Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 229: debated on Thursday 4 July 1929

House of Commons

Thursday, July 4, 1929

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

Private Business

Committee of Selection

Sir Henry Cautley, Mr. Charles Edwards, Colonel Gretton, Mr. Frederick Hall, Mr. Thomas Henderson, Mr. William Nicholson, Major Owen, Mr. Allen Parkinson, Mr. David Reid, Sir Leolin Forestier-Walker, and Mr. Cecil Wilson nominated Members of the Committee of Selection.— {Mr. Kennedy.]

Standing Orders (Select Committee)

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte, Mr. Batey, Mr. William Bennett, Captain Bourne, Mr. Broad, Mr. Ernest Brown, Mr. McEntee, Major-General Sir Newton Moore, Mr. Annesley Somerville, Mr. Wallhead, and Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan nominated Members of the Select Committee on Standing Orders.—[ Mr. Kennedy. ]

Provisional Order Bills

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

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

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Shop Hours (Dundee)

:I desire to present a petition from 104 fruit dealers in Dundee asking that the Shops (Hours of Closing) Act, 1928, be amended to give the same extended hours of opening as are allowed for confectionery, namely, 9.30 on weekdays and 10 o'clock on Saturdays instead of 8 o'clock on weekdays and 9 o'clock on Saturdays.

Oral Answers to Questions

Questions

Naval and Military Pensions and Grants

asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. Stafford, 73, Victoria Street, Barnstaple, widow of Frederick Charles Henry Stafford, late of the Wessex Royal Engineers, signal company, who has been refused a pension under Article 17b of the Royal Warant; and whether this widow's claim can be admitted?

:Mrs. Stafford is not eligible for a pension under the Royal Warrant as she married the late soldier after he had been removed from duty on account of the contraction of the tuberculosis of which he subsequently died. The circumstances of the case were, however, considered to justify the grant of a modified pension under special sanction, but I regret that no higher award can be made.

Metropolitan Police (Disciplinary Appeals)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the number of appeals that have been made by police officers to the Home Secretary from the decisions of the Metropolitan Police Disciplinary Board during the three years ended to the last convenient date, and in how many cases the decisions of the Disciplinary Board have been varied?

The Police (Appeals) Act came into force on 29th July, 1927. Since then 13 members of the Metropolitan Police have appealed to the Secretary of State. In nine cases the appeal has been dismissed and four are still under consideration.

:Are shorthand notes taken of the original evidence given before the Disciplinary Board, so that the right hon. Gentleman has a full note of the evidence?

:That point is not included in the question. It is a technical matter, and I should like to have notice.

Disturbance (Caxton Hall)

asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the recent disturbances which occurred at a meeting of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, held at Caxton Hall, Westminster; if any request was made to the Metropolitan police authorities to provide adequate police protection on this occasion; and whether any police officers, and, if so, how many, were specially detailed for this duty?

:Yes, Sir. In response to the original request for police assistance, 12 police were sent, and, subsequently, on receipt of a further message, 17 more.

:Was the statement made that repeated requests for police protection were ignored?

asked the Home Secretary whether he has received representations in regard to the disturbances at the meeting of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, at Caxton Hall, on 20th June, and the alleged refusal of the police officers present to turn out the organised disturbers of the meeting unless the entire hall were emptied; whether any instructions were given to the police officers in question by his Department; and will he consider taking some steps whereby public meetings called for lawful purposes shall receive the necessary police protection to carry out the purposes for which such meetings are convened?

:The whole incident is under investigation by the Commissioner of Police, and I should prefer to have his report before saying anything further about it. If the hon. Member will repeat his question in a week's time, I hope I may then be in a position to reply more fully.

:Have any representations been made to the authorities of the College as to these unruly students?

Roman Catholic Schools

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Roman Catholic community suffer certain disabilities with regard to the structural cost of their schools; and whether it is the policy of the Government to redress their grievances in this respect?

His Majesty's Government is aware of the demand put forward by some of the Catholic community for building grants towards Catholic schools. The subject is part of a much larger one, namely, the position of the non-provided schools, as regulated by the compromise of 1902. The position of His Majesty's Government is that, if the arrangement of 1902 is to be varied, it can only be after some general agreement has been reached among all the main interests concerned.

:In view of the dilapidated state of many of these non-provided schools of all sects, is it a subject which could be justifiably referred to the Lord Privy Seal for his consideration?

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, since the compromise, the position has been very radically altered by the action of himself and his predecessor, and may we be assured that the matter is receiving attention and that a compromise is being sought?

:In view of the urgency of this matter and the need for something being done, will not the right hon. Gentleman consider offering the Catholic population the Scottish settlement as a basis for acceptance?

:Is the right hon. Gentleman's answer tantamount to a refusal to deal with the matter, or an invitation that representations should be made to him upon it?

:If the hon. Member reads the answer he will see that it is not an evasion.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the teaching profession and the great majority of the education authorities are against any proposed change?

:In view of the importance to our educational system of the non-provided schools, and their reliance upon the practical assurances which have been given by the late Government, will the right hon. Gentleman take it into his most earnest consideration and make an early announcement of his intentions with regard to this very important matter?

Public Health

Refuse Dumps (Iver and Little Britain)

asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to constant complaints from the Iver district of Buckinghamshire regarding the dumping of London refuse at Iver and Little Britain, in Middlesex; that Mr. Daws, the public cleansing inspector of his Department, reported last March that he had found these complaints on local investigation to he well founded; and whether he will see his way to take action to mitigate the nuisance from smoke, smells, flies, and rats, pending the Report of the departmental committee recently appointed to recommend permanent measures?

:I am aware of these complaints. I understand that in one case, where the district council have adopted special by-laws, conditions have improved. In the other case, the local authority have not adopted similar bylaws. I have no legal power myself to deal with particular cases of this kind; but where there is a nuisance or danger to health, the local authority can move. The general problem is now being considered by the Committee to which the hon. Member refers and any comprehensive measure must await their report.

:Has the right hon. Gentleman no powers to force local authorities in London to see that their contractors dispose of their refuse in a proper manner?

:I have no power to deal with contractors. I have power to declare certain local authorities in default, but that is an extreme measure which could only be applied where there is overwhelming proof of deliberate intention on the part of a local authority to evade its responsibility.

Milk (Grading)

asked the Minister of Health whether in view of the frequent misleading of the public by the present system of grading milk as I. Certified, II. Grade A (Tuberculin Tested), III. Grade A, and IV. Pasteurised, he will alter these designations to Grades A, B, C, and D so that the purchaser may more easily recognise which is the highest grade of milk?

:I will bear the hon. Member's suggestion in mind, but to give effect to it would involve the introduction of legislation which I cannot contemplate during the present Session.

River Thames (Pollution)

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the pollution of the River Thames, near Eynsham, which resulted in the poisoning of fish in that neighbourhood; whether he can make any statement on this matter; and whether he will take immediate steps to abate this pollution in view of the menace to the water supply of Oxford?

:I understand from the Conservators of the River Thames, who are responsible for the flow and purity of the waters affected, that the occurrence referred to by the hon. and gallant Member was due to an exceptional combination of circumstances which is not likely to recur. The Conservators also inform me that samples of water taken in the vicinity since the occurrence and analysed are satisfactory, considering the present climatic conditions, and that there is no evidence in them of anything injurious to fish or the water supply.

:Can the right hon. Gentleman state what is the cause of this pollution? Has he any knowledge on that part of the question?

:Yes, Sir. The trouble arose in connection with the Eynsham Sugar Factory. A ditch full of foul matter was inadvertently discharged, owing to the lifting of a sluice by some unauthorised person, into the river and this poisoned the fish. It is quite certain that no such occurrence is likely to happen again. It was altogether a peculiar incident which we may rest assured will not recur.

Industrial Properties (Assessments)

asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the fact that many local authorities are ruling that hereditaments used for finishing processes cannot be listed as industrial properties; and whether he will consider the desirability of an amendment to the 1928 Act to the effect that relief could be granted to those hereditaments in which the finishing end of a manufacturing process is carried on, as long as there is no change in the ownership of the products as between the actual manufacturing hereditament and the packing hereditament?

:Yes, Sir, I am aware of the position as indicated by the hon. and gallant Member, but I cannot undertake to introduce legislation to amend the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, in pursuance of which the decisions referred to have been given.

:Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that there are many injustices, and will he not consider bringing in an amending Bill to do away with them at the earliest possible date?

:The hon. Member knows I am fully aware of that, but I am mindful of the shortage of time and the difficulty of introducing legislation on all questions on which I happen to disagree.

:Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Liberal party would support him?

:Are we to understand that contrary to the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman in the last Parliament he has no intention of amending the Act?

Housing

Statistics

asked the Minister of Health the number of houses under construction, and the number authorised but not started, under the Housing Acts of 1923 and 1924, respectively, on 1st May, 1st June and 1st July?

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

:The figures at present are rising, because of the desire of local authorities to take advantage of the present subsidy, which under present arrangements will come to an end at the end of this month.

Following is the answer:

1st May,1929.

1st June,1929.

Number of house under construction:—

1923 Act

31,261

33,941

1924 Act

31,149

34,549

Number of houses authorised but not started:—

1923 Act

55,220

50,631

1924 Act

30,238

27,365

The figures for 1st July, 1929, are not yet available.

Loans

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what limitations, if any, are placed upon the advances to local authorities from the Public Works Loan Commissioners for the erection of houses to let under the Housing Acts and also for the purpose of making advances to prospective purchasers of houses under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts and the Housing Act, 1925?

:As the answer is long and rather technical, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

There are no limitations except those necessary to secure that Government loans go to those authorities least able to borrow for themselves. Loans may be made by the Public Works Loan Commissioners under the Housing Acts to any local authority having a rateable value not exceeding £200,000 in England and Wales and £250,000 in Scotland. Loans may be made to authorities, other than county councils, with a rateable value over these limits up to the equivalent of half the gross sales of Savings Certificates in the area during the preceding 12 months. County councils may borrow a year in arrear for housing purposes up to the amount available in their area under the arrangement I have described relating to Savings Certificates, less the amount of the loans made to other authorities in the area. There are no limitations on loans under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts.

Inter-Allied Debts (France)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether His Majesty's Government has made any representations to France with regard to the payment of French debts to this country; and, if so, whether he will state their nature?

:The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part, therefore, does not arise.

:Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer any information as to when France proposes to ratify the agreement for the repayment of loans?

:I have no information beyond what, I suppose, most of us have seen in the newspapers. The hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that this question of war reparations and debts has recently been the subject of examination by an expert Committee. The Report of that Committee is now before the Government. An International Conference will be held for the consideration of that report, and meanwhile I would prefer to make no further statement.

:May I ask, if France does not immediately ratify this settlement, whether the right hon. Gentleman proposes to repudiate it?

:I have answered that question in the last observation I made, namely, that at the present time I am not prepared to make any further statement.

Empire Marketing Board

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the economies that might be effected by closing down the activities of the Empire Marketing Board, in whole or in part?

:While I do not intend to exclude from my review of public expenditure any practicable economy, I am unable to give any undertaking as regards any particular service.

:Is it not a fact that the operations of the Empire Marketing Board have had a most beneficent influence on the sale of Empire products in this country, and have been a distinct advantage?

:I do not know that that subject falls particularly within my province. A question like that, I think, would be more properly addressed to some other Minister.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman pay particular attention to the lectures and syllabuses of lectures which are issued by this Board of a highly controversial character?

:When I am considering this particular matter the hon. gentleman and the House generally can be assured that I shall take every relevant matter into consideration.

:When the right hon. Gentleman is considering the matter, will he keep in mind the fact that Members of all parties have sat upon this Board, and that Dominion opinion also has to be considered and taken into account?

SAFEGUARDING AND McKENNA DUTIES

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the intention of the Government to take immediate steps to abolish the Safe guarding and McKenna Duties?

:I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the statement which the Prime Minister made on this subject in the course of his speech last Tuesday.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in spite of that speech, there is still a certain amount of doubt as to the intentions of the Government?

:Of course, I am not responsible for any doubt that there may be, but I think that the Prime Minister's statement was sufficiently clear and explicit, and I have nothing at all to add to it.

:Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer observe that the Prime Minister made no reference to the McKenna Duties in his speech, and will he answer that question?

:I think that the hon. and gallant Member is quite wrong. The Prime Minister did make some reference to the McKenna Duties, and said that no further announcement on the question could be made before the Budget was introduced.

:If the right hon. Gentleman were to accede to the suggestion in the question of the hon. Member below the Gangway, would it not be the first act of political suicide on the part of his party?

:There is an Amendment on the Paper on this subject, and that will be the proper time to raise these questions.

United States of America (Tariffs)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether representations have been made to the United States Government that tariff increases must add to the difficulties of paying the British debt to America?

:Will the right hon. Gentleman represent to the American Government that unless they take our goods we cannot pay our debts?

:This question is one more properly for the Board of Trade, and for the Foreign Office. Any representations that it might be advisable to make will have to be made by one or other of those Departments.

:Is at not a fact that the Liberal view is that such tariffs can only help persons in the country where the tariff is raised, and therefore why worry?

Unemployment

White Paper (Publication, Cost)

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the actual cost involved in the publication of the White Paper, Memoranda on certain Proposals relating to Unemployment, May, 1929, Cmd. 3331?

The net cost of printing and paper was £67.

:Does the hon. Gentleman intend to apply for a refund from the headquarters of the Conservative party?

:If the hon. Member desires an answer, he must put that question on the Paper.

Benefit

asked the Minister of Labour what decision has been arrived at in connection with the application for unemployment benefit by men customarily employed at the Binley Colliery pits, Nuneaton; and whether, if no decision has been arrived at, steps can be taken to expedite a decision?

:The insurance officer has given his decision to-day and it will reach the local office to-morrow. I am informed that the effect of his decision is that the workers, with some few exceptions, are disqualified under Section 8 (1) of the Act of 1920 from the 18th June. They have a right of appeal to the Court of Referees against this decision, and arrangements will be made to expedite the hearing of any such appeal.

asked the Minister of Labour if it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to increase the unemployment benefit payable to young men and girls?

:I have this point under consideration, together with the other provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, with regard to the rates and conditions of benefit, but I am not at present in a position to make a statement on the matter.

:Is the House to understand that the right hon. Lady is dissatisfied with the proportion of benefit recommended by the Blanesburgh Committee?

:I am afraid that the hon. Member must be satisfied with what I have said.

Insurance Fund (Indebtedness)

asked the Minister of Labour what is the present indebtedness of the Unemployment Insurance Fund to the Exchequer?

:The present debt of the Unemployment Fund to the Treasury is £36,620,000.

Government Departments

Ex-Service Men

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many special recommendation certificates have been issued to ex-service men appointed to posts in the Civil Service; how many men there are now serving holding such certificates; and what is the present position of those officers to whom special recommendation certificates were originally issued but who no longer retain their appointments on the basis of those certificates?

:As the answer to the question involves a table, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Special recommendations issued and modified (War) Certificates issued after a special recommendation from 1918 to the end of June, 1929. from 1918 to the end of June, 1929.

Special Recommendations.

Modified (War) Certificates.

1918

8

1919

86

4

1920

884

20 *

1921

1,381

400 *

1922

792

700 *

1923

341

784

1924

373

441

1925

290

368

1926

262

302

1927

315

260

1928

215

268

1929

78

135

Total

5,025

3,682

* In 1920–22 statistics of Modified (War) Certificates issued to former holders of Special Recommendations were not kept separately from those of such Certificates issued to new entrants. The figures for these years in the second column are therefore approximate. In 1920–22 statistics of Modified (War) Certificates issued to former holders of Special Recommendations were not kept separately from those of such Certificates issued to new entrants. The figures for these years in the second column are therefore approximate.

The above table shows the numbers of special recommendations that have been issued annually under the Order in Council of 22nd March, 1918, in favour of ex-service candidates for posts in the Civil Service. A large majority of the officers for whom special recommendations are issued retain their appointments, when their recommendations expire, under Modified (War) Certificates. The numbers of such certificates that have been issued to former holders of special recommendations are shown in the return. In such cases establishment is reckoned from the date of issue of the recommendation. When, in a small minority of cases, the Civil Service Commissioners are unable to issue a Modified (War) Certificate after a period, however extended, of employment under a special recommendation, the holder of the recommendation is appointed to the "P" Class, provided he is a candidate for a grade in which that class is incorporated. It cannot be assumed that the number of men now serving under special recommendations is the difference between the first and second totals in the foregoing return. Apart from the men whose recommendations have expired and to whom Modified (War) Certificates have not been issued a small number of cases have occurred in which Departments have found it necessary to terminate appointments without reference to the Commissioners.

Examinations (Executive Class)

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he can give any information respecting the probable date of the open competitive examination for appointments in the executive class of the Civil Service; and, in view of the hardship now imposed upon candidates by the narrowing of the age limit, will he take such steps as will ensure that this and similar examinations are held at regular intervals and that the longest possible notice is given?

:I am not in a position to forecast the probable date of the next open competitive examination for appointments in the Executive Class of the Civil Service. But the estimated Departmental vacancies in the immediate future are not such as to require an examination for these appointments in the current calendar year. As regards the latter part of the question, the hon. Member may rest assured that, subject to the requirements of the Public Service, the considerations therein advanced will be kept in mind

:Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are hundreds of members of the grades below the Executive Class in the Civil Service who have demonstrated their fitness for promotion to executive posts, and can he say that before any question of resuming open competition for the executive grade arises, he will receive representations from the associations that represent the lower grades that desire promotion?

:I am always open to receive representations, but if there is some fresh question which the hon. Member has raised, perhaps he will put it down.

Railway Passenger Duty

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the abolition of the railway passenger duty in return for which the railway companies are spending the equivalent capital value in modernising their equipment, any arrangements are being made to secure a public Return of the different directions in which this money is being employed; and, if not, whether he proposes to take steps to that end?

:I have been asked to answer this question. I will consider the hon. Member's suggestion after the proposals which the railway companies have undertaken to submit have been submitted.

Agriculture

Wheat and Potatoes (Prices)

asked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been called to the fact that the prices obtainable for wheat and potatoes do not provide a livelihood to the producer in this country; and what steps he proposes to take?

:I am aware that agriculturists in this country are facing difficulties arising from economic causes which are affecting agricultural producers all over the world. As the hon. and gallant Member is aware, this situation is not a new one, and it is only possible at present for me to say that it is receiving my serious consideration. I might add that the situation illustrates the need for improved marketing methods, which are the subject of study by the Ministry's marketing branch.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Eastern Counties things are so serious that if something is not done quickly many farmers and small holders will become bankrupt?

:Did not the difficulties referred to in the question exist during the tenure of office of the late Government, and can the right hon. Gentleman say what steps the late Government took to meet the situation?

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is one of the items about which the Cabinet of which he is a member is thinking?

Sugar Beet (Mangold Fly Attacks)

asked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been called to the attacks of mangold fly on sugar beet in this country; and what steps he proposes to take?

:Reports of damage caused by the mangold fly reached my Department early last month and suggestions for mitigating the damage were broadcast on the 14th June. This information was subsequently circulated to the Press, and I will send a copy of the note to the hon. and gallant Member for his information.

:Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this information was taken advantage of, and with what results?

:I ascertained that the information was widely circulated, and I know that in many cases it was taken advantage of.

Land Drainage

asked the Minister of Agriculture if it is proposed to introduce legislation to deal with the Report of the 1927 Committee on Land Drainage?

:This matter is under consideration, and I will make an announcement as soon as possible.

:If I put down a question a week or a fortnight hence, will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give me a reply?

Potatoes (Importation)

( for Captain CROOKSHANK) asked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been called to the great losses incurred by potato growers in Lincolnshire through the abnormally large importation of new potatoes from foreign countries; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

:I am aware of the difficulties experienced by some growers in disposing of the remainder of last year's potato crop. This state of affairs, however, is attributable to the exceptionally high yield of last year's crop rather than to the effect of foreign importations which have been well below the average of recent years. In reply to the last part of the question, I do not propose to take any action with a view to restricting imports.

:If the right hon. Gentleman is unable to persuade his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to allow him to give British meat to the British forces, can he possibly persuade him to allow them to have British potatoes?

Trade and Commerce

Imports

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that after the deduction of re-exports of manufactured goods the net imports of foreign manufactures into this country were just over £125,000,000 sterling for five months, he can state what volume of employment such a figure represents had these goods been manufactured in this country?

:I regret that I am unable to give an estimate such as the hon. Member asks for. I would point out, however, that a large part of the imports of articles classed in the trade returns as wholly or mainly manufactured consists of materials for industry; and any restriction of the supply of such materials would increase unemployment in the industries using them.

Woollen and Worsted Textiles (Safeguarding)

asked the President of the Board of Trade if the Report of the Committee on Safeguarding Woollen and Worsted Textiles is to be published; and what is the nature of the Report?

asked the President, of the Board of Trade whether the Committee considering the case of the York shire woollen industry for Safeguarding Duty has yet reported; and whether he can state the terms of the Report and what action the Government propose to take with regard to it?

:I would refer the hon. Members to the statement made by the Prime Minister on this subject last Tuesday. The Report will, I hope, be available on Monday next.

:In view of the fact that the demands for this Committee came from the trade union leaders concerned, is it to be the first act of the Government to flout those trade union leaders?

Greenwich Royal Park

asked the First Commissioner of Works if his attention has been called to the absence of adequate conveniences in the Royal park at Greenwich and the lack of shelters and free seats; and if steps can be taken to deal with the matter without delay?

:The conveniences in Greenwich Park have been added to in the course of the past year, and the Department is prepared to consider the need for providing further conveniences. There is free seating accommodation for 900 people and it is intended gradually to increase further the number of free seats. The Department is considering the provision of a shelter for children near the playground.

Hutments, Woolwich and Welling (Sale)

asked the First Commissioner of Works the purchase price paid for the Government hutments at Welling and at Woolwich and the date of sale; whether the purchasers were informed of the 2s. 6d. reduction granted in 1918; and whether any steps were taken to protect the tenants from any further increase of their rents?

:It is not customary to disclose the price paid for Government property without the consent of the purchasers. If my hon. Friend wishes, I am prepared to ascertain if their consent would be forthcoming. The conveyance of the estates at Welling was completed on the 29th October, 1928. The sales of other estates in the Woolwich area took place on the 28th September, the 11th October and the 19th December, 1928. The answer to the third part of the question is in the negative. The estates were sold subject to all existing tenancies and the rights and claims of the tenants thereof by statute or otherwise.

:Are we to understand that Government property affecting the lives of thousands of these tenants can be secretly disposed of and the purchase price kept secret?

:I have informed the hon. Member that it is not usual to disclose the price, without the consent of the purchaser, but if the hon. Member desires, I will certainly inquire whether the purchaser has any objection or whether he will allow us to disclose the terms of contract.

:Do I understand that the provisions of the Rent (Restrictions) Act will apply to these houses, or is it the fact that the tenants of this former Government property will be deprived of the protection of that Act?

:I should be glad if the hon. Member would give me notice of that question.

:If it has been the rule hitherto that the purchase price of such property should not be disclosed, would not this be a good opportunity of making a change in the practice, and publishing the purchase price?

Washington Hours Convention

30.

asked the Minister of Labour the terms of the announcement made at Geneva with regard to the ratification of the Washington Convention, and details of the precise nature of the obligations which they have entered into?

In putting the question, may I offer congratulations to the right hon. Lady?

:The statement made by the British Government Representative at the recent International Labour Conference was in the following terms:

"I am authorised to state that His Majesty's Government in Great Britain propose to take the necessary steps to ensure at the earliest possible moment the ratification of the Washington Hours Convention. That statement requires no further explanation and would only suffer at this moment by further elaboration. I should, however, add that I understand that in introducing the hours legislation necessary, His Majesty's Government will take account both of the Washington Convention and the London Agreement."

I have nothing at present to add to that statement.

Transport

Harbour Dues, Lowestoft

asked the Minister of Transport whether an application has been made to the Ministry of Transport by the London and North Eastern Railway Company for an order under the Harbour, Docks, and Piers (Temporary Increase of Charges) Acts, 1920 to 1922, with the object of authorising the company to increase the existing rates, dues, and charges in operation at Lowestoft harbour and other places; and whether, having regard to the effect of such an increase upon the fishing industry of Lowestoft, he will decline to issue such an order?

:In accordance with the provisions of the Acts to which the hon. Member refers I have referred this application to the Rates Advisory Committee for advice, and persons affected will have an opportunity of being heard at the inquiry which the Committee is opening on the 16th July. I must await the report of the Committee before coming to any decision.

Road Locomotives (Sparks)

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that many cases have occurred of houses and shops near main roads being destroyed by fire caused by sparks from passing engines; and whether he will issue an order making it compulsory for these engines to be fitted with spark-preventing devices?

:Accidents caused by motor vehicles are not systematically reported to me, but I am, of course, aware that sparks emitted from road locomotives may in some cases constitute a danger to property adjoining the roads. At present I have not the power to require the fitting of spark-preventing devices to all classes of steam vehicles, but the point will be borne in mind in connection with any legislation that may be introduced dealing with the regulation and control of road vehicles generally.

:Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the county areas there are many thatched cottages and that this matter is urgent? Will he propose immediate legislation on the subject?

:I am aware of the difficulties which have arisen, but the existing law on the subject is somewhat uncertain and ill-defined, and while I will make all possible use of existing legislation, the matter cannot be really satisfactorily determined except by means of new legislation which is under consideration.

Electricity Supply

Way-Leaves

asked the Minister of Transport whether the Electricity Commissioners have yet arranged a standard form of way-leave agreement or whether they are still considering a draft form of agreement with interested bodies; and, if so, what are the associations whom they are consulting?

:The Electricity Commissioners have been for some time past, and still are, in communication with the Law Society with a view to the provisional settlement of a draft of a proposed standard form of way-leave agreement, and they propose to submit the draft when provisionally settled for the consideration of representative associations of the electricity supply industry, and of landowners and farmers, and other interested parties.

Carmarthenshire

asked the Minister of Transport whether any scheme for the supply of electricity has been drawn up for the area comprising Carmarthenshire; and, if so, when is the scheme expected to be completed?

:I understand that an electricity scheme for South-West England and South Wales, including Carmarthenshire, is at present being prepared by the Electricity Commissioners in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Act of 1926, and that the Commissioners expect that the scheme will be ready for transmission to the Central Electricity Board before the end of the present year.

Fiji (Legislative Council)

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state the population of the Indian and European communities in Fiji; what is the respective representation accorded these communities in the legislative council; and whether the introduction of communal electorates in Fiji was effected with the approval of the Government of India?

:At the 31st December, 1928, the Indian population in Fiji was estimated to be 70,996, the European population 4,591. The Letters Patent provide for the election of six European and three Indian members to the Legislative Council. The question of communal representation for Indians in Fiji was discussed with the Government of India, who acquiesced in its introduction.

Kenya (Electoral Roll)

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of Sir Samuel Wilson to an Indian deputation in Kenya that the question of a common electoral roll cannot be reopened; if he is aware that this statement is in conflict with the view of the Hilton Young Commission that the ideal to be aimed at is a common roll on an equal franchise with no discrimination between the races; and if the Government will give full con- sideration to the views of the Indian community in Kenya before coming to a decision on this question?

:I have seen the statement in the public Press, but my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has had no opportunity as yet of discussing it with Sir Samuel Wilson. I would remind my hon. Friend that the Hilton Young Commission made it clear that a common roll on an equal franchise with no discrimination between the races, could be realised only by consent locally In reply to the last part of the question, my hon. Friend may rest assured that the Government will give full consideration to the views of all the communities concerned before a decision is reached.

:Will the hon. Member consider the advisability of discussing this matter with the Rt. Hon. Srinivasa Sastri, who was specially sent out to Kenya by the Government of India to consider this and similar matters?

:The Department will hear all views and all sides upon this question before coming to a decision.

:May we be assured that there will be no action to modify the Hilton Young Report as a result of Sir Samuel Wilson's visit without the India Office here having Sir Samuel Wilson's Report before them?

:I hope my right hon. and gallant Friend will postpone that question for a little time until the Government have had an opportunity of considering what their policy is going to be in regard to East Africa.

Southsea Foreshore (Charges)

asked the Secretary of State for War whether, as the War Office has leased the foreshore off Fort Cumberland beach, Southsea, to a contractor for the purpose of charging hire for chairs, and as such agreement also includes the right to charge 1s. per day to those pitching tents on the beach, and as this is a popular resort for working-class residents, he can see his way to rescind the contract as soon as possible in order that tents may again be erected free?

:I have been asked to reply. The foreshore in question is under the charge of the Commissioners of Crown Lands. The agreement with the contractor expires on 31st October next and the Commissioners cannot rescind the contract before that date. Negotiations are now proceeding with a view to letting the foreshore to the local authority after the expiration of the existing agreement.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the conditions which were attempted to be imposed on the local authority on the last occasion are not imposed this time?

:I understand that the proposal is to grant a lease to the local authority leaving them great latitude of action.

:Is there anything in the contract to prevent the contractor increasing his charges for seats up to 6d. and 1s.?

India (Mr. Ramanand Chatterjee's Arrest)

asked the Secretary of State for India if his attention has been drawn to the arrest of Mr. Ramanand Chatterjee, editor of the " Modern Review," on the 6th June; and whether he will state the exact nature of the charge against Mr. Ramanand Chatterjee?

:Yes, Sir. Mr. Chatterjee is being prosecuted for an offence under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code as publisher of a book entitled "India in bondage." The matter is now sub judice.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the first edition of this book was published in December, 1928, and that no action was taken? After the first edition was sold out the second edition was published in May of this year, and then this wretched man is arrested six months after the book had been first published?

:Can the Secretary of State for India take any steps to put a stop to these many prosecutions in India which were instituted under the regime of the late Government?

Theatrical and Variety Artists (Passports)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state the number of passports granted by Great Britain to ladies employed in the theatrical or variety professions for the purpose of accepting engagements abroad for the three months ended to the last convenient date?

:Yes, Sir. During the three months ended the 30th June last the number of British passports thus issued at the Passport Office in London and the branch Passport Office in Liverpool was 62.

:May I ask whether any further safeguards have been taken to prevent lady artists, especially those of a tender age, being allowed to go abroad and accept engagements on the Continent which are not bona fide?

Russia (Diplomatic Relations)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the nature of the undertaking given to the Dominion Governments relative to the question of the resumption of diplomatic relations with Russia?

:I fear that I cannot say more at present than that we are in communication, with the Dominions. I am not yet in a position to make a statement, but I hope to do so at an early date.

:May I ask whether the question of resuming relations with Russia is subject to the approval of the Dominions or not?

:I think an undertaking was given at the Imperial Con- ference that we should not resume negotiations or resume normal relations without acquainting the Dominions. That is what we have done up to now, and we do not feel that we should depart from that undertaking.

:May I ask the right hon. Gentleman specifically whether it is a question of merely notifying the Dominions or of receiving their approval?

asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement as to the conditions submitted to the Dominions as the basis for discussion concerning the resumption of diplomatic relations with the Soviet Government in Russia; and whether the subject has been discussed with representatives of the American Government?

:I have been asked to reply. No suggestion has yet been made to the Dominion Governments as to the conditions on which diplomatic relations with the Soviet Government should be resumed. The reply to the second part of the question is in the negative.

:Will the Government consider discussing this matter with the American Government, in view of the fact that the Soviet Government maintains a common propaganda in favour of revolution in all countries?

:Would it not be possible to raise this question in the course of the negotiations that are about to take place with the United States, in order to see whether it is not possible to co-operate with that Government politically and economically in regard to future dealings with Russia?

:Does my right hon. Friend not think that the last Government left him sufficient other matters to discuss with the American Government?

:On a point of Order. Would you, Mr. Speaker, give this same treatment to back-bench Members if you had called another question to be answered and someone on a back bench rose to put a supplementary on a previous question.

:I do not think hon. Members quite understand what the situation is. I think there was some misunderstanding as to what the supplementary question was. I fancy that the Foreign Secretary did not understand that a supplementary question had been asked.

:On that point of Order. The object of my intervention was that I understood the Foreign Secretary was about to give a reply to the supplementary question, and certainly the House would like to hear it.

Treaty of Mutual Guarantee

asked the Prime Minister the decision of His Majesty's Government as to British adhesion to the Mutual Guarantee Treaty of October, 1925, between this country, Belgium, France, Germany, and Italy?

:I have been asked to reply. The Treaty of Mutual Guarantee initialled at Locarno on 16th October, 1925, was signed in London on 1st December of the same year by the five Powers named. Ratifications were deposited at Geneva on 14th September, 1926, since which date the Treaty has been in force. His Majesty's Government having been an original party to the Treaty, no question of their adhesion to it arises.

Civil Service (Royal Commission)

asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to set up a Royal Commission to inquire into the Civil Service; and, if so, whether the question of the retention of married women in the service will be included in the terms of reference?

:The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, an announcement will be made in due course as to the composition and terms of reference of the Royal Commission. It may, however, be taken as certain that the reference will be so framed as to bring all matters of general importance affecting the Civil Service within the scope of the inquiry.

:Will the Royal Commission be set up before the House rises at the end of July?

:The House knows that the setting up of a Royal Commission is a matter that causes just a little delay, but I can give an assurance to the hon. Member that no delay is being caused in the setting up of this particular Commission. Whether it will be set up before the end of July I should not now like to say.

:May I take it that the opening of the Diplomatic and Consular Service to women on the same terms as to men will also be considered?

:I cannot go further than to say that all matters of general importance affecting the Civil Service will be within the scope of the inquiry.

Channel Tunnel

asked the Prime Minister when it may be expected that the Report of the Commission instituted to report upon the Channel Tunnel will be published?

asked the Prime Minister whether he has received the Report of the Committee as to the economic aspects of the Channel Tunnel; if so, when he proposes to publish it; and what action the Government intends to take?

asked the Prime Minister when it is expected that the Report of the Committee appointed to consider the project of the Channel Tunnel will be available?

:I have been asked to reply. The Channel Tunnel investigations involve an examination of a large number of geological, engineering, economic and other technical problems. I took an immediate opportunity to consult the chairman of the Committee to ascertain the position, and to urge an acceleration of the inquiry, having regard to its possible bearing on unemployment. I am pleased to say that the inquiry is well advanced, and that the Committee hope to submit a report before the end of the year. There will be no delay on the part of the Government in considering the report of the Committee.

:Do the Government propose to continue the policy of the late Government, that is, in the event of the Report being favourable that the Committee will consider the strategic aspects of the Channel Tunnel?

:I have not the least idea what was the policy of the late Government, but I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that the Government will consider the Report in all its aspects immediately.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has not attended to the Debates in this House? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] Is he aware that it was announced in this House that the Committee would consider the economic aspects, and that in the event of the Report being favourable on those aspects, it would proceed to consider the strategic aspects?

:The Government will obviously take into consideration all the announcements prior to the Committee being set up.

Lord Privy Seal (Salary)

asked the Prime Minister what rate of salary is now attached to the office of Lord Privy Seal?

:In view of the special duties in connection with the relief of unemployment to be performed by the Lord Privy Seal, a salary at the rate of £5,000 per annum has been attached to the post. A Supplementary Estimate will be presented to Parliament in due course. A salary of £5,000 has on previous occasions been paid to the holder of the post of Lord Privy Seal on the assignment to him of special responsibilites.

Committee of Civil Research

asked the Prime Minister whether the research co-ordination sub-committee of the Committee of Civil Research constituted on 29th October, 1926, is still in being; whether it has submitted any further Reports since 14th December, 1927; whether any further Reports will be published; and what action has been taken, or is contemplated, as a result of the sub-committee's investigations?

:The subcommittee is still in being and has submitted two further Reports to His Majesty's Government; until they have been considered it is not possible for me to answer the remaining parts of the question.

Fighting Services (British Meat and Flour)

asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to carry out the intentions of the late Government with regard to the feeding of our defence forces at home on British home-killed meat and a percentage of British homegrown flour in their bread?

:I have been asked to reply. The Government have considered this proposal with every desire to benefit the farming industry, but have found themselves unable to adopt it in view of its probable effect on food prices. I regret, therefore, that the answer to the question is in the negative.

:Was not a sum of money set aside for this purpose, and, if so, is it to be taken away from agriculture, or is it proposed to give it to agriculture in some other way?

:For what reasons was this policy deferred by the late Government until the eve of the Election?

:The reason apparently was, that it was not considered to be of sufficient importance to be embodied in the late Government's policy until after four years. The financial question is not for me to answer, and I am not aware of the fact that the hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned.

:Does the Minister's announcement mean that no policy is to be adopted to help the farmer?

:I think that the value of this proposal has been very much overestimated. As to the view of the late Government, I can only say that the proposal came exceedingly late in the day.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for the last four years the farmers have been pressing for this change, and that representative farmers' organisations entirely disagree with the right hon. Gentleman as to its value?

:Is it not a fact that the whole of the organised farming community entirely disagrees with the Minister— hence their decision on 30th May?

:I am aware that a demand has been made in some quarters for this for some time past; but I am the more surprised, having regard to the question of the right hon. Gentleman, that the request was so long ignored.

:Is it the case that the present policy of the Government to help agriculture is a purely negative one?

League of Nations (British Delegation)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement as to the composition of the British delegation to the next Assembly of the League of Nations?

:The delegates of His Majesty's Government in Great Britain to the forthcoming meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations will be:—

:As the right hon. Gentleman gave us an assurance that this representation was to be non-party, will he explain how he has fulfilled that assurance?

:I do not know that I gave any undertaking that it would be non-party. I gave a statement that we would follow the precedent of 1924 and that it would not be strictly party. In 1924 Professor Gilbert Murray went with us. On this occasion Viscount Cecil is going.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the first occasion upon which—with one single doubtful exception—the representation is entirely from one party?

:Even if I was aware of it, there is no reason why we should not improve on the position.

:Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that partisan representation is better than national representation?

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the composition of this Delegation, for the first time gives this House some hope that something is going to be done?

Royal Dockyards (Personnel)

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that there is a feeling of uncertainty in the city of Portsmouth that any agreement arrived at between this country and the United States of America might mean the discharge of men from the dockyard, due to a diminution of the present building programme; and whether he can give an assurance that, whatever changes may be made, sufficient work will be allocated to the Royal yards to ensure the retention of the present personnel?

:As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, any effective international agreement for the reduction of the burden of armaments is likely to make for less warship building in this and other countries. An assurance that any diminution of shipbuilding will not affect the Royal Dockyards is wider than it is practicable to give, but I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that all possible consideration will be given to the special position in which these establishments stand.

:Is it going to be the policy of this Government to send national shipbuilding to private yards or to national yards?

:I think it is very early to put such a question to me on a matter like that, and I would ask the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) to delay it.

:Can we rest assured that men will not be thrown out of the dockyards, as was done by the last Government, without any provision being made for their employment?

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if work is taken from private enterprise to public dockyards, it will mean more unemployment in Sheffield?

Business of the House

:May I ask the Prime Minister what business it is proposed to take next week?

:I understand that the desire of the House is that the general Debate on the Address should be continued to-day and to-morrow, and that on Monday, 8th July, and Tuesday, 9th July, the Amendment of the Conservative Opposition relating to Safeguarding and Imperial Preference should be taken.

Wednesday, 10th July, will be available for the discussion of the Amendment on the Paper relating to the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, and, if time permits, for other Amendments on the Paper. I hope that the Debate on the Address will be concluded on Wednesday, 10th July.

On Thursday, 11th July, we shall take the Unemployment Insurance Bill, Money Resolution, Committee stage, and the Irish Free State (Confirmation of Agreement) Bill, Money Resolution, Committee stage. I may say that White Papers relating to these Resolutions will, it is hoped, be available to-morrow. In addition, on Thursday we should like to take the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill, Second Reading.

On Friday, 12th July, we shall take the Report stage of the Money Resolutions for the Unemployment Insurance Bill, and the Irish Free State (Confirmation of Agreement) Bill, and also the Committee stage of the Money Resolution for the Colonial Development Fund Bill— that is the second Bill mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal yesterday.

Government Business

:I beg to move— anxious to meet the convenience of the House, if it had been possible, and upon that, I was willing to give a further day's consideration to the Resolution which I moved. During yesterday the usual channels were active, and we discussed the whole matter. Having gone into the practical details and consequences of the door being opened for Bills under the Ten Minutes Rule, it was really found that the whole thing became impracticable. I believe that it is with the agreement of all parties— the two sections of the Opposition— that we have put down the Resolution again in the form in which it was put down yesterday, with the exception that we are asking for time only up till the end of this part of the Session, that is, roughly speaking, the end of July.

I hope private Members will see that we are taking no real advantage away from them, and that the whole matter will be reviewed again when we meet after the summer recess. I would like also to announce that I have already taken steps to get together a consultation this afternoon in order that we may set up at once a representative Committee to consider the Amendment of the present Standing Orders, so that I should think it is perfectly certain that the findings of that Committee will be on the Order Paper and that they will be operative, or at least that the decision of the House upon them will be operative, when we resume after the summer recess.

Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered,

"That, until the Adjournment of the House for the Summer Recess, Government Business do have precedence at every Sitting; that no Bills other than Government Bills be introduced in anticipation of the Ballot; that no Ballot be taken for determining the precedence of such Bills until the meeting of the House after the Summer Adjournment; and that no Notice of an Amendment on going into Committee of Supply be given until after the Adjournment of the House for Christmas."

Orders of the Day

King's Speech

Debate on the Address

[THIRD DAY.]

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [ 2nd July },

"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:

"MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN,

We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—[ Mr. Snell. ]

Question again proposed.

:We had yesterday a Debate of peculiar interest upon the subject with which possibly this Parliament was primarily elected to deal. On that subject we had a considerable measure of agreement, at least between two parties of the House. Whether the various plans which are enunciated by the present Government emanate entirely from a Labour inspiration, or whether they have also been covered in the pages of the Liberal Yellow Book, I am not in the least concerned to argue. Such a sterile controversy may be appropriate to the platform, but here in the House of Commons we are surely a body elected and instructed to consider together, and if possible to find a solution for, the very gravest problem of our time. And, after all, an overwhelming majority of the electorate has given its verdict in favour of a greater, a determined, effort being made to deal with the problem of unemployment. We may, as has been so frequently pointed out, be a minority Government, with a minority of votes, but upon this subject the overwhelming majority of the votes registered at the last election were given in favour of action, and of determined action, in regard to unemployment.

Between us and the party opposite there is, of course, a considerable difference upon this subject, the difference round which controversy at the time of the election chiefly centred. The party opposite took the view that nothing could be done or should be attempted to deal with the unemployment problem. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Hon. Members may think that that is an over-statement. May I then put it like this, that the party opposite fundamentally rejected the conception that a great national effort should be made, by new measures and new enterprises, to grapple with this problem? It was that conception, advanced by the Labour party and advanced also in large measure by the Liberal party, which was the subject of the General Election, and every one of the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer adduced yesterday was presented by him to the electorate and was decisively rejected. At least, it cannot be in doubt, nor can it be disputed, that this House of Commons is returned in order to make the greatest and most determined effort to deal with the unemployment problem that this nation has yet witnessed.

We have heard before the view of hon. and right hon. Members opposite that it is impossible by any such great effort materially to reduce the dimensions of this problem, and yesterday that view was carried a stage further by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil). In the conclusion of his speech he almost went so far as to denounce as a humbug and a charlatan anybody who even made the effort or asked the electorate that he might be allowed to make the effort. To these depths has sunk the dull fatalism and despair in relation to this problem which characterised the four years of the late Administration and the sickly effects of which are still hanging about this country. For my part, since being confronted with this problem in practical administration, I am not less confident, I am much more confident that it can be grappled with.

I have never thought, and I have never said, that in any narrow period of time any man could guarantee to solve the unemployment problem. I have always thought that was a mistake in the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). It seems to me absurd to say, "I will reduce unemployment by so many men during the course of a year," as it would have been to say at the beginning of the last War that on an appointed day so far away the War was coming to an end. The issues involved are just as complex, the task in some respects is. almost as great, and in many respects it is similar, because it needs an enormous mobilisation and rally of every force and intellect this country can produce in order to overcome one of the greatest menaces which has ever confronted it; and in a struggle such as that it seems to me perfectly idle to set any time limit upon the emergence of a victorious conclusion. All that one can say, as I ventured to say during the election, is that every effort will be made, every resource will be utilised, in the great thrust which the present Government is making to overcome this problem.

4.0 p.m.

Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite talked as if we had gone back upon our election policy in this matter. In what respect? I invite any hon. or right hon. Gentleman on that side of the House to name one single item of the Labour policy enunciated at the last election which was withdrawn in the speech of my right hon. Friend yesterday. I invite them even to mention one particular in which the machinery has not already been set in motion to carry out that policy. I throw down that challenge to any subsequent speaker from the benches opposite, and I shall be interested to hear, after all the charges which have been made, whether they can name even a particular in the Labour policy where my right hon. Friend yesterday did not describe the machinery which was actually beginning to carry it out. The fact is that right hon. Gentlemen opposite were a little disappointed. Their election speeches, their election literature had drawn such a vivid picture that within three days, let alone three weeks, the British Constitution was to dissolve in ruins beneath the reckless measures which a Labour Government would introduce. That vivid picture, those lively apprehensions have not been realised and, in place of that charge which rang through the country at the time of the General Election, we now have a complaint that not enough is being done by the present Government. The charge of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) really came to this. He was surprised and indignant because, within four weeks, the Labour Government had done only very little more than his Government did in four years. He has evidently formed an estimate of the rival capacities of the two Governments which is highly flattering to the present administration. He knows his colleagues, and he is evidently beginning to know us.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs in the course of a speech which was of the very greatest interest to me, produced his charge in a much more moderate and a kinder form. He did apparently hold the view that, if the Government had laid their plans in advance as the Liberal party claimed to have done, they should, the moment they assumed office, be able not only to produce their plans but to show their effect. I do not really follow the process of the right hon. Gentleman's reasoning, especially in one of such vast administrative experience, and, whether one agrees with all his actions or not, of such great administrative achievements. Supposing he had come into power in place of the Labour party, could he by this time have changed the Liberal Yellow Book into an Act of Parliament? Not in the least. He would have had to do exactly what we have done. We had our policy, we had our proposals worked out and laid before the country in detail; but, when the country gives a mandate for their execution and a party assumes office, then begins the work of translating these proposals into Acts of Parliament, and, having done that and secured the sanction of this House, to apply them and administer them. That is precisely the process which we are following with the very utmost expedition, and I challenge any hon. Member to state one particular in which we have changed our policy or failed to set the machinery in motion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping of course had a congenial task, with which in happier days I used myself to be familiar, of belittling as far as possible the suggestions and achievements of the Government of the day. I will try, before I sit down, to show how far he has underestimated the magnitude of the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal. I enjoyed the jokes of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping almost as much as he did himself, and I never could pay a higher tribute to a joke of the right hon. Gentleman's than that. He made much the same kind of speech which, alas, with far less success, in the far-away and happy days of my youth and irresponsibility, I used to try to make myself. But at the end of the brilliant display to which we were treated by the greatest parliamentary dialectician, what single contribution to the unemployment problem was made? He belittled the achievements of the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal.

I will not recapitulate— it would be idle to do so— the whole speech of my right hon. friend the Lord Privy Seal; but let me take one or two instances in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping dismissed with contempt and ridicule as of no account the suggestions which my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal had advanced. Take Liverpool Street Station. To the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping that sounded a very little thing indeed. He said: "A little electrification at Liverpool Street; what will that do for unemployment? " and he dismissed the whole suggestion. As a matter of fact, if the schemes connected with Liverpool Street electrification scheme go through, they will involve orders of between £75,000,000 and £100,000,000, very largely given in the steel trade. Does that do nothing at all for unemployment? Is that the kind of suggestion, the kind of policy which should be dismissed with contempt and with derision as making no contribution whatever that is worth considering in relation to unemployment?

:Do you mean that figure of £75,000,000 to £100,000,000?

:I understand that is apparently the whole cost spread over a series of years of the Liverpool Street electrification scheme.

:The hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal has been meeting the railway companies to see what can be done to set in motion schemes which have long been contemplated, but which, for a great variety of reasons, have been held up. They have had, I think, two meetings, it may be only one; these schemes have been discussed and urged; but for the hon. Gentleman now to ask me to describe in detail the exact contribution, if any, which the State would make to the advancement of this proposal is, of course, at this stage clearly outside the range of debate. I merely quote this instance to show that these plans which were dismissed as so small, negligible and contemptible are in fact schemes of a magnitude which now on reconsideration seem to alarm right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Yesterday we were incapable of any large conceptions; to-day they are back to the election leaflet. There was another scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal which was treated with some contempt by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping. The right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal said:

The earlier part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal was engaged with his work in removing sand, as he put it, from the machinery of State which already existed, and which had been placed in that machinery by the administrative acts of the late Government. We did find on undertaking our task that not only were sins of omission to their credit but sins of commission as well. We have had some slight discussion and controversy about Lord St. Davids Committee, which was, I believe, originally constituted in the administration of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. It was one of the few pieces of machinery which was functioning well and practicably in an effort to make a contribution to the unemployment problem. But what was the action taken by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, from which we have released that machinery and allowed it to function again? At first glance hon. Members may think that it is a very small thing we have done, but, when we analyse the actual position of that committee and the effect of the administrative orders of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and the potential effect which arises from these restrictions being removed, we see again that we are dealing with very big possibilities indeed. That committee, in the five years preceding 1925, carried on public works of benefit to the community to the extent of £100,000,000. It was carrying out works of that nature before the end of 1925 to the tune of well over £20,000,000 a year. The late Government, at the end of 1925, issued a restrictive circular governing the activities of Lord St. Davids Committee. The effect of that circular, in its full effect, was to reduce its operations from one of over £20,000,000 a year down to £319,000 a year. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite sabotaged that committee. They deliberately took the one effective piece of machinery dealing with unemployment in industry and broke it up. We have reconstituted and released that committee and have set it to work again. It is perfectly true, as right hon. Gentlemen opposite may desire to point out, that, after some three years experience of the effect of that sabotage, they decided at the end of last year to introduce some new proposals which to some extent reconstituted that committee. But we have gone a great deal beyond the new proposals which the Government made last year. We have reduced, as the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal explained yesterday, from 15 per cent, to a considerably lower figure the percentage of unemployment which constitutes an area of exceptional unemployment.

:My right hon. Friend decided yesterday not to give that figure, at any rate until the circular for the local authorities was prepared. I can say this, however, that there is a very material reduction in that percentage which determines whether an area is susceptible to the non-transfer scheme which these kinds of areas most desired. Not only that, but we have fixed this new percentage not as a fixed immutable rule, not as a rigid standard, but as a general guide subject to discretion. For areas which fall beneath that percentage, that is, which are not susceptible to non-transfer schemes, we have taken new criteria into consideration in determining the amount of transfer to which they shall be subject.

:There was a very large amount of unemployment in Bethnal Green which has been excluded from the grant because it was below the 15 per cent, unemployed.

:That is precisely the sort of point that we have in mind. We have reduced the percentage in order to bring far more areas within the scope of the non-transfer scheme. We have done more. For an area which can only qualify for a transfer scheme we are taking various factors into account in order to work the machinery with far more elasticity than before. For instance, there are many areas which have a comparatively low unemployment percentage but where there is a very large volume of unemployment, areas; such as that simply will not cater for a. full transfer scheme on the previous basis. I know places with a very low percentage of unemployment with a volume of unemployed of 20,000 or more people, areas in which transfers on a large scale to that area could not be defended by local authorities to their constituents. So we have not only reduced the percentage which constitutes the test by which an area can qualify for a non-transfer scheme, but have also given a far greater elasticity to the administration of transfer schemes, in order to take into account such factors as volume, and by the giving of that elasticity we have given greater facilities for the advancement of the schemes.

I need not give any further detailed figures, and until the circular goes to the local authorities we cannot say with any degree of accuracy the volume of the schemes which may be approved and which will be presented to the Committee, but if all these things be considered to be of no account and merely trivial, let us see the potentialities of this new and purely administrative operation. When the St. Davids Committee was approving public works to the tune of some £20,000,000 per year, the number of men, on the calculations of the last Government, set to work by that amount, would be well over 150,000. By destroying this machinery, by cutting down the amount of work which the Committee could do, all these men who could have been employed were not employed. We have reconstituted the machinery on a favourable basis under which we are assured that it can operate quite as successfully, if not more successfully, than it did, and we have every confidence that by the operation of this new suggestion a great many men can be absorbed as the schemes are launched and developed.

:How many men is it expected that these schemes will put into employment?

:I can give only a rough idea. Until the Government know the number of schemes which are forwarded by local authorities, when they receive the new circular, we cannot give an accurate estimate, but I am quite willing to apply to certain criteria. Supposing the St. Davids Committee can be restored to the same degree of activity and usefulness which it enjoyed before the restrictive circular of the late Government, and suppose it to be doing work to the value of £20,000,000 a year, the calculations of the late Government used to, be that for every £1,000,000 spent, about 4,000 men were employed directly and nearly as many indirectly, so by a simple calculation we reach the conclusion that something in the neighbour of 150,000 men might thus be found work. [An HON. MEMBER: "For how long?"] That depends on whether you keep up the average of the work. For five years before the restrictive circular they carried through an average of £20,000,000 a year and I do not see, and I do not suppose hon. Gentlemen opposite do—

:On the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman the number should be 80,000.

:That is the number directly employed, but it is estimated that another man is added for each one who is directly employed. That is the normal basis of calculations on which plans of this sort have proceeded. I omitted to mention the man who is reckoned as indirectly employed. There was some misunderstanding yesterday about the proposal of my right hon. Friend to introduce legislation at an early date to take new powers to guarantee loans to the total amount of some £25,000,000 for application to public utility concerns of all kinds. This is of some interest to right hon. Gentlemen opposite, as there was some confusion that these powers were likely to be applied to purely private profit-producing concerns. The powers which are to be sought in the Measure which was described yesterday are limited to public utility concerns. These powers will be laid before the House at any early date in a Bill, and it might be well to defer debate until the introduction of that Bill. I merely mention that point to try and remove certain misapprehensions which arose, I think, principally in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. These new powers purely refer to public utility concerns. The question of trade facilities, while under the review of the Government, is not to be included in the Measure which is to be introduced.

:The Lord Privy Seal distinctly mentioned silk and tobacco factories as factories that would be induced to be set up. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If the policy is changed, I shall be very glad to know, and if there is a misapprehension it ought to be cleared up.

:I was trying to remove the confusion into which the right hon. Gentleman, in common with many of his colleagues, has evidently fallen. I need not analyse the causes of that confusion. I am afraid that I must ascribe the blame to the right hon. Gentleman who failed to understand the speech. My. right hon. Friend referred to these new powers for guaranteed loans to public utility companies, and in quite a different relationship he raised the possibility of offering some form of persuasion to various concerns, of which he gave instances, to settle in the distressed areas. That consideration has absolutely nothing to do with the Measure about to be introduced. My right hon. Friend's mind was possibly in this respect travelling, to some extent, in the same direction as the mind of the late Government, who by their de-rating and other proposals hoped to induce concerns to settle in those areas. I admit in this respect we are not so dissimilar. That is precisely what the late Government tried to do, and why is it so heinous a crime for my right hon. Friend to say that possibly the inducements offered by the late Government were not altogether effective—as indeed we said at the time— and to explore other methods, other inducements to secure a greater migration of industry to the distressed areas? In order to remove any confusion, I would like to make it quite clear that that consideration which was adduced by my right hon. Friend had nothing to do with the powers that the House will be shortly asked to grant.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs raised certain questions in relation to our expenditure and activities on roads. A sum of £37,000,000 on road expenditure, spread over a period of years, has already been approved, but that does not mean that we exclude further developments and even a further expenditure. In this respect, the words of my right hon. Friend were quite specific. He said: work. But when the right hon. Gentleman continued to raise the very large question, which altogether abrogated the present relationship of the local authorities with the Government, the question of a central highways authority in Whitehall, he proceeded in his expectations a little beyond the possible achievements of a Government in the space of three weeks. After all, to alter the existing percentages of contributions to roads, to alter the whole relations of the Government with local authorities, to tear up by the roots in three weeks a system which has slowly evolved for many years, while it may be a desirable thing to do after mature consideration and deliberation, it is not a thing that; a Government could come to the House to announce in the first three weeks of office. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will, with his great administrative experience, agree that such a proposal at this early stage of our existence would be more than could be expected from us.

As a matter of fact, I looked for guidance to the Liberal unemployment policy. I looked to see whether the right hon. Gentleman, after the two years' consideration which he told us he had given to this problem, had himself suggested anything of the kind, but I must confess that, after looking for that guidance, I am still in darkness. I do not yet know whether or not the Liberal party propose to constitute a central authority completely to override our existing arrangements with the local authorities. Possibly, as our discussions proceed in this new council of state which we have set up to solve the unemployment problem, the Liberal attitude on that question may be made clear, and will no doubt be very helpful to the Government. But I would point out that the Liberal party were to solve or reduce unemployment to the normal without any charge to the taxpayer, while the whole essence of abrogating our existing relations with the local authorities and setting up a central highway authority is to shift the burdens from the local authorities on to the back of the taxpayers. It really is impossible to carry through the proposal last thrown out in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman without increasing the State's contribution and, consequently, leading to the liability of an increase in the burdens of the taxpayers.

But those are considerations which belong to another occasion. What it is my duty to make clear on that point is, that we have not set ourselves any rigid limit of expenditure based on the existing income of the Road Fund and that as schemes develop and the money is needed, the Government do contemplate providing that money. It would be foolish if in advance of the scheme being mature and requiring the finance we set about raising the finance. First have your schemes, bring them to the position of fruition and actual application, and then come to the House for whatever powers may be necessary to raise the finance.

On the general question of expenditure, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer raised a very thorny question on which I shall certainly make no pronouncement of Government policy, because it is entirely outside my province. He raised the dilemma— to which I must refer, but which I shall leave to others to deal with — which was contained in the Treasury White Paper, that the raising of money by the State for the purposes of national development means merely taking that credit from existing industry and to that extent curtailing its resources. That was an argument advanced with great force by the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for War during the course of the election. Any Ministers in charge of unemployment come up at once, of course, against that dilemma of the monetary experts. You find at once a concensus of expert opinion that, upon the basis of policy pursued by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, there is much force in that dilemma. Whether experts agree that the basis of the late Chancellor's policy could be modified or could not be, they all seem to agree, in their public writings, that on that basis the dilemma is largely true—that if you take money for Governmental purposes you are diverting it from current industrial purposes. That is a dilemma which must confront any Ministers dealing with unemployment, but it is a dilemma which it is not within my province to suggest an answer to, and to which I certainly shall not suggest an answer. It is, of course, a consideration which must come under the review of any Government making a determined effort to deal with the unemployment problem. I have seen too many troubles arise from indiscreet utterances by Ministers on this subject to make any utterance myself. I saw a friend and colleague of the right hon. Gentleman opposite come to an untimely end on that score, and certainly it lies without my province to develop an answer to the argument which the right hon. Gentleman yesterday advanced, but it is certainly a subject against which Ministers dealing with unemployment are brought with a bump when they really begin to get down to things. As hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite know, there are many shades of expert opinion as to methods of meeting that point.

There is one other subject, and one only, with which I need to deal before I sit down. It was very cursorily dismissed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, though it is possibly the greatest immediate issue in dealing with this unemployment problem. It is agreed with regard to much of the work which my right hon. Friend explained in his speech yesterday, that it will take a very considerable time to make its effects felt upon the unemployment problem, but it was very quickly assumed that Measures which were placed in the forefront of Labour's election programme, a Measure to remove the old from industry by a pension scheme and a Measure to remove the young by raising the school age, have been merely brushed aside by the present Government because they have been referred to a committee. You would think from the language employed that we had set up a Royal Commission to inquire into these subjects. We have done nothing of the kind. We have set up a committee of ministers and civil servants. It began its work this morning, which was very unfortunate for me, because I have had no time to devote to the speech which I am now delivering. It is a departmental committee, and I see no reason why it should not come to its conclusions within the next few weeks, so that it can report to the Government.

:The committee will proceed with their work as quickly as ever they can. Of course, there are two stages. The committee have their meetings, come to their conclusions, and present their report to the Government and their report has then to be considered by the Government. But this is a very large administrative problem— [ Interruption. ] Of course it is. We realised that before we made the suggestion. Do hon. Members really think us so innocent as to imagine that we thought a proposal of this magnitude presented no administrative problem? [ Interruption. ] Of course it is an immense problem, a problem of magnitude. Those are precisely the problems which this party exists to overcome. Anyhow I can assure hon. Members opposite that they are wrong if they have come to the light and easy conclusion that because a Labour Government are proceeding with a most careful inquiry into this problem, therefore they do not need to proceed at any time with Measures which they have presented to the electorate and which they have been returned to advance. There are anything from 350,000 to 400,000 old men involved in a scheme of that kind, and anything from 450,000 to 500,000 children. These two Measures alone, if applied, and if accepted by those to whom they are applied, can go very far to reducing the evil. If we couple with Measures such as that, with the whole great network of constructive proposals for the permanent enrichment of the nation by great constructive works which was adduced by my right hon. Friend yesterday— if Measures such as that can be advanced to a conclusion, who can say that the unemployment problem is an insoluble problem before which every Government must bow in defeat?

I said at the outset of my speech that after considering every legacy left behind by the late Government and their explanations of why nothing under any circumstances could ever be done in England, I am not less confident, I am more confident than when I began. This is one of the greatest and most vital problems which has ever threatened the life of this nation and one in which we mean to mobilise whatever resources of intelligence or vigour this nation possesses. It is necessary to do that to overcome the problem. It is necessary to have the same spirit of unity and vigour which this country showed in its vast efforts in the late and catastrophic war, but I believe that if the magnitude and the possibilities of this problem can be brought home to the people we shall evoke such an effort and such a spirit; and towards that end this Government will march with an unbending determination.

:I am thankful to the hon. Baronet for the further explanation he has given the House on the plans adumbrated by his right hon. Friend yesterday, and I admire the spirit with which he is tackling this question. He is now, for the first time, as he has told us, confronted with the problem in practical administration, and I shall look forward to hearing him again in a few months' time, when he has really learned some of the lessons which he will have to learn in practical administration of this very difficult subject. I am desirous, however, of correcting one error into which he allowed him self to fall[ Interruption. ] It is an error which many of his colleagues repeated during the election. The hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works fell into the same error in his speech last night, when he said that the policy of the late Government was to do nothing, and that the late Government had sabotaged the St. Davids scheme. I will deal with that matter in a moment. The First Commissioner of Works said the late Government had set themselves to stop schemes of public assistance in the shape of public works. I am not going to dwell at any length on what the late Government did. [HON. MEMBERS: "It will not take you long!"] But in order that we may get a perspective, perhaps hon. Members opposite will allow me for two minutes—[ Interruption ]—to give a few figures.

:At the outset I must say that hon. Members must allow the right hon. Gentleman to proceed with his speech without interruption.

:The late Government authorised Colonial loans for Colonial development— one of the features which the right hon. Gentleman gave us yesterday— amounting to £14,500,000 during their term of office. They spent on telephones, on capital account, during their term of office £47,500,000. In regard to electricity, they authorised a capital expenditure of £33,500,000 and for local loans they borrowed £133,000,000, besides money which was raised locally by the local authorities for local purposes. Local authorities on the average spent £100,000,000 a year on public works during the term of office of the late Government, and the late Government is responsible for grants of £73,000,000 to those local authorities in order to enable them to carry out those public works. I only remind hon. Members opposite of those figures in order that they may consider in a proper perspective the schemes which have been placed before us, and not run away with the idea that the policy of the late Government was to do nothing or to sabotage schemes. The Lord Privy Seal has been appointed to a special office for the purpose of looking after this great problem, and I am glad that the Labour Government has appointed a special Minister for that purpose.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby is going to have a difficult task. I understand that he is to be the Chairman of a Council of State— that was the phrase used by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster— and I understand that the duty of that Council will be to co-ordinate the activities of all the departments, including that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is to be an autocrat, but he will find across the way another autocrat, and whenever he proposes to spend money the Chancellor of the Exchequer will remind him that he is the person who will have to find the money which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to spend. I am glad that there is going to be such a Committee. I occupied in 1921 a position not very different from that which has now been created, and I was then concerned with the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) as Minister without portfolio. I was made Chairman of the Unemployment Committee with the same Ministers as those who are now serving on this new Committee. In one sense we had an easier task, because the ground had not been harrowed in the same way as it has been in this case. The Committee with which I was associated started export credits, the Unemployment Grants Committee, the St. Davids Committee, and Committees under the Trade Facilities Act, and all those activities were put into operation by that Committee in 1921, 1922 and 1923. Therefore I am in a position to sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman in the work that he has now undertaken, and he may rely upon me doing everything I can to help him on with his work.

I will now refer to the catalogue of activities which the right hon. Gentleman has put before us. Practically they are the same things as those upon which the late Government were engaged. There is nothing new; there is not one proposition which is new, except the proposal to finance public utility companies, about which I wish to ask a few questions. All the other things are palliatives such as the late Government and previous Governments were engaged upon in order to try to mitigate the hardships of unemployment. Take roads for example. What did the Lord Privy Seal say on this subject? The right hon. Gentleman comes into office and he finds in his department a programme for five years dealing with main roads, and he adopts it. That programme was prepared before the right hon. Gentleman came into office, and he has adopted it. I am glad that he has adopted that scheme. The right hon. Gentleman also found in his Department a programme for six years dealing with secondary roads, and he has adopted that scheme. Now he comes forward and says, "We are going to spend £9,500,000 on one class of roads, and £28,000,000 on another class, making £37,500,000." Where is this money to come from? It is going to be taken from the Road Fund. That fund is there already, and the money would have come from that fund whichever Government had been in power.

What is the difference? Simply that the right hon. Gentleman has extracted from the Chancellor of the Exchequer an undertaking that if he wants to carry on the work at a faster rate than the accruing income of the Road Fund will permit, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will allow him to overdraw. That may be a good policy, because the measure of relief given to unemployment is the pace at which this work can be put into operation, and if you can in any way anticipate the normal expenditure in a few years you will get greater employ- ment, provided you get the local authorities to work with you. That is the next difficulty. Can you get the local authorities to work with you. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] I hope you will, but may I point out that you are actually proposing to make exactly the same grants to local authorities as those which have hitherto been made, and they are being made on precisely the same basis as before. I hope the Lord Privy Seal will find that he will be able to get the local authorities to go much faster than they normally would do.

The next point I want to deal with is the right hon. Gentleman's statement with regard to distressed areas, and the transfer policy. I am going to quote what the right hon. Gentleman actually said yesterday, and if the right hon. Gentleman can give us any further information on this point, I should be very much obliged to him. Yesterday the Lord Privy Seal said: ing another man out of work. Now the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to be supporting his colleagues in that policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] This is all very interesting and very important, because the Lord Privy Seal has announced that that is still to be his policy.

:I will read the exact words which were used by the Lord Privy Seal. He said:

"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 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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1929; col. 100, Vol. 229.]

I am dealing with the financial provision. There were two methods of transfer— one was to encourage transfers through the employment exchanges without any financial assistance; and the other was to give local authorities a larger grant if they employed transferred men. I understand that the second method has now been abandoned, and the first one is not abandoned. On the contrary I think the first one was reaffirmed yesterday, although the Home Secretary denounced the late Government for putting that scheme into operation. I want to know where we are, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already assented to the statement that the method which is now proposed is no solution of the problem, and I gather that he does not like the transfer policy at all. There seems to be some confusion on this point.

:It is quite easy to explain the confusion into which the right hon. Gentleman seems to have fallen. I do not know exactly which method of transfer the right hon. Gentle man is referring to. Does he mean the method adopted by the (St. Davids Committee, or the scheme dealing with roads? Let me take first of all the main scheme adopted by the St. Davids Committee in connection with the transfer of these men. As I have already explained, the percentage test of unemployment—

:I was not dealing with that question at all, and apparently the hon. Baronet has not followed my argument. I can put my point with the greatest simplicity; and if the hon. Baronet will listen to my argument he will see that there is no confusion whatever in my mind. There is a transfer policy dealing with the men who cannot find employment in the distressed areas, and that policy is to get them transferred into other areas where they can get employment. There are two methods of carrying out this policy. One of them is through the Employment Exchanges and the other is through the St. Davids Committee, and there is power to give a larger grant to local authorities who will undertake to employ transferred men. I understand that the second method of transfer through the St. Davids Committee has been abandoned by the Government.

:I understood the hon. Baronet to say that that method had been abandoned, and it is the first method I mentioned upon which I wish to know the policy of the Government. The Employment Exchanges during the last few months have transferred 20,000 men and they have got employment. When we made that statement in the last Parliament the Home Secretary said that that was not a solution, and that all we had done was simply to put one man into a job and throw another man out of work. That was the constant allegation made by hon. Members opposite. I understood the Lord Privy Seal to say yesterday that he was going to continue to urge that policy. I have read the exact words, and I should like to know whether that is what the right hon. Gentleman intends to do. The second method was the giving of an extra grant of 75 per cent, to the local authorities who would find employment for men transferred from these distressed areas. As I understood the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, that was to be modified, if not abandoned, and the local authorities were to have that grant, on terms to be explained in a circular to be issued subsequently, whether they employed men from the distressed areas or not.

:I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman does not understand in the least either the basis on which the St. Davids Committee operated under his Government or the proposed amendment. It is necessary first to understand how the St. Davids Committee operated under the circular issued in 1928 by the right hon. Gentleman's own Government, and, if the right hon. Gentleman gets thus far, I can easily explain to him the amendments that are to be made.

:Unfortunately for the hon. Gentleman, I happen to have the circular in my hand, and he cannot ride off so easily. The St. Davids Committee as a matter of fact was set up and put into operation by the Committee of which I was chairman some years ago, and I have followed its work with some interest for some time. We are now accused of sabotaging the work of the St. Davids Committee. Under the policy of the St. Davids Committee 150,000 men were employed, and for some years, until 1926, we were spending, or rather guaranteeing, about £20,000,000 a year for the purpose of carrying on the work of the St. Davids Committee. The hon. Gentleman denounced us for having sabotaged that work, and said that this Government were going to continue it. I happen to have in my hand the Report of the St. Davids Committee of 1926, upon which the circular to which the hon. Gentleman just now referred was based. Lord St. Davids himself, in his Report of July, 1926, called attention to the fact that the amount of applications from local authorities had fallen from £30,000,000 a year to £18,000,000 a year, and he went on to say:

"The reasons for this are fully set out in, the present Report, in which this year's work is summarised. Broadly speaking, it was found that the scheme, which has now been in operation for six consecutive winters, has, largely for that very reason, passed the period of its greatest utility, and that, if pursued in future to the same extent as in the past, it would be difficult to avoid subsidising work properly undertaken by local authorities in the normal course of their business, and in such case but little could be added to the sum total of work performed in this country. In so far as special schemes might continue to be involved, there is the further objection that they might well have the tendency to divert capital from the normal trade developments which are now to be looked for, and would thus rather hinder than assist the relief of unemployment through the proper channel of trade recovery."

:Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that it was on that Report that the restrictive circular was issued? That is what I understood him to say, but the restrictive circular was issued in the preceding December.

Yes, I know that perfectly well, but let me deal with one thing at a time. This Report showed the position of the St. Davids Committee's work at that time. Up to that time there had always been the Clause that only such work should be subsidised as could be shown to be accelerated work, that is to say, not work which would be done by the local authority in the ordinary course. It had to be work which would not be undertaken for five years. That was in order to prevent the subsidising of the ordinary work of a local authority. Obviously it would be a waste of any fund specially raised for dealing with unemployment if it were simply taken out of the taxes for the relief of rates for the purpose of work which would be done by the local authorities in any case. That is not adding to the sum total of work; that is not helping the relief of unemployment, because that work would have been done in any case. What we tried to do was to make a selection in favour of work which would not otherwise be done, and, if this Government are not going to have any provision of that sort, what they will find is that they will be doing work which the local authorities ought to be doing, that they will not be adding to the gross total of work at all, and that not a single additional man will be employed. We are accused of sabotaging the St. Davids Committee's work, when the truth is that we carried it on to the extent of its utility, and it was not until the utility became more and more questionable that there was any contraction in the work of the St. Davids Committee and finally it was, rightly, superseded by other work.

The right hon. Gentleman said yesterday that he was going to alter, or rather, add to the St. Davids Committee a new scheme, and he called it a very important change. This was the scheme which is to allow, not merely the assistance of work done by local authorities, but the assistance of work to be done by public utility companies. The right hon. Gentleman did not explain what there was that was new in that. There is nothing new in it. Under the St. Davids scheme you could not, it is true, subsidise the work of public utility companies, but under the Trade Facilities Act you could, and you did. We did it in a great many cases. One of the extensions of the tubes was financed under the Trade Facilities Act. That assistance was given to a public utility company owned by private capitalists— by shareholders. Now I understand that there is to be a still further extension under the St. Davids scheme—with a new committee, it is true, for apparently they are not going to trust the St. Davids Committee, and a new committee is to be set up to carry out this very important change. I must say I am a little doubtful, and I want to know what that means. The hon. Gentleman explained some other statements, but he was a little shy about this. What is this? It is not, apparently, to bring work into the distressed areas; it is not for the purpose of setting up the silk factory or the tobacco factory, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred yesterday, in the distressed areas. The Lord Privy Seal said that he was going to try to find some means of inducing them to go, of helping them to go, and certainly, in the connection in which he used those words, I thought he meant financial inducement, financial help. Does the hon. Gentleman say that no financial help is to be given to induce the tobacco factory and the silk factory to go into the distressed areas?

:I said quite explicitly that under the Bill which my right hon. Friend proposes to introduce, and which is limited to public utility companies, obviously such concerns cannot receive consideration. I further said that, quite apart from that, my right hon. Friend, as he stated, was considering the question of inducing companies to settle in distressed areas, exactly as the late Government considered it and to some extent dealt with it in their de-rating proposals.

:I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Can he go one step further and say whether that inducement— that was the expression used— that help, is in the nature of financial help? Of course in the case of de-rating it was in the nature of financial help. That was intended for the purpose of helping manufacturers so that they should not be debarred from going into highly rated areas. That was done on purpose. May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the Government are going to add to that assistance and inducement, because it will be extremely important if he says that the assistance to public utility companies is not to include those that go into distressed areas.

:I did not say that public utility companies going into distressed areas could not receive consideration under this measure. I merely pointed out that concerns which were not public utility companies could not receive consideration.

:Yes, but what the right hon. Gentleman was talking of was inducing, not public utility companies, but manufacturers— silk manufacturers, tobacco manufacturers—to go into the Rhondda Valley. If that means nothing, of course I will take it from the hon. Gentleman, and we can postpone our inquiries until the Bill comes before the House.

:I can easily tell the right hon. Gentleman what that means. The Government, naturally, have been forced very soon to the conclusion that the measures which the late Government took to that end, and which they called their de-rating proposals, were entirely ineffective, and we have therefore had very soon to address our minds to the consideration whether that objective, which in itself is desirable, can by more effective means be achieved.

:This is one of the difficult positions into which we get. Of course, the hon. Gentleman has been very busy fighting his side of the election, and has not really paid attention to the fact that the de-rating proposals do not actually come into operation until October. However, these proposals that have been put before us are interesting in themselves, and most certainly, so far as we can, will meet with no opposition from us. There is one other thing that the right hon. Gentleman said in explanation of the Liverpool Street electrification scheme. I ventured to ask him whether he really meant the figure he gave. He said it would cost from £75,000,000 to £100,000,000. I wonder whether he really meant that. I asked him, and he apparently thought again, and said he did mean £75,000,000 to £100,000,000. If so, then his right hon. Friend might quite well have made that the first item in his programme, for it is very much larger than any other item to which he has referred, and there must be something wrong about those figures. I am told that the electrification of a railway with 750 miles of single line would be done at a cost of under £12,000,000, but here is an amount of £75,000,000 to £100,000,000 for the electrification of the lines running into Liverpool Street Station. It surely must be wrong. At any rate, if I cannot get any further information to-day, we shall hope to get it later, if the hon. Gentleman will consult his advisers.

What we have had before us are at the best palliatives for unemployment. We welcome them as palliatives. There is nothing very much that is new in them, but we welcome them so far as they go. We would welcome them still more if right hon. Gentlemen opposite would really touch the real remedies for unemployment. [HON. MEMBERS: " Will you help us?"] Yes. They are well known. What we want is to reduce the cost of production, and we did something towards that in our de-rating scheme. What we want is new markets, and we did something towards that by retaining, to some extent at any rate, the home market by our Safeguarding proposals, and by securing at any rate a larger share of our overseas markets by our preference policy. The right hon. Gentleman said that he bad asked himself this question: "What do we import?" He spoke of sleepers, but that was not something very new, because steel sleepers were not found out by the Labour party, but were actually on the roads long before. Let the right hon. Gentleman ask himself another question—" What do we want to export?—and let us deal with that as well.

:I want to claim the indulgence of the House, which is usually accorded to a new Member. I want to deal with one matter that is embodied in the King's Speech which affects that section of the industrial population to which I belong. It is stated that the Government have under consideration the question of the reorganisation of the coal in- dustry, including hours and other factors. We listened yesterday to charges by hon. Members opposite that our party had come to power by using the misery of the unemployed workers. There can be no doubt that for centuries they have been in power largely because they have used the miseries of that section and have exploited it to the utmost. While there has been discussion as to what may or may not have been decided at the recent election, there is one matter upon which there can be no doubt whatever. If there was one matter that was decided, so far as mining constituencies are concerned, it was the question of shorter hours. No Member of the Opposition can get away from the fact that the Measure they adopted three years ago in relation to the mining industry has not created more employment, but has created more unemployment. There has been increasing productivity and an extension of hours, but the sum total of the result is that there has been a further increase of misery and unemployment in industry.

I come from a distressed area and, if the example we have had of the results of the transference scheme is the best that can be put forward, there will have to be a remarkable change along those lines. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) declared that there was no difference between our scheme of reorganisation and the late Government's scheme of amalgamation and their own of co-ordination. Neither of our opponents' party schemes of amalgamation or co-ordination or anything else has been put forward except for the reason that there has been all the time pressure behind it and, as a matter of fact, it is realised now that there will have to be a tremendous difference between the reorganisation that is to be put forward on behalf of this Government and anything that has been put forward in the past. We do not realise exactly what is meant by schemes of reorganisation from the other side. The suggestion has already been made that, if a scheme of shorter hours is adopted, it will mean having to close mines and it will mean an increase in poverty. Whenever schemes have been put forward in the past from the ranks of the miners, industrially or politically, they have always been met with the parrot cry that they were going to bring ruin on the industry. I remember years ago being associated with Mr. John Wilson in a conference in which we were asking for a matter of 2d. a day extra, and the coalowners argued that it would bring ruin and desolation to the industry.

We are not alarmed or dismayed at the argument from the benches opposite that this reduction in hours, to which we are entitled, will bring more unemployment in the industry than anything that has been suggested up to the moment. Any Members of the Opposition who have been in the mining areas recently know what is the opinion of the miners on the matter. There will never be industrial peace until those who fill the coffers of the political party opposite adopt a totally different policy from that which has been adopted within recent months and years. Therefore we welcome this scheme that is to be put forward in relation to the reorganisation of the mining industry in order to get rid of that bitter, malicious policy which has been adopted by the owners of mines, the victimising of those who differ from their policy on industrial matters. I come from a constituency where a very large industrial concern has deliberately set out to prevent any active member of the trade union to which I belong even getting inside the colliery office to conduct negotiations. Therefore we welcome the policy which is to be put forward, believing that we shall see, if not the inauguration of the policy that we desire, at least the end in our time of the policy of victimisation which is being deliberately followed, and is in many instances driving families out of the country. Three years ago six members of my family were working in a particular colliery. To-day they are scattered, not merely to the four corners of this country but overseas, because of the policy that has been adopted by our opponents, and we welcome this reorganisation because it will mean an end of that wicked policy.

:I am certain the whole House would wish me to tender its congratulations to the hon. Member for the obvious sincerity, and equally obvious eloquence, with which he has spoken. We have no doubt that his contributions will be listened to with great pleasure, if with some disagreement, by those on these benches when Debates on the coal situation arise in the future. He will, I hope, not think it discourteous of me if I do not follow him into the rather more specialised topics which he selected, except to say that he has entirely begged the question. He has assumed— a perfectly proper assumption— that if, when you shorten the hours, you continue to sell the same amount of coal, you will give employment to a large number more miners; but that is missing the one vital spot, which is whether with reduced hours you will, in fact, be able to sell in competition with your competitors abroad the same amount of coal that you can to-day.

The occasion of this Debate must necessarily be rather a gloomy one for us on these benches. We naturally feel some depression at the absence of old friends, and perhaps even more at the presence of new opponents. But even this gloom is lightened by one or two things. It is lightened first of all by the opportunity we have of taking what we might call the first business view of the party below the Gangway. We have spent weeks in the early part of the year being assured from every platform and by every poster that the party contains men of superlative ability, that, if I may use financial jargon, they may have been rather bears of quantity but they were bulls of quality, and though their numbers might be small, the ratio of ability to superficial area was going to be abnormal. I do not know whether they consider that the change that has taken place since the Election has in any way altered the ratio, but it must come as a certain shock to some Members of that party, as it must come with a certain shock to some Members of the party opposite, that the policy of the Liberals and the policy of the Socialist party are so convergent that, in the case of a right hon. Gentleman whose ability and sincerity no one questions, the gulf between them can be bridged by a week's deliberation and an hour's instruction from the silver tongue of the right hon. Gentleman who is now Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. It would ill become me to offer a word of advice to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), but I think, with such sirens on the Front Bench of the Socialist party, it would be well for him to keep a double watch in future, or he may find more members of the crew slipping overboard during the night.

The other bright spot is the sympathetic amusement with which we are able to contemplate the struggle of hon. Members opposite to keep up for three or four days a Debate on the legislation of the Socialist party for some 18 months without mentioning the word "Socialism." We recognise that position and we sympathise with them. We know that they have not, in fact, changed their opinions; they have only changed their places in the House. We know that their leaders feel that they must not talk like Socialists, but they still are Socialists. It rather reminds me of the old story of the man who in conversation made the rather startling statement that his dog did not eat meat. When he was asked if he could explain this biological phenomenon he replied that possibly it was because he did not give it any. It will be interesting to see, despite the amiable speech of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) last night, how long the more carnivorous Members of the party opposite will be content with a monopoly of this purely vegetarian diet.

This is a general discussion upon the whole of the King's Speech, although if one were to follow that literally, and generally to discuss all the points which arise the Debate would last, not for a week, but for a month. One can, I think, safely proceed on the principle of leaving aside all those passages in the King's Speech where the word "investigation " or the word " inquiry " occurs. We can safely leave right hon. Gentlemen opposite to the favourite refuge of certain politicians— the exploration of evidence. They know full well that it will be months if not years before their explorations lead to definite results.

Coming to more definite proposals, I should like to say a few words upon the unemployment policy, although it has already been so fully traversed an all its aspects. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister started this Debate by an appeal to the House for co-operation on this problem. It may not, it cannot, I think, be possible to offer co-operation, but we can at least promise that our opposition will be constructive. The problem, after all, is too urgent, and, as hon. Members say, too tragic to admit of any party manæuvre, of trying to use it for party advantage. Our consciences would not permit it, nor, in fact, would the country tolerate it. We on this side will endeavour, as far as we can, to support whatever proposal is put forward by the other side which we really believe will bring some solution to the unemployment problem in this country. I think that I can say that although we recognise that a solution of the unemployment question would bring kudos to the party in office and might instal it in political power for a generation, yet we should count our prospect of political supremacy well lost if it were lost by the restoration of prosperity to this country.

If we analyse the results of the last election we must admit that, strongly as the country voted against the Socialist proposals of the hon. Members opposite, it voted even almost as strongly against the policy of the late Government for dealing with unemployment, and more particularly, I think, against its financial policy. The policy was a perfectly plain one. We believed that we could, and we in fact did help the industries of this country in many ways, by our de-rating scheme, for instance, but with regard to finance we believed that the proper course for the Government was not to attempt, or at least to attempt as little as possible, to direct the supply of credit to this or to that object, and to allow the fund of credit to be built up, and by increasing that fund to enable the industries of this country automatically to increase and automatically to provide increased employment. That was a perfectly logical policy. It was a policy which I believe, apart from the dangers, say, of monetary difficulties in America, we could have brought to a successful conclusion. But the country has decided otherwise. We have to make up our minds that they have voted in favour of what is roughly called a "loans policy." That is to say, that the Government by using their power as borrowers or as spenders can direct the- credit of this country into particular channels.

Having listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal, I felt like a man who had stepped on to a stair that is not there. I do not blame him for it. I do not want to make any party capital out of it. I think that he has shown his courage in coming forward with such a limited amount of proposals. It shows that he has, in fact, taken care to see that only those proposals which will benefit the country are put before it. It would, as he himself said, have been much easier for him to have come down here with a proposal to raise a loan of £100,000,000. It would have been easier for him to have kept his election pledges, but he has preferred to put the interests of the country before the interests either of his party or of himself. If there is anyone to blame it is those who have led the country to believe in their speeches that in this loans policy, in this simple transference of credit from one side to another, there does lie a quick and certain solution of the unemployment question in this country.

There are one or two questions which I should like to raise with regard to this policy. The first question which I would have asked the right hon. Gentleman had he been here, he did, I must confess, answer most fully in his speech yesterday. I wanted to know what the primary object of these schemes was to be, and he did give us a declaration. He did promise that in deciding upon the schemes he would keep in mind the effect they would have upon the trade of the country in the future. In other words, that when a scheme was submitted to him and he had to take his decision he would not say "How many men is this scheme going to employ?" but "What effect is this scheme going to have, when it is completed, upon the trade and industry of the country?" That, if I may say so, was exactly the way in which the right hon. Gentleman's scheme failed so lamentably. He showed us in great detail how many men, for instance, you could employ on building roads. He showed us a little less convincingly that there was room in the country to build them. But he did not attempt to say—and this is really the crux of the question—that if you spent £300,000,000 on roads you were going to get £300,000,000 worth of benefit to industry.

The second question I wanted to ask is this. Although the main object of these schemes is to improve the industry of the country, to give it additional facilities in some way, to cheapen its cost of production, hon. Members opposite look upon it as a secondary object to that of the increase of employment in this country while those schemes are in operation. If that is so the question has to be faced which the Chancellor of the Duchy refused to face. That is the question of credit. He said that he could not answer it and that no one else could answer and, therefore, it would have to stay over for another time. I do not think that he was fair either to himself or to the House. He said that he could not answer it, but I always understood that the Chancellor of the Duchy ranked with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the party opposite as one of their greatest experts upon credit and currency. Consequently the House has a right to know and to have an answer to this all-important question. The Chancellor of the Duchy himself tells us "Yes, as things are to-day."

As the credit system is to-day it is quite true that if by this Government expenditure and these Government loans you can put people to work, it will be at the expense of other people from whom you are going to withdraw credit. Other industries from whom you are going to attract credit will have to close down and dismiss their men. We want to know whether any steps have been taken to remedy this. I shall be glad if the First Commissioner of Works would take note of this question, although it is one on which he disagrees entirely with the Chancellor of the Duchy, because when he was talking about the credit situation last night he said he did not believe in credit of this kind. He had better sit down, when he has a spare half hour, and get the Chancellor of the Duchy to give him a little lecture upon it.

:Unfortunately I did not hear the Chancellor of the Duchy and I take it for granted that the hon. Member has correctly represented him. But I do not think that the Chancellor of the Duchy said—I cannot think that he did from what he has written on this subject—that the last word has been said on currency and exchange and so on by the orthodox speakers and the orthodox authorities on that subject. There is a very great difference of opinion on the subject. Some very eminent economists disagree with the point of view put by the hon. Gentleman. I am not an expert but an ordinary person.

:Perhaps it is that the right hon. Gentleman ought to give half an hour's lecture to the Chancellor of the Duchy.

:The right hon. Gentleman did not have the advantage of hearing the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy. He said that under present circumstances there was no disagreement with the orthodox view. That, I think, is quite true. What we want to know and what we are entitled to know is, is there any change going to be made in the existing system? If there is no change going to be made, then the statement of the Chancellor of the Duchy stands, that the men you put into employment by using Government credit are counterbalanced by the men you put out of employment by a restriction of credit on the other side. We are entitled to know before we pass judgment on these schemes whether in fact any steps have been taken to alter the existing system, and whether any steps are being taken to increase the supply of credit, and then it will be open to us to say whether these unorthodox views are right.

:May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is asserting that if any Government of the day went into the money market to get money for the purpose of public works of utility and of service for the development of the country, that that would of itself injure private enterprise and, therefore, the Government should not undertake them? If that is so, why did the late Government go in for £30,000,000 of credit for the development of electricity undertakings?

:May I just give the right hon. Gentleman a little example? The Lord Privy Seal laid great stress upon the building of the Zambesi Bridge, and one of the points in favour of it was that it was going to use something like £2,000,000 worth of British steel. That order is placed with the British steel manufacturer in this country, and the first thing that he does when the order is placed is to go to his bank and say, "I have received this order. It means taking on more men and the reopening of some of my works. I shall require three or six months' credit for that purpose." The bank says: "It is an ordinary and sound commercial proposition, and you shall have the money." The bank has not the money lying there. If you look at the balance sheet of a bank to-day, you will find that the ratio of deposits to advances is already low, the lowest that was considered compatible with safety in the old days of banking. To promise an advance to that steel manufacturer, simply means that as credits are being repaid they will be put aside for that purpose. When the boot-maker or the silk stocking manufacturer or the chemical manufacturer comes along, next week, to repay his short term advance and asks for a renewal, he will be told: "No. You cannot have it. We have promised something to a steel manufacturer, and you will have to cut down your credit by one-half." Then, this particular manufacturer will go back, and say: "My credit has been cut down by half, my industry has been cut down by half and my employment has been cut down by half."

:Instead of the Government guaranteeing the private firm which is to build a bridge across the Zambesi, suppose that the private firm goes to the bank for the money. Am I to understand that the same principle does not apply to the private firm? If not, why not?

:Then does it mean that we are to throw up our arms and say that there is nothing to be done? It is sheer nonsense.

:Exactly the same thing happens with exactly the same result, that this mere direction by the Government of credits in one direction or another does not give increased employment unless, at the same time, you make arrangements for an increased credit in this country. All I am asking is, whether any arrangement has been made for an increase of credit in this country, so that this Government borrowing and expenditure shall not merely mean changing the thing from one pocket to another.

:The Chancellor of the Duchy agrees with me.— [ lnterruption. ]Well, we are not to be misrepresented.

:If I may say so, that is a remark which is not quite worthy of the right hon. Gentleman.

:I have misrepresented nothing that the right hon. Gentleman has said. If he will read his speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow and also the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy, he will see that they are at utter variance on this point. I should like to ask a question in regard to the assistance which is to be given to individual enterprise, as apart from municipalities or power stations. The position as it is left at the moment is a little obscure. I understand that, so far, no proposals have been put forward for assistance on the lines of the Trade Facilities Act, by Government guarantee or otherwise, to private enterprise. I understand that that is under consideration. If it is under consideration, I do hope that when the machinery is devised, attempts will be made to make it a little more elastic than was the machinery under the Trade Facilities Act.

The kind of industry which you want to help is not a new industry which is just starting. Such an industry has a speculative value and is able to get capital in the open market. It is not well established and prosperous firms that you want to help, because they, too, can go into the open market and borrow at a decent rate of interest. To offer them a Government guarantee is only to enable them to borrow money at 5 per cent, instead of 6 per cent. The firm that the Government want to help is one that falls between these two classes —an old established business which has not a speculative attraction and which has been, perhaps, through bad times. Although it has turned the corner and could convince a Committee or a bank that its future position is good, yet its past reputation and past history are not good enough for it to go into the open market and raise money at a proper rate. That is the kind of business that the Trade Facilities Act ought to help, and it is the kind of business which, I am afraid, the Trade Facilities Act did not entirely help last time. I think they erred a little too much on the side of safety and did not, therefore, entirely fulfil the purposes of the Act.

One further point on the question of helping private industry. It is a point which has been left in much confusion. I refer to the idea of offering to private enterprise some inducement to go into the distressed areas. We have not been told what kind of inducement may be offered to them. It may be only some method such as was adopted by the late Government in trying to remove the reasons which prevent them from going to such districts. We lowered the rates in those distressed areas, because that was one of the reasons why industries would not go into them. That is a perfectly legitimate thing to do, but if, when hon. or right hon. Members talk about inducements, they mean that they are going to offer money to these firms, say, to put a factory down in a place where otherwise they would not want to put it, then it is a most pernicious precedent. Suppose they say to a firm which makes an application under the Trade Facilities Act, or whatever it may be called: "We will give you money, on condition that you put down a factory in, say, the Rhondda Valley, whether you want to do so or not: if you put down a new factory in a place which you would not select because you believe it would be better for your business that you should go elsewhere, then, out of Government money we will make up to you any loss that you may suffer." To raise Government money and to spend it in that way, is, of course, obvious inflation, and it will be a most dangerous precedent for the Government to adopt.

In regard to electoral reform, I was rather puzzled by the attitude of the Prime Minister when he spoke on Tuesday. He dealt, with a look of good-humoured toleration, but in complete silence from his supporters, with the alternative vote, the second ballot and proportional representation; but it was not until he came to the final proposal that his face displayed any animation or his followers showed any support, and that was when he threw out a hint about maintaining the status quo. He said that it might be the business of the electors to choose Governments. Surely he could not mean to choose Governments of a minority of votes in this country. Those of us who were in the last Parliament had plenty of opportunity of knowing the views of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues upon a Government which depended upon a minority of votes in the country. Whatever we proposed, we were told that we had no mandate for doing it. If we had followed the constitutional advice which the right hon. Gentleman so freely and generously offered to us, we should never have put on the Statute Book any single Act which was opposed by either of the other two parties.

:I cannot see anything which should have altered his opinion in the meantime. During the last Parliament he was very much opposed to Government based on a minority of votes. To-day, he seems to be less opposed to that. Looking round, what can there be which can have affected his opinion? There is one significant point in the proposal with regard to the inquiry on the subject of electoral reform, and that is the proposal to divide the work of the Committee into two parts and to have two separate reports. I do not see how it is possible to discuss any of these questions except in relation to the whole. I do not see, for instance, how you can discuss the amount of money expenditure allowed to a candidate until you have decided whether there is to be a second ballot, or a system of proportional representation. I do not see how you can decide whether a man is to be allowed to subscribe to a cricket club in his constituency without being guilty of corruption, unless you know whether he is going to be the candidate for that constituency, or whether he is to be merely one of a list of names under a system of proportional representation. It certainly might lend itself to the belief that the object of the division of the Committee into two halves was that there were some things connected with the electoral law which the right hon. Gentleman saw, which were to the disadvantage of the Socialist party. Those go into one half, and can be dealt with immediately. There are others, far more important and far more essential, which if they are of disadvantage at all are only of disadvantage to the nation and democracy. Those can be put into the second half and, if there is time, perhaps they can be dealt with.

Had it not been for the eloquent peroration of the Prime Minister one might almost have suspected him of that "monkeying" of which he has spoken. He ended his speech by inviting us to form part of a great council of the nation. The lion and the lamb were to lie down together. The hon. Member for Bridge-ton (Mr. Maxton) and the hon. Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Mr. Dixey) were to walk arm in arm through the Lobby, in support of the Prime Minister's policy. That may be the millennium. He can appeal to us for co-operation, for friendly treatment, and for fair treatment, and his appeal would be answered, so long as he treats us fairly. Whether he is going to treat us fairly or whether he is going to "monkey" with us, we shall judge not from his perorations, but from his actions.

:The House is always delighted to hear the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Stanley). It is one of the most interesting signs of the times and of the evolution of the Tory party that we find speakers like the hon. Member expressing views of the kind which he usually addresses to the House. He suggested that possibly there would be more desertions from the Liberal Benches to these benches. Were it not for the hon. Member's own early environment his right place would be on these benches. He is not alone in that respect. There are other young and brilliant men on his side to whom my remark applies, and it would have profited the Conservative party if they had listened to the advice of those young men before the Election.

6.0. p.m.

We have received a lecture on our shortcomings from the late Secretary of State for War. He suggested that we were inconsistent and contradictory, and that we were simply copying the policy of the late Government in regard to the transfers of unemployed men. The late Government claimed that 20,000 people were in employment owing to the application of that transfer system. It would be interesting to know to what districts these men were sent and in what occupations they are employed. For is it not an established and admitted fact that the conditions under which money was granted to municipalities was that no matter how great the distress was in the locality to which the men should be transferred, or how many locally were unemployed, that 50 per cent, of the unemployed from other places should have preference, thus intensifying instead of diminishing unemployment? And the hon. Member opposite commends that as a policy of transference. The only policy of the Conservative party as a solution of this national tragedy is an extension of the safeguarding system. Out of their own mouths let them be condemned. I hold in my hand a leaflet which was distributed in millions during the General Election. It was issued from the Conservative headquarters, and this is what it says: absurd are the arguments for safeguarding. Here is another political pamphlet issued by the Constitutional Association, entitled, "Woman of To-day and Tomorrow." It was distributed to every household in the land, to every woman in the country. I will not call the introduction to it an unholy combination, but it is a combination of cinema stars and Cabinet Ministers. On page 2 of this pamphlet we are told how to make a happy home with the Conservative vote; and this is how the women of this country are to keep a happy home. Two things are needed to make a success of the home, according to this pamphlet. One is the husband's capacity to make his wife happy—a big job under a Conservative Government, and the next is the wife's ability to be a good housekeeper. You must have mottoes like:

:On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, is this in order on the Debate on the Address? Is this particular poem relevant?

:I will finish the poetry and come to prose. What I want to do is to show what the Conservative party did in order to get the women's vote. It says:

I want seriously, honestly and sincerely to congratulate the Prime Minister and his colleagues in the Cabinet on the production for the first time in our history of the most practical and common-sense progressive programme that has ever been put before this House. There was a time in my early political history when, like my esteemed Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), I should have been even more disappointed than he. But time, responsibility and experience, particularly the latter, have tempered the wind, and while still retaining my ideals as strong as he I gladly accept the modified programme as an instalment while, Oliver Twist like, demanding more. I listened to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer last night, and although I did not hear his kindly reference to myself, I want to assure him that I fully appreciate the spirit which prompted the reference, despite the uncharitable suggestion that the object was to put the cat amongst the pigeons. I have known the late Chancellor of the Exchequer for many years, and I knew his father before him, and although his political activities have been of a somewhat kaleidoscopic nature, deep down there is after all the characteristic human touch which will prevail all through. He wondered at the marvellous growth of the Socialist party. So do I. My mind goes back to the days of William Morris, when we used to go out and preach the new religion to the heathen. I remember when we had local elections. We did not get as many votes as the number of our nominators.

The growth of the Socialist party during the last 30 or 40 years has indeed been remarkable, and it dates from the moment when dear old Keir Hardie, Quelch and I were gathered together in the chamber of a titled lady. That was the dawn of the respectability of the Labour party. A few years afterwards we were known as the rejected and the despised of politics, denounced by the Liberal party and by the Arch-Priest of Fabianism, George Bernard Shaw, who attended our first conference of the I.L.P. at Bradford in 1893 as the representative of the Fabian Society, elected after the mysterious manner peculiar to the Fabian Society at the time, and roundly denounced us as unwarrantable political interlopers queering the pitch of the Fabian policy of permeation of existing orthodox political parties. He was expelled temporarily for his offence. But we went on. As one of the 29 I.L.P. candidates we went forth in 1895 determined to slay the political Phílistines, instead of which we were slain ourselves, including dear old Hardie. God rest his unselfish soul! And from that time until now have lived consoled with the moral victories which have at least made to-day possible; and if the spirit of Hardie looks down upon us now I knew him well enough to be satisfied that he welcomes the enormous strides made and rejoices in the fact of a Labour Ministry with even this modified programme as an instalment.

That is some few years ago, and now I am glad to see this day. Here we have a Labour Prime Minister introducing Measures of this kind which, although they do not reach the ideals in which we believe and which I for one still hold as strongly as the hon. Member for Bridge-ton (Mr. Maxton), yet hold out great promise of removing that gaunt spectre of poverty that haunts every home and every worker throughout the land, whether he is in a job or out of it.

Last night I heard the lecture delivered by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) on the enormous crime of exploiting the misery of the people in regard to unemployment. I want respectfully to suggest to the Noble Lord—I will be as respectful as the circumstances permit—that it comes with a bad grace from the representative of his class to talk about exploitation while he represents the cause of the misery, degradation and the unemployment which exist among the workers to-day. If the Noble Lord has the time and the inclination to come with me, I can take him down to Liverpool, and I can show him some of the ugliest spots and the slum areas built up and owned by Members of his own party. The child labour of those slums has been exploited. Children have had to go to work, as I went to work, at nine years of age, in order that their parents may pay the rent of the slum dwellings, and so that the Noble Lord and his class.—I am not preaching class war now, but I am stating positive facts—can make profits out of child labour to enable him to go to a university and come back to this House and make laws to perpetuate the same damnable system over and over again. The Noble Lord talks about exploitation; let him put that in his pipe and smoke it.

I stand where I stood many years ago, but I would point out to hon. Members opposite that all attempts that are being made to-day to create dissatisfaction among the rank and file of our party are doomed to failure. We have made up our minds that the material that is contained in the King's Speech to-day is the keynote of our policy for the future, for the relief of our people from the misery and degradation brought about by unemployment. I say this to hon. Members who sit opposite: "Blessed be they who expect nothing, for they shall not be disappointed." We were at the launching of a ship and a few of us have weathered the storm, we have seen white water ahead. We see shores abeam, and though we have not even been promoted to bo'suns' mates or lamp trimmers, and though it may be true that we have here and there a pier-head jumper on the quarter deck, as one of the old crew I say, "God speed the ship." For we are not yet out of danger. We are in fact verging on the doldrums with submerged submarine pirates with torpedoes in their tubes, and to escape them a zig-zag course may be temporarily necessary until we reach a harbour of permanent refuge. Then in the evening of my life I hope to live to hear the musical rumbling of the cable through the hawse-pipe, so dear to the heart of the weather-beaten homeward-bounder as the anchor finds good holding ground in the bed of the harbour of the Promised Land.

:Several Members of this House, during these debates, have craved indulgence on the ground that they were speaking within these walls for the first time. I cannot make a similar appeal, because I had the honour to be a Member in four Parliaments. Still, since I have been absent from the debates in this House for 11 years, I feel to-night in need of some measure of indulgence. Although this is not my maiden speech, yet I confess that I feel that somewhat modified diffidence which perhaps may be properly associated with a second marriage, and I hope the House in its kindness and its generosity will grant me indulgence in consideration of that fact. This is likely to be a very interesting Parliament. More than that, it may be a very important Parliament in the working out of the principles and the practice of British government. We have had already in these debates a number of interesting statements. Perhaps the most important and the most significant of these was made by the Prime Minister on the first day of our meeting. I would remind hon. Members of his words. He said this: House would appoint a Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Nation, and I gather that what the Prime Minister has in mind is that this Parliament should, more than previous Parliaments, act rather in its corporate capacity instead of considering it always necessary to divide itself on customary party lines. Speaking with the great authority of his high office, the Prime Minister invites the House of Commons to co-operate with him in the framing of a number of important measures, and he has a right to know what is the response which will be made from various quarters of the House to that invitation. For my own part, believing that his suggestion, is made with all sincerity, I think that the House should accept it with equal sincerity. That clearly involves certain consequences in the relations between the House and the Government. It will mean that the Government must not look upon every question as a question of confidence. Hon. Members in all quarters of the House must be enabled to feel that they can vote on the merits of proposals dealing with large questions of policy without involving the stability of the Government, and that where there is ground for disagreement that should not entail the resignation of the Government and the possibility of a Dissolution of Parliament. The Prime Minister at the beginning of the 1924 Parliament made a statement on these important matters. He said: whether he is prepared to repeat that statement as the present intention of the existing Government. I believe that, if he did so, such a course would be right and that it would conduce to the dignity and effectiveness of Parliament. This is no new opinion of mine brought forward to meet the exigencies of the present situation. In the last years of the War this House appointed a Committee on National Expenditure and did me the great honour to make me its chairman. I served as its chairman for two years. That Committee had laid upon it the duty, not only of endeavouring to check the great flow of national expenditure during the War—an exceedingly hard task I need hardly say—but it was also invited by the House to make proposals with regard to the House's own control of expenditure. Historically, the control of the finances of the country has been the most important function of Parliament. Actually, it has wholly disappeared, and for many years there has never been a case in which the House of Commons, of its own motion, has effectively altered any Estimate presented by any Government, and this House has had no more real control over the moneys that it votes, than a cash register has over the coins which pass through its till. The Committee on National Expenditure urged that this system should be altered. It proposed that there should be set up two Estimates Committees to examine in detail the Estimates presented, but it said that the creation of these Estimates Committees would be useless if, after they had reported, the House regarded itself as obliged to vote on every suggested Amendment, solely with regard "to its effect upon the Government of the day and if no Amendment could be effected in any Estimate without having a disastrous effect upon the stability of that Government. The Committee reported in these terms:

There are millions of our fellow-countrymen in this highly industrialised, materialistic civilisation in which we live, who are profoundly discontented with their lot, and rightly discontented, and they look to this House to see if it cannot find some practical remedy. I do not think that they are tied, for the most part, to any economic formula. I believe that the vast majority do not know what Socialism really means. Sometimes I confess that in moments of depression, and in the stilly watches of the night, the horrid doubt steals upon my mind that perhaps there may be some among hon. Members opposite who also do not quite definitely know what Socialism really means. But the people look to the statesmen and the politicians to frame workable measures to make what is to them a bad world somewhat better. I interpret the mandate of the late General Election in this sense. I believe that the vast majority of the people have voted consciously and deliberately in favour of an active policy of social improvement and for the promotion of international peace. I think it would be a shameful thing if, owing to any party manoeuvres, that mandate were made of no avail—not only a shameful thing but most dangerous to the State, for then the working class would feel that Parliamentary institutions were almost worthless; that an immense effort had been made bringing no result, and that a vast machine had been created which produced nothing but the grinding and the creaking of its own wheels.

It is we on these benches who are most deeply concerned in the successful working of democratic institutions. It has been the Liberals who have fought for 100 years for the widest extension of the franchise. It was they who 3et up the secret ballot. It was they who abolished the veto of the House of Lords. It was they who set the trade unions free to engage in political activities. It was they who established payment of Members, precisely in order that this House of Commons should become really the Commons' House. It is we above all who have an interest to see that our democratic constitution works smoothly and effectively and achieves the purpose for which it was designed. I know that the present situation in Parliament, as my right hon Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has said, is one which in some measure is very convenient to the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Government Bench. It is a common characteristic of human nature to attribute our successes to our own virtues, and our failures to the faults of other people; and in the present circumstances the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, I have no doubt, will be tempted to say, whenever things go right, that it is to their credit, and whenever things go wrong that it is the fault of the Liberals. But that will be all in the year's work and we must accept it as best we can.

Our democratic system, with all the reforms that have been made in the course of generations, is not yet perfected, and until our electoral system itself is reformed it will not really achieve the purpose of enabling the true mind of the people to be reflected in this House. For many years some of us have advocated the reform of the electoral system. It is suggested, of course, by hon. Members opposite that this is a new idea which has suddenly occurred to us to meet the situation of the present time. [HON. MEMBBES: "Hear, hear!"] But those hon. Members, if I may say so, have not made themselves familiar with the course of the Debates when the last great Reform Bill was before Parliament, 10 years ago, in 1917 and 1918 and when all these matters were debated. Some of us here urged most strongly that there should be a reform of the electoral system, either by way of the alternative vote or Proportional Representation or by a combination of the two. That had been recommended by a Royal Commission appointed in 1910 to consider our electoral system. A Speaker's Conference had also recommended it, and a strong effort was made in that Parliament to insert such provisions in the Bill—an effort supported by many right hon. Gentlemen who are Members of the present Government. The Foreign Secretary voted for it, spoke for it and told for it in one division. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education, the Minister of Agriculture, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Postmaster General—all those Members of the present Government were in Parliament then and all supported the Measure of that time. I will make just two small extracts from speeches made on that occasion. I see a smile on the face of the Lord Privy Seal. He anticipates what is coming. I will first quote from his colleague the Foreign Secretary who said: Labour party, but the Lord Privy Seal adopted a still wider view. He said:

:I am sure they will not. For my own part, speaking in this House at that time I urged that the question was not one of advantage to any particular party. I anticipated then, and I think I was right, that if the alternative vote had been carried it would have been of chief advantage to the Labour party. I advocated it on the ground that, although it might work to the disadvantage of Liberalism it was right; that democracy, self-government is more than the interests of Liberalism, or of any party, and we ought to combine in order to carry a measure which would enable our constitution to be perfected. The House, perhaps, does not realise that the alternative vote was carried four times in the House of Commons in the course of those discussions, but by very narrow majorities—first by a majority of one, then by a majority of 29, then by eight,, and then by one again, and then it was struck out by the House of Lords; and the fact that at this last election, and the elections that preceded it, we did not have a fair and proper system of election suited to the conditions of the time and of the three-party system is due to the action ,of the House of Lords. For my own part, I am not tied to the alternative vote or to any one scheme. We are quite willing to pool our ideas and to endeavour to arrive at a common agreement, and I hope that this is one of the matters which the Prime Minister had in view when he pleaded for corporate action by the House as a whole. In the last Parliament indeed the appeal was frequently made to the late Govern- ment to have a non-party or a three-party conference to consider these measures of electoral reform, but they turned a deaf ear to that appeal, and the results were most unfortunate in the election that has just taken place.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs not long ago emphasised the importance of this matter, and referred to the paragraph in the King's Speech that touched upon it, though in very vague terms, and he asked that there should be an assurance that this inquiry which was to be held would not be merely a vehicle for delay, but that they would proceed expeditiously with this matter, with a real desire to come to a conclusion and to present quickly to the House some practical proposals. Although the Prime Minister signified his assent silently when my right hon. Friend was speaking, I think we should like, if we may respectfully ask for it, and if any other Member of the Government is speaking in this Debate, some definite and formal assurance that that course will be adopted.

:The Prime Minister did signify his assent, and he went on to say yesterday—whether or not it was reported I do not know, but I heard it quite distinctly—in answering this specific question, " I never meant anything but absolute sincerity and a desire, just as I said, to do the right thing. I meant business."

:I am sure that will be most cordially welcomed by the House and that all who' are especially interested in this question are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We ask for expedition, but we do not, of course, ask for priority for this question. The problems of unemployment must have priority over all else, and we have listened with great interest to the speeches that have been made sketching out the schemes on which the Government are now working. I confess that most of us had some feeling of disappointment when we listened to the speeches of the Lord Privy Seal and the First Commissioner of Works yesterday, which was not very much removed by the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to-day. These schemes give the impression that they are somewhat in the nature of hasty improvisations, at all events at this stage. Naturally they will be worked out in greater detail later. For example, we were told by the hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Duchy to-day, on one scheme that had not previously been mentioned in anything like the same detail, that the Government apparently are contemplating taking steps to secure the electrification of Liverpool-street Station and lines adjoining it—a very desirable thing—but, I think to the surprise of the whole House, the hon. Baronet said that they were proposing to allot a sum for this purpose of from £75,000,000 to £100,000,000. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

:It is very important that I should correct this at once. I cannot conceive that my hon. Friend said anything of the kind, because I discussed the matter with him before he spoke. —[HON. MEMBERS: "He did."]—I repeat that he could not have- said it, and I had better make it quite clear now, to save considerable misapprehension. What he said, and what would be true—I am sure he must have said it—is that a development of that kind would probably cost £70,000,000 or £80,000,000. Everyone who knows anything about it knows it would, but we would not be finding the £70,000,000 or £80,000,000. We would be providing the facilities for that expenditure.

:I do not know what the facilities would be. The right hon. Gentleman is guaranteeing a loan of £70,000,000 to £100,000,000, but that is practically the same. It involves—

:This is very important, because no one is more careful on finance than the right hon. Gentleman, and I repeat that it is unfair to assume that any such suggestion as he makes is true. For instance, if a proposition such as that could be self-supporting and paying in one, two, or three years, it would be madness for any Government to give a guarantee of 10 or 15 years or, on the other hand, to give a guarantee of all the interest. We do not intend anything of the kind. He ought to know that general schemes were sketched out merely as an indication of what might be done.

:It was not primarily the point of a Government guarantee or a Government loan that I had in mind; what surprised the House was the dimensions of the figure, that it should be possible for work of that kind to involve so vast an expenditure. The whole capital of the London and North Eastern Railway system, including the Great Eastern, the Great Northern, the Great Central, and the North Eastern Railways, is only £342,000,000, for that vast system, one of the greatest railway systems in the country; and to imagine that it should be necessary to spend £75,000,000 or £100,000,000 upon the electrification of one terminus, important though it is—

:He did. The right hon. Gentleman was not present in the House, and many of us were. It was challenged almost immediately afterwards by the right hon. Member for St. George's (Sir L. Worthington-Evans).

:I was present when the hon. Baronet made his statement. It was in reply to a question on the other side, and he said distinctly that if this project was commenced and ultimately carried out to its natural conclusion, it might involve an expenditure of £75,000,000.

:It is no point to quarrel about, and I do not want to make any unfair point upon it. All that I was saying was that to indicate so vast an expenditure as that rather startled the House of Commons.

:I was criticised by a right hon. Gentleman yesterday for the meagreness of my proposals.

:I do not think the House would grudge any expenditure which was warranted by the facts of the case—far from it—but so colossal a sum as this for that one purpose did seem strange, and all of us who heard the speech thought that the hon. Baronet must have made some slip. The right hon. Gentleman says he has not, and we must await the production of the precise proposals before we can give them effective criticism. With regard to roads, the right hon. Gentleman said that a great deal of work was about to be done, and he quoted figures of £9,500,000 and £26,000,000 which were to be spent on roads in order to help to cope with the difficulties of unemployment. I gather that there is to be no loan for roads, no borrowed money. At all events, the right hon. Gentleman did not indicate that there was to be any loan at all. Also, apparently, no special steps are to be taken to change the allocation of the charge as between the Government and the local authorities, and that has been one of the great difficulties in the way of proceeding with schemes with rapidity.

:Yes, you are! There was not a word said by me or my colleagues indicating anything of the kind. As a matter of fact, I said in my speech that I was meeting the municipalities today. That is why I was not in the House this afternoon to hear my hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy, because I have been meeting them. Certainly, the whole question of allocation and speeding-up is all a matter of negotiation, but it would be absurd to announce any terms until we had met the authorities.

:I quite agree, and I am glad to know that the matter is under consideration. So far, at all events, the Government have not come to any conclusion on that matter, that they will alter the allocation of the funds. We hope on these benches that the matter will be considered very favourably and that the cost of roads which are really national roads should be defrayed out of national funds. As to these two sums, amounting together to £35,000,000 or £36,000,000— perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell me if I am right here—I understand that the whole of this money is money which is in the Road Fund already, or which will come into the Road Fund in the ordinary course. There is no new money, and all this expenditure would be carried out by any Government which did not raid that fund, so that all that the Government have undertaken to do with regard to increasing employment upon the roads is not to repeat the raids of the last Government. For the rest, the work will go on with the funds which are already available and in prospect, except that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may or may not in the future, if the necessity should be found to arise, increase the amount of the fund, apparently out of the taxes.

I am very glad that the Government are going to endeavour to safeguard the Road Fund against raids. I am speaking in purely a Parliamentary sense when I say that the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer was too great a financial purist to borrow, but he did not disdain to steal. But now the present Government are going to endeavour, by Statute, to safeguard the Fund against any future similar depredations if there should be a change of Government. Vain hope! Any Statute that is made now can be repealed, and the law has not yet been conceived which would protect the national resources against the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, if ever he should again be returned to power.

Another point with regard to unemployment schemes is this: We do not understand, although we endeavoured to secure the information this afternoon from the Chancellor of the Duchy, what the right hon. Gentleman really had in mind when he spoke of encouragement to private enterprises to be established in various parts of the country where depression has been acute. We on these benches have constantly said that the development of private industry is the only cure ultimately for unemployment. It is the only cure, because it is the only preventive in the long run, for unemployment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs and all of us have always said that, and, therefore, we were extremely interested in what was said by the Lord Privy Seal as to the steps he was contemplating to induce new enterprises—he instanced silk and tobacco factories—to go into depressed districts. He instanced the Rhondda Valley. What is that inducement to be? We are told it is not to be anything in the nature of the provision of capital or the guarantee of it. The Chancellor of the Duchy said that what was in their minds was something on the lines of the De-rating Act of the last Government. Is that really so? When does the Lord Privy Seal expect to tell the House what he has in mind? Because this is one of the most important aspects and, indeed, in some respects, the most important aspect, of the whole unemployment problem. Does it mean much, or does it mean little? Does it mean some great scheme for the relief and the assistance of industry, or is it a mere phrase which dropped out casually in the course of a Ministerial statement?

7.0 p.m.

There are only two other points on which I wish briefly to address the House. There is a paragraph in the King's Speech dealing with agriculture. Agriculture, as we all know, is an industry suffering in most districts from very severe depression. There has been as yet no word from the Government with regard to the meaning of this reference. It does not relate to the marketing of produce, for that is separate. I should like to know whether the Minister of Agriculture will tell the House what the Government have in mind with regard to the relief and assistance of agriculture. In the election addresses of many Labour candidates there appears a proposal to which they seemed to attach much importance—the stabilisation of prices of agricultural produce. What does that mean? Are prices to be stabilised at their existing level? That would mean that the depression is to be made permanent. Are they to be stabilised at a higher level than the world prices? If so, who is to pay the difference? That is a question on which I would be glad if the Minister of Agriculture would interest himself and let us know whether in this Parliament the Government intend to implement their undertakings with regard to the stabilisation of agricultural prices. The farming community throughout the whole country would be greatly interested.

Finally, I wish to say a few words on another great matter that is looming over the country—the situation in the coal mines. For my own part, I welcome very cordially the declaration of policy at this stage in the Gracious Speech from the Throne. The situation is somewhat ominous at the moment in the coalfields. I do not press today for any further information of the intentions of the Government. They are engaged now in consultations with the various parties in the industry, and it is far better of course for them to endeavour to carry the industry with them in any measures they may desire to take, and the House of Commons will be very ready to wait until those consultations are completed. I would venture, however, at this stage to express the hope that they will be cautious in the way in which they deal with the hours of labour. The Royal Commission on the Coal Industry did not favour any alteration of hours in the coalmines, but it regarded the question, and it emphasised the fact, as very closely connected with the question of wages. We said that the two to a great extent had to be considered together, that in the then condition of the industry it would not be possible in our opinion— and we came to the conclusion with great reluctance—both to continue the hours which had recently been shortened and also the higher rate of wages which had recently been established. We said it was rather a matter for the miners themselves to decide whether they would wish to have the shorter hours or the higher wages. The miners declared they would make no concession either in the matter of hours or of wages, and the consequence was a very prolonged struggle which ultimately ended, very much against their will, in their having to give way on both. Now the wages at the present time are, in the opinion of all of us, wholly inadequate they are far too low. I hope the Government, when they deal with the question of hours, will take into account the possible repercussion of any action of theirs upon the question of wages and upon the possibility of the wages being restored in the near future to a level more adequate to the work. Possibly they may think it well to take into their close consideration the international aspects of this question and the possibility of securing some degree of uniformity in the hours of labour in the coal mines throughout the competing countries of Europe.

There is one Measure that could be taken administratively with regard to the coal mines without any fresh legislation at all. The Royal Commission attached great importance, in order to secure better relations between employers and employed, to the establishment of joint committees at every pit. We recommended that with emphasis. We believed, and we all of us believe still, that the labour question at bottom is not only a matter of cash. It is also a matter of status. The workman of to-day, educated, enfranchised, a citizen in the State, will not be content to remain merely a servant in industry. As one step towards a better system of industry we think it most important, not only in the mines but throughout all industries, that there should be established joint councils representing the employers and employed in every establishment. Following the recommendations of the Royal Commission, the late Government passed an Act, the Mining Industry Act, 1926, which included a provision for the establishment of such joint committees. The Report of the Royal Commission said it would be advisable, if possible, that the industry should carry out this reform of its own motion. And the Government, also on our recommendation, inserted a Section in the Act, which was carried and is now the law of the land, that if, after two years, such committees had not been established, the Board of Trade was to have power to require their establishment by regulation if request was made from any mine. The two years have elapsed long ago. A question was put in the late House a few weeks ago asking what action had been taken. The reply was given that no action had been taken as no requests had come from any mine. I would suggest to the Government and the Miners' Federation that they should consider whether the joint committees should not now be established, and whether the powers of the Act of 1926 should not be put effectively into force.

:I would ask the right hon. Gentleman what benefits that would bring to the industry?

:It was very strongly advocated to the Royal Commission by many witnesses and by Mr. Herbert Smith, the President of the Federation, who has more than once publicly regretted that, when the opportunity offered in 1920 to establish pit committees, the Miners' Federation refused it. Having refused it, the Miners' Federation afterwards came forward and asked that pit committees should be established. At that time the employers, who had previously accepted, were against it and pit committees were not established. The Miners' Federation themselves pressed for them, and they cannot have been so useless or they would not have done so. With regard to other matters concerning the coal mines, the House will await the production of the Bill. I hope it may be one of those that may be passed with a very general measure of assent, and that it will pro- ceed very closely on the lines of the recommendations of the Royal Commission. At one time the late Government signified their willingness to accept those recommendations if the parties in the industry would do the same. Therefore, those recommendations cannot have been so very deleterious or mischievous. I hope, therefore, that Members above the Gangway when the Bill is produced will not meet it with any uncompromising hostility.

I end as I began by saying that those are some of the measures on which the House may be privileged to sit as a Committee of the whole House, and to enjoy a freedom of debate and decision which had been surrendered by many of its predecessors. This Parliament may be able to fill a very high place in the history of Parliaments, and each one of us who is privileged to sit in this House, with its seven centuries of traditions, have the opportunity to promote its usefulness and strengthen its hold upon the respect and confidence of the nation whose servants we are.

:The House will have listened with great interest and attention to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). A most interesting part of that speech was that in which he referred to the economic status of the workers of this country. Many of us on these benches believe that one of our greatest problems at the present time is due to the fact that the economic status of the workers of this country is below their political and educational status. We want to raise all three to a parity. I also listened with very great interest to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman upon the subject of electoral reform. That is bound to be the most important purely political question that comes before the House, and I myself have very great sympathy with the Liberal party in this matter. No one can deny that they are very seriously underrepresented in this Parliament in proportion to the number of votes which they polled. There will have to be some reform, and I welcome an inquiry.

Before we come down to business in approaching this matter we have got to make up our minds whether we want primarily to elect a political executive and furnish it with complete executive power, or whether we want actually to reflect every shade of political opinion in this country upon the floor of this House and then let things, as it were, work out for themselves. They are two rather different conceptions of democracy. They are both very reasonable, and before we come down to hard facts we have to decide in which direction we wish to progress. Nobody on this side of the House is likely to deny that we are not at all displeased that the present administration is in a minority, or disposed to regret that the House of Commons, at the present moment at any rate, is the master of the Government of the day. It certainly looks to me, from the last two days' debate, as if they will need a good deal of looking after before they finish.

The Gracious Speech from the Throne seems to me a very reasonable, sensible and somewhat over-cautious document. It embodies a lot of sound Tory doctrine flavoured by a few Liberal sentiments. There is no trace of Socialism whatever from the first word to the last. It contains various proposals which the late administration was in the process of carrying out, and one or two proposals which they would have carried out if they had only had a little more time. Indeed, I think we may claim that the Gracious Speech from the Throne is very much what we should have produced if we had been returned at the General Election, and Heaven knows nobody can say that our policy at the last Election was unduly rash or flamboyant.

There are one or two questions arising out of the Gracious Speech to which we ought to have an answer. I presume the derating scheme is going to be carried through and to come into operation. The Government would be very foolish if they did not allow it to do so, because it is bound to do a great deal of good to industry in the autumn of this year. Will the two Local Government Acts which were passed in the autumn of last year be amended, or overthrown, or allowed to stand? There is a great deal of uncertainty about that question, particularly in Scotland. There is a reference to Russia in the Gracious Speech. Nothing very much seems to have happened up-to-date, but we ought to know what the position is. If it is only necessary to inform the Dominions, as the Foreign Secretary said this afternoon, that the Government propose to resume relations with Russia, I wonder why they have not been resumed already. If, however, consultation is necessary that is a very different thing. I put a supplementary question to the Foreign Secretary this afternoon and asked him whether in the forthcoming negotiations with the United States of America His Majesty's Government would raise the question of action in regard to Russia in order to see if it would be possible to co-operate with the United States in dealing with this very difficult problem. Undoubtedly the United States and ourselves in political and economic co-operation would be far better able to handle the problem of Russia than we ever could separately. The right hon. Gentleman refused to answer me this afternoon, and I really think that we might press that question and find out whether the Government proposed to consult the United States in any way with regard to their future policy, both economic and political, towards Russia. [ Interruption. ] I understand that Russia requires now between £400,000,000 and £500,000,000 of capital if she is to do anything at all, and I do not think France would be very willing to lend so large a sum immediately to Russia, whereas I think that the United States and ourselves would be strong enough to impose adequate conditions, and might be able to furnish, through New York and the City of London, more capital than France could.

There is a reference in the Gracious Speech to the encouragement of the fishing industry. I am delighted to hear that, and I hope that we may have in the near future an assurance from the Government that they intend to continue the grants to the fishing harbours that were announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the late Government in his Budget statement. Extensions and improvements in our harbours are certainly required, and would provide a suitable field for the operations of this new Committee which the Lord Privy Seal proposes to set up. I hope that vigorous action will be taken in this scheme of national development to improve and extend several of the harbours that require it badly in the north of Scotland. We ought to know, with regard to agriculture, whether the Government propose to carry out the policy of providing the home forces with home-grown beef for six months in the year. They will make a great mistake if they do not carry out that policy.

The speech of the Lord Privy Seal yesterday was really an astonishing speech, and even more astonishing to read. To what in effect does it amount? I will take it point by point. First of all, he told a long story about the £6,500,000 of expenditure by the railways as a result of the remission of the Passenger Duty. But we took off that Duty, and we got an undertaking from the railways to spend the money; the plans were being prepared, and it would have been put into operation if we had been returned. So he cannot take any credit for that. Then he said that he would carry out some schemes for road development, and these schemes are to be financed out of the normal expansion of the Road Fund. Exactly the same thing would have happened under any administration. [ Interruption. ] I have no doubt that hon. Members on the opposite side were greatly relieved to hear that a Committee had been set up to consider the question of a tube round London, but I cannot feel that that action is going to solve the unemployment problem. Then railway wagons are to be considered when the Report of the Committee is produced. It would be a very disgraceful thing if the Report were not considered by any Government, in view of the fact that there are over 700,000 private railway wagons in this country. The Government ought to have given some indication that they were going to take effective action on this question.

Then we had our old friends, land drainage and afforestation. We have been land-draining and afforesting in this country for the last 10 years, so that is nothing. There is a curious proposal to make Scotland more attractive for our American cousins. We really ought to know what the right hon. Gentleman means by that, and whether anybody in Scotland has been consulted in regard to it, because I do not think that we are anxious to make ourselves more attractive to our American cousins. There was one cheer, and the only cheer that I heard in the course of the speech; that was when the right hon. Gentleman came to the question of the school age, and the retaining of children at school. His sup- porters, however, only got a Committee to deal with that question, so they did not get much further. On every platform of the Labour party the immediate raising of the school age was promised.

Some trade commissioners are to be sent out, and the House, and in particular hon. Members opposite, was interested to hear the view of the right hon. Gentleman that the best way to deal with distressed areas was to evacuate them, because that was the policy which we put forward, but which was so strongly opposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite during the last Parliament. Private companies are to be induced to go there in order to relieve the situation. That is a most amazing proposal to come from a Socialist administration, and hon. Members on this side will oppose any idea of giving any financial largesse to private companies in distressed areas. The way to deal with this problem is to make it possible for these companies to function in the distressed areas, and that we did by the de-rating scheme. So it all boils down to a couple of bridges, and a loan of £25,000,000 sterling. There is nothing in the proposals adumbrated by the Lord Privy Seal to compare in scope and effect with, for instance, two schemes carried through by the late Government—the Electricity Act and the De-rating scheme. The Electricity Act involved a capital expenditure of £30,000,000, and the derating scheme involves an annual expenditure of very nearly an equal sum. Nothing that the Lord Privy Seal mentioned in the whole of his speech can compare in scope, magnitude and effect with either of those two schemes.

If the speech of the Lord Privy Seal was astonishing, the speech of the First Commisioner of Works was even more amazing. He said: "My right hon. Friend is not going to hand out money here, there and to everybody; that is the sort of rubbish you read in pamphlets during the election." You do, and I know whose pamplets you read it in; they are not ours. I am sure that the House was glad to learn from the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works that the new Committee which is to be set up would consist of responsible business men. I never thought that I should hear him, of all people talking in terms of warm approval of responsible business men. "We are not going to do it," said the right hon. Gentleman, "not ourselves; we are going to get the best brains." I am glad to think that the right hon. Gentleman has revised all his opinions in so short a time. The right hon. Gentleman concluded his very remarkable speech by suggesting that what the Government were trying to do was pitiable. He is quite right: it is. Every Member expected a much more determined and comprehensive attempt to deal with what is a difficult problem.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen said quite truly that this House of Commons after all has been elected very largely in order to make a still more strenuous effort to deal with this problem of unemployment, and if this is the best that the Government can do, we are not going to get very much further for many years. It will take more than a few steel sleepers and a couple of Committees to solve the unemployment problem. I ask hon. Members opposite whether they do not think that they have overstepped themselves a bit over this Election, and that there ought to be some slight relation between the policy and the programme put forward upon the platforms of the country at an election, and the practice of the party which gets into power. I say to hon. Members opposite: "Read your election addresses, and then read the Gracious Speech from the Throne! When you have done that, read the speech of the Lord Privy Seal, and then ask yourselves whether it is not the absolute limit! "It is the greatest political fraud that has ever been perpetrated upon an innocent electorate. [ Interruption. ] After all, hon. Members need not be so angry with me, because I am only saying what they are thinking.

I want to put forward one or two suggestions, and possibly a line of action for the Government to take. The major problems of to-day are not political problems, unfortunately, because they are more amusing to deal with; they are economic problems. Socialism can be dressed up to make a political dish for the electorate, especially if you have no intention of serving it, but it is much more difficult to dress up things like stabilisation and rationalisation, and dreadful words like that, to make them attractive for the consumption of the electorate. Yet I believe that these two things, stabilisation and rationalisation of industry in this country, are the two most urgent necessities of the present time. On the question of stability, I would like to stress for a moment the importance of the price level, and the question of keeping the price level and currencies as steady as possible. The price level in this country is not steady now, and has not been steady for many years. The price level has fallen 20 per cent, since 1924, and 10 per cent, in the last 18 months. If this fall continues indefinitely, a trade revival is out of the question. For this fall in the price level the Federal Reserve Board in America is very largely responsible. Unless money rates in America ease in the near future, it seems likely that we in this country will be in for a period of credit stringency and industrial depression. We must face that fact.

The affecting interviews between the Prime Minister and the American Ambassador, which we observe almost daily with such interest in the picture papers, may be all very well, but they do not take us very far, and I would suggest to the Prime Minister, if he can spare a moment from his hard thinking, that we should concentrate and devote more attention to the question of securing the financial co-operation of the United States. It is really more important to the people of this country to get that than to get an agreement about the number of cruisers and guns, or anything of that kind. That may have to come later on, but it is a much more urgent matter to get America's financial co-operation. I do not believe that a certain amount of credit expansion without inflation is impossible in this country. We all know the Treasury case. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster knows it only too well by this time. I remember the days when he was writing "Revolution by Reason" and books on currency problems, and he has had to eat his words since then. The Treasury case is a very formidable one, but I think they are inclined to overstate it. They lay too much emphasis on the impossibility of carrying out any loan policy at all, or any policy of credit expansion. Not so the Government. It was easy to predict the effect of this case upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I have been amazed by the way in which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury have lapped it up so enthusiastically.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster ran away when he was challenged this afternoon; he said that he was not ready to say anything about this policy. The Government cannot let the House be treated like that, and I look forward very much, if they pursue an orthodox policy, to hearing the Financial Secretary to the Treasury advocating it. I shall come here laden with OFFICIAL REPORTS to quote speeches which he has made in the last four years against the policy which he is now advocating. There is however a line upon which all economists are agreed. Although the details of currency policy are very difficult, the fundamental problem is that there is only a limited amount of gold in the world, and that a large proportion of that is sterilised in the United States. Almost every country is back upon the gold standard, and the danger is that there are going to be competitive efforts by the various countries on the gold standard to secure metallic reserves. If that is the case, it is bound to force up the price of gold, and that is bound to lead to credit stringency. I am one of those who believe, whether it comes sooner or later, that the international treatment of this problem is the only hope for Europe and for this country— the international handling of this problem.

The Genoa Conference of 1922 laid it down that there ought to be a conference of the central banks of Europe in order to see whether we could not have an international agreement on the stabilised value of gold in relation to commodities. They went even further; they recommended a gold exchange standard. That conference has never been held. I think it ought to be held. I think this international bank that may be set up if the Government, as I hope they will, accept the Report of the Young Committee, may provide a tremendous chance of carrying through a policy of this kind. I suggest that they should carry on with that. They need not be afraid that they will do any damage to the present economic system, because it was Mr. Maynard Keynes himself who wrote not very long ago that it was really neces- sary to the capitalist system to have a stable measuring rod.

There is one other aspect of this question of stability to which I wish to draw attention, and that has reference to Safeguarding Duties. I am not going to take up a Free Trade or a Protectionist line, and all I would say is that you cannot go on popping duties of 33J per cent, on and off commodities every year or so without creating pandemonium. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to undertake to give fair notice to any industry if he proposes either to reduce or to abolish a duty; otherwise, it is only keeping industries in a state of uncertainty. It is the reaction of the present administration of which I am frightened. Just because Mr. Gladstone would not anticipate a Budget statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks he cannot say what he is going to do about the McKenna Duties or the Safeguarding Duties a year or two hence. He might make just one precedent in this case. I think he ought to say quite definitely if he is going to abolish these duties that he will give 18 months' or two years' notice to the industries concerned, so that they can make their arrangements accordingly. I think such an assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer is very necessary for their continued stability and prosperity.

I had intended to say a word or two! about Imperial development, which has not been mentioned in the Gracious Speech from the Throne or in any speech in the House, but I will content myself, by saying that there is an Imperial Economic Committee and an Empire Marketing Board in this country, and I do not know why they both exist. I am certain they must overlap in many of their functions. Why do not the Government set up one strong committee with' representatives of the Dominions to handle this question of inter-imperial trade really vigorously during the next few years and to carry out a really strong combined development and trade policy within the Empire?

The last thing I would say is this. We listened with great attention to what the right hon. Gentleman who last spoke said upon the subject of coal, but if the Government are going into this coal question and produce Bills I do hope they will urge upon the industry, by every means in their power—and I am sure they can give direction and impetus in this matter—to bring about a real unification of the whole coal industry, because until we get that it is quite impossible to negotiate with foreign colliery owners at all, and it is quite impossible to get anything in the nature of an international agreement with regard to hours of labour or anything else. It may be one of fate's little ironies that the principal task confronting the present so-called Socialist administration should be to make Great Britain safe for the capitalist although we all know that it has been one of the most cherished ambitions of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. All I would say is that I really think they can afford to be a little bold, to tackle the question a little more vigorously, without doing any very serious damage to the economic structure which they have abused for the last 30 years and which they are now so pathetically anxious to preserve intact.

:I, too, as a new Member, must beg the indulgence of this House, in which I rise with some timidity and humility. None the less, since I entered this House I have noticed that a considerable latitude has been given to hon. Members, particularly on the other side of the House. For that reason I beg that I may be allowed to assert my attitude regarding the position mentioned by the last speaker. I refer to what has been called on the other side the tradition of this House and the attitude of the Socialists. It seems to me that the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) uttered the greatest truth when he told us that the division between this side and the other side of the House k wider than the Gangway. We have been asked from the other side to explain why and how we came here. Let us see how we are treated. Members on the Opposition side told us yesterday that we were proceeding with the work of government with a fair Press in the country. Russia has been referred to. In my hand I hold a remarkable example of Press viciousness which, I think, the House ought to notice, because before very long, and as the Government endeavour to produce more amicable relations between foreign countries, including Russia, and this country, this kind of Press from the capitalist side will develop apace. In the leading article of the "Birmingham Daily Post" of Wednesday, 26th June, it was said, speaking of Russian trade prospects: formerly had, trade which had been rapidly rushing to other countries on the Continent and to America, for the simple reason that the late Government refused to play the decent game with the Russian Government. Our markets have been lost and the Government are hoping now to regain them.

On the other side of the House we have had a number of gibes at the Labour Government, and on this side of the House a number of criticisms have been made. To me the gibes from the Opposition are very unhealthy, because it is obvious they cannot understand the nature of hon. Members on these benches. As the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) said last night, many of us on this side are not altogether satisfied with the programme of the Labour Government, but we do not constitute the whole of the Members on this side of the House. We are big enough to understand that the sections on this side differ radically in their make up, in their attitude to life, and if we can get our Government to place before us some average programme on which we may build later, then I doubt whether there is a single Member on this side of the House who would ever do anything to hurt the prestige and power of the Government. That is why there is a discrepancy, as seen by hon. Members opposite, between the programme some of us issued during the election and the programme of the Government now in power.

There is another danger which threatens us, and it tells us that immediately we introduce Socialist measures we are to be smashed. That is a very strange threat, for is it not the tradition of this House that a Government which is backed up by a majority of the people has a right to change the country economically, constitutionally, and politically? Immediately a Labour and Socialist Government comes into office hon. Members opposite say that we must be smashed if we bring forward even democratically Socialist measures. We have been told through the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) that we must bring forward electoral reform. That seems to me to be a very strange request, because right hon. Gentlemen, whether below or above the Gangway, never bothered about minority rights until the common people were promising to govern themselves. When the Labour party were in a minority in this House no mention was made of minority rights, and it is only when Socialist legislation is threatened that we are told by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) that we have been winning our seats, as at the last Election, upon the poverty of the people of our country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University ought to know very well that that poverty is not of our creation because it was there all through two centuries of Whiggism and Liberalism, and during centuries of Conservatism and Toryism. In these circumstances when we find ourselves face to face with that poverty I think we have a right to say that when we have power we will end such poverty at the earliest possible moment.

The programme of the present Government is the minimum of what we desire to obtain on this side of the House, and what we are proposing, I hope, will give a minimum of security to the masses of our people upon which we shall be able to build something better than serfdom as we know it. When once our people have secured their political rights no one will dare any longer to treat the masses as serfs in bondage. It would almost appear that hon. Members opposite believe that there is something inherently different in the make-up or the clay, as it were, of the members of the governing classes, as compared with the property- less classes. If they believe that I would like them to come down with me into my division in Birmingham where I could take them through poverty-stricken homes in which you will find rough human diamonds who have never at any time been given a chance to see the light of day. There you would find grown-up children, boys and girls, sleeping in the same room as their parents. I could show hon. Members in my constituency a yard with 20 back-to-back houses in which the windows and doors have been out for as long as nine years. The yards there are littered with human excrement, and there the babies have to play. In one particular yard there is only one tap for 20 families, and there is no decent lavatory accommodation for any of the families. Those are the con- ditions in which the poor people live in the centre of one of the principal cities of the British Empire. It is quite certain that the growth of Empire, like the growth of output, has never brought prosperity to the great masses of the people.

In face of all this the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping tells us that we are proceeding on false doctrines. Is it false doctrine to tell the people who voted for us that labour should be the first charge on industry and not the profit-maker? Is that a false or a right doctrine? Is it false doctrine to insist that the increased value of land shall not be greedily grabbed mainly by the non-producers in society? Is it false doctrine to say that if the workers work hard and work long hours they shall not lack food, leisure, and house room? Is it a false doctrine to tell the masses of the people that we have built up, by the brains of working people, a co-operative movement which is a grand and lasting example of what can be done, assisted by extending the policy which has now been started by the Government? Is it false doctrine to say that collectivism, as illustrated by the Birmingham Municipal Bank and the State Post Office, pays not only a hard cash return but also gives an efficient public service which private enterprise has failed to achieve? My one criticism of the statement made by the Lord Privy Seal is that I cannot imagine any member of a poor community being undeserving. Surely the ex-service men who were taken from normal life in 1914 and were left stranded after the War cannot be deemed to be undeserving when they are not fit for work? No one can tell us that the widows and orphans of these men can possibly be undeserving, and they ought not to be denied decent conditions of life.

Those are the reasons why we have advocated during the last election the provision of work or maintenance. 1 think there is something shameful in a condition of things in which men and women who are fit to work are denied the opportunity. You cannot say that a man or a woman is undeserving until you have given him or her a chance of performing some useful service. That is why we insist upon maintenance in cases where no work can be found. We see conditions of plenty around us, and a shocking waste of every kind. The Members of the Opposition say that there is a difference between a State stimulus given to industry and a normal revival of industry and they declare that a State stimulus is the wrong course to take. In War-time hon. Members opposite are in favour of a stimulus in the shape of subsidies to private enterprise in order to fight an imperialistic war; and they are also in favour of a stimulus to industry when in peace-time private enterprise fails to keep on its feet. Hon. Members opposite are quite willing to take money out of the pockets of the people in order to support private enterprise. We are all aware of these things, but when a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer promises to stimulate industry through Budgets and taxation by increasing the amount that goes into the pockets of the masses of the people, then hon. Members opposite declare that that stimulus is economically wrong.

8.0 p.m.

There is never any mention of subsidising the co-operative movement. If that movement were subsidised as private industry has been subsidised, I am sure that unemployment would soon vanish. I am sure that if employment of the kind which produces the goods required in the co-operative movement were extended throughout the country, unemployment would rapidly disappear. In those conditions there could be no such thing as unemployment, because what the people made they would buy themselves. In those conditions there would be no glutted markets, because the produce would go into the hands of the masses of the people. In present circumstances, how can we expect to see a normal revival of trade? We know very well that trade has had its booms and slumps right back into the early stages of the present regime, in the early nineteenth century and the middle of the century when our country was the workshop of the world, and even then unemployment crises came and went in cycles of 10 years. Then we are fobbed off with the usual argument about tariff manipulation and Safeguarding as against Free Trade. In the past we have had unemployment crises and wars, and neither Safeguarding—which, rightly read and logically stated, is Protection—nor Free Trade has at any time or in any country protected people from poverty and slumdom and low wages. It has been suggested that we should let the system go on, that you should go as you please. It has been suggested that we should develop into nationalisation, with more and more output, but for whom and for what objective? After all, guaranteed increase of output is no guarantee that the worker himself is to have any benefit from it. Trusts, mergers, rationalisation—these improvements do not promise benefits for the workers in any case. But we do know that hon. Members opposite do not want the workers to be so well organised that the increasing increments in values from industry shall be more equally distributed. Mal-distribution they do not recognise; laissez faire they do recognise and accept, believing that that system of affairs is bound to go on, and must go on for ever.

That is why the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping was so vicious in his attitude to trade union organisation. It seems that it is all right for the trust, or ring, or cartel to burn cotton or wheat which is almost ripe in the fields, to sabotage output of every kind. It is all right for the trust to form its trade union to restrict output and economise at the expense of the stomachs and the backs of working people. But it is altogether wrong for trade unionists to combine to win bread enough by protecting themselves in the open market, in which their bodies and labour are bought like cabbages, and just as callously. That is why the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping speaks about the intimidation of the trade unions. He never thinks about the intimidation of the Small Castings Association, of the trust, of nationalised and mergerised industries. He never speaks of those things. It is only wrong when workers endeavour to do likewise in order to get bread enough for their wives and families. It seems that there is no such thing as false doctrine when you are telling the masses of our country to fight in wars. It is all right to go into the pit, and factory, and forge, and work hard and long when you are told; but it is wrong to tell those same workers that the fruits of labour should be theirs, and should not belong to a handful of parasites who toil not neither do they spin.

:In accordance with precedent, it is my privilege to congratulate the last speaker on his maiden speech. I will not attempt to deal with the details which he put forward, but will only make one comment, and that is that his speech seemed to be based on the assumption that we on this side were men of a different character from hon. Members who sit on the other side of the House, that we had different aspirations, and did not desire to do our best for our eountry. Such a conception, the hon. Member will learn, is very foreign to the nature of this House; and he will learn, when the House is next privileged to hear a speech from him, that argument, and not mere denunciation, is the most effective form of speech in the House of Commons.

To-day we have concentrated most of our attention on the consideration of the question of unemployment. I would like to draw the attention of the House to one part of the Gracious Speech from the Throne, referring to what is described as the stimulation of the depressed export trades. Up to the present we have very little knowledge concerning the schemes which it is proposed to put forward for the stimulation of the depressed export trades. I imagine that later in the Debate we shall be privileged to hear from the President of the Board of Trade, who may perhaps give us some information with respect to the inquiries which are to be set on foot in regard to the cotton trade and the iron and steel trade. I, for one, desire no premature information, but it is necessary that we should realise that this question of the stimulation of the export trades is the crux of the unemployment problem.

The facts are well known. If we were sending abroad the pre-War volume of exports, we should be providing work at the present time for between 600,000 and 700,000 more people than are employed to-day. In other words, if we get our export trades to work, we shall have grasped the kernel of the problem, we shall have broken the back of the unemployment factor in the situation [ Interruption. ] I am referring now to the Gracious Speech from the Throne, in which the words are specifically put forward, and I would like to knew what is in the mind of the Government when they talk about the stimulation of the depressed export trades. Although most of the attention of the House has been concentrated on the speech of the Lord Privy Seal, it is the fact that schemes for bettering our transport system, schemes for public works, and so on, although they may be effective within a certain limited sphere, may, if they are carried beyond that sphere, hinder instead of helping our basic producing trades.

I am glad that this Debate has been carried on in an atmosphere from which political partisanship has to a great extent been absent. We have got down to a spirit, to use the phrase which was so aptly used yesterday, more like that of an economic study circle. It is in that spirit of economic inquiry which has been manifest since this Parliament began that I would like to address one or two economic remarks to the House. I must ask the indulgence of the House if the observations I make are so obvious that everybody would imagine that they go without saying. In point of fact, they are so obvious that they are frequently overlooked. The greatness of this country was built up in the 19th century because it was the workshop of the world. It was because of that, and because ours was the cheapest market in which goods could be bought, that London became the financial centre of the civilised globe. So it happened that, before the War, the fabric of our national life was compounded of two things—industrial supremacy and financial supremacy.

Then the War broke out, and a great deal of inflation was required in order to pay for the War. After the War, there was the great hectic boom period, and in those post-War years the whole fabric of our national life was re-woven—not in a different pattern, but to a different size. All the industrial concerns of the country were re-capitalised. When, under the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), a policy of deflation was started, we found increasing unemployment, we found that our national life had to be contracted, and the state of affairs was this: The national fabric, if I may use the term—consisting, on the one hand, of industrial weft, and, on the other hand, of financial warp— did not shrink evenly. The industrial weft was a national characteristic; the financial warp was international; and, when the shrinking process of deflation was applied to our industrial community, the shrinkage was unequal. The result is that to-day we have a national fabric which has shrunk unevenly, and in which the burden of financial overhead costs is frequently out of all proportion to the ability of the industrial weft to bear it.

The first point, therefore, that I want to make, is that at the present time the burden of finance plays an undue and disproportionate part compared with the part which it played in pre-War years. We have to consider, in the light of this knowledge, how our export trades can be stimulated. Why is it necessary that in the King's Speech it should be suggested that export trades should be stimulated? The costs of production in the basic export trades are too high. If I may be permitted a generalisation, I should say that, over the whole sphere of the basic producing trades of this country, selling prices will have to be reduced by something like 10 per cent, if we are to command the markets of the world. The last Government introduced what I consider to be one of the most statesmanlike Measures of recent Parliaments, namely, the De-rating Bill. The provisions of that Measure will definitely reduce the cost of production in the cotton trade to the extent of something like 3 per cent, on the selling price; but 3 per cent, is not enough, and we shall have to go further. One factor which is more important than anything else in endeavouring to reduce costs of production is the utilisation of the modern power of machinery—mass production, bulk production. I think it can be taken as an axiom that, if we are to retain the existing level of wages and the industrial efficiency that we have at the present time, costs of production will have to be got down, and that can only be done by largely extending the volume of our production.

:My point is— perhaps I did not make myself quite plain—that, in order to reduce costs most effectively, we must greatly increase the volume of our production. The hon. Member says that we have been increasing our volume of production, but in the cotton trade the volume of production, as compared with pre-War years, is between 2,000,000,000 and 3,000,000,000 yards less, and, unless we can greatly extend the volume of our production, and spread our financial overhead costs over a larger volume of goods, we shall not be able, unless we do something in the way of dealing with wages or something of that character, to get down the cost of production to the extent which is necessary to-day. Therefore we come to this point, that unless wages are dealt with— and I do not think anyone on any side of the House wants to deal with wages—we have to increase the volume of our production in order to arrive at a competitive selling price. The great difficulty with this country is that you cannot greatly increase the volume of your production, because as soon as you try to do that you find that the credit that is necessary with an increased volume of production is not available. If you were to say in Lancashire: "Go back on to your pre-War production,, get your 2,000,000,000 yards extra, start to spin the yarn, weave the cloth and finish it and so forth," within a month the whole movement would break down because there is not sufficient available credit.

The First Commissioner of Works in an earlier part of the Debate said to an hon. Member speaking behind me: "Do you really suggest that the volume of credit is something like a fixed entity. Do you suggest that it cannot be expanded?" The facts are that the volume of credit depends on our ability to attract gold. Unless we can attract gold, the total volume of credit under our present credit system is practically steady, it remains at a figure of something like £2,000,000,000, and what happens under our present credit system is that if you give eleemosynary doles in one direction or promote public works of one character, you tend, by giving the money in that direction, to take it from productive industry. The facts are well known to economists. The Chancellor of the Duchy was not bold enough to attack them. He admited that, under the present currency system, unless we can attract gold to this country, we cannot extend the volume of credit. The only way in which you can attract gold is by selling goods, and therefore we are in this dilemma, that we have to sell goods to expand our volume of credit and we cannot sell goods at a low enough price, because the volume of credit we have at present is not sufficiently large. In these circumstances, one wonders why it is that this Government, which is determined to deal with this problem of unemployment, makes no pronouncement concerning this very difficult subject of extending the volume of credit. Here are we presumably, by our present currency policy, inside a fixed fence, the industrialists, the producing class, going round and round in an ever decreasing circle, because with each revolution the financial interests have to take their proper interests from the operation. I should be the last person to suggest that our present currency policy is the only policy. A policy which was instituted in 1844 might be a very good policy in many respects. Certainly it was a very good policy then, but at present it is not a policy which will enable our producers to get out of the difficulties that confront them, and enable them to supply that volume of work which is necessary, and which can only be given if you get an increased volume of production.

It is a most striking thing that in America since 1920 they have increased the total amount of credit by a greater amount than the total amount of credit that is available in this country to-day. Therefore we may very well look to the United States, and see how it is that they seem to have found some key to industrial prosperity. They have rising wages and a declining, or a level, price record and that, of course, is a most ideal state of affairs, because it means that the prices of your commodities are not going up but are showing a tendency to decline, and the wages you have to pay for the goods are gradually growing—an increasing purchasing power and a lower cost of goods. In the United States the currency is not wholly backed by gold. They put at the back of their currency their goods, their wealth products. Only 40 per cent, of their currency is backed by gold, and you have in that great country a system which enables a manufacturer like Ford to increase the quantity of his production with the full knowledge that, side by side with the increased quantity of production, there is going to be an increased supply of credit coming forward to the country. That is one of the reasons why we find to-day that greatly increased volume of credit available in America, because at the back of that credit is not something like gold but the wealth products of the country. If the present Government, who have obtained the support of the country for their policy for dealing with unemployment, are going to put forward plans, and are not going at the same time, in the midst of all these economic inquiries, to inquire into the question of the means whereby the total volume of credit can be increased, they are going to disappoint their followers and friends, and they will certainly go back, when they seek the suffrage of the people again, a disappointed party to a disillusioned electorate.

:I crave the kind indulgence which it is customary to extend to Members making their maiden speeches. I find it is 70 years since a Member of my family had the privilege of addressing this august and venerable House. I do not intend on this occasion to make up for that loss of 70 years. No doubt, during the life of this Parliament there will be many opportunities of doing so. I believe it behoves representatives of agricultural constituencies like mine to see to it especially that the interests of those who live in the country are not overlooked. Some 93 per cent, of the population live in towns and only 7 per cent in the country. It follows that there are plenty of Members to speak for the interests of the town, whereas there are comparatively few to speak for rural interests. Our great concern is to urge upon the Government to pass Measures which will benefit those who get their living from the soil. First of all, we in the Liberal party strongly urge the Government to call a three-party conference. In many places the condition of agriculture is dire. The calling of such a conference would put the industry entirely outside the political battlefield, and it would be possible to find a way, perhaps along the lines the Prime Minister suggested yesterday, by which it can go forward.

I was very glad to see mention made in the Gracious Speech of the fact that the Government intend to improve marketing facilities for farmers. I know from my experience in Norfolk and other parts of the country that it will be of great benefit to the- grower and farmer if he knows more certainly than he does now how, when and where he can best market his goods. I feel that very strongly, and I am certain the Government would do a great deal of good to the industry if they would help it in this way. We have had for some years an Empire Marketing Board, which I believe has done very excellent work in many ways, although in one way it has not helped our farmers, but has served rather to advertise the wares of their keenest competitors. I cannot help feeling it would be an even better thing if, besides having an Empire Marketing Board, we had a Home Marketing Board. I am certain that the agricultural products of this country are absolutely second to none. There, again, I am sure there is a fruitful field for investigation for the Government.

That brings me to the question of grading and marking of goods. I expect hon. Members have often seen shops which seem to announce with pride, "We sell only Danish bacon." Why is that? I do not believe it is because Danish bacon is better than English. It is simply that the British housewife buys Danish bacon to save herself trouble. She knows exactly what it is going to be like. There, again, I believe a great deal can be done to help our farmers to sell their goods. There is next the question of reducing freight rates as far as possible, and improving transport. I hope the plans outlined so lucidly by the Lord Privy Seal will allow something to be done in this direction.

Another difficulty that we in the country are up against is the housing problem. That is common alike to town and country to-day. There is a crying need for houses. The last Government passed the Rural Housing Act. A peculiar thing about it was that, though you were allowed to patch up existing houses, you were not allowed to build any new houses at all. That helps to explain why there is this crying need for houses. There is this special reason, too, for pressing on with the building of houses in the country. Rural districts suffer from what is commonly known as the tied cottage problem. I am convinced that the true solution of that evil, and the injustice that it causes, is for us to have more houses, because when a man is turned out of his house he has often nowhere to go. I am convinced that in a large measure this evil will disappear if we can build far more houses in the country than we have now. These are the lines along which I believe progress can be made.

There was no mention made in the Gracious Speech of the subject of price stabilisation, though in the election addresses and speeches of many Labour candidates a great deal of mention was made of the subject. I hope the fact that the subject of price standardisation is not mentioned in the Gracious Speech means that the Government are not going to embark upon this project, because I believe it to be a very dangerous and a very hazardous one. Hon. Members who represent urban constituencies, I am sure, know only too well the many repercussions, and serious ones, which will come about if the cost of living goes up. I do not see what else can happen if the price of food is increased. If the price of food is stabilised at a higher rate than it is now, that is what is sure to happen. If the present rate of prices is continued or becomes lower than it is at present, I believe that that would be useless, because the difficulty which farmers are up against to-day is that they cannot get a good price for what they sell. Therefore, it would not help them very much if prices were to remain as now, or made lower than now. That is why I believe you will have to go along the lines of progress which I have mentioned if you are to help to improve the industry of agriculture.

There is one more thing which is, perhaps, more important than anything. If the general condition of this country becomes more prosperous—that it to say, the urban part of the country—I am quite certain that the prosperity of the countryside will improve, too, and for this reason. Those people who live in towns will be able to buy more of the products of the country. I am sure hon. Members from Wales know quite well that in the Rhondda Valley and other places it is not only the miners who are up against it; it is also the farmers and many other traders. I am quite convinced that if the general prosperity of this country improves, the prosperity of the countryside will improve with it. That, I heartily hope, will come about. I am sure that every hon. Member in this House is glad of the emphasis which has been laid upon the appalling problem of unemployment. I believe that, if it were possible for all the unemployed people of this country to march past a given spot, it would take something like a week for them to do so, marching day and night. That gives one an idea of the size and magnitude of the problem. I hope and believe, from the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal's speech yesterday, that there can be accomplished, and I hope there will be accomplised, much useful work in the constituency which I represent along the lines which the right hon. Gentleman laid down.

The intentions of His Majesty's Government relating to peace and Empire development all promise well. The case for electoral reform is urgent, and we on this side note with pleasure that a full and free inquiry into this subject will be set up. I regret that no mention was made in the Gracious Speech upon the subject of education, because I feel that the future of this country depends tremendously upon what children are taught and how they are taught, and also upon the chances which they have to acquire further knowledge. I hope that His Majesty's Government, in their educational policy, will have as their goal the bringing about of a state of affairs that anybody with the natural ability can proceed ultimately to a university education. In conclusion, I hope that hon. Members upon the other side of the House will not think that the Liberal party are going to act as a brake on their activities. That is very far from being the case. We have no intention to act as a brake upon the activities of His Majesty's Government. I hope that on many occasions we may be able to steer them into the right path and help them to go in the right direction, instead of the wrong one. I hope that the Liberal party will act as a constant and active spur to the activities of His Majesty's Government, so that in two or three years' time the general condition of this country will be far better than it is at present.

:I wish to con gratulate the hon. Member on a very able maiden speech. Judging from the ideas that he has expressed, I believe that the time will not be far distant when he will be crossing the Floor of the House. I rise to draw attention to the paragraph in the Gracious Speech in regard to the mining industry:

In my own district 60 years ago, coal getters were working six and a-half hours a day. After all the advances that have been made in machinery, in technique and in production, we found a Conservative Government and Prime Minister increasing the hours to eight and a-half per day, which is the position existing at the present time. That is one of the causes of the revolt. Not only have the hours been extended, but 60 adult workmen out of every 100, with a wife and family to maintain, have gross wages of 6s. 9½d. per day. If they put in a full maximum week of five and a-half days, their wage amounts to 37s. 4d. Our people have to live for seven days and that wage divided by seven amounts to 5s. 4d. per day. For two adults, a man and his wife, three meals a day and no supper, at 6d. per meal, and 3s. of the 5s. 4d. have gone; with four children at 2|d. per meal, three meals per day, the amount is 5s. 3d., and there was only 5s. 4d. at the start. It will be said that there are emoluments and other things in connection with the coal industry, but statements are made that are not true. I am dealing merely with those things which are necessary for life.

The late Chancellor of the Exchequer made reference to the general strike. The general strike was the result of difficulties in the coal industry, not on the part of the men, but on the part of the employers, supported by the Conservative Government. Immediately the right hon. Gentleman seeks to apportion blame for the general strike, we have a right to ask him to bear his burden of responsibility for that strike. I would like to draw attention to a speech which the late Chancellor of the Exchequer delivered in this House in December, 1925, on the subject of the coal mining industry subvention. I would like to preface my remarks on this point by saying that on the 10th December, 1925, the miners were asking for nothing and demanding nothing from the industry. The right hon. Gentleman said: a national arrangement. We have no uniformity. Large districts like Yorkshire are working on 7½ hours, other districts like Wales are working on 8 hours. When these agreements end this year and before any other agreement can be satisfactorily negotiated, the miners of this country are asking for the restoration of the seven hour day which was taken from them in 1926. In addition to the restoration of the seven hours and giving satisfaction to the unemployed miners we want a higher standard of existence for those who are employed in this dangerous industry. Men are daily maimed and crippled in the mines of this country. Unless the capitalist system can deliver the goods, unless it can reduce the hours of labour, give a higher standard of life and abolish unemployment, it is essential and necessary that the nation should take control of this industry, not only in the interests of the workers but in the interests of the nation itself. Any Government, Labour or otherwise, which fails to do this is bound to come down in any policy it pursues.

The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) taunted the Prime Minister yesteday that the scheme indicated was little more than the offer he made in 1919. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister is not in the fortunate circumstances which he himself was in 1919. I want to put this practical question to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs; never mind what he offered in 1919, is he prepared to institute the seven hour day and raise the standard of the miners of this country in 1929? Was the offer he made in 1919 purely voluntary? Was it not the outcome of a Commission which reported not only on a decrease of hours but which stated that the present system stood condemned and that another system should be instituted? And the right hon. Gentleman must not forget that he failed himself to carry out his pledge to put the Report of that Commission into operation. The right hon. Gentleman was Prime Minister in 1921–1922, and I want to compare the two periods of September, 1921, and 1922, and to inform the House that in these two periods, when the right hon. Gentleman was Prime Minister, the miners wages in my district were reduced by £2 5s. 1¼d. per week, and for the first time since the War we had 3,543 unemployed men. Therefore, he has some responsibility in the matter. He left the miners at the mercy of the employers. He may take credit for winning the War but he lost the peace. The. Treaty of Reparations was certainly an important factor in changing European coal economic conditions.

If there is to be a solution of this great coal question, I hope there will be no delay in coming to a final decision. As I have indicated, European coal economics have changed, and it is difficult to secure years of comparison to help Members of this House in coming to a legitimate conclusion. It was after the reparation deliveries were again made that you got the coal crisis in the early part of 1925. I propose, so that we may have a correct conception of this question, to take three periods in my analysis of the costs of this industry, namely, the March quarter of 1925, before the subvention given by the Government, the March quarter of 1926, because it was the quarter before the stoppage or lock-out, and I will take the last official figures of the Government. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil), with all his clever and brilliant eloquence, from which it is difficult to extract his economic doctrines, in dealing with this question said that there was only one solution and that that was to secure a reduction in costs of production, and the only costs that could be reduced were the men's wages.

9.0 p.m.

The policy of reducing wages is no solution of the coal problem. I propose not only to take national figures, which would include inland and export, but I am proposing to divide the figures by giving my own district, which is an export district, plus the national figures. If we take the March quarter of 1925, pre-subvention, the wages costs in my district were 11s. 5.44d. per ton. The other costs, including royalties, which are on the average about 6d.—and I hope that, when the Government deals with royalties, they will not merely restore national property but will consider the desirability of instructing the Law Officers to see whether there is a case for prosecution for what was stolen by the ancestors of the royalty owners— the total wages, and costs other than wages for the period mentioned were 16s. 11.3d. The commercial disposable coal at this time was 16s. 1.89d. In my district, which is an export district, there was a loss pre-subvention of 9.44d. per ton. In regard to the national" figures for the March quarter of 1925, pre-subvention, the wages costs were 12s. 11.75d., and the costs other than wages 5s. 42d. Our total costs of production were 18s. 17d., while commercial disposables were 18s. 6.3d. The profits nationally, if the industry had been taken as a whole and not in sections, was 6.13d. per ton in the three months pre-subvention. The total profit nationally was £1,453,207. Our exports of coal in foreign bunkers at this period amounted to 17,365,687 tons. That was the position before the subvention. The subvention was supposed to be given to the industry to assist its development, but what were the results? When we come to the March quarter of 1926 we find that the loss had widened; it had reached 2s. 10d., while the owners' profit out of the taxpayers' money in my district was Is. 2d. a ton. Here was a district which, before the subvention, was making a loss of over 9d. a ton, and after the subvention the owners have a profit of Is. 2d. a ton. In the March quarter of 1926, compared with the March quarter of 1925, our wages and costs of production had decreased over 5d. a ton, while costs other than wages had decreased over 4d. a ton, a total decrease of over l0d. a ton, and yet the finances of the industry were worse, because the employers used the subvention to depress the price of coal.

Therefore, we say that the solution of this problem is not an increase of hours— which has only added to the number of unemployed miners. In a small district like my own there are 16,500 fewer men employed than were working on the shorter hours and there are over 200,000 fewer employed in the country. Increasing the hours has not been a satisfactory solution of this question. In the two periods our selling price of coal has fallen 2s. l0d. a ton and nationally it has fallen 2s. 8d. While the nation with all the increased hours, and all this speeding up, produced 3,529,599 tons more in the December quarter, 1928, over the March quarter, 1926, there was £5,006,870 less coming into the industry. The time has arrived when there must be a relation between the value of coal and the price at which it is being sold. To-day we are faced, not only with the possibility of difficulties in the district arrangements before the end of the year, but also with the necessity that the Government should undertake immediately a thorough examination of this industry. We must remember after all that nearly 70 per cent, of coal production is home consumed and, therefore, the problem is 70 per cent, a home problem. We say that there is a line of demarcation below which wages cannot go, unless the standard of the men is lowered. We believe the Government intend to carry out this investigation and we hope they will deliver the goods to the mining community of this country.

:May I, in the first instance, offer my congratulations to the hon. Member who has just spoken on an excellent maiden speech. I congratulate him on his earnestness of purpose and his keen desire to put before the House the case of those whom he represents, namely, the miners. It is not the time for me to enter into a discussion of the merits or de-merits of his argument. That must be reserved until he makes his second speech and I can, perhaps, promise him a warm time on that occasion. The hon. Member being in deadly earnest, I must necessarily admire him because I claim to be just as much in earnest on behalf of the people whom I represent in this House. When I say that I have been sitting here since a quarter to three o'clock, on the off-chance of an opportunity to say a few words for those whom I represent, I think it will be agreed that I am just as much in earnest on their behalf as the hon. Member is on behalf of the miners. There is one portion of the Gracious Speech which has not received much notice up to now. Those Members of the House who were in the last Parliament will not be surprised when I say that I refer to the passage about the fishing industry. As representing Grimsby, the largest fishing port in the world, I claim to know-something about the industry and its needs and I read with great interest in the Gracious Speech these words: I should like to know if, in the course of this Debate, the Government will indicate through the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries their policy as regards the improvement of the industry. Are they going to follow the excellent example of the last Government in this respect? The last Government helped the industry to help itself, and that I consider to be the best method that can be adopted by any Government or Government Department in dealing with any industry. Speaking for the industry I can say that we are not asking for doles or financial assistance. We want such practical help as a Government Department can give. The last Government instituted marine research work which has proved of great value. Do the present Government propose to continue that excellent work? Acting on representations made by those representing the fishing industry in this House, the last Government put into operation exploration work which has been of enormous value, and they also set aside a sum of £18,500 for research work in connection with the preservation of fish so that the article could be put upon the market in prime condition. Is the present Government going to continue that policy? Those who are interested in the industry are anxious to know because, if that policy is not going to be continued it will mean a considerable difference in the future of the industry. We also wish to know if we are going to get any help as regards fishery harbours, the improvement of docks used by fishing vessels and other matters instituted by the late Government.

I was interested in what has been described as Labour's programme for the fishing industry, and I would ask the Government if they intend to carry out at any rate some of the promises made in the leaflet issued on behalf of their party when they appealed for the votes of the fishermen. I have given a great deal of attention to the policy enunciated by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) who, I think, really represents the fishing industry, at any rate in the ranks of the Socialist party. Writing in the "Daily Herald" on 12th February, 1929, he stated what he considered would be the policy of the Socialist party in this respect, if they were returned to office. He mentioned as a very important matter—in fact he made it point number one—that a separate Ministry of Fisheries should be established. He said that the need for it was self-evident. I thoroughly agree. I think it is necessary that a separate Ministry should be set up, or at any rate that an Under-Secretary should be appointed to deal solely with fishery matters. This is the sixth largest industry in the country. It provides a large amount of employment and could provide more if it received the necessary encouragement. It has been described as the Cinderella of industries. It has not received that attention which it ought to have received, until within the last two or three years, when the late Government did indeed show some interest in it.

What I have advocated for some considerable time is that we should have a Department, not attached to another Department, because when any Department is simply an appendage of a larger Department it is bound to be neglected. We consider that a separate Department, with a responsible Minister in this House, who could answer questions put to him, would be a step in the right direction. This was recommended by a Committee of Inquiry as far back as 1918, and it has been recommended from time to time by those who know the needs of the industry, and I hope at any rate that the Government will carry out No. 1 item on this programme. We were told that if they were returned to office there would be a thorough-going inquiry into the whole state of the industry and that immediate steps would be taken to put it on its feet. I say that such an inquiry would be a very good thing indeed, but in any such inquiry the best thing that could be done would be to take into consultation those who know and understand the industry. There are organisations of trawler owners, fish merchants, and the people who are engaged in the industry that could and should be consulted before any steps are taken to deal with the industry.

In this document that I hold in my hand there are many items that I would commend to the Government. There is the question of the abolition of payment in advance for the transport of fish by the railway companies, together with the provision of suitable rolling stock. The question has often been asked, Why is it that you have these gluts of fish at the ports and yet fish is very dear in certain inland towns? Why is it not, as it was in pre-War days, that when we had these gluts of fish, hawkers could be found selling the fish in inland towns at very low prices? This carriage question has a great deal to do with that. In the old days, when fish could be sent carriage forward, those at the ports, who bought these gluts of fish cheaply, sent them on commission to the inland markets absolutely as a speculation. They knew, at any rate, that the man responsible for selling at the other end would make sure of getting the amount he had paid for carriage; but under the present system, which was inaugurated as a War-time measure for the convenience of the railway companies, when labour was scarce, if you send fish by passenger train—and that is the only way in which you can get it to market quickly and in good condition—you have to prepay the carriage, and it has happened time and time again that consignments of fish, sent carriage paid from a port, when they reached an inland town and were sold by commission agents, did not realise enough to pay the carriage.

I can assure the House that those who were responsible for sending the fish from the ports said, "What is the good of doing that? We can, at any rate, get a small amount of money from the fish meal factories, who will make it into fish meal for feeding cattle, and we had better do that than send it away and lose carriage on it." Those in the industry say that this was a War-time restriction, and that a promise was made that it would be removed when the War was over, and I am glad to know that it forms one item in the programme submitted to the electorate as that of the Labour party with regard to the fishing industry. I hope this question of the abolition of the prepayment of carriage will be dealt with at a very early date.

I want to ask what the Department that is responsible is going to do as regards the question of foreign fish. That is a very distinct question, which is agitating the minds of fishermen throughout this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Merchandise marks! "] It is possible even to do that, but there are ways in which you can help us against the competition of foreign fish, even without introducing Protection or marking, as has been suggested by an hon. Member opposite. When I tell the House that fish can be sent from Denmark to Billingsgate, which has to go by steamer to Harwich and by rail from Harwich to London, more cheaply than the same weight of fish can be sent from Grimsby, I think hon. Members will agree that that is a matter that wants inquiring into. I find in this document a promise that that matter shall be attended to, and I hope the Government will carry out that promise. If they require my assistance in this matter, I am so keenly in earnest on behalf of the people whom I represent, that I am prepared to vote even for a Socialist Measure for that purpose; and if some of the hon. Members opposite who were Members of the last Parliament had taken the same line as regards the Measures introduced by my Government, we should have got on a lot better, and better work would have been done all round.

I am here as representing the fishermen of this country, and I am going to work hard for anything that can be done to benefit them in any way. It is a great industry, with a great future before it, if it receives encouragement from this or any other Government. In spite of the fact that our men have to compete against those on foreign trawlers who are receiving far less wages for doing the same work, I believe we are in a position, given the right facilities for carrying on our industry, given help on the practical lines I have indicated, to hold our own against any other country in the world. I should like an inquiry to be made into another question, and that is the question of the tariffs that are put up against our fish, both cured and fresh, in other countries, and then we should know something about the difficulty of developing our export trade. The late Government made great efforts, through the Overseas Trade Department of the Board of Trade, to develop the export trade in fish, and I hope the present Government will continue the investigations that were made and try to assist us in this way, if in no other.

I want to pay a great compliment to a member of the present Government. As one who has taken a very deep interest in the unemployment problem ever since I took any part whatever in public life, which is over 20 years now, I want to pay my meed of praise to the Lord Privy Seal. I want to congratulate him on his proposals and on how effectively he has disappointed the Socialists who sit on the benches along with him. I have always been an admirer of the right hon. Gentleman, because he has been very honest about this question. As far back as 1921 he said:

When this Government was formed I watched with very great interest to see who would be appointed as Minister of Labour, because experience has shown that the Minister of Labour in any Government is always the whipping boy. We remember the miserable time which the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) had when he was Minister of Labour. I used to feel very sorry, indeed, for him. Although I was not a Member of this House at that time, I came into contact with him a good deal, because I headed deputations to London asking that something should be done to relieve the problem in my own district. We did not get much on those occasions, I can assure the House. When I saw that the Prime Minister had appointed a lady as Minister of Labour, I thought he could not be looking for a whipping girl, and I am glad to know he has not done so, but has transferred the really difficult problem of unemployment to the Lord Privy Seal. I believe the Lord Privy Seal is the right man for the job and will get something done, but nothing like what hon. Members opposite have led the country to expect.

The right hon. Gentleman has done one thing which I am very pleased about, in setting in motion the Lord St. Davids Committee, full steam ahead. I quite agree that it was the wrong policy to slow up the work of the Committee. The real reason why that Committee did slow up its operations was that the local authorities—and I speak as one who has had long experience as a member of a local authority—had come to the end of their schemes under the conditions laid down. It was laid down quite definitely that only non-revenue earning schemes could receive a grant up to a certain point. The result was that there was a rush of schemes in the early days. They soon petered out, and it became a question of finding some sort of job, if it was only digging a. hole and filling it up. That was the wrong way and it had a bad effect on the men themselves. To put a skilled man who has been trained as an engineer or any other trade to work on that type of rough labour was not only to break his heart, but to break his skin. It was, therefore, felt by local authorities that the time had come to stop wasting money, because, although they got grants from the Unemployment Grants Committee, a fairly large amount of money had still to be found by the local authorities themselves. Many of us said, "Why do they not extend this to schemes that are revenue-earning and which will continue to provide work when completed? That was done in the case of local authorities who were themselves owners of these revenue-earning concerns. There you were up against a big difficulty, because those concerns which were not owned by local authorities were barred from receiving benefit, and those were the very schemes which could provide something in the way of substantial employment.

Now, if I understand him correctly, the right hon. Gentleman suggests that public utility concerns, whether owned by a corporation, municipality or private company, will, as long as they are public utility concerns, receive a grant, and therefore be able to carry out works of national importance which will provide employment right now and will continue to do so when completed. I hope I have understood him correctly. I should like to point out that the last Government did introduce a scheme which brought in at any rate a large number of public utility concerns, such as canal companies, dock and harbour boards, gas companies, electricity companies and many others, but, for some reason or other that has never been properly explained, they barred railway companies who owned docks, harbours and canals. In the case of just the very things that were included when owned by another type of company, the railway companies were barred from receiving any benefits whatsoever.

What was the result? It was that some of the finest schemes for improvement of harbours and dock works were held up. I submitted a scheme in connection with my own constituency, the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) submitted a scheme for Leith, and there are other Members representing ports who had schemes to bring before the Unemployment Grants Committee. They were all turned down because it happened to be the railway companies who were the owners of the docks or harbours in question. One of the things that we need in this country, in order to compete with our Continental rivals, is better harbour accommodation which can provide berths for ships at a much cheaper rate than is the case to-day. When it comes to competition with foreign ports, we are out of it on the question of harbour dues and dock charges. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] The reason is that during the War period the harbours and docks were taken over by the State and used by the State and were allowed to get into disuse and disrepair. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It is quite true, and evidently some hon. Members have not visited the ports as I have done. I know what I am talking about. I do not as a rule speak on subjects I do not understand. The reason is quite plain. A sum of money was granted to the railway companies for the purpose of replacing some of the things that had become obsolete when in the hands of the State, but not by any means an adequate sum nor one commensurate with the damage done.

In the moment or two left to me I want to say a word in commendation of one thing which the Lord Privy Seal said yesterday, namely, that he was not going to be led by the nose by the pundits of the Treasury. He did not use precisely those words, but I hope he will stick to that, because in 1924, when the last Labour Government were in office, the local authorities came up asking that something should be done in the way of grants for putting work into operation. We were then met by that very argument. "Ah, it is the Treasury you have to get over. They do not believe in this money being transferred into that sort of work, because it will have an effect on productive industry." We pointed out that it was not a question of diverting money from productive industry. What we wanted to do was to get the money that had been paid out as unemployment pay for doing no work, put into something that would provide work for men who would prefer work. That was the point we made, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make the same point when he has to see the Treasury on this matter.

There was only one thing I was disappointed about in regard to these particular proposals. When the book "Labour and the Nation" was issued, I read it with great eagerness to find out what was going to be done. When I had got a good way into the book I began to realise, as one Member of the Government has realised and expressed in words, that it was only a bog of words. Judging from the number of committees which are going to be set up to deal with the proposals put forward yesterday by the Lord Privy Seal, it looks as if we are going to have a bog of committees. I have gone carefully through his speech, and I take it that we are to have eight different committees dealing with eight different subjects. That does not seem like really getting down to this problem.

While I offer him congratulations on the stand which he has taken in regard to these relief grants, I want to point out that they are only palliatives, and that they will only have an effect for a very short time. What will happen when the Government have dealt with all these schemes and get these men back on their hands unemployed? The Government should make a clear declaration of their policy on Safeguarding and other matters which are agitating the minds of those responsible for carrying on the business of the country, because uncertainy is worse than knowing definitely that Safe- guarding is to be taken away. If the Government are going to take it away, they should say so and the people will know where they stand. If it is not taken away, there will be wonderful developments because I know many people who have schemes for bringing new industries into certain districts, but they are holding them up because they do not know what the policy of the Government in regard to safeguarding and the encouragement of private enterprise in industry is going to be. The sooner a clear declaration is made, the better it will be not only for the country but for the Government.

:As a new Member, I hope that I shall have extended to me that sympathy and consideration which have been so generously extended to the other new Members who have spoken. I was tremendously interested and very much amused by the brilliant speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, but if it is examined, I do not think that anybody could say that there was one helpful suggestion in it. If I were asked to define the speech, I would say that it was the speech of a gentleman who was talking for victory. That will not do. If a person cannot help in the solution of this terrible problem, they should not hinder. To hundreds of thousands of men and women, this is a question of life and death. I was delighted to notice that the Prime Minister and the Government laid such stress upon the connection between peace, trade revival and unemployment. These three hang together for this reason. In a country like ours, which depends for four days out of seven for its food on other countries, and in return for that four days food supply has to pay by sending out manufactured articles, the foreign trade depends, just as home trade does, upon goodwill between nations. Goodwill in its turn depends upon confidence between nations, and confidence in its turn depends upon peace between nations. Without peace there can really be no effective trade revival or solution of the unemployment problem. Trade can only revive in a peace atmosphere.

I was delighted as a Lancashire Member to notice the reference in the King's Speech to the cotton industry, and to see that the Government have decided to institute immediately an inquiry into the organisation of the industry. We have heard a great deal about the mining industry, but no industry needs reorganisation more than the cotton industry, especially when we find gentleman like Sir Charles Macara saying that between the cotton fields and the ultimate destination of the cotton, the cotton is turned over no less than 33 times, and on each of those occasions profits are taken out of the industry. Another thing from which the industry has been suffering is what is termed dropsy, and if the problem is approached from an international viewpoint instead of a local narrow viewpoint, I feel confident that the inquiry will result in the benefit not only of the cotton industry, but of England and India and other countries connected with cotton.

A question was raised by the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday as to the increased representation on these Benches, and he wondered why there was such an increase. As one of the new Members, I believe that one of the chief reasons is the sporting instinct in the British people who, after four and a half years of Conservative Government said: "We will give these people a chance." If the people who have put us here see that pinpricking speeches are made and obstacles are put in the way of our having a fair chance, they will show their indignation at the next election in no uncertain way by returning a Labour majority. I trust that we will be able to fulfil their expectations. We have been given a chance, and if the two sections of the Opposition treat that chance in the way in which the country expects them to treat it, we shall at least be able to fulfil that expectation, and they will be able to say with truth: " Well done, thou good and faithful servants."

:May I congratulate the last speaker on an able maiden speech? We all know how difficult it is to make one, and as an older Member I congratulate him on making such a brief speech. I am certain that that will commend itself to everybody in the House, especially to those who talk most about short speeches, and when the time comes make the longest. Before coming to the chief topic about which I want to speak, I would say a word about what fell from the Prime Minister in regard to foreign policy. Ever since I have been in the House, I have said in my constituency and elsewhere that I thought that foreign politics should be decided without party considerations whatever. The Prime Minister has made an appeal, suggesting that we should form ourselves into what he calls a council of state on certain matters. I sincerely hope that that may be done with regard to our relations with foreign powers, but the party opposite has not a very good record on which to ask for that.

I will give two examples of what happened during the last Parliament. The first is what is known as the Anglo-French Naval Conference. The conversations which were held by the Conservative Government then were similar to the type of conversation which is now being held by the Prime Minister with the Americans. The moment they were started, and all the time they were being carried on, we were told we were going in for secret diplomacy] rumours were raised by hon. Members opposite, and ill-feeling was engendered in foreign countries. I remember the present Leader of the Opposition saying that our conversations with France were being carried on in accordance with what the Chairman of the Preparatory Commission on Disarmament had asked—that we should get together behind the scenes with other countries and try to find some agreement. Exactly the same words have since been used by the present Prime Minister. In our case it was called secret diplomacy; he now asks that we should back him up. I hope we shall, but I also hope that when the party opposite once more go into opposition— no Government lasts for ever, and some time or other they will find themselves in opposition—they will remember the plea made by their own Prime Minister.

The same sort of thing happened as regards our relations with China. Not so long ago the Labour party were backing up a certain Mr. Eugene Chen, who has gone back to Moscow and disappeared from public view. We were chastised by the other side because we would not recognise him, or think that he stood for all that was best in China. Again, when we sent troops to China, we were assailed in this House, and a certain amount of suspicion was engendered abroad. That is not the way in which foreign politics should be approached, and I only hope the words of the present Prime Minister may be taken to heart, and that we really shall be able to make our foreign policy a British policy and not a party policy.

I want to say a few words on unemployment, particularly as it concerns London. Members. During the last Parliament I think I sat through every unemployment debate, having had one of those useful and ornamental posts with no salary the occupants of which sit on the bench behind Ministers. I confess that sometimes I have sat alone over there, with only two or three people in the House on this side. Therefore, during the last 4½ years I heard pretty well the opinions of all sides regarding the solution of the unemployment problem. The first step taken by the present Government in dealing with this problem has been to appoint a special Minister for it, with what I may call one or two assistants. In dealing with unemployment it seems to me we are very much in the position of a business handling a business proposition. I wish the Government the best of luck in this matter, but it occurs to me that business men would not agree that the best way of solving a problem is to create two or three new directors to deal with it. By doing that you may be merely adding to your overhead charges without dealing effectually with the situation.

I am perfectly certain that the Members on our back benches have no intention of trying to throw sand in the wheels. Having studied the problem ourselves, we wish those who are now handling it the best of luck, and if the Ministers charged with this task succeed we shall be pleased, though I am rather doubtful of the wisdom of entrusting it to three separate Ministers. Here I would point out that in the past it has always been the Minister of Labour and his Under-Secretary who have dealt with unemployment. With what is the present Minister of Labour to deal? Is she to be concerned solely with questions of unemployment insurance, because if so, it seems rather a waste of a big Department? That is a point on which, I think, we might have a little further information.

When we were dealing with unemployment during the election we said definitely that we did not believe that any type of what I may call "relief schemes" was any good, that is to say, such schemes as were put forward by the Liberal party in their book "We can conquer unemployment," schemes which the spending of large sums of money straight away on roads, railways, and the like. The policies of the Labour party, and the Liberal party were very much alike, and though they were fighting each other they were constantly saying, "I thought of it first." We said we did not believe in these schemes. Unfortunately, we were not returned to power. What is extraordinary is that the party who were returned to office, supported by another party who believe in relief schemes, when they come to put before us their plans for dealing with unemployment, make no mention of any such schemes. The Liberal party said they would be in a position to see that any Government which replaced ours put forward Liberal schemes and carried them out. I have been waiting throughout the Debate to see what the Liberals intended to do, but apparently that book "We can conquer unemployment" has been forgotten by them. Personally I am glad that the relief schemes are not going to be put into operation, but at the same time one cannot help wondering what has happened to what the Labour party used to call their great schemes of useful work. They said these had already been worked out, and could be put into operation the moment they came into office.

Another thing which has interested me is the policy of transference. I am perfectly convinced that the transfer of miners from what are called the "black areas" is necessary, but, unfortunately, it is also extremely unpopular. If you talk personally to anybody an this House he will probably say to you, " I agree that we must move these people from these areas, because they cannot get work there, but for goodness sake do not put them in my constituency." When we were the Government, if any man had been transferred the Member for the constituency to which he had been sent would get up at Question Time and want to know if his transference had not put somebody else out of work. Apparently the Government are in agreement with us that transfer is necessary, and I myself think it is, and I hope that hon. Members opposite, in conjunction with us, will try not to take too insular a view of it, and will try to educate their constituents to realise that as these people cannot get work in their own areas we must try to find them jobs in constituencies where a little more work is to be found, even though it may be creating a little unpleasantness locally.

Then there is the question of taking out of industry children between 14 and 15 years of age and people over 65 years of age. In my constituency this was put forward as one of the chief palliatives of the unemployment situation. We understood, because it was stated in election addresses all over the country, that this proposal had been considered and was to be carried out, and therefore it is rather extraordinary to hear that the Government have merely set up a committee to consider the problem. Other Governments have considered the problem, and have always found that the unemployment difficulty is insoluble by those means. One reason, of course, it that at the present moment the last thing we want to do is to put an additional burden on industry. If you are going to take out of industry all the children between 14 and 15, certain industries will have a burden put upon them, and you will find that you are causing those industries to have overhead charges which they did not have to bear before, and other people will be thrown out of employment. Another great difficulty which applies more particularly to London is that while we are doing our best in regard to education to make the classes smaller and the schools better it would be impossible suddenly to take the whole of the children between 14 and 15, and find accommodation for them in existing schools. I think it would have been much better if the Labour party had said at the election that they would consider this question instead of pledging themselves that those children should be immediately taken from industry.

There is another question which more particularly affects North London, and that is the extension of the Finsbury Park tube and the electrification of Liverpool Street Station. I am all for these things being done, but I want to know whether the Government have made up their minds as to what they are going to do with the Bills dealing with London traffic. I do not know whether we are going to have a statement on this question, but I noticed in an evening paper a statement that the Government had decided to scrap the London Traffic Bills. I hope that is not true, but if it is true, I trust the House of Commons will be consulted before that course is taken. I trust that before deciding to scrap those Bills the Government will consider the subject very seriously.

Those who represent North London constituencies and many other Members of the House in the last Parliament have pleaded for better traffic facilities for North London. When that subject was considered by the House of Commons the opposition to the London Traffic Bills was not really very serious, the main objection being that some hon. Members wanted co-ordination under a municipality and not under a combine. To scrap those Bills simply because some hon. Members differ in regard to the authority which should control these questions would be a great loss. Last Session things looked as if we were going to get something done, and at that time we had a promise from Lord Ashfield that he was willing to extend the Fins-bury Park Tube as soon as the other schemes had been adopted. I would like to know definitely whether the Government have decided to scrap those Bills, and, if they have, I trust that some other means will be found of putting those schemes into operation. If the combine is willing to make this tube so much the better. I think a Private Bill would be the best method, but if the Government do not proceed on the lines suggested in the Bills now before Parliament, it would be impossible to deal with the most important problem of the congestion in the streets of London. That congestion is very bad indeed and causes a tremendous amount of trade loss. All those things were to be dealt with under the Bills to which I have referred, and if the statement which I have read in the newspaper is correct all the efforts made to bring about those reforms will have been wasted.

10.0 p.m.

In spite of the election in London I do not think the electors really care who own the trams. [HON. MEMBERS: " Yes they do! "] Do hon. Members believe that anybody waiting for a tram or omnibus cares at all whether he uses one of Lord Ashfield's motor omnibuses or one of the people's trams? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] I do not believe that anybody except the politician and the Socialists cares in the least who owns these things as long as they run properly and cheaply. It would be easy under the Bills which are now before Parliament to secure that the traffic will not be exploited, and for these reasons I hope the Government will seriously consider this question before anything is done to scrap the Traffic Bills to which I have alluded. The Prime Minister said something about the confidence of the traders of this country, and because several newspapers dared to say that we wanted fuller information on this question he said that it would be mischievous to give that information. I ask hon. Members to remember that the speeches and the literature produced during the election are very different from the speeches and the literature which are being produced at the present time. It is all very well to say that the people have nothing to fear from the proposals of the Government. Probably they have not read the wonderful literature produced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the nationalisation of the banks. I think it is perfectly obvious that any industry which is safeguarded at the present time must have a lack of confidence in the present Government. We do know what is going to happen in the case of any foreigner who is considering the question of building a new motor factory in this country, and unless the Government can make their policy clear in regard to Safeguarding, it is bound to have a bad effect on trade. I know an instance of someone who has been contemplating starting a button factory in this country, but if the Safeguarding Duties are to be taken off how can that man employ people and possess that confidence which is necessary for the success of his enterprise? I think hon. Members were very much struck by the obvious sincerity and the will to win through shown by the Lord Privy Seal, and we wish him every success in the great work which he has undertaken. I would like to point out, however, that unless we can establish confidence, and unless the Government take the business people of the country into their confidence and let them know exactly what they propose to do in the future, a state of unrest will be produced, and people who other- wise might be taken into permanent employment will be thrown out of work.

I hope the Government will continue in office for some little time. None of us on either side of the House want another General Election for some time, but we trust that the Government will keep away from controversial subjects. I notice that in the King's Speech the Government announce that they intend to try to amend the Trade Unions Act. I can assure them that in dealing with that question they will find themselves up against trouble. The Government ought not to forget that there are more Conservatives and Liberal trade unionists in the Country than Socialist trade unionists. If the Government do their best with the unemployment problem, keep away from controversial subjects like Socialism, and take the traders of the country into their confidence, then we shall do our best to help them. If they do not do this it will be no use saying that it will be a shame if they are swept from power. The Government have not a majority for Socialism, and what I have predicted will happen if they put forward a Socialistic policy. If the Government keep on the lines which I have suggested we shall support them, but if they put forward a Socialist policy they will be swept from power.

:It is a peculiar virtue of our democracy that for 700 years this House has managed to adapt itself to every one of the developments that this great nation has undergone, and we, who meet here as the first Parliament to be elected by the full vote of the whole of the adult population of this country, have an exceptional duty to the past and to the future. We have to see that that great virtue is maintained inviolate in this House, and is handed on to the future, so that, in the wreck of Parliamentary institutions elsewhere, they may be preserved in this country as the best vehicle for democratic expression. This House will best be able to fulfil that high function if it realises that the controversies of 20 and 30 years ago are as dead as mutton to-day, that at the elections of to-day the matters that excited interest and enthusiasm 20 and 30 years ago are matters that are very rarely dealt with, and, when dealt with, are received with an air of formality. This House has to deal with a demo- cracy that has been fully enfranchised, and a fully enfranchised democracy, having the vote, is asking what is to be done with it. I believe that one of the reasons for the change that has taken place in the complexion of this House is that people are turning away from purely political interests largely to economic interests, and that this House, now and in the future, will be more concerned with economic interests than with the purely political controversies that have divided parties hitherto.

I notice that the "Times" has published what, to my mind, is the most illuminating of charts connected with the late General Election, and I can understand that it is probably owing to their study of that chart that right hon. Gentlemen on the front bench opposite, and especially the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, have become so vigorous in their threats to this side of the House when once we have passed from the things on which they agree with us. That chart shows that, whereas the other parties, in their voting strength in the country and in their representation in this House, represent the flowing and the ebbing of the tide, the last four general elections have shown that the party on this side is steadily increasing in its total percentage of the votes of the country.

:Not merely owing to their promises, but owing to the fact that the promises, including some that have been made by the Noble Lady herself, made by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were so badly fulfilled in the Parliaments elected during that time. [ Interruption. ] The party on this side of the House has no such relation to the flowing and the ebbing of the tide, in its strength in the country, as is represented in the votes polled by the two parties now on the other side of the House. We represent a steadily flowing river that is marking out deep and true a channel that is going to bring to the arid lands of the politics of this country a revivifying influence. The progress of that river may be dammed and stopped by the combination of the two parties opposite, but the flood that will result cannot be blamed upon the river—it must be blamed upon the obstacle that is put in its way.

If there is one thing that distinguished the last General Election, it is the fact that revolutionary propaganda failed absolutely at the polls. The votes polled by the Communists in the country are a striking evidence of the sanity of the democracy of this country, and of their belief in the power of this House to establish by constitutional means the economic freedom that they seek. But if, through the play of political forces, this party is prevented from making its contribution to the solution of the problems of this country, we cannot be blamed if democracy says, " Politics is a game, and we prefer to see if there is not some shorter cut to the things that we desire." We on this side of the House desire to see the great institutions that have been handed down to us able to deal with the economic problems that confront the nation to-day, but, if the position of this party had been judged by the old standards of electioneering, we should have expected to find it with practically no representation in this House at all. We had neither the money nor the vehicles nor the publicity that were previously regarded as essential for the return of Members to this Housey and the fact that we are here to-day as the largest party in numbers, and, as far as Great Britain is concerned, the largest party in votes, is an indication of the strength of the feeling that is behind us, when the great handicaps that we had to face are remembered.

I desire to express my great gratification with the whole of the King's Speech. As I listened to it when it was read in another place, and as I listened to you, Mr. Speaker, repeating it here, it seemed to me to represent work to which this House could well give its attention during the months ahead of us, and I hope we are going to get from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that courtesy which will enable the proposals of His Majesty's Government to be strengthened and made more effective in the country practically than they otherwise might be. I was particularly pleased this afternoon by the speech of my hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He dealt, at somewhat greater length than was accorded to it yesterday, with a problem which has been mentioned two or three times on the other side of the House, and to which I desire for two or three minutes to address myself, namely, the problem of taking out of industry the children between 14 and 15 years of age. I was very pleased to hear the remarks of the Chancellor of the Duchy on that matter. I speak as the chairman of the sub-committee of one of the great local education authorities of the country, which is exceedingly anxious to assist the Government, as I believe most local authorities are, in dealing with this problem. We ask the Government to realise that in this matter, as in the case of highways, they are partners with the local authorities.

:I had hoped that I had made it plain that that was the subject to which I was directing my remarks. I do not desire to indulge even in such repetition as might be allowed by the Standing Orders, but I desire to impress this point upon His Majesty's Government. The local education authorities at the moment are under instructions from the Board to prepare a three years' programme commencing on 1st April, 1930, and ending on 31st March, 1933. That programme has to be placed before the Board by 31st October of this year. It is obvious that it will be of the greatest advantage to the local education authorities in preparing that programme if, while it is still in a comparatively plastic state, they can know the date upon which His Majesty's Government propose, if they propose at all, to raise the school leaving age. If we could get that date it would be of very great assistance to us in dealing with that particular problem. After the speech that was delivered by my hon. Friend this afternoon at that table, I have no doubt that this subject is receiving the most earnest and sympathetic consideration of the Government.

I hope that the Committee which has been appointed will realise that this is one of the things which will enable the Government, not merely to deal with the immediate problem of unemployment, but to get a democracy sufficiently educated to enable it to deal properly, fairly and dispassionately with the great problems that the democracy of this country will have to face in the future. The Government have produced a King's Speech which is evidence of the fact that a constitutional democracy has to face up to problems that in the past were relegated to a very few people in this country. If we are to have a democracy capable of shouldering this great burden, I am quite sure that it can only be done through giving to the children of all classes of the community a greater opportunity of entering into those great heritages of literature, of art and of beauty that should enrich the lives of the community, rich in these things are we are. In the words of the greatest educationist of the century—Sanderson, the late headmaster of Oundle:

:Although I have sat through the Debate and have listened to speeches on the important questions which have been treated sympathetically, I think on all sides of the House, there is one point in the King's Speech which has hardly been touched upon. That is a subject which is of interest, not only to this country, but which will be read with interest by the whole world, the subject of our relations with the United States of America. I think that it is particularly fitting that to-day of all days should be the day upon which some mention should be made in this House of the United States and our relations with them, since to-day is 4th July, the day on which they celebrate Independence Day in the United States. I believe that everybody in this House will join with them in the pleasure of that celebration. I welcome the statement made, not only by the Prime Minister, but by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. Our friendship and understanding with the United States of America is the most important international question which is now outstanding. There is no question which is so important as that. I was glad that my right hon. Friend gave a word of caution that our discussions in the United States should go slowly. It is no good in that country trying to rush it.

I may lay some claim to a little knowledge of the United States of America, a knowledge gained during the War and in a naval capacity. When you realise that the whole question of our relations with the United States is fundamentally a naval one, I think, perhaps, it is not unfitting that a naval officer should be able to offer to this House a few humble observations upon it. All our relation ships with America have been bound up with the sea and all our relationships with America are certain to be bound up with the sea in the future in a greater degree than in any other way. Our early differences with the United States were differences over the sea. I do not know whether it is news to Members of the House, but the very flag to which reverence is being done to-day in the United States of America was invented primarily as a flag to be flown at sea and had nothing to do with the shore or any army at all. I do not know whether those Members of the House who come from the North of the Tweed happen to know that the date of the decree which brought into being the flag of the United States as we know it also saw the appointment of a very distinguished officer who came originally from North of the Tweed. He was one of the greatest Admirals in the history of the United States—Admiral John Paul Jones. It is another example of how dwellers North of the Tweed rise to eminence in any part of the world to which they may go. Reference has been made to Scotland being made attractive to the Americans, but I think that America has been very attractive to the Scots at all times.

In the minds of the people of this country I see growing up misconceptions. They look upon our relationships with the United States from the point of view of rivalry at sea. Those who spread the idea that there is any naval rivalry between us and the United States are spreading what I believe to be a mischievous and iniquitous doctrine. I am one who holds that they are entitled to supply what they believe to be their naval needs just as we are entitled to supply ours. I would ask whoever goes to the United States to start these discussions on reduction of armaments which are so essential to the peace of the world to bear in mind not only that we should reduce armaments and agree upon armaments but that it might be worth while to consider the possibility of co-ordinating armaments. Their interests at sea are great and so are ours. There is a danger that this naval armament question should obscure the great community of interests which exists between us and the United States. We all need adequate safety. In the state of the world as it is at the present time nobody would deny that fleets are necessary but only that minimum of sea power which is absolutely essential.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), touching upon the United States, said that not only were there, sea questions to discuss—he did not actually say that, but one understood from his speech that that was what he meant, and that he realised that every question which we have to solve can be helped by discussion and assistance on the part of the United States of America. The financial question on which he spoke as an expert with a clear lucidity which is given to very few of us on the back benches in this House was put in such a way that one realised that whoever goes to America should not only think about cruisers, submarines and aircraft carriers, but should discuss every question, financial and social, that they can think of. We shall then get to some real state of understanding with that great country, which thinks along our lines and has our ideals. There is no truth whatever in the suggestion of a race in armaments with the United States. It has been my privilege to serve at Washington, in a humble capacity. I have seen something of the United States Navy and have met many United States naval officers—only a few days ago I spoke to a very distinguished American Admiral in London—and I refuse to believe that there is anything in this suggestion of a race in armaments. I believe that the last shot fired in anger between us and the United States was fired between the years 1812 and 1814.

The Mover of the Address said that the United States claimed partnership with us, and he is perfectly right. They seek to be sharers with us of the world's burdens. A great deal can be done by means of discussion round a table. As the Leader of the Opposition said, it is better to discuss round a table than to write interminable letters which may be misunderstood. May I read to the House the words of a very great American, a lover of peace and a hater of war, a great and loyal friend of this country, and lately the American Ambassador to this country, the late Mr. Walter Page. He said:

I would like to say to the Prime Minister or to anyone representing this country who goes to the United States that world peace will not at present be secured by taking away the means of ensuring it, and I beg the sincere attention of the Prime Minister and of this House to the conclusion which was reached by Mr. Page when he so frankly discussed the question of a real alliance and declared that

:I rise to make a few observations on the words in the King's Speech in regard to Norfolk South West (Mr. W. B. Taylor) to be one of the first two tenant farmers to be elected to Parliament. We farmers are not much for talking, you know, but we can think a good deal. We are great thinkers. I would like to offer a few practical ideas. Agriculture is very much depressed. In 1871 there were over a million workers on the land; to-day there are only about 500,000. That means the depletion of the rural areas and the overcrowding of the cities and towns. Our aim ought to be an Al nation, but if something ia not done to improve the condition of agriculture we shall steadily become a C3 race. The late Government failed to do anything practical for agriculture. It allowed a million acres of arable land to go out of cultivation, yet ironically cheered the reference in the King's Speech, evidently believing that the Labour party cannot do anything for agriculture.

What is the chief cause of agricultural depression at the moment? The late Prime Minister used the word "uncertainty." I want to use the word "insecurity." That is the cause of agricultural depression. The breaking up of estates has caused uncertainty and insecurity. There must be public ownership of land. We are not out to adopt the methods of the Irish tenants. We are not out to shoot the landlords. We propose to compensate them on a fair basis. But what has been the result of the present land system in Ireland? You can see it in the many advertisements around the City of London. The Irish Free State are leading us in the matter of agricultural reform because their Government are devoting attention to it, and they have security of tenure. If we are to do anything for agriculture we must begin at the bottom. We must have public ownership of land, security of tenure, and land courts to fix fair rents. That is the basis of all agricultural reform; de-rating will do nothing unless you have security. I am trying to deal with the question of agriculture with the object of showing that something can be done to relieve unemployment. There is as much flooded land in England as would cover the Counties of Lancashire and Durham, and if that land was cultivated—it is some of the best in the world—there would be no need to advise people to emigrate to distant lands. We ought to buy up this land at its pre- sent value; in some cases it is only nominal and the owners ought to be glad for the State to take it off their hands.

We ought to establish a national drainage board, and there should be a public supply of electricity through all rural districts. Then we should be able to lay out the land for small holdings, cottage holdings, and cottage homes, and establish modern Hollands and Den-marks even at our own doors. The late Government passed legislation in 1926 dealing with small holdings, but they forgot to provide the land. If we drained our flooded areas we should have the land—good land—required for the purpose. The defect in the Small Holdings Act of 1926 was that the agricultural worker only could purchase one of the cottage holdings. Other workers were not allowed to do so. The agricultural worker had to pay £30 deposit and then £30 for legal expenses. We want to remove those defects and give an opportunity to every worker who desires a small holding or cottage holding to obtain and cultivate such a holding at a reasonable rent.

The question of the stabilisation of prices has been mentioned this afternoon. This is a very important matter. The stabilisation of the prices of the main products of agriculture is essential. "Labour and the Nation" has been mentioned. In "Labour and the Nation" allusion is made to a national purchasing board for wheat. If we had such a board we could buy wheat in the grain, pass that grain on to the miller, and that would be a great help to the milling industry and enable that industry to find work for a number of men. Our object is to find work for the unemployed. Not only would assistance be given to the milling industry, but there would be the offals at home for the feeding and rearing of cattle. Offals are very dear.

What is the Conservative policy for helping agriculture? It is that 25 per cent, of English flour shall be used in Army bread. If something is not done for agriculture before long there will not be as much English wheat ground in this country as will feed the poultry, never mind the 25 per cent, for English flour for the Army. The profits from the national purchase of wheat would enable the Government to stabilise prices and offer to the British grower the same price for all the wheat that he was able to grow. That would help to keep the land in cultivation, and it would help to bring back the million acres of arable land which the Opposition, when they were in power, lost to this country. Barley growing has also been much neglected. We can grow barley here as well as any other country for malting purposes, and yet that industry has been allowed to go out of cultivation.

I want to put in a claim in support of shell fisheries. Part of my Division is connected and concerned with shell fisheries, and I am glad to see it mentioned in the King's Speech that something will be done by this Government to aid that industry. Also, we want more cottages in rural districts. In one rural district where I was addressing a meeting during the recent election a young man got up and said: "Are you in earnest about your promises to build more cottages in rural districts if you are returned to power?" I said: "We are." Another young man, after the meeting, came up and said to me: "You have hit the nail on the head to-night. I know of four young couples waiting to be married, and yet they cannot obtain cottages in which to live." I am glad to see that the King's Speech foreshadows the fact that we are to have more cottages in rural districts. We want also improvements made to our farm buildings, and that cannot be done by private enterprise. Under public ownership the farm buildings could be made model buildings and we should be enabled to grow more foodstuffs at home.

The Conservative remedy, as I have said, consists partly of providing 25 per cent, of English flour for the Army and of providing English beef for the Army during six months of the year. Why should not the Army have English beef for 12 months of the year? Another remedy is the exportation of broccoli to the Continent, which is suggested as the salvation of British agriculture. When the ex-Prime Minister came to my constituency he said that if a load of globe mangels and a load of Swede turnips were tipped out on the Floor of the House, the Labour Members would not know the difference between them. But we have Members on this side of the House who know the difference between globe mangels and Swede turnips, and I wonder if the ex-Prime Minister knows the difference between cauliflower and winter broccoli.

I am glad to see that better facilities are to be provided for the marketing of produce. A friend of mine went into a shop in a well-known seaside resort in. North Wales, where they asked 8d. each for broccoli and on that same day broccoli were selling at 8d. a dozen in Liverpool market. I expect that the broccoli for which that price was asked was one of those exported to the Continent and that it had found its way back to North Wales. I know another case of where, in a seaside resort in Lancashire, 4d. was charged for a Swede turnip. We should have been glad of one halfpenny for a Swede turnip on the farms with which I am connected. We must set ourselves to consider how these things are happening and that is what the Labour Government are going to do. They are going to see to this exploiting between the grower and the consumer. We want to encourage facilities for the marketing of farm produce. What did the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer under the Conservative Government do in this connection? When a man had saved a bit of money and bought a motor lorry and started putting agricultural produce on the market the then Chancellor of the Exchequer put up the tax. We want a relaxation of that tax. We want to give every facility and encouragement to the small motor man to convey agricultural produce to the towns and cities. Not satisfied with what was done in that connection, a tax of 4d. a gallon was put on petrol and we were told that relief was to be given in the form of de-rating to the agriculturist. There is little consolation in that.

We also remember the time when the ex-Chancellor proposed a tax on paraffin which would have been a hardship to agricultural workers and their families. Owing to the attitude of the Labour party in opposition he was glad to withdraw that proposal. We want a revision of railway rates. We do not want a preference given to foreign produce. We want a preference for British grown stuff. I conclude by thanking hon. and right hon. Members for giving me so patient a hearing on the occasion of my first speech in this House, and I hope this Labour Government will go forward with any proposition that is possible and that will be for the advancement of the most honourable and ancient industry of agriculture.

:I should like to congratulate the hon. Member who has just sat down upon his speech, and I should like to congratulate the House on having another Member returned to it who is interested in what is still our greatest industry. I can assure him that there are many Members on this side of the House who would be only too glad to co-operate in any policy which may bring back prosperity to the countryside. I intended to speak on this subject, and therefore I will deal with it first, but I would like to ask the hon. Member who has just spoken how it is, if security of tenure is the one thing needed by agriculture, that you find a farmer who has bought his own farm and owns it is in just as bad a way, at least in my part of the world, as the man who rents his farm. I would also like to put this to him, that no security of tenure will alter the price of the produce of the farm, and that is the key of the whole situation.

To my mind—and I have said it before in this House—there is only one remedy for arable agriculture in this country. The hon. Member said, "Stabilise the price of wheat," but at what price are you going to stabilise it? That is the point. You have fixed wages, and I do not suggest that they should be lowered, but you have fixed them at a point which is to-day absolutely uneconomic, allowing for the present price of wheat. With wheat at its present price, the economic wage of an agricultural labourer would be about 22s. a week, but you have fixed it at 30s., and what is happening is that the farmer, out of his own pocket, is subsidising the wage of the agricultural labourer. The country in effect says this: "Our conscience does not allow us to pay a man a low wage." Very well, if the country says that, do not let the country satisfy its conscience at the expense of the farmer, but let it foot the bill.

Now I come to my point. The key of the whole situation is the price of wheat. Fix the price of wheat at a price which is economic, that is to say, a price which will allow the present wage to be paid— and a better one if you like—and will allow also a decent return to the farmer, and then let the Government come in and find the difference between that price and the world price. That is the only remedy for the present condition of arable agriculture, and everybody knows it, and every farmer will tell you so. Hon. Members here, and opposite, and below the Gangway on this side, have an opportunity in this Parliament such as they have never had before, to put our heads together and recognise the parlous state of this great industry, to face the situation, and try and find an agreed remedy, for nothing but an agreed remedy is any use. What this industry wants is to know where it is, and it wants security, not to have a policy adopted by one party one day and altered the next day by another party. Here in this Parliament, where no party is in a position to dictate to another, let us put our heads together on this great subject. It is a subject which affects employment and the whole well-being of the country. A million acres have gone out of arable cultivation during the last five years, and it will be very serious if that goes on. I see it in my own county. We see villages derelict and unemployment increasing, and no young men going on the land—and that is a very serious point. Such a policy is madness for this country to pursue. It is bad economically and socially, and from the point of view of national defence it is most dangerous. Therefore, I appeal to all parties in this Parliament to do this great national work for our country. Let us get together on the subject, which has been tossed about and has been the sport of party politics for too long. It is a scandal that it should have been so, and I am glad to welcome another hon. Member who is really interested in this question. Let us put our heads together and face the situation and see if we cannot really do something.

I want to turn to one other subject— the recognition of Russia. Before I deal with it I should like to utter a word of warning to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has tried to purge his party and says in effect that Communism is treated by the official Labour party as an unclean thing. There are still certain affiliations, though I will not go into that. One hon. Member who spoke from those benches just lately said he was pleased to see that the Communist party had done so badly in the election. I think I am right in saying that they only secured 50,000 votes. But I would like to remind the Prime Minister of certain statements made by Lenin in one of his works called "Left Wing Communism." This is what he says:

Hon. Members opposite have from time to time told us that there is an enormous business to be done in Russia. I thought, therefore, that it was worth trying to find out whether that that was so, and I thought the best people from whom to find out were the business men of this country. Therefore, a very representative delegation of business men went out to Russia quite recently, and they explored the situation as business men. Since they have come back, they have communicated their views to His Majesty's Government. No doubt hon. Members read a speech made by the Governor of the State National Bank, in which he said, "Recognition first, and then we are prepared to discuss the question of liabilities and propaganda." These gentlemen, in the communication which they have made to the Government, say that in their opinion recognition should be preceded by an acknowledgment on the part of Russia of her liabilities to pay her pre-1917 debts to British nationals, and by some guarantees as to the cessation of propaganda. I hope that these views of business men will not be ignored when the Government discuss the conditions on which diplomatic recognition will be renewed. I am not one of those who think that there are not certain conditions under which diplomatic recognition might be granted; it must inevitably come sooner or later, but let us remember that Russia above all things wants recognition. Therefore as business men, do not let us give her what she wants until we have got what we want. Do not let us give all she wants for nothing.

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

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

Committee of Privileges

Ordered, "That the Committee of Privileges do consist of Ten Members." —[ Mr. Kennedy. ]

The Prime Minister, Mr. Stanley Baldwin, Mr. Bowerman, Lord Hugh Cecil, Mr. Secretary Clynes, Mr. Secretary Henderson, Sir Dennis Herbert, Mr. Macpherson, Mr. Solicitor-General, and Lieut. - Colonel Spender - Clay nominated Members of the Committee:

Ordered, "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records ":

Ordered, "That five be the quorum." [ Mr. Kennedy. ]

Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms (House of Commons)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a Select Committee be appointed to control the arrangements for the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms in the department of the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House."—[ Mr. Kennedy. ]

:I do not object to the appointment of this Committee, but I do want to know something about the conditions under which the people of this Department work. Have we any responsibility for these conditions—the holidays they have, without wages in many cases, and their conditions generally? We ought to have an opportunity of raising these points. I object to people being engaged to work for us in this House unless they are adequately paid and have proper conditions.

:No doubt the hon. Member will find an opportunity of raising those points on a subsequent occasion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered, "That the Committee do consist of Seventeen Members":

Mr. Compton, Sir Nicholas GrattanDoyle, Mr. James Gardner, Mr. David Grenfell, Major Sir George Hennessy, Mr. Hore-Belisha, Lieut.-General Sir Aylmer Hunter-Weston, Major-General Sir Robert Hutchison, Mr. Jenkins, Lady Cynthia Mosley, Mr. Muff, Sir Douglas Newton, Sir Herbert Nield, Sir Leolin Forestier-Walker, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Albert Lambert Ward, Mr. Westwood, and Miss Wilkinson nominated Members of the Committee:

Ordered, "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records":

Ordered "That Three be the quorum." —[ Mr. Kennedy. ]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Adjournment

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Mr. Kennedy. ]

Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes after Eleven o' Clock.