a remedy unacceptable to the working class of the country if it were done by a reduction of wages, and it is not easy to do by improvements in organisation and invention. [An HON. MEMBER: " What about Ford's works in America?"] It is true you cannot sell more of an article unless you make it cheaper, or increase the wealth of those who want to buy. [An HON. MEMBER: " You cannot do that by reducing wages."] The point is that you will not gain anything merely by taking money out of the taxpayer's pocket, or out of the Road Fund, or from anywhere else, and spending it in a particular way unless you can show that by changing the purpose or changing the destination of the wealth you are really going to increase the aggregate wealth of the country, and to increase it in such a fashion as will at once affect the demand for labour. If you do not do that, you will not improve employment. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs believes for a variety of reasons that he would increase the demand for labour—

And increase wealth.

That was the theory. It always appears to me that, though inflation was indignantly denied, it was only by inflation that the scheme could possibly increase the demand for labour. If you have inflation you do improve conditions for the time, just as France and Germany did.

How different is the atmosphere of this Debate from that of the discussion which took place before the election? We are all now recognising that this is really a proposition of economics, and that the most that politicians can hope to do is slightly to improve the economic working of other forces. In this atmosphere, we all practically avow that unemployment depends upon forces that this House cannot control. [ Interruption. ]

We do not believe that.

The Government which the hon. Member is supporting does. It is true that that may be surprising. I am not at all astonished that hon. Members feel some surprise when they come here supporting a Government of revolutionaries, and find that they are supporting a Government of political inquirers.

The Noble Lord made a similar discovery about his Government last year.

I never thought that my right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer was a revolutionary, and I never found him to be an inquirer. His speech to-day confirmed the confidence which I had in him, because it was an admirable exposition of sound and thoughtful economics, and a worthy contribution to the Prime Minister's study circle. We are now calmly discussing the matter and treating it, as the Conservative party treated it during the Election, as a difficult economic problem. This has been a very able Debate, and often a very entertaining Debate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has been here; he never was here before the Election. He did not say very much of his own plan, but just touched on the subject. He is in the position, of course, of having offered to the public a conjuring trick which the public does not wish to see performed. He is like a conjuror who has his hat still populous with rabbits, none of which have come forth, but all of which are is till supposed to be in the hat.

While we have these entertaining and instructive Debates, we must not forget that unemployment is one of the most tragic subjects that we can discuss. There are numerous homes in this country, happily only a small part of the total families, where the principal bread winner has gone forth for days and weeks and months seeking work and not finding it. He has passed through all the stages from disappointed hope to despair, and has at last, poor man, suffered that demoralisation and depression which leads him almost to acquiesce in a fate which he finds himself powerless to avoid. He is a tragic figure. Do you think it a nice thing to climb into Office by raising hopes in that man's heart, and then inquiring into his wretchedness? I am glad of the inquiry, and glad of the restored sanity by which politicians see and know and recognise that they cannot solve this tragic problem by promising things on the platform; but I do think that it is a shameful thing to use the sorrows of the electorate to raise hopes which everyone who has looked into the matter knows will probably be disappointed. I hope that never again will these difficult social problems, which make so vast a difference to the unhappy people who suffer, be treated as weapons of electioneering propaganda, so that some people may come into office and other people may still be unemployed.

I am somewhat shocked at the sentiments of the Noble Lord. He has sat in this House since I became a Member and for many years before, and the only occasion during the life of his own Government when he raised his voice in revolt against the inaction of the Government was not on behalf of the unemployed, but on behalf of the landed gentry of Southern Ireland. It would indeed be a wicked and disgraceful thing if any body of men climbed into position and power by exploiting the grievances and the sufferings of humanity, and then failed to do their utmost endeavour not merely to remove this terror from men's minds but to build a new order of society in which the idea of a capable, intelligent man being compelled to stand idle in the market place, no one hiring him, would be absolutely unthinkable. The Noble Lord suggests, as did the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), if I am not mistaken, and the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the human race cannot hope to achieve this, that the human race has to go on—

I do not want to interrupt, but—

Well, probably I am not correctly putting the right hon. Gentleman's point of view, but civilisation, so far, has been unable to remove this fear from men's minds and the civilisation up to date has been capitalist. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman says that this economic system called capitalism, which has so far failed to remove the terror of unemployment from men's minds, is to be maintained at all costs. Both he and the right hon. Gentlemen above the gangway lay this down as their ultimatum to my right hon. Friends: " You shall be allowed to carry on capitalism with our active assistance and support." This is the system which has never removed poverty from the masses of the people, which has always had a large margin of unemployment, which has always kept a tremendous gulf between the rich and the poor, a gulf which is widening. Between the Noble Lord and the unemployed man in my constituency to-day there is a gap wider by miles than the gap which separated the squire of the county when he came here in Simon de Montfort's time from the hind who worked on his land—aye, miles apart, poles asunder. The ultimatum presented to my right hon. Friends on the second effective week of office is that, if they do any thing even to modify this system which has worked to ruinously for the mass of the people, then on that day their doom is sealed.

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Gentleman below the gangway. I have no right to stand on their level as a statesman and congratulate them on their statesmanlike utterances, but I think I can claim as an agitator to offer my congratulations to these two fellow-agitators in their attempt to stir up revolt on these benches. I have been here seven years, and they have both been here very much longer. Seven years is not a very long time. I think it was Jacob who served that length of time for a particular wife, and at the end of that period his father-in-law " sold him a pup." A man "who had four and a half years of the last Parliament has been well trained for anything this Parliament may do. Frankly, I should be dishonest to my right hon. Friends if I did not express very plainly my complete dissatisfaction with the King's Speech, and with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal in detailing one particular part of the King's Speech. Frankly, I was very disappointed. Some of my colleagues will remember that when the great thesis of the party, " Labour and the Nation," was sent out, I ventured to offer one or two criticisms of it from the point of view of general Socialist theory, but, after having read the King's Speech, I sigh for "Labour and the Nation." I hope the legislation arising out of the King's Speech will not be as much whittled down, compared with the King's Speech, as the King's Speech was whittled down from " Labour and the Nation," or there will not be very much left for us.

I hope not to make difficulties for the present Government. I hope they will tackle their task not in the way that will land them most easily into the hands of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Their chief grievance to-day is, I think, that the King's Speech has left them too little to tirade upon. I think that is their real grievance at this moment. That is my grievance, too. I will be very patient. It took four and a half years for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to get down to the problem which they had been elected to deal with, and at the end of that time they had not got down to it, had made no impression upon it, no impression whatever upon it. I am prepared to give my right hon. Friends time; in fact, I think the Lord Privy Seal would have been well advised if he had delayed for some time the statement he made to-day until he had something definite to offer. But there is something that I am not prepared to be patient about, something the party have no right to be patient about. We are sitting here, every one of us, with an income of at least £400 a year. We have no right to be sitting here with those incomes while the men and women who sent us here do not know where tomorrow's dinner is to come from.

About one week before the late Parliament dissolved, the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Home Secretary described the administration of the Employment Exchanges in their dealings with unemployed men as " administrative persecution," I think. As far as I know, the methods of administering Employment Exchanges to-day is exactly the same as it was when that statement was made. Now, that ought to stop. It is an administrative matter. A matter of human dealing with human beings does not need to be brought before this House and does not need to be made the subject of legislation. It is for the Government of the day to make it known throughout every Employment Exchange in this land that the unemployed man is not at fault, that he is not the cause of his unemployment, that we, more than he, are the cause of his unemployment. That man's bare subsistence ought to be sure and definite and regular, and he ought not to be subject to sneers and gibes, handed on from the Employment Exchange to the board of guardians, and from the board of guardians to the poor house. There are 2,000 people packed into our great poor house in Glasgow—now—with a Labour Government in office; told that they must either go into the poor house, in which case their wives and children will be maintained, or they will be taken up for cruelty to children and put into gaol. In Britain—now—and us sitting here discussing this as an academic problem! I am going to promise the Cabinet active, hearty support and work from me on one condition, and on one condition only, that they will so arrange the affairs of this country that no unemployed man, his wife or his child, shall go in dread of starvation or insult. That is a small thing to ask. The machinery is there. It is not Socialism. Some part of it has been built up by Tories, and part of it by the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway. The whole machinery of public relief is there, jolting, jangling along, working inefficiently. Right hon. Gentleman have it in their power now to make it work efficiently, so that I can say to any constituent of mine, "You cannot be starving; you are bound to have at least a bare livelihood." I say that that at least must be done while the Cabinet are working out their wider schemes of statesmanship.

8.0 p.m.

Before entering on the general Debate, I wish to say a few words in regard to the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil). During the Parliament of 1924 I had the pleasure of listening to the Noble Lord making a brilliant speech on the policy of abundance and cheapness of commodities. It was interesting this afternoon to hear him again making the declaration that only .by the cheapening of articles or increasing the wealth of the workers could you hope to relieve the problem of unemployment. I am just wondering where the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University stands to-day with regard to the official Conservative policy of Safeguarding and Protection. Another remark made by the Noble Lord was that it was a shameful thing to use unemployment as an election cry. I want to say to the Noble Lord and the representatives of the late Government that it was a far more shameful thing to punish the men and women who suffered through unemployment by the treatment they received at the hands of the last Government. That was a far more shameful thing than the charge which has been made against us to-day. There are men and women in every constituency represented on the Government benches who have gone from mill to mill and factory to factory seeking work, and I have been told that already many operatives were standing off. They have afterwards been struck off unemployment benefit because they were told that they had not been genuinely seeking work. I hope the present Government will take action through its administrative Departments to improve the administration in regard to unemployment insurance benefit.

During the recent election the members of the Labour party told the electorate that it was their desire to promote international peace and disarmament, and I am sure that nothing will be more welcome to the people in my constituency than the steps which have already been taken by the Government in regard to the improvement of our international relations, more especially with America. We are also satisfied with the statement which has been made with regard to the Optional Clause, and I have sufficient confidence in those who sit on the Treasury bench to know that not only will the interests of Britain be safeguarded but also the interests of international peace. I am glad that in the Gracious Speech from the Throne the early evacuation of the Rhineland is mentioned. As one who had an opportunity of going through the Rhineland during the most critical stage of the French occupation, it was easy to see how deep was the feeling aroused by the foreign occupation. Surely if the Treaty of Versailles meant anything at all after all these years, I think we can with safety take the step of evacuating the Rhineland.

I would like to say a word or two in regard to the problem of agriculture which is mentioned in the Gracious Speech. At the present moment there is a Committee inquiring into the question of the importation of wheat and foodstuffs into this country, and they are dealing with the question of the stabilisation of prices with a view to helping British farmers. We hear a good deal about the British Empire and we know that the wheat pools in Canada, Australia and New Zealand have been established to look after the interests of the producers. Efforts are now being made to bring those who control the wheat pools in our Dominions and Colonies into closer touch with each other in order to tighten their grip upon the consumer. I would urge hon. Members opposite to forget a little of their Conservatism in order to help those who on the Committee I have mentioned are endeavouring to deal fairly with this problem. We have obtained evidence from many sections of those engaged in agriculture in this country, although the National Farmers' Union refused to give evidence before that Committee. I think we are justified in appealing to our farmer friends to help us in our efforts to deal with this important problem.

Right hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway have referred this afternoon to the difficulties of the system of tied cottages. My own constituency is semi-rural, and I can assure hon. Members that there is nothing nearer to the heart of the agricultural worker than the question of the abolition of the tied cottage system. I understand that the Government, in connection with its policy of providing sufficient alternative accommodation, is endeavouring to make it impossible for the employer to turn a workman out of his cottage, and out of the village where he has spent so much of his life. I trust that the Government will be able to help us in that direction.

I notice that a reform of the Widows' and Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act is mentioned in the King's Speech. There are many anomalies in that Act, and I see no reason why the widow who lost her husband four years ago is not just as much in need and just as much entitled to a pension as a widow who lost her husband four weeks ago. It is true that at the moment we are dealing with an insurance scheme, but it ought to be possible to arrange an inclusive scheme, and bring in those widows who are suffering so much at the present time. There is the case of a widow in receipt of a pension which she loses immediately her youngest child reaches the age of 14 years. Every hon. Member of this House knows quite well that when boys and girls go out to business they make very little effective contributions to the upkeep of the home for the first two years. Surely the needs of the widow are just as great during those two years as at any other time. We have heard from the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Mr. Maxton) the course which he has asked the Government to pursue. We are all agreed as to the tragedy of this great problem of unemployment, and I hope that those who are suffering from unemployment will have a more just and humane administration of the Acts dealing with this question which are at present on the Statute Book.

I wish at the outset to congratulate the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Perry) on the signal success of his speech, and upon the way in which he has discharged the task of addressing this House for the first time. I trust that he will make frequent intervention in our discussions in the near future. Many of those sitting on this side of the House have never approached a King's Speech with more interest than on this particular occasion. The General Election is sufficiently fresh in our recollections to make us curious as to how far the new Government will find it either possible or expedient to carry out any of the extremely attractive promises which they dangled before the electors a few weeks ago when they were asking for their support. We were also extremely anxious to see whether any attempt will be made to justify some of those vituperative criticisms which were contained in the pamphlet entitled "Labour and the Nation." Many of us are agreeably disappointed that it has not been found possible to do either the one thing or the other. Probably we are as agreeably sur- prised as many hon. Members opposite are aggrieved and distressed.

A leading American newspaper said recently that there was nothing in the King's Speech from the first word to the last that might not have appeared in a King's Speech framed by either a Conservative or a Liberal Administration. Certainly there has been no attempt whatever made to try and bring about that felicitous state of affairs which is supposed to accompany what has been called "Socialism in our time." That fact has been admitted by the Government although certain excuses have been put forward for its failure. We have been reminded that this is a minority Government and we are also reminded that they have only been a very short time in office and are only just beginning to think about those problems on which they discoursed at such great length during the election campaign. The Minister of Transport, in a speech the other day, said that in his younger and more inexperienced days he use to delight in sending cold shivers down the backs of the bourgeoisie, and that he had now realised that it was a very foolish thing to disturb public confidence in that way. Now we have been assured that the reason why we do not have these cold shivers sent down our backs is because the present Government has not got a majority in this House. There has been an extraordinary modification in the proposals which have been placed before us, and it is somewhat curious that the Government programme appears to be most vague upon those very points on which hon. Members were so explicit when they talked from platforms outside this House. For instance, in the summary of the pamphlet "Labour and the Nation," I find that the very first item is the repeal of the Trade Unions Act. That is a very definite and precise statement, but what is the reference which is made to that matter in the King's Speech. It is simply that ment, the main Clause of which is merely to make a strike illegal if it is designed or calculated to coerce the Government of the day. I fancy that a situation might arise in which even the present Government would find that a very useful and convenient provision to have in force. Possibly, again, after further reflection, the Government may come to the conclusion that other Sections in that Act of Parliament are not altogether un reasonable. They might consider that it is not wholly undesirable that the Civil Service should remain divorced from party politics, that there should not be—

I must warn the hon. Member that that is one of the two subjects which are really out of order in the Debate on the Address. The Government have already given notice of a Bill on this subject, and also of a Bill to amend the Widows' and Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act. Both of those subjects are consequently out of order in the Debate on the Address.

In deference to your Ruling, I will, of course, pass from that matter; no doubt other opportunities will arise of making a few criticisms upon it. Passing to other items contained in the King's Speech, there is a clear and definite statement in " Labour and the Nation " that there will be a repeal of the Eight Hours Act, and I would ask the House to contrast that with the vague reference that is contained in the Gracious Speech from the Throne, namely, that the Government

To-day we have been more directly concerned with the consideration of the overriding problem of unemployment, with which, we are assured, it will be the foremost endeavour of the present Government to deal. Of course, it has been the foremost endeavour of every Ministry to deal with this problem since the War. I frankly admit that no Government up to the present time has succeeded in finding a remedy. It was the foremost endeavour, as many of us well remember who were in the House at that time, of the last Socialist administration. It will be long before the pathetic apologia of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) altogether passes from our minds. The new Government, certainly, have one advantage in this respect, namely, that they have in charge of this particular matter a right hon. Gentleman possessing the immense plausibility and dialectical skill of the Lord Privy Seal. It has been well said that, although the Lord Privy Seal will no more be able in the long run to produce rabbits out of a hat than was his colleague, he will, owing to his greater plausibility and persuasiveness, for a time almost lead us to believe that he has done so. It is quite clear, however, from the remarks that he made to-day, that, after even three weeks, he is beginning to realise what seems almost a platitude, namely, that there is no permanent cure for unemployment except the provision of permanent work.

I remember well that during the last Parliament it was stated over and over again from the benches opposite that the main cause of unemployment in this country were two—firstly, the decline in our foreign trade and the loss of certain foreign markets, and, secondly, the very remarkable decline in emigration from this country to our Dominions overseas. I should have liked to ask the Lord Privy Seal, if he had been here, whether he agrees with that statement, and whether he is prepared to endorse the suggestion that those are the two main and basic causes of unemployment in this country. If so, I would like to ask him what is there in his scheme that is going to benefit or assist foreign trade, what is there that is going to enable this country to improve and develop its trade with other countries, or to find new markets for British goods? I do not think that in the course of his long speech he made a single reference to that aspect of the matter. It is true that he talked about emigration and about the vast importance, which certainly all of us on this side of the House recognise, of trying to develop in every way we can the resources and potentialities of the Empire; but on the question of foreign trade he had few or no observations to offer. That leads me to say a word on the question of Safeguarding. I feel strongly that the attitude taken up by the Prime Minister yesterday on this subject was most unsatisfactory. He suggested that whether these safeguarding and other analogous duties were to be continued was a question in regard to which we must wait patiently until the Budget is introduced next year—in other words, that it was purely a financial matter to be dealt with in due course by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I suggest that it is nothing of the kind. It is a fundamental question of principle which affects the lives and fortunes of thousands of men and women in this country, and to my mind it is grossly unfair to leave these people in ignorance as to what is to be the fate that will overtake their industries in due course.

In many parts of the country to-day, industries and factories are springing up owing to the encouragement that has been given by the Safeguarding Duties. I feel strongly on this matter, because in my own constituency a large artificial silk factory is at present in course of erection, and will be completed, I hope, in a few months from now—a factory upon which over £1,000,000 is being spent, and which will give employment to 2,000 people. I am assured by those responsible for the erection of that factory and for its finance and development that it would never have been contemplated but for the existence of the duties on silk and artificial silk which were imposed some years ago by the late Government. If that be the position, and of those duties are to be withdrawn, it must undoubtedly affect vitally and directly the future development of that factory. I do not say that, if the duties were withdrawn, all work on the erection of that factory would immediately cease. Obviously, that is not possible, since the plans have been drawn up and the factory itself is in an advanced state of development. But undoubtedly it will very materially affect the future prospects of that factory, and the prospects of future employment in my constituency. That is only one illustration among many which might be given in various parts of the country. That being the position, I do suggest with all the emphasis at my command that it is unjustifiable to leave industries in a state of uncertainty, as is apparently contemplated, for many months to come.

There are other matters in the King's Speech on which many of us would like a good deal of further information. I will content myself with mentioning two, because, again, they happen to be of more than ordinary concern to my own constituency, namely, the references to agriculture and to the fishing industry. We are told that a scheme is being prepared for the improvement of the condition of agriculture, but we are given no hint or indication of any kind as to what that scheme is. Many of us who have had the privilege of representing agricultural districts in this House for a good many years, who have been brought into very close and intimate touch with the problems affecting that vital industry, and who realise, as I think everyone must who devotes any thought or attention to this subject, that the problems affecting agriculture to-day are for the most part, unfortunately, not such as can be remedied by any Government, no matter what its political complexion may be, will naturally await with very special, and I might almost say painful, anxiety, the production of this alleged scheme to which reference is made in the King's Speech. While we know nothing as to what the scheme is to be, it will certainly have to be a very different scheme from the one outlined in the pamphlet called " Labour and the Nation," because if all that the new Government can do is to suggest either the nationalisation of land or bulk purchases of foodstuffs, they will not be putting forward a policy which contains within itself very much hope for agriculture or which is likely to be very attractive to the agricultural community.

Again, with regard to the fishing industry, we find that there is a scheme in preparation for the encouragement of fishing. We should all like, and certainly those who represent fishing constituencies would like, to encourage the fishing industry in every possible way. Again, we shall anxiously await the suggestion as to how it is to be done, because the only way in which you can give real encouragement to the fishing industry will be by the provision of better markets and better prices for British fish, and those are both questions that are really outside the control of any Government. They depend on world economic conditions. There are certain ways, no doubt, in which assistance might be given to the fishing industry, particularly in connection with the development of railway transport. The Government might certainly do a great deal to help in that direction, but otherwise I am again a little sceptical as to what real assistance the new Government will be able to give to the fishing industry.

It must be admitted that the Government cannot suggest that up to the present it has not been given a fair chance. That has been emphasised already in the course of the Debate. It has certainly had a fair chance so far as the Press is concerned. It has had a fair chance in that it has already attracted to itself many distinguished recruits. It is impossible to take up almost any newspaper without being struck with the almost fulsome adulation of the composition of the new Government. We read every day pleasant and ingratiating anecdotes concerning the private life, the physical appearance and the intellectual abilities of the members of the new Government in the columns of the popular Press. The new Government has certainly had a good deal more fair play from the popular Press than was vouchsafed to the late Government. Just as the expectations that hon. Members opposite have deliberately chosen to raise are so great, naturally the disappointment and righteous indignation will be as great if they fail to deliver the goods. If they have to confess, as I suspect in the long run they will have to confess, that most of their grandiose schemes for bringing about the millennium within a comparatively short space of time are unworkable, and that their policy is unrealizable, they need not be surprised if those who have been their dupes turn and rend them just as readily as at the moment they are prepared to stand and cheer.

From the progressive standpoint, there is in the country a feeling that the change that has taken place is undoubtedly satisfactory. There has been throughout the Debate, including the able address to which we have just listened, a strong trend of simply speaking from a cynical point of view as to the fact of the Labour Party not having secured a sufficient majority to do all that it would like to accomplish. I should say, from the standpoint of the Opposition, both above and below the Gangway, it will be a deep-seated satisfaction to them that the Labour Party are not able to accomplish all they would seek to do. The late Government had a powerful majority, but were absolutely adamantine in regard to any pressure put forward by the Opposition to do anything in the matter of meeting unemployment at all. They got their overwhelming majority, not by any appeal to the country on the strength of genuine Conservatism of what is good and the rejection of that which is bad, but by a trick. With their overwhelming force, they were able to utilise a double shift at nights to enable Members to go to theatres and to club rooms and to play at anything they chose, and they went into the Lobby time and again against Resolutions to press forward with something of a substantial nature to meet the demands of the unemployed. The hon. Member says the Labour Government cannot complain of not having a fair chance. We can judge of that by the address to which we have just listened, the whole trend of which was taunting the Government about what they were not going to be able to do.

I am satisfied that what they have promised to do in the King's Speech they will have to do, or else there will be no Labour party after the next election. If they undertake what they have said, so far as unemployment is concerned in particular, it will be a decided contrast to the last Government and to the Liberal party when they had the power in years gone by. If the Government proceed on the lines they have already indicated, there will at any rate be an impetus to industry, there will be a large demand upon the Employment Exchanges for people who for years past have had nothing at all to do and have been driven almost to distraction because the Conservative Government sat hopeless and helpless. If I want any further and better confirmation of what I have said regarding the attitude of the late Government, the reports in the Press as to the post mortem examination of the Conservative party after the General Election go to show that there was something radically wrong with the party, which seems to have been paralysed by its numbers and incapable of tackling anything in the interest of the country at all.

Undoubtedly the Labour party will have their difficulties, but if they do that for unemployment which the Lord Privy Seal has to-day said they are going to do, there will be a decided change concerning the distress which has been so prevalent all over the country. With reference to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) appertaining to trunk roads, I certainly expected that the Lord Privy Seal, particularly when he made a reference to Scotland, would have given a direct indication that the Tay road bridge and the Forth road bridge would constitute a duplicate undertaking for Scotland which would not only enhance the traffic facilities of that country, but be one of the biggest lifts that could be given to the unemployed in the various parts of that country. As far as the Tay road bridge scheme is concerned, it would be well for the Government to keep in view the fact that there is a definite agreement on the part of the council of the constituency, of which I have the honour of sharing the representation, that they will not pay anything towards the cost of the scheme. They maintain—and I think they are right—that that great undertaking is a national necessity. The engineering reports are ready, as we know from a former Minister of Transport, and I am exceedingly disappointed that no reference has been made to that particular scheme, to which the people of Scotland generally are looking forward as one of the big schemes that ought to be included in the Labour Government's programme. We cannot go forward too soon with the development of such schemes. It is well that there should be no squeamishness on the part of the Government. The very fact that the Leader of the Liberal party said here to-day that he would have expected somewhat bolder schemes is a reflection that ought seriously to be considered by the Lord Privy Seal and the Government.

In the forepart of the King's Speech, after the opening paragraph, with which we and the nation at large agree, as to the recovery of His Majesty from his protracted and serious illness, are references in several paragraphs to the great concern of the nation for peace. It was very gratifying to find the Prime Minister quite ready to put the Leader of the Liberal Opposition right on the point that there was to be nothing in the way of a secret arrangement or understanding between the Government of the United State of America and that of our own country. The Prime Minister, no doubt, kept well in view the serious blunder that was made by the late Foreign Secretary in regard to that particular aspect of our international affairs. Personally, I am satisfied that the present Government are intent upon making a big drive towards that great international goal to which every man and woman in this House, and in every public assembly, should be most anxious to give heartfelt support. If there is anything upon which we should agree concerning the frequent advice that we should not enter into party politics, surely, I submit, the question of peace between the nations of the world is not one with which we should in any way gamble from the standpoint of party politics. Everyone in the country is becoming gravely concerned about such facts as those which were cited by the Leader of the Liberal Opposition as to the strength of armaments and as to the difficulty of getting towards arbitration.

An interjection came from this side of the House when the right hon. Gentleman was speaking about the desire of recognising that all war was murder, and that an effort should be made to grip the matter with realism and determination by going forward for full, thorough disarmament on the basis of the Kellogg Pact, which, unfortunately, was signed with reservations. Even with reservations we have a basis on which we ought to build. When the interjection to which I refer was made, the right hon. Gentleman said: " But we cannot get that." I do not like that kind of reference at all, especially when it comes from a man who claims to be a leader. A leader ought not to be able to say anything of the kind. If you are leading, then you should lead in order to secure your object, and then you will attract people to your support.

Will the hon. Member vote any Army or Navy Estimates?

I am prepared to vote thoroughly, and I do not believe in doing anything else.

I understand the hon. Member to say that he will vote that there should be no Estimates either for the Army or the Navy. Is that so?

Certainly. That is where I stand. We moved the rejection of the Navy Estimates, an out-and-out demand, and the Labour party came along and supported us. We are not talking theoretically. We have done this sort of thing in the House before now. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman, but I am speaking about his Leader. There is a great deal to be said about the Leader of the Opposition telling us that the Ministers had begun to think. The Prime Minister answered that his predecessors in office should have done the same thing. The trouble is, that sometimes in our thinking we do not make up our minds to act exactly as we think. On the peace question, I am gravely concerned. If the Leader of an Opposition party in this House says that we cannot get that, what is the good of that right hon. Gentleman standing on the Floor of this House and, at the same time, complaining in regard to disarmament that nothing at all has been done? If the thing is to be done in reality, we must stand for it and lead the people to that position. If we have agreed upon the Kellogg Pact that we will not engage in war, surely we are going to follow that up to its logical application, but if we in this House, through such leaders, are to evade the issue, then it is very natural that leaders in other countries will follow such direction.

Will your Front Bench do it?

My difficulty is that I have no power in controlling my Front Bench. It is also my advantage, because I am able to speak independently of my Front Bench. As a matter of fact, it is not my Front Bench. The Government are doing right in aiming at a better understanding than we have yet had with the "United States of America, and I hope that it will come to fruition and, as the Leader of the Liberal Opposition said, result in the bringing together of the leaders of other nations, so that the matter may be dealt with in an all-round and satisfactory fashion.

In turning to some of the other issues in the King's Speech, I must confess that there is one subject which is particularly disappointing to the temperance party, who have believed very greatly in the Labour party and the prospects of something of a definite nature being undertaken when the Labour party came into office. The announcement now made by the Labour party in office that they are going to appoint a Royal Commission to range over the whole field in regard to this question, is a source of deep dissatisfaction to every thinking man and woman in the Labour party in this House. If that proposal had been made by a Conservative Government, the Labour party would have been firing shot and shell upon the Conservative Government for deliberately shelving one of the greatest of our national questions. It is an old time saying of Royal Commissions that if you want to evade an important issue, appoint a Royal Commission. History in this House establishes that fact. Of all the parties in this House that did not need any Royal Commission on this question it is the Labour party, because they have ranged over the whole field in support of temperance reform. They have carried resolutions of every kind and supported all the proposals ever known for dealing with the drink question. They have investigated the question individually and collectively. Some have experimented in taking drink and some, perhaps, have become experts. Perhaps I ought not to have put it that way. Anyhow, they are specialists.

From every standpoint, if ever there was a political party in this country that has been pledged on the drink question it is the Labour party. They have agreed upon nationalisation of the drink traffic, upon municipalisation, upon State control, upon local option and upon total prohibition. They have favoured every kind of proposal, in addition to the legislation already passed, and now we find them in the sorry plight that they propose to appoint a Royal Commission. It is a sad reflection. Could we conceive the presence in this House to-day of Keir Hardie, the noble founder of the Labour party, which has had such a wonderful record? Could we conceive the presence of Keir Hardie on the occasion of the presentation of the King's Speech by the present Government? The great founder of the Labour party would have been sorry to see the reference in the King's Speech to the Royal Commission to investigate a national question concerning which he inserted a point in the first Labour programme for the first Labour party for Scotland, namely, total prohibition of the liquor traffic. It was taken out.

The party that ought, from the working class point of view in particular, to have stood as a solid phalanx and have declared, plainly and explicitly, that the drink menace is sapping our financial resources, sapping our human vitality, undermining our mental force and capacity, and that they were prepared to deal with it is the Labour party. They ought to have made it known in the Press —they have a small medium in the Press, although it is a creditable Press in itself, and a wonderful paper—that they are prepared effectively to deal with the great menace which is bringing the people into unemployment, and worse than unemployment, into moral mire, and is a disgrace to our national life. The Labour leaders in this House and on public platforms have pointed out the national wastage that results from the drink traffic, and the results upon the working classes, and yet to-day, when the Labour party are in office, we see this miserable spectacle of political cowardice in the Government saying " Let us have a Royal Commission."

The Prime Minister and the Leaders of the Labour party have advised the King to put into His Majesty's Speech, the first King's Speech of a Labour Government, a sentence which, reading between the lines, means this: "Apart from the difficulties of the Opposition, our difficulties are among ourselves. The Labour movement is still loyal to a glass of beer. The Labour movement is still loyal to a dram of whisky. Labour power is still manacled to that which is such a mighty force for degrading the workpeople of this country." I am justified, as a representative of the prohibition party, in saying that in the interests of the workers, in the best interests of the Labour movement and the highest interests of our national life, we ought to be able to stand, whatever may be the results, for the principles of prohibition which we have at heart. Votes! What matter votes? Seats! What matter seats? Character, courage, devotion to principles. Those are the things that our great Leader, our one invincible and incomparable Leader, Christ himself, asks us to observe when we pray that God's will may be done upon earth as it is done in heaven.

Hon. Members in all parts of the House must realise the honest opinions of the hon. Member who has just sat down. He is almost intemperate in his enthusiasm for temperance, but it is a great thing to have an advocate of any subject who is in the bottom of his heart and soul sincere. He has said that the troubles of the Labour party are among themselves. He is more fortunate, because he is a Member of a party of which he is both leader and supporter. He has not the troubles of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Front Government Bench and on the Front Opposition Bench. What he says goes; he has no back-benchers behind him to interrupt the harmony of his thoughts. I want to bring back the Debate from the rather theoretical propositions of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) to the realities of which the Lord Privy Seal spoke in his opening speech this evening. I saw with regret the sentence in the Gracious Speech mentioning unemployment. To me the problem is not one of unemployment but of employment, and I think there is a real and not an academic difference between the two. If one could look on the problem as primarily one of employment and not of unemployment, we should get a different point of view. What we want is not to find temporary jobs for men who are out of work but to find more regular work for those who have got jobs as well as new jobs for the unemployed.

Out of the 1,117,000, according to today's figures, who are on the unemployment roll there are only 607,000 permanently unemployed men. I say "only," not because it is a small number, it is a large one, but because it is half the total. Over 250,000 men and women are on short time, and anyone who knows the industrial districts will know that that quarter of a million does not represent more than a tithe of those who are really on short time in our great industries to- day. I should not be far wrong if I said that there are 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 men and women in this country who do not regularly earn a full week's wages. It is all very well for us to pride ourselves on having a high wage level, but what is the good of maintaining a high wage level if we cannot find continuous work which will pay anything like the nominal rate which the working people earn. It is, therefore, to this side of the problem that I want to devote my few remarks this evening. In his speech yesterday the leader of the opposition said that trade could thrive under tariffs and flourish without tariffs, but that trade cannot flourish with uncertainty. The speech of the Lord Privy Seal today has .done something to remove that uncertainty, and from that point of view I welcome it.

9.0 p.m.

But trade wants much more than the removal of uncertainty before it can really start to move. It wants a steady price level, cheap money and, above all, a reduction of burdens. With regard to a steady price level, what steps can His Majesty's Government, or any Government, take to help it? The primary necessity of a steady price level is steady markets, a knowledge that one has a minimum market to turn to, and from that point of view I regret most sincerely the announcement that Safeguarding is going to be abandoned. I aim not a rabid tariff reformer; I call myself a thinking safeguarder. I have had a certain amount of experience in industry and in agriculture, and I know that in both directions Safeguarding might be of the very greatest possible value. Our first necessity is a steady price level and when we see that during the last 12 months the level of wholesale prices has fallen eight points in this country one realises something of the difficulty which industrialists have to face. The next essential is cheap money. We have not cheap money in this country now, although we have it much cheaper than in many Continental countries. But money has been made more expensive, not by any actions of this country but by the actions of foreign countries over which the Government has no control. Governments have some control over the price of money and I urge that the Government should exercise all their influence in making it cheap.

The Government is going to benefit tremendously by the de-rating scheme of the last Government. They are coming in at a time when trade is reviving and after a fall of over 250,000 in the unemployment figures, and we look with interest to see how that fall is maintained. I say that they are going to get the benefit of our process of de-rating. What can the Chancellor of the Exchequer do by way of a little de-taxing? Can he make any great reduction in the burdens which industry has to bear or can he not? There are three departments which have a primary interest in the question of employment. The first is the Ministry of Labour, whose job it is to sort people out, put round pegs into round holes, suggest the right type of man for the right job and transfer labour as far as they can. Their job, too, is to administer the Unemployment Insurance Act; but their real work has little effect in stimulating trade although the smooth action of the Employment Exchanges is doubtless of tin greatest service. Then there is the Board of Trade, which, to my mind, should be purely an advisory body. It should be a sort of fairy godmother to industry. It should be the trusted ally and friend of everybody, masters and men engaged in industry. It should be a sort of automatic encyclopedia open always to industrialists for information. It should be almost automatic in giving information even before the trader knows exactly what he wants to know. It must be suggestive. I do not think that our Board of Trade is half as active as a similar government body in America. Something may be done in this direction; and I hope it will.

But, above all, the Board of Trade must not interfere. Some weeks ago the Prime Minister, with that happy knack he has of putting the results of that close thought of which we have heard so much into classical English, said that he would have no monkeying with the Labour party. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will see that there is no monkeying with trade and industry in this country. If there is, if any real uncertainty is created, if any ill considered measures are taken, the improvement we have seen during the last few-months may be put back as it was in 1926, when action of quite a different sort was taken. But the man who holds the real key to the industrial situation is, of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who controls the money-bags of the country. He says how much is to be taken out of industry at any time. I would like to tell him—especially in view of the very interesting announcement that was made this afternoon, that the much hated private enterprise was to get assistance in certain cases—how many firms and industries are to-day suffering from the burden imposed on them by the immediately post-War taxation. The Treasury view may foe that provision ought to have been made at the time when profits were earned. Provision may have been made, but taxation had to be paid over a three years' average, and taxation was often paid during years of heavy loss. Even though they may have cleared off the liabilities to the Exchequer, firms and industries are in many cases suffering from the amount of money that has been withdrawn from their coffers.

Would it not be possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer in some way to help those industries and firms? Is it not possible for him to make a loan, on more favourable terms than could be obtained in the open market, to firms for a portion of the amount that they have had to disgorge in taxation since the War? I believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is essentially thrifty. I am sure that if he had untrammelled control of the nation's purse-strings, that purse would not be open very wide. I am sure that, far from initiating any schemes of expenditure himself, he would initiate schemes of economy. But to what extent will he be able to give play to what I believe to be his natural bent? He has carried his point over safeguarding. Can he carry his point over economy? There is a very great difference between the two. When he is dealing with safeguarding he has the sweet persuasiveness of those on this side of the House to account for, but when he is dealing with economy he has the very determined, plain-spoken, hard-handed body of his own supporters to talk to first. There are these two snags that industry has to steer its ship past; between these two rocks the Lord Privy Seal has to steer the ship of State. Unfortunately he is not going to steer it alone.

I do not think that the Prime Minister could have made a better choice than that of the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) for_that position, but, having made that choice, why could he not have given the right hon. Member a free hand? Why did the Prime Minister say that the right hon. Gentleman must have two collaborators, and why did he choose two such collaborators 1 [Interruption. ] I may be misinformed, but I understand that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the First Commissioner of Works are the right hon. Gentleman's collaborators, and I have wondered why these two should have been chosen. It is true that there are two essentials to industry, that you must have those who can produce and those who can consume. Possibly the Prime Minister may have thought that while the right hon. Member for Derby represented the producers, the two others might represent the consumers. There is this great distinction between them, that while one has spent a not unpleasant life in consuming and has spent what was his own, the other is a pastmaster at consuming and spending what was other people's. I am referring to the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), who has been associated for many years with a rather notorious place, and was at one time even Mayor of Poplar, the administration of which borough bas resulted in the coining of a new word—Poplarism.

What does that word stand for? [HON. MEMBERS: " Food for the hungry."] For waste, inefficiency, and squandermania, and if we can afford to-day to have as one of the collaborators with the Lord Privy Seal a man who has been associated for years with that borough council, very well, I say it is a very poor look-out for industry. [HON. MEMBERS: " A poor look-out for you."] It may be a poor look-out for us, but it is also a poor look-out for every one who takes an interest in the country. The Lord Privy Seal has said that he has a heavy task in front of him. I regret that I have to agree with that view, because he has to fight not only industrial depression, not only the opposition of his Front Bench, not only the opposition behind him, but he has to carry the dead weight of two colleagues whom I believe to be as little fitted as any in this House to advise on (matters industrial, and he has my sympathy in his task.

Much as I should like to traverse the whole scope of the Address, I confine myself to one aspect of it only, and that is the paragraph referring to national insurance and pensions schemes which are to come under survey. If one has given any thought at all to the question of insurance, one cannot help recognising how far recent Governments have travelled from first principles. To me insurance always postulates provision for a casualty of some description. Unemployment should be regarded—I am not sure that we have not drifted from the true position—as a casualty. It is a permanent feature too often in recent years with far too many people. In listening to the Debates to-day I could not help feeling that there is too much acceptance of the statement that unemployment is a permanent feature and a sine qua non. I do not share that view.

I gladly accept the challenge of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil), that we should be unworthy of the strong mandate which we have received from the country if we did not bend every energy to deal with this question of unemployment, and so to adjust the legislation as to make the provision of either work or maintenance a certainty. I concur heartily with the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), who has said that we are bound, on the mandate which we have from the country, to deal with this question as a real live issue and as a life and death problem for the masses of the people in this country. We have not, as has been suggested, exploited the position, but we have pointed out to very good purpose that unemployment is too often a matter of rigging the market and attempting to degrade labour. Unemployment is too often deliberately created, so that there should be two men for one job, for the purpose of cutting down wages and worsening conditions. It is suggested that there is not enough wealth in this country to meet the situation, but there is plenty of wealth in the country. When did the employing class and the capitalists of this country employ labour for the love of the thing? No, their philosophy has been, " the more men we employ, the more profits we shall make." It is idle to deny that it has been said more than once that, if the unemployed would only submit to a degradation of the standard of life, either by the lengthening of hours or the reduction of wages, then employment could be found for them. We have to face up to this question and adjust economic conditions, putting the need of employment as a means of life to the community first, and allowing the other economic features to adjust themselves to that situation.

In regard to unemployment insurance, there has been a degradation of the standard of benefits. The recent Act—passed I think in 1927—provided for a 30 weeks rule and introduced a new group of ages at which benefits were depressed. These things seem to be aimed mainly, and all the time, at lowering the benefits available from these funds, and, it must always be remembered, that under the Unemployment Insurance Act, these funds are literally contributions paid in expectation of benefits. So long as that is the position there is no justification for this cutting down of benefits.

Your Minister signed it.

There is no justification for cutting benefits to meet the demands of the late Government in their so-called economy schemes and to provide money for the reduction of Income Tax and other purposes. The purpose for which the Unemployment Act was framed was to provide a measure of maintenance and benefits to meet circumstances over which the beneficiaries had no control. The acid test under the Unemployment Act is that a man must be available for work, capable of work and genuinely seeking work and I hope that in this survey of the question of insurance, there will be a proper understanding and appreciation of the greatest tragedy to be found in industrial England to-day. There are men who are available for work. There is no question about their availability or about their capability and they are undoubtedly genuinely seeking work. But legislation or the administration of legislation in recent yeans has gone on the lines of looking for excuses to withhold benefits rather than for excuses to pay benefits and to meet the needs of these men. There is no greater tragedy in this country to-day than that of the skilled craftsman, the skilled engineer or car- penter, waiting on the pleasure of the employing class. The works gates are closed against him and when he goes to the Employment Exchanges, he is told that, whilst he is qualified, he has been in that condition so long that he is not entitled to benefit. Although the 30 weeks rule is not operative, it was postulated under that rule that if a man was in that condition for a certain period, then, although he had the essential qualifications under the Act, he was to be deprived of benefit.

I hope that in the survey of the various insurance schemes this defect will be remedied, because if there be one solid obligation on any Government, it is to care for and feed those who, owing to circumstances over which they have no control, are in need of maintenance. I hope that this Government will be known as a Government of prompt action, and, while my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal is busy providing schemes and organising means whereby the unemployed may be found work—which is what the normal man and woman require—it is absolutely incumbent upon the Government to provide immediately a generous and a sympathetic administration of the Unemployment Acts so that an adequate measure of maintenance can be provided for these victims of our hideous industrial system, in which on the one hand we see wealth flaunted and on the other hand dire poverty. The task of the Government, in which they have the clearest possible mandate, notwithstanding that they are not in absolutely a majority in this House, is that of dealing with this question of unemployment. I hope that, in the process and as a real advance towards it, they will utilise to a larger and fuller extent the existing insurance schemes not only of unemployment, but also of National Health Insurance and of pensions. There is much that can be done on the bigger question of unemployment if we can deal with many of these other issues and can decasualise labour to a large extent by making proper provision for the aged and better provision for the young people by raising the school age. I urge the Government to give careful consideration to this aspect of the King's Speech and to make it one of their first duties to see that this policy of reducing benefits and appropriating funds, which are really in- surance premiums paid for specific benefits, shall stop at the earliest possible moment.

If the speech we have just listened to is a maiden speech, I should like to congratulate the hon. Member on the fresh enthusiasm he has brought into the political life of the House [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If it is not, I wish the hon. Member had addressed the House with a little more accuracy in his statements and had realised how great has been the responsibility of his own party for some of the complaints which he has addressed to the House.

If the hon. and gallant Member accuses me of inaccuracy, he should state wherein the inaccuracy is contained.

I understand that there is a Report in connection with some of the statements he made which was drawn up by a committee which was presided over by >Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland and was signed by some of the Members of his party. He has forgotten these things. Perhaps I used a rather inaccurate word myself, and I certainly withdraw. If hon. Members opposite, when addressing the House, would think of the responsibility of their own party, it would help the House considerably.

I am aware that the hon. and gallant Member is referring now to what is commonly known as the Blanesburgh Report. The proposals in that Report were far more drastic and sweeping along the lines of which I have complained than those which were finally put to the House owing to the mitigated influence of our Members.

The explanation of the hon. Member has made his position worse owing to the fact that they have signed it and have cut down the money and the finance. I hope he will urge his own Front Bench to bring about a reform which will be satisfactory to those concerned. I make no apology as an Ulsterman for interfering in this Debate. The policy in the King's Speech affects our part of the Empire just as much as it does Great Britain, more particularly with regard to unemployment and Safeguarding. I do not intend to go into the question of the Safeguard- ing of Industries at very great length, because I hope, when that particular matter comes on, one of my colleagues from Ulster will deal with the question more minutely. It is a question on which there has been great disappointment since the King's Speech was read—disappointment is a word that has been used considerably since this Debate started—not only with reference to the industries here, but very keen disappointment will also be felt in my part of the country. We had hoped that, if a Conservative Government had continued in office, Safeguarding would have been applied to our staple industry in Ulster. In the shops of this country thousands of articles are displayed which ought to be made in our country. We honestly believe that had Safeguarding been applied to our industry those shops would have been full of goods made in Ulster, and that after all is one of the cures for unemployment.

I, like other Members, had a contest in my constituency, and eight or nine of the eleven Conservative Members re turned from Ulster had the opportunity of airing anything they had to say at their election meetings. The extra ordinary part of our contests was that we were faced with followers of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and they were all turned down. His party has no following in my part of the world. Fortunately or unfortunately, we have no use for the right hon. Gentleman, and I have no doubt that the same thing would happen again should they intervene once more in elections in our part of the world. I had hoped, when the hon. Member who has just sat down began speaking of widows' pensions, mentioned in the King's Speech, that he would have dealt largely with that subject, because one of the most—

Mr. Speaker has ruled that that subject cannot be dealt with in this Debate, because notice of a Bill has already been given to the House.

I thank you for that guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and it is not my intention to deal with that question to any extent, but from the speeches that I have heard from hon. Members behind the Government Front Bench I look for a greater possibility of the success of the Government from the kicks from behind than from the attacks in front. I can read that into the speeches that have been made. It will go very hard with the Government if all the promises that have been made in the King's Speech are not fulfilled, and it will be a very difficult thing for the Government to retain office for very long unless they carry out those promises. They already recognise the difficulty of their own position. It is within the memory of a great many of us that four or five years ago the Labour party had a scheme in their pocket for the immediate cure of unemployment, yet the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible for this Department wants a little more time than three weeks—and it is only natural that we should give him it—in order to bring about this millennium in regard to unemployment. [An HON. MEMBER: " You had four and a half years."] Yes, and if we only think what has been done during those four and a half years we shall learn something. I have listened to hon. Members who have neglected entirely to benefit by what has been done—the trades that have been helped, the industries that have been organised, and the employment that has been given—because of the Safeguarding of industries, and I am astonished that they should make such a statement.

One could mention a dozen industries that during the past 18 months have been started and made prosperous and in which employment has been increased. [An HON. MEMBER: " Where are they? "] Is it not a matter of common knowledge that in the motor car industry there has been a great increase of employment? Why should it be denied? It is a fact, and you cannot get over it; and there are other trades in just the same position. I have no doubt whatever that if such a policy as that had been extended, we would have had a steady increase in employment, and there is nothing, no matter what scheme may be adumbrated, which will relieve unemployment like this re-starting and geting going of these industries. I realise the great disappointment that has come to us because the Government have taken this attitude, and I have no doubt that when they come to the point of withdrawing the application of Safeguarding they will be assisted by the Liberal Members of the House. That is part of their policy, the old Free Trade shibboleth, of which they cannot get rid. They have been born and bred under that shibboleth, and they cannot get away from it. Therefore, we must not have Safeguarding at any price. That is their policy and it has never got us anywhere. The fact remains, however, that the Safeguarding of industry has to some extent relieved unemployment, and the further extension of that Safeguarding would have been very welcome, I am sure, to the trade and industry of this country.

The Government have decided that it is not to he done, however, and once and for all they have put their foot down. Well, I wish them all success in their attempt, as does the whole country, to cure this awful evil of unemployment. There is no doubt that all sides of this House will welcome any scheme that may be for the relief of unemployment. We are now at the beginning of a new Parliament. Fresh minds have the opportunity of doing something that their predecessors have not been able to do, and they are backed up by fresh minds in the country. There are Members who have never been in this House before, full of enthusiasm, perhaps full of new ideas—I do not know—but I do hope that a result of it all will be the success of the present Government in curing that terrible evil which is devastating our country and raising a nation of boys who eventually may fight shy of work, if they are not trained to do it. It is only human nature, and that is what you have got to deal with. There is the human element that you have to consider, but I wish the Government all success if their efforts will lead them to cure that evil of unemployment.

We have the great advantage, in a Debate on the Address, that we are able to range very widely and to cover broad tendencies of policy and distant prospects, but we purchase it at a heavy price, because it means that our Debate is disjointed to a singular degree, and to one who, like myself, is of a shrinking disposition, and wants to shift the subject of debate from Belfast to remote portions of the globe, it is a difficult task, an uneasy task, even a painful task. It seems to be the only method, and one could wish that it were possible so to direct our discussions as to preserve them in one channel at least for an hour or two. I want your permission, Sir, to direct the attention of the House to a problem which has been dealt with, though slightly, in the Speech from the Throne, and was alluded to in strong terms by the Mover of the Address in reply. I mean the treatment of the subject peoples of our Empire, and while I sympathise most deeply with the speakers who have raised subjects nearer home, while I feel just as strongly and profoundly as they do on the vital nature of the problems of poverty and unemployment, yet I do not wish to lose this opportunity of directing attention to a problem, which is perhaps far greater, certainly far wider in its scope and the number of people that it affects, than many others which bulk much larger in the public eye.

One has only to reflect on the enormous numbers involved to realise the magnitude and the significance of the policy which we adopt towards the subject peoples. One hears a good deal in discussion on Imperial questions of the Dominions, of their problems, and of the white people of the Empire, but I would remind the House that the white people of the British Empire are a mere fraction of the subjects of that Empire. Out of something like 450,000,000, they number less than 70,000,000; for every one white man in the Empire, there are six or more black, brown, or yellow men. The party now in power has a very definite attitude towards the problems concerned in the government of these native races, and it feels strongly the responsibility that rests upon this House to look after the interests of these vast numbers of people who have no means of speaking for themselves, and who, unless we recognise our responsibility towards them, are liable to be misgoverned. I sympathise with what the Leader of the Opposition said in regard to the magnitude of the problem of India and the high place that it must necessarily take in the responsibility of this House, but what he said with regard to the problem of India might equally be said with regard to the problem of our relations towards the so-called backward races of the Empire, in whatever part of the world they may live. There are many on these benches, as there are, doubtless, on other benches, who feel that the problem should not be allowed to be a second-class question, but should be a first-class question, in the Debates and in the consideration of this House.

It ought to be realised, both in this country and throughout the Empire, that the party now in office has a policy which has been long thought out and carefully elaborated, and which represents a distinct break with the past—not a total break, nor a complete breach of continuity—continuity is an ambiguous word —but a new departure, in many respects, and I should like to indicate what are the main lines of the policy in which we believe. It is no small matter that this policy has been enshrined again and again in resolutions adopted by our party conferences and in pamphlets published in fulfilment of those resolutions, and such policies are not carried through without having been discussed up and down the country, and having been carefully considered, not only by the leaders, but by the rank and file; and they represent a considerable amount of conviction and careful examination. Even during the War it was laid down in their memorandum on the War aims that should be held in view, that munity or communities, that native rights in land and in the land's natural and cultivated products should be given secure legal sanction, and should be adequately protected and safeguarded by the home and local Governments. Here, as in many other respects, our policy represents a sharp break with the past, because these principles have not always been observed, and even at the present time efforts are being made to whittle them away. With regard to the labour question, we have laid it down again and again that carefully watched by those now in office who have the responsibility for this situation.

It is not only in East Africa and the territories dealt with by the Hilton Young Commission. There are other parts of the Empire where this problem is coming up. I do not allude so much to India, although there it will arise, of course, when we receive the Report of the Simon Commission; but in other parts of the Empire, such as Ceylon, British Guiana and Jamaica, these problems of self-government are already being considered, and in one form or another ought to occupy, I suggest, a great deal more of the attention of the House than they usually do. This problem has perhaps a special relevance to the questions which have been raised in this Debate as to the relationship between the party on these benches and the parties on other benches. I would like to suggest that on problems of Empire government, as on many international problems, the party on these benches may fairly expect a very large measure of support from those Members who sit on the front benches below the Gangway, because the policy we represent regarding the treatment of native races follows to a very large extent the traditional policy of the Whig and Liberal parties of the past. In so far as it is a policy of justice and humanity, they have claimed in the past to make it especially their own.

There is another aspect in which it harmonises with Liberal conceptions of administration. Our view of the Empire is essentially a free trade and an internationalist view of the Empire. It is not a view which rests upon a narrow conception of a self-sufficing Empire or an Empire distinguished by strong government. We have never been tempted to accept that naive belief in the virtues of strong government which has often been expressed in this House by the Conservative party, and so far our policy is thoroughly in harmony with the traditional policy of Liberalism.

In a certain sense it does go beyond it, because we lay much greater stress upon the economic aspect of the sweating of the black man and the injury which that is likely to inflict upon the white worker. That is an aspect of policy which undoubtedly bulks very large in the Labour view of the treatment of native races. We are not putting forward our policy as a mere matter of justice and humanity, although that is a very great part of it. It is also a matter of self-interest, because our conception of society as a whole leads us to the belief that there is a sharp conflict of interest between the exploiting classes of all countries and the exploited classes of all countries, and that there is a very close bond of common interest between the black, the brown and the yellow worker on the one hand and the white worker on the other hand. That forms a very important aspect of our policy, and although that does not figure largely in the past policies of Liberalism towards the Empire, nevertheless the practical policies to which it leads are thoroughly in harmony with traditional Liberal conceptions. Whatever may be the case with regard to home policy, in matters of Imperial policy I feel convinced that .we may expect support and need not fear factious opposition from those particular benches.

10.0 p.m.

There is another aspect of the matter in which we shall secure the sympathy of many Members apart from these Benches. The policy we believe in with regard to the treatment of the subject races of the Empire is an international policy in the sense that we believe it can be carried on in the closest harmony with the League of Nations and with the machinery of the League of Nations. We have no fear and no suspicion of the international machinery represented by the Mandates' Commission of the League of Nations. On the contrary we believe that we ought to be as ready to accept the obligations provided for under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations—the Mandates' article—in the territories outside the mandated areas as we are in the actually legally mandated areas themselves. If this country declared its readiness to accept the obligations of the Covenant of the League of Nations in all its so-called backward dependencies, we should have a very powerful lever to induce other countries with empires under their control in tropical and subtropical regions to follow our example or, rather, to join with us reciprocally and contemporaneously in accepting these international obligations towards the weaker races of the earth. I believe the acceptance of that international principle would go a very long way to- wards solving one of the greatest world problems of to-day, a problem affecting not simply our whole Empire, but the whole world, the relationship between the advanced and the backward races, a problem which, if judged by the numbers and the interests involved, is, without exception, the greatest problem in the world to-day. We believe in respecting the obligations of mandates in themselves and also the general principle of international obligations which they represent.

I do not want to delay the progress of the Debate by going into details on the innumerable problems to which these principles are or might be applied, but I wish to conclude by saying that I think no hon. Member should be blamed for seizing any opportunity which presents itself of bringing this responsibility for the weaker races of the Empire before the House. The opportunities are not many. There should be no prouder claim on the part of Members of this House than that they are prepared to listen to the cry of the oppressed in any quarter; but it is an even prouder thing to attend to the demands and needs of the oppressed who cannot speak for themselves, who have no machinery of representation, than it is to respond to those of the oppressed who can, and rightly do, speak for themselves. I believe that in the dark underworld represented by the so-called backward races there are forces moving which are of great significance for the future, and on which much depends. There are eyes watching our actions, if there are not tongues speaking, and it is by our apprehension of these great and urgent problems and by our sense of our responsibility for them that we shall be judged at the bar of history, and possibly judged severely. Certainly we shall be judged by this more than by many other questions which at present bulk larger in the public eye.

I wish to express the pleasure it has given me to listen to the speech of the hon. Member for Elland Division (Mr. C. Buxton) and on the subject of the development of the Empire I am sure we shall always be glad to hear, what he has to say. I rise to offer a few observations with regard to certain clauses in the King's Speech. The capitalist system has been criticised by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and other hon. Members. Far be it from me to affirm that the capitalist system has not left many things undone which it ought to have done, and there are many things for which the capitalist system must take the blame. Nevertheless, I think it is only right that it should be pointed out that the capitalist system in the United States has produced the highest standard of living that the world has ever known for the greatest number of people. We are all aware that in this country much remains to be done in regard to our slums and unemployment, but I believe that the capitalist system over a large number of years has produced an improved standard of living for the masses of the people.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil), in a remarkable speech, said one very apposite thing, namely, that the only way of dealing with unemployment was to increase the general wealth of the country as a whole. I believe that the only solution of this problem and many other problems is not to concentrate so much on the question of redistribution of wealth as upon the production of wealth. I cannot see how anyone can fail to be better off by a greater production of wealth. [HON. MEMBEKS: "Oh!"] After all, the distribution of wealth is affected by a great number of factors to-day. What are trade unions for if they are not to exact the best possible wages that can be exacted in any particular industry. If the Government are going to spend money, let them spend it by wise investments in order to produce greater wealth by the country as a whole.

I do not complain or quibble at the turn of the tide in politics during the past few weeks. There are many people who pay lip service to democracy, and, when the people return a Conservative Government, some people believe that the nation is wise and that when it returns a Socialist Administration they believe that that is a fatal form of Government. I intend to carefully watch the policy of the present Government, and it is one of the consolations of defeat to be able to criticise your opponent. We have heard to-day a good deal about the electoral representation of this House, and no doubt we shall hear a great deal more in the future. I do not see how any impartial observer could claim, for instance, that justice was done in the case of Surrey which was represented by 12 Conservatives while Glamorganshire was represented by 20 Socialists.

What was the proportion in 1924?

Far be it from me to say that anomalies did not exist there in 1924, but I think the hon. and gallant Member will find if he inquires that I have been a supporter of a society which has issued pamphlets telling us how inadequately we are represented. I do not think that the present system, as illustrated by the examples which I have given, could possibly be defended on any lines of fairness or logic. Logic has never been one of the things upon which we have prided ourselves. The French pride themselves on this characteristic, and it is interesting to know that during the last few years the French, who were formerly elected under a system of representation known as scrutin d'arrondissement, which is a form of proportional representation, have in the past few years reverted to a system known as scrutin de liste, which is almost similar to the representative system which we enjoy in this country. I hope the party opposite will consider seriously some alteration in the present electoral system of this country.

I know that the subject of Safeguarding is going to be dealt with under a special Amendment. I have myself always been brought up as a Free Trader, and I believe that in an argument on this question the Free Trader usually gets the benefit of it. We must remember, however, that the system has changed. But there is one argument to which I have never been able to find a satisfactory answer, and it is that the labour conditions in this country and in foreign countries are different, and consequently the same principles cannot be fairly applied. You have not in this country the same freedom of labour as you have abroad, but I believe that you can by international arrangement or convention do something to equalise the standard of labour as well as the conditions of labour prevailing throughout Europe. On the other hand, I believe it is essential that you should at the same time have up your sleeve some protective power to provide security for our own people in regard to a relatively decent standard of labour.

That leads me to the question of the Washington Convention, which I understand the Government have decided to ratify with the least possible delay. Only a few months ago I made in this House several observations on that Convention, and on that occasion I was mildly critical of the then Government, and of all Governments since 1919, because, after all, it i.3 10 years since that Convention was originally produced, and, in my opinion, all Governments that have been in office in this country since that date have to bear some portion of the blame for not having seen to it that it was fully ratified. This country stands to gain more than any other country when that Convention is ratified. In the majority of industries in this country, the terms of the Convention are already carried out in practice, and the only difficulty which has arisen in getting it ratified is that we cannot be certain that other nations will interpret its clauses in the same manner in which we interpret them, and, unless they do that, every other country stands to gain and we remain exactly as we were and as we are to-day. I hope and trust that the present Government will be> able to get the Convention ratified as soon as possible, because I believe that these international conventions, supported and encouraged by the International Labour Office, do something to produce economic unity in Europe, and I am certain that every step which produces or tends to produce economic unity in Europe does as much, if not more, to consolidate peace even than the question of disarmament.

With regard to foreign affairs, we understand from the King's Speech that the Government intend to resume diplomatic negotiations with the Soviet Government shortly. I know that the subject of Russia always arouses considerable passion, and I intend to be as non-provocative as possible, but, as the Government have decided to resume negotiations, what we are interested in is not a discussion of the ethics of the matter, or whether it is a wise policy or not, but in knowing upon what terms the resumption will be given, and I think that that is a perfectly reasonable attitude. Recognition, or, rather, resumption of diplomatic negotiations by this country, is a trump card for the Soviet. It is a trump card that we can play, and I do ask the right hon. Gentleman who will conduct these negotiations if he will bear in mind the cases of those many hundreds, nay, thousands, of British citizens who have lost, in many cases, practically everything they possessed in the debacle that has taken place in Russia. The Chancellor of the Exchequer only the other day ex pressed sorrow for those British citizens who had invested in French loans, and who, through the alteration in the value of the franc, had lost one-fourth of their money—

Four-fifths!

I beg pardon; they only got one-fourth of their money. I trust that the sympathy which was extended to those who had put their money into France will be extended in an even greater degree to those who put their money, perfectly legitimately—in many cases their hard-earned savings, their life's savings—into various Russian loans. I hope also that the cases of those British citizens whose property has been destroyed, and who to-day, legitimately and rightly as I think, ask for some form of compensation, will be considered, because I can assure hon. Members that I know personally many of them who to-day are only enabled to exist by charity.

With regard to the question of the withdrawal of the British troops on the Rhine, the party to which I belong has been accused in the past—unjustly accused, I think—of being too much under the influence of France. I do not think it will promote either international or European good will or peace if the present Government allow by their action, though perhaps they may be wrongly judged, the inference to get about that they have flung themselves out of the arms of France and into the arms of Germany. After all, many of us on these benches have advocated for some years the withdrawal of our troops from the Rhine, but I have always understood that it was the wish of the Germans that as long as the French troops remained there, ours should remain as well, because they preferred to negotiate with our representatives as well as the French. If they have changed their opinion, there is nothing to prevent the immediate withdrawal of our troops from the districts that they occupy to-day. We hope on these benches that that era of peace abroad and prosperity at home about which we have heard so much during the past few weeks will take place, and, if and when it does, it will be no small compensation to us to realise that that period and those conditions of peace and prosperity are largely, if not entirely, due to the fact that we have enjoyed 4j years of sound, sane Government.

In rising to address the House for the first time, I would ask for that indulgence which is usually given to a new Member. I hope this Parliament is going to last as long as its predecessor. I can see no reason why the progressive parties in the House should not inarch together along the same road for the next four or five years without coming to the parting of the ways. It seems to me that we ought to make this a great radical Parliament, and the opportunity is offered to us to-day. The Prime Minister seemed to make an appeal yesterday for the co-operation of all the Members in the House. It would be a very nice thing, of course, if that were possible. I doubt whether it is likely to receive for long the support of Members opposite above the Gangway, bat there is no reason, as far as I can see, why we on these benches should not co-operate in a friendly, reasonable way with Members on the other side to carry out all that common ground which we both want to see accomplished. May I for a moment look through the Gracious Speech to see how far it may be possible to envisage something of the kind I have indicated. First of all, I should like to congratulate the Prime Minister most whole-heartedly on the splendid initiative that he has shown in foreign affairs. I hope he is going to place the country once more in a position of world leadership instead of cutting a pitiable figure in the rear, as happened under the late Administration. There are some losses, no doubt, in not having the late Government in office. We shall not have an opportunity of seeing, for instance, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer going to Geneva, attending a meeting of the Disarmament Commission, assisting in the framing of regulations for the proper conduct of war, with special reference to firing under the white flag.

With regard to Free Trade, there is nothing we can criticise in what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday. I am sure he appreciates the enormous importance of making it clear to the world at the earliest possible moment that we in this country are going to support the recommendations of the Economic Conference of the League of Nations not only with our lips, as the late Government did, but by our actions. In that way, we shall best strike a blow for good trade and for our exports. With regard to unemployment, surely there is no reason why we cannot march together. I confess to being a little disappointed with the Lord Privy Seal's sketch to-day. I am afraid that I am rather more advanced than the programme he put forward. No doubt, in the course of time, when he has had fuller opportunities, he will go very much further, and we all hope so. I would make this suggestion, and I do so in all sincerity. The Liberal party in their years of distress have been thinking pretty hard. They have been thinking about the way of dealing with unemployment, and, as is well known, they have arrived at certain conclusions. I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will not be above accepting such advice and assistance as we are ready and willing to give. I am very glad to see from his indication that he is willing to do that.

With regard to those who are engaged in industry, surely there is an opportunity for us to proceed together to do a great deal to limit and restrict the existing despotism of capital, which cannot be allowed to go on, to introduce a new era of partnership in industry, to make the worker a real partner with the employer in the conduct of industry and in the profits of industry, too. On the question of the mines, surely there is enough to keep us occupied for the whole of this Parliament in carrying into effect the recommendations of the Samuel Commission which included most of those things, such as the reduction of hours, that we want to see carried out. I should have thought that it was possible to introduce a Measure dealing with the question of electoral reform which, on the one hand, would develop proportional representation, over certain areas, at any rate, in this country, and on the other hand restrict the expenditure of money and abolish university representation those two remnants of privilege, and the plural vote. I hope that we shall be able to put through a Measure on those lines. I am told by some—I hope I am misinformed—that there is yet another matter in the minds of certain Members of the Government to which no reference is made in the Gracious Speech, and that certain Members are very anxious above almost everything else for the final destruction and extinction of the Liberal party. I do not know if that is so. I hope not. If it is true that they are going to devote a great deal of their time to that, their life will be a short and not a particular merry one,

The majority of us have been sent here to get things done and to get them done on very different lines from what has taken place during the last four or five years. We must not allow the antipathies of various individuals and the idiosyncracie3 of this or that statesman to interfere with the accomplishment of that great task. I would plead for real friendly and loyal co-operation between hon. Members over there and hon. Members on these benches here. No doubt hon. Members above the Gangway would be very sorry to see this; none the less, I hope that it will take place. After all, we have it in our power to transform the lives of hundreds of thousands of our fellow-citizens at the present time and to bring a new message of hope not only to this country but to the whole civilised world. Let us seize this great opportunity, and let it not be said that owing to quarrels amongst the reapers this golden harvest of promise has been destroyed and trampled underfoot.

I hope that the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) will believe me when I say that I think he has delivered one of the most charming speeches that this House has heard, and under rather difficult circumstances, considering the kind of speech that he has delivered from those benches. It must have required a good deal of courage, and I congratulate him very much. There is no intention, I think, on the part of anyone here to embark on a vendetta to destroy hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on those benches. What we do expect to accomplish, especially after the speech of the hon. Member, is that we shall destroy them by the process of absorption. If more hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are imbued with the hon. Member's spirit, I think we shall be very happy and successful together in this Parliament.

The House has been mostly concerned with the speech of my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal. A good deal of criticism which has arisen in various quarters of the House has been due to the fact that hon. Members have forgotten that the right hon. Gentleman's task concerns employment and does not concern so much the question of treating the unemployed at this particular moment. I think it was the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer who gibed at us, because he said that we had always advocated work or maintenance. From the first day that Keir Hardie raised the banner of the unemployed in this House, I may say, without fear of contradiction, that every one of us has always stood for work rather than maintenance. We put stress on the provision of work. Now, for the first time in the history of this House and the first time in the history of any Government, the Labour party has set apart one Minister and given him the task of trying to unify and co-ordinate the scheme of public, municipal and other work that can be organised.

When my right hon. Friend's speech is read to-morrow and people have had time to think—we hear a great deal about thinking—they will agree that the speech proves that the right hon. Gentleman has not only been thinking but has been acting, and acting in a very speedy manner, during the last couple of weeks. It is useless to imagine and nonsensical for hon. or right hon. Gentlemen to attempt to persuade anyone that my right hon. Friend could have brought a clear-cut scheme to the House this afternoon, covering every single activity that he hopes to embark upon. What he has done to-day has been to give a preliminary sketch of what he hopes to accomplish. I hope that my hon. Friends on this side of the House will remember that he has not dealt with any of the questions concerning Employment Exchanges, relief, housing, slums, the raising of the school age, pensions, or with the tremendous problem of the mines. This House could devote a considerable portion of its time to that question alone, but the reason it cannot be discussed now is due to the fact that negotiations are going on as to what action shall be taken to deal with a situation which everyone agrees is the most serious that this or any other Government will have to tackle. The policy of the late Government was positively to do nothing. The right hon. Gentleman made no disguise about it. They adopted the old doctrine of leaving it alone. I have heard the right hon. Gentleman in this House saying that during a process of change such as is now taking place in industry through out the world, somebody must suffer—

indicated dissent.

The right hon. Gentleman on two occasions said that, and I reminded him of it on one occasion and he agreed that my reminder was true. I also reminded him that we were living in entirely different conditions to those which followed 1834, because our population now was educated and enjoying universal suffrage, and such a population would not sit down and suffer in the midst of plenty. The late Government from the time of the passage of the Economy Act set itself out to stop all schemes of public assistance in the shape of public works and to cut down public assistance through the Employment Exchanges and the Poor Law. We do not intend, and I say this on behalf of my right hon. Friend, to satisfy the fantasy of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that our policy is to keep people in idleness. Our policy is, so far as it is humanly possible, to provide them with work, and the beginnings of that policy were outlined in the proposals made by my right hon. Friend this afternoon.

Hon. Members opposite have always persuaded themselves that the Labour party were a set of people who could not produce any scheme which would bear examination. The Debate this afternoon has proved conclusively how disappointed they are that we have not satisfied them in this respect, and we have had the exhibition of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer trying to give lessons in consistency. If there is one right hon. Member who is a political chameleon it is the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), for he has been everything in turn and nothing long. If the Labour party occupies these Benches too long it is perfectly certain that the right hon. Gentleman will turn Labour. It is impossible for him to live very long without being in a Government. I have followed his political history and that is my honest conclusion about it. He may be quite honest, it may be that his mind works that way, but he has no claim which gives him the right to charge other people with wanting to get into office and power by being inconsistent in their opinions. I should like to know what his real opinions are about anything. Being, as he said on one occasion, one of the governing class of this country, he is very angry because he realises that the Labour party is going to keep him out.

Another thing I would ask right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Did any of us say that in three weeks we would settle the unemployment problem? Has any of us at any time said that we could do it? The Prime Minister knows full well that my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Johnston) moved a Motion asking that there should be a Committee set up representative of all parties in the House in order to try to deal with the problem. To-night we are criticised because we ask for the cooperation and support of right hon. and hon. Members opposite. We are asking from them only what we offered to their Government when it was very much stronger than we are, and when we were in apposition. We wanted to get a nonparty committee, because we wished to believe that the men who came here were really in earnest in seeking to find a solution of the unemployment problem. Now that we are a minority Government we come to the House again—I do anyhow—and say that if this Parliament would settle down and try to discover how to use the tremendous natural resources of our own country and the natural resources of the Empire outside, we would be able to solve the problem. But if right hon. and hon. Members opposite are simply going to waste their time and the time of the House in trying to score off anyone on these benches on the questions that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt with, or even the questions that the Noble Lord the Mem- ber for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) dealt with at the end of his speech, then the country will be entitled to say that they have put party above the interests of the country and above the interests of the unemployed.

That is a view that I hold very strongly after hearing most of the speeches from the Opposition Benches. Is not this true—that in three weeks my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal has been able to put before the House schemes and proposals which, when carried out, will very considerably enhance the means of increasing the trade and industry of the country? The ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer said in effect, " Here you are, you people who are Socialists; you are going to help forward private enterprises and to back up that which you attack." He knows perfectly well that that is nothing new. He ought to know, as every thinking man and woman in the country knows, that the Labour party is a party distinct and separate from any other Socialist party in the world, in so far as it has pinned its faith to bringing about Socialism through constitutional action and constitutional development, municipal and national everywhere. There has been no secret about that. For something like 40 years of my life I have been helping to do the Cinderella work of the community, but I have also found time to advocate something which I believed would ultimately get rid of the need for that Cinderella work, and get rid of the poverty-stricken conditions under which people have to live.

Whatever right hon. and hon. Gentlemen may say to-day there is no Member of this House, man or woman, who can stand up and advocate anything, not of a Socialist character, which is for the benefit of the nation as a whole. The proposals even of the Conservative party, for dealing with electricity were Socialistic proposals. They were proposals which men like Mr. Gladstone and the late Lord Salisbury would have spurned and at which they would never have looked for one moment. I do not blame hon. Members opposite for doing that. They were obliged to do it because industry cannot be carried on without national support, national credit and national funds. To say otherwise is to deny the facts of the case. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping said that if you take money from one source and use it on public works you are really stopping private enterprise and private development. But the party opposite took £30,000,000 of credit to develop a great national scheme of public electricity. Why did they do that? Why should the nation be called upon to do that? I appeal to any man who was in this House even 20 years ago to say if such a proposal would not then have been regarded as unthinkable. But you had to do it because the world does not stand still. The economic development of the world goes on, and you have to face up to it. For the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping to waste his time in talking about consistency and so on, is really insulting the intelligence of the House of Commons.

I remember when the right hon. Gentleman was called upon to take in hand a piece of work under the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). That was the establishment of the Employment Ex changes—a most Socialistic experiment. It meant the State coming in to deal with unemployment. That is what the Tories said—that it was the State coming in to interfere with the free flow of competition. But the right hon. Gentle man was the champion of the proposal and he talked down and hammered down the opposition to it, and would not have any truck with those who criticised it. Then to-night he goes hack on himself. He comes forward and tells us that if my right hon. Friend or anybody else uses credit to start the unemployed on public work that in itself will stop other developments. What rubbish that all is. It is as nonsensical as the old doctrine of the wages fund. People used to say that there was a certain amount of money for wages, and that when you had shared it out you could not have any more. Only people in Bedlam would believe that sort of nonsense now, and in a few years' time only people in Bedlam will talk about ruining credit by using credit for public purposes. You are bound to do it and you have done it in the case of sugar beet and the private company which is developing the Kent coalfields. For you people to stand up—

I think, at this stage of the Session, the right hon. Member would be setting a good example if he addressed the Chair.

I am afraid that is a failing which I do not grow out of, and I apologise. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite are the last people in the world to come forward and talk the arrant nonsense which they have done. I want to calm the feelings of hon. Gentlemen opposite. My right hon. Friend is not going to hand out money here and there to everybody. That is the sort of rubbish which hon. Gentlemen opposite read in their newspapers and in the pamphlets during the election. They know perfectly well that what we are proposing to do is to spend this money on definite works of public utility. When it conies to giving credit to private people or public utility companies to help them to get started, we are only following the example of hon. Gentlemen opposite. When we come to do it, the people who decide it will not be a committee of ourselves. It will be a committee of responsible business men— [Laughter]. The hilarity of hon. Gentlemen opposite is a tribute to their want of thought. They ought to know that even a borough council, or small town council, when undertaking a piece of municipal enterprise, employs the best brains it can find in order to carry it out successfully. We shall engage the best brains to assist us in carrying out this work. If we had our way, we should probably do it a little differently, but the point I am making is—and there is nothing extraordinary, or funny about it, or anything-to get so excited about—is simply that, in giving credit or in assisting firms and others who require assistance, we propose to do it in this way. Everybody in this House wants to give assistance in some way to help industry. We want, if possible, to see new industries started in places where the unemployment is most dire and terrible.

The other thing that I want to say is this, and this again will bring forth a hilarious outburst from the ranks opposite, I expect. We want everyone who has a contribution to make towards the palliation- at least of this terrible difficulty to help us, whether they are individuals or whether they are municipali- ties. We do not mind who they are; we shall welcome help from whatever source. In the two or three minutes that I have left, I want to say that I suppose that, in the position in which I find myself, I shall be one of the persons who will be considered most inconsistent and most compromising of all my colleagues. I want to make just this one personal statement. I have been agitating the question of unemployment with my friends for nearly 40 years. For good or for evil—most of my opponents think for evil, I suppose—I have been assisting in the development of a policy in regard to unemployment in the East End of London. I have served on a Royal Commission dealing with this question for 3½ years, I have served on committees, and I have served in this House.

I know, as a Socialist, that there is no real solution of this problem except a very drastic change in the social and industrial conditions of our country. I am not stupid enough to think that that can ever come in a night. I pin my faith to democracy, I pin my faith to an educated democracy, and I believe that that democracy is coming into being. I believe that what we are trying to do now—small, if you like, as it is, pitiable, if you like, as it is—if we are honestly trying to do our best, that is all that you can ask of us or of any other men, but I believe that what we are doing, the fact that we are sitting here and trying to put these schemes forward, will bring the day a little nearer when poverty and unemployment and most of the things that accompany them will be done away with. But I want to say to everybody in this House, especially those on the other side, do not try to prove too much, do not try to make the people outside believe that nothing can be done. If you do, you will land yourselves into trouble, and if it is said there is no fear of revolution, I say this to this House, that nations and empires have been pulled down by economic decay just as much as by destruction from the out-side. Our country is passing through a very terrible crisis. I want, in these closing years of my life, to help, whoever will help with me, to try and build up something that will give us a better England because man-made poverty no longer exists.

Motion made, and Question, " That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.— [Mr. Kennedy.]

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.