I rise just to draw the attention of the Government and the House to the fact that the Government are moving this Motion on a date when the Live Stock Clubs Bill, a Bill to assist agriculture, is down for Second Reading. While it is true that they are taking the time in order to discuss a subject which the Opposition have very much at heart, namely, unemployment, and have put down the salary of the Lord Privy Seal in order that the subject may be discussed, at the same time I should like to make an appeal to the Government that if to-day is not available for the discussion of the Live Stock Clubs Bill, they should find another day for it. I would also remind the Government of their appeal to Members on this side of the House for contributions towards a solution of the agricultural problem. It would not be in order to discuss the merits of the Live Stock Clubs Bill, but I may remind the House that it is a Bill to encourage live stock clubs for the labouring classes in rural areas.

I understand that the arrangement of business to-day was made through the usual channels and that agreement was reached. It is perfectly true that the Bill to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred is an important Bill. We understood, however, that there was a great anxiety to discuss my salary to-day, and we had to choose between meeting that anxiety and dropping the private Member's Bill. I am sure that the point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be met, and that a day for his Bill will be found before Easter. I can assure him of that.

I associate myself with the dignified protest which has been made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage). Ever since I have been a Member of the House I have watched the unequal struggle between the back bench Member and the Government which seeks to take his time and to interfere with his freedom and independence. No doubt the Government supporters, flushed with the success of last night will again succeed in overwhelming the private Member and forcing him into submission. But private Members still claim some rights and privileges. We cannot be expected always to remain calm and passive. We are really desirous of pushing forward a Bill which we believe will be to the benefit of the community as a whole. We must not always be prevented from making our modest contribution to that end. We private Members to-day are being asked rather too much, and I hope that the Government will not misconstrue our patience in matters of this kind as evidence of our weakness or of our desire tamely to submit to whatever the Government may do.

I intervene for a moment, not to discuss the merits of the case raised by my hon. Friends, but to say that I cannot allow the remark of the Lord Privy Seal, that this arrangement was made through the usual channels, to pass. It is true that I was consulted about the programme of business and that I gave my advice to the Government, and that the advice was to drop the Coal Bill. In view of what happened last night, I cannot help thinking that it would have been better if my advice had been adopted. As my advice was not adopted, I merely awaited orders for the dragooning of the Opposition, and the arrangement which exists between us as regards this matter is the sort of arrangement which exists between a man who is going to be hanged and his executioner.

Some of us on this side are anxious to understand what are the Government's intentions in regard to the Bill which stands first on the Order Paper to-day. We understand that the Government undertake to restore the private Member's day which they propose to take now, on some date before Easter, but when they restore that day do they intend that the Order Paper should be as it is to-day, and that the Bill of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) should stand as the first Order. We want to be perfectly clear as to the Government's attitude on this matter so that the House may know exactly where it stands.

There are Members on this side of the House as keenly interested in agriculture as hon. Members opposite, and to show that there is no urgent importance attaching to this Bill I may mention that there is a live stock club in the parish in which I was born, and that its minutes date back to 1829. It is an amazing fact that hon. Members opposite should show such an interest in agriculture this morning when they have been in power for nearly five years, and have had the opportunity of passing Bills of this kind during that time.

I think the fact that a live stock club was started so long ago in the constituency of the hon. Member who has just spoken, and has been such a success, is all the more reason why this Bill should be given a chance to go through, and I hope the Government will consider it.

This Motion has not yet been passed, but in the ordinary course of the procedure of the House I suppose it will be passed. On the other hand, I think that purely as a matter of courtesy it would have been much better if we had had the Minister of Agriculture here this morning. It shows a disrespect and a lack of courtesy to the House which is always being shown by hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite.—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is here"]—and I very strongly protest against the continued lateness of the Minister of Agriculture in his attendance on every occasion. I have no desire, however, to delay getting the Lord Privy Seal on to the carpet where he can make some more mistakes for the Government.

I wish to enter an emphatic protest against the taking of Private Members' time by the Government to-day, and I do so as the representative of a constituency where clubs of the kind dealt with in the Private Members Bill, which stands first on the Order Paper, would have been most useful. Furthermore, although the discussion on that Bill would have been limited, we should have had a chance of hearing from the Minister of Agriculture at least a part of his policy. The taking of this day is due to the Government's own fault, and I was glad to hear the Chief Opposition Whip take up the statement of the Lord Privy Seal. One could understand the taking of Private Members' time at the end of a Session, when it might be necessary to do so in order to get important business through, but one cannot understand it at the beginning of the Session and at the beginning of a Parliament. The Government have tried to put too much important business through in a short time, and I as a humble back bencher—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite when they have been longer here will realise the necessity of Private

I feel bound, inasmuch as this day has been given by the Government for the discussion of our Motion, to make clear the circumstances. I express no opinion about the merits of the Bill of the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage). I am very sorry that I have not had an opportunity since last night of reading it, but I understood that no balloted Bill had been allocated to this day, and since the Government announced that they would give a vacant day for the purpose of discussing the Motion on unemployment which we proposed, we gladly accepted that offer.

May I have an answer to my question as to whether the Government will find a convenient day with this Bill as the first Order on the Paper?

I rise with great readiness to reply. As hon. Members know, Friday is a day essentially for Private Members, but Private Members must ballot for them, and merely slipping in a Bill on a Friday, for which no ballot has been made, or at any rate for which no place has been taken in a ballot by any Private Bill, is not carrying out the Rules of House. Therefore, what has to be done is that the Government, if this day is taken, will have to restore it, but they will restore it as an open day for which hon. Members will ballot. Hon. Members will ballot for the restored Friday, and must take their chance in the ballot.

The point with which I was dealing when we temporarily suspended business was the question of rationalisation. I was pointing out that while rationalisation, like thrift, had its virtues, it did not follow that its virtues were beneficial to the problem of unemployment. I pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman when he cheers the fact that we have in this country, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, small savings to the amount of £1,500,000,000 must also hear in mind the fact that there are 1,000,000 people out of employment, and that if the £1,500,000,000 were spent it would result in work for that one million people being produced for six years, from the demand that it would create. That figure has been worked out, and it means that 1,000,000 people would get six years work by the expenditure of £1,500,000,000. I give that as an illustration, but it has nothing to do with the question. The very same difficulty has to be faced in regard to rationalisation. Industrial rationalisation in itself is excellent, but there is nothing new about it. Rationalisation has been going on since Adam left the Garden of Eden in order to increase production. Every improvement in workshop organisation, every improvement in machinery, that has taken place has been a process of rationalisation. Every schoolboy now is familiar with the names of the great rationalists of this country, the men who gave us steam, electricity and machinery, which has made wealth production so much easier than it was a century ago.

"If he is now in a position to state to the House the number of persons employed last week and in May of this year by each of the local authorities participating in the £11,000,000 of expenditure approved by the Unemployment Grants Committee; and will he give these figures for the local authorities of Birmingham, Newport, the Mersey, Durham and Bristol respectively."

"I regret that this information is not at present available."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1929; col. 263, Vol. 232.]

I rise with considerable diffidence to address the House for the first time, but I do so relying with confidence on the great consideration which is always extended to a new Member by both sides of the House. It is my intention to take up but little time, and before I pass to what I rose to say I should like, as a business man, to congratulate the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) on the most damning Free Trade speech that I have ever heard. I have been a member of the Unemployment Grants Committee since its inception nine years ago. I was appointed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). His having appointed me to so many chairmanships of Government Department Committees probably to some extent accounts for my presence here to-day. I should like to explain to the House something of our work. Before doing so let me state that, having served under five Governments, I am deeply conscious of the strenuous endeavour made by every one of those Governments to find some alleviation of the terrible distress which is devastating the country. I must say, in justice, that no one has striven more strenuously to effect this than the Lord Privy Seal. But I cannot close my eyes to the fact that the canker of unemployment is eating into the very life of our nation. That deterioration will continue unless we find some way out.

What committee is that?

The Unemployment Grants Committee. We have schemes in our great cities, to which passing references have been made already, amounting to about £9,000,000. They are in view, but have not yet been formally accepted. I venture to say, however, that I do not think there is anything to object to in those schemes. There is another £1,000,000 worth of schemes in connection with harbour commissioners work which I hope our terms will make sufficiently attractive. May I make a simple explanatory point in connection with those schemes. We reject all those which justify the old description of relief work. We do not believe in digging a hole and filling it up again. We encourage schemes of development of water and is supplies, electricity undertakings, important dock facilities, sewerage and drainage extensions, and, thereafter, schemes for the improvement of local amenities such as public parks. But that is not enough. The lasting cure—the only cure in my opinion—is better export trade. The question is "How can we effect it?" and perhaps I may state to the House what is in my mind as a business man. During the currency of the Safeguarding and McKenna Duties and the Silk Duty 50 factories have been built in this country, 20 of them by foreigners.

It would seem almost presumption on my part, seeing that this is only the second occasion on which I have addressed this House, to congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir J. Ferguson), who has just sat down, upon his excellent speech, but I think it is of the greatest possible value to this House when men of experience come here and give us of the wisdom which they have built up during long years. If I could for a minute or two try to follow his example and, out of what little experience I have had, give this House some indication of ways in which I think this problem needs to be faced, I should think I had done something for which I might receive the pardon of the House for getting up at this time. I desire to say one or two words about this very momentous subject, which has been described by Members in all parts of the House as having such human aspects, and which is so vital in our national life, but which seems to have defied the attempts of Government after Government to deal with it, and which, as the years roll on, seems almost to become static in our national existence.

Can the hon. Member tell us how they have failed?

I would like to tell the House, but I am only using illustrations; it might reflect very adversely on the hon. Member for West Birkenhead (Mr. Egan) if I were to tell it. I might ask him what his rates were at the period of which I am speaking and what they are now. We have been told from the back benches on the other side that we have to change our whole economic system. What would happen if we did? There would be a determined rationalisation. Surely if we ask industry everywhere to rationalise itself, and make itself efficient in every part, it is time that we had the same spirit in all our administrative departments. One of the first things which would happen if our present administrative system went down would be a system of drastic rationalisation on a very wide scale, and it would take place by those who are advocating economic change. Would it not be better for us to do it now 7—We have to justify the conditions in which we find ourselves. There is no need of change of economic system, but in our present system we can, if we will only unite the nation, carry through all that we want and go on with the work which we need to do. This, however, will take time, and, while the grass is growing, the horse might be starving.

I rise with some apprehension, because although I have been sitting on these benches since the General Election, I have had only one other opportunity, and that for 10 minutes, of addressing the House. Little did I think that I should come to Parliament to "keep my mouth with a bridle while the wicked were before me," a thing I have never done before in all my long experience; and now I am told that I must put a bridle on my mouth again at five minutes past two. The House recognise what a strain that puts upon a man of the nationality of the leader of the Liberal party and the Lord Privy Seal. I would like to say that in my opinion the Conservative party have no right at all to dare to criticise the efforts of the Labour Government, whether these have failed or have succeeded. Time after time I have accompanied deputations from the local authority on which I have the honour to serve on visits to this House and to Whitehall to interview Government officials and Ministers, and nothing we could do would get employment for a single man. In our sorely stricken county of Monmouthshire we have 20,000 unemployed, a figure which can be multiplied by four if we reckon in their immediate dependants, with £200,000 of arrears of rates always dogging our footsteps; but nothing we could do would move the reactionary and inactive Government which sat on these Benches for four years. Every now and again we would get new regulations and circulars and we would say, "Here at last is some hope," only to find that it was a brick wall—well, if it had been a brick wall, we would have pulled it down or got over it, but every time we found we were up against a reinforced concrete wall which we could neither get through nor climb over, and in my opinion it is amazing effrontery for any Conservative Member to dare to offer a word in criticism of the gallant efforts of the Lord Privy Seal.

"Appeal was all in vain:

They held their place of power.

And when the people would complain,

They but despised them more."

It was never said.

Pardon me; my time is very limited. How the nation thrilled at his appeals after the war; and it would have responded if the right hon. Gentleman, with all his wizardry, had meant more than words, words, words. I have here a book published by the Liberal party at the last election. I do not know what colour it is. I call it salmon colour. It is not the yellow book. I should call it a pup of the yellow book. It is one of the many-hued books that the Liberal party have published. There are only two colours they have avoided. One was red, our colour, and the other, of course, was black, but the electors wrote the black book for them on May 30th. I have had great use for this book. I have admired it and made many speeches from it and praised it. I did not see why I should not, for my sixpence, get some of the Lloyd George millions, because I know it cost far more than sixpence to produce. And there was another reason. My Liberal opponent was, apart from his politics, a very decent fellow, and was also a local preacher, as I am, and I did not want the poor man to lose his deposit, and so I frequently cracked up the Liberal yellow and salmon coloured books, to his heart's content.

You have got it upside down.

That does not matter. It is shown simply to explain what a last throw of the gambler it was for the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the Liberal party to say that he could reduce unemployment by road making in a single year.

On a point of Order. Could not the plan be rolled up in private?

I feel I have some contribution to make to the debate, and I trust the hon. Gentleman will regard a nervous Welshman with the consideration he deserves. This plan took two years to make. According to the Liberal proposals we might be living in a mighty plain in Britain, uninhabited, so that you have only to take gangs of men with picks and shovels and barrows and you can solve the unemployment problem in a single year. The right hon. Gentleman forgets that we have to survey every foot of the ground, that there are hills and valleys, and that canals, railways, bridges and roads invest the country. I am not saying that it would be necessary in a time of pressure for two years to be occupied, but I certainly say that the work of preparing a plan such as this could not be done in less than one year at the least.

I think the hon. Member is getting rather far from this particular Vote.

I apologise if I have gone rather too wide, but my time is limited, and I was perhaps trying to proceed too rapidly. We have proved that on our schemes 70 per cent. goes in actual labour. We pay 50 per cent. on the job, and we are able to account for another 22 per cent., making a total of 72 per cent. in direct and indirect labour. If a road is required, there is nothing to equal a road for finding employment. I am not a blind enthusiast for roads; I would not create a road simply to create employment; I would not bring down Snowdon with its sunsets, and so lose the perorations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) to South Wales and take it back again simply to provide employment. That, of course, would be nonsense, and would be wasteful expenditure of public money. Nevertheless, when a road is required, as hundreds of them are, when, to use the words so often used by the Lord Privy Seal, they are roads of public utility, when they will promote public and national efficiency, then there is nothing to equal a road for providing a large proportion of employment.

I was very much interested, as the whole House was, in the description which the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Vaughan) gave of himself as a nervous Welshman. I suspected the Welshman, but I suspected no more. I only !hope I may live to hear the hon. Member speak in this House when he is no longer afflicted by nerves. I will leave on one side the observations that he made at the beginning of his speech, because it is very tempting, to one who has not sat long in this House, to make such observations. He could not refrain from an attack upon us and upon hon. Members who sit below the Gangway, and he challenged our right to criticise his right hon. Friend. In spite of that, I am afraid I must say a few words in criticism; but, before I begin them, I would like to remind the House of what the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean said about the great change that he had noticed since his party came into power—the change between his visit to the Department when he came away with nothing in his pocket, and his recent visit, when he was richly rewarded.

"It is not for us to put forward proposals. We have innumerable proposals, but we are not discussing that question at the present moment. We are now discussing the failure of the Government."

"I can promise you"—

"that a Labour Government would start at once with determination,"

"and what is more, a knowledge of the nature of the remedies that have to he applied, and in 12 months' time I am confident that we could make a great impression on the magnitude of the problem."

"The Labour Government's first and fundamental task, a task which must lie at the bottom of all its efforts, is to stimulate industry."

"It is time industry was cased somewhat of the terrific burden of imposts it has borne during the past 10 years, and I think this easing would do more than any other temporary Measure to stimulate trade and encourage business, and incidentally to provide employment for those at present idle."

"The Government says productive industry wants help. I admit it does."

"We cannot fail to recognise the obligations of the Government in the support of public welfare, but we must coincidently bear in mind the burden of taxes and strive to find relief through some tax reduction. Every dollar so returned fertilises the soil of prosperity."

"At long last England has arisen and the day is here, the day when the people of Britain come into their own."

After taking up so much time yesterday, I feel that I must apologise to the House for intervening in the Debate to-day, but as I pressed the Government to give a day for the discussion of this problem, I feel that I ought not to fail to take advantage of the opportunity which is offered. I do not do so because I think it is in the slightest degree necessary, especially after the brilliant exposition of the Liberal point of view by the hon. and learned Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Griffith), supported by the contribution made by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. R. Russell), and from the point of view of an examination of the White Paper, as far as I am concerned, I feel that I could leave it to the speech of the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) who gave us an extraordinary searching and penetrating examination of the whole problem. It is particularly essential, however, before we separate for the Christmas holiday that we should get from the Government a survey of the present position of unemployment. What is their opinion as to how the matter stands? What is their view of what they have accomplished? What is their view of what they can accomplish before the winter is over? I should like to hear from the Government what we were in the habit of hearing from the late Minister of Labour and the late President of the Board of Trade on these occasions, some idea of what their advisers tell them as to trade prospects. That is very vital.

In addition to not paying her debts.

Yes, of course; I do not want to quarrel with my right hon. Friend in that respect. At any rate, we have to meet a very heavy burden and we are facing it so that, from that point of view, I do not think there is any ground for despair, but I cannot see that leap forward which would enable us, whatever Government was in power, to recover the position of our export trade in two years. I cannot see it. I would like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman, who has at his command sources of information to which an unofficial person cannot resort, what his opinion is in regard to the trade prospects in that respect. Then there is another matter which has been referred to at considerable length by the right hon. Member for Shettleston, the question of rationalisation. It was glanced at by the late Prime Minister. That in itself, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, is a contributory cause to immediate unemployment. The right hon. Gentleman must be constantly hearing of cases of this kind in every part of the country where men have to be dismissed because new labour-saving appliances are being introduced.

I think it was one of your late Secretaries who did it.

That is right. That is why I knew. I thought I detected a very cunning hand. [An HON. MEMBER: "A master-hand."] Yes, a master-hand. I ask every Member of the House to take the trouble to read that Paper from beginning to end, for it is worth studying. If ever they want to conceal any facts this is the way to do it. It is quite impossible to take out of this Paper what it is really that is to be done this year. When I come to the local authorities I really cannot make out what has happened. The last time the Lord Privy Seal spoke on the subject he said that there would be an expenditure, I think, of £11,000,000 under the Lord St. Davids Committee and other Committees, and that out of that sum £5,000,000 would be for the Manchester water works. I want to know whether the Manchester water works are still in. Is that the case? Are they in the £11,000,000 I would point out that the Manchester Water Works Bill is not yet through the House of Commons.

No one in any part of the House need apologise for the necessity and the importance of discussing this problem. I believe, quite sincerely, that Members of all parties would desire and welcome the opportunity of being able to say: "We have succeeded in making an important contribution towards its solution," but I do not take the view that there is anybody who is not genuinely anxious to see a solution. Listening to the Debate, I am bound to ask myself what is the reason for the change of mentality of individuals on this subject. Giving them credit for all sincerity, what is the reason for statesmen in this House proclaiming publicly a policy, though, when they had the opportunity of giving effect to it, they not only did not give effect to it, but warned the country against it? If we give them credit for sincerity we are entitled to ask, what are the changed circumstances which enable a responsible politician like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) to make utterances to-day, inside and outside the House, although he knows perfectly well that when he was a responsible Minister lie said in regard to them: "I will not only not give effect to them, but I believe they would be disastrous." That is a pretty serious statement to make, and I deal with it right away.

"I come to the last point made by my right hon. Friend and others, that all these proposals we put forward are only in the nature of palliatives. You cannot turn the 550,000 men who are out of work on to making and repairing roads, or even to building houses, and I fully realise that after we have exhausted every project which we can reasonably ask the House of Commons to sanction there will be a very appalling margin, which may very well he a growing one."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st December, 1920; cols. 1669–70; Vol. 136.]

"You cannot turn the 550,000 men who are out of work on to making and repairing roads, or even to building houses."

"This is a country which depends more upon exports than any other country in the world. It depends more upon international trade than any country in the whole world, and if international trade fails, I do not care what you do in this House, by legislation, or by administration outside, or by expenditure of public money, you will have nothing but starvation and ruin."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1921; col. 412, Vol. 138.]

"Whatever the Government may do, it cannot bridge the great chasm of unemployment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th October, 1921; col. 92, Vol. 147.]

"The Unionist party has a positive remedy for unemployment. Constant work at good wages will he secured for all who desire and seek it."

Where is that taken from?

That is taken from the election address in 1924 of the right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin) —[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman gave extracts from speeches of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and it is no good to object if I apply the same method. The Debate has revealed another interesting fact—that it is the anxiety of everybody, not only to sympathise with, but to make no personal attack upon, the Lord Privy Seal. After listening to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), I felt that there was no need for him to have said that he had no personal feeling. Indeed, when he had finished speaking, I felt sure that he was not bothered about a Motion for a reduction, but that he felt it ought to have been an increase. We have heard very interesting economics propounded by him, and cheered in various parts of the House. He is anxious to know certain things, and he put a series of questions to me. He is anxious to know what happened at the lunches which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the great economists. To use his own phrase, he wanted to know whether I could give any bulletin from them. I have not had time to confirm it, but I understand that there is a bulletin issued from these economists that if certain Members in the House would only run politics as they run their business, how much better the country would be.

Can the right hon. Gentleman quote one sentence of my speech in which I declared against the introduction of improved machinery or improved organization?

Then it is no good attacking rationalisation. He cannot have it both ways. If rationalisation means anything, it means improved up-to-date machinery of all kinds. As my right hon. Friend told me privately, I understood him to mean that, and I was going to ask him, why, if he was so opposed to it, he got a new machine a few days ago. I am trying to show that it is no good merely applying a policy to yourself unless you are prepared to admit that others are equally entitled to apply it. Now I come to another question that was asked me. It is, What its the net result of the White Paper and the other schemes? No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that the White Paper cannot give a full indication of all the work. The right hon. Gentleman himself asked for a specific Paper on the two Development Acts, and the White Paper merely deals with that position and nothing else.

"For eight years more than a million British workers, able and eager to work, have been denied the opportunity."

I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to say that that question was put by me.

The question has been repeatedly put in the Debate as to what is the difference between our policy and that of the late Government, and I am now going to answer it. The Unemployment Grants Committee is the Committee that deals exclusively with municipalities—with all schemes submitted by municipal or public utility bodies outside railways. In the last two years, under the late Government, only £6,000,000 was approved. We did not. get the power until four months ago to deal with our development schemes, and in the six months during which we have been in office £13,500,000 has been sanctioned by that one Committee alone, for 630 different schemes, and at the present moment there are 923 further schemes, of a total value of £18,000,000, before the Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "How many men are employed?"]—and, if any proof be needed of the difference, it can be furnished by the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Pybus) and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir J. Ferguson), who will not, I think, consider me unfair if I quote their own statements that during the last six months they have been called upon to work harder than they have ever worked in the past two years. Yet we are told that we are doing nothing for the difficulties of unemployment.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the drop of £35,000 last year?

Unfortunately I had to explain it to the men who felt it, and I had to explain it in the drop of about £7,000,000 receipts in the railway returns. Unfortunately, I had to explain it to the victims and not in this House. But I would advise the right hon. Gentleman not to be too sure and dogmatic about the railway situation, because he will get into the same bog that he did in his examination of the coal figures. He first asked me, "Are you aware that the Great Western Railway ordered so many sleepers from Canada a few weeks ago, and how does that square with your idea of steel sleepers?" I do not apologise for having persuaded the railway companies to experiment with steel sleepers. The steel trade, and the representatives of labour in the steel trade, do not need any apology, because they are the ones who have got the order. The right hon. Gentleman could have made inquiries and found that you cannot have steel sleepers in electrified areas and, if he had followed it up, he would have found that the steel sleepers from Canada were substituting Norway sleepers, and surely it was not a bad thing, when I asked Canada to help us in our trade, to give them a chance in exchange. The right hon. Gentleman went a little further. He had been examining the figures and he wanted to know how it was that the coal trade had expanded in France, Spain and Italy, and had not expanded in Canada.

I never mentioned Spain or Italy.

The right hon. Gentleman said France and other countries. If lie had made inquiries about the Canadian situation he would have heard that there was such a thing as the St. Lawrence River, and they cannot very well deal with that in December. That is the explanation. Having shown the House the difference between this Government and the late Government in the matter of the Unemployment Grants Committee, I now want to turn to another side. The right hon. Gentleman, I think, was quite fair in saying he did not expect much development from the Colonial Bill. I frankly admit that I do not expect very much from the Colonial Bill until next year. In regard to the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman about roads, the £9,500,000 programme on trunk roads to which I referred is in addition to the road programme of the late Government.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say where there were 20 Trade Commissioners in existence?

Yes, if you remove the technical words "Trade Commissioners."

The right hon. Gentleman said, "Trade Commissioners."

We need not boggle about words. I used the words "Trade Commissioners," but some were called diplomatic secretaries and other such names. I repeat, that 20 people engaged exclusively, whatever their name may have been, for the purpose of developing trade and commerce were wiped out by the late Government in order to save a few thousand pounds. We propose to restore them. We are at this moment engaged in revising the whole of that Department, because we believe that it is far better to spend money in that way in order to develop the export trade.

Have not the Government done more than anyone else to cause that?

Surely, you are not going to hold the Government responsible for recent events in the City and America. On the other hand, I frankly admit that there are bright prospects in certain industries if unification and rationalisation, in spite of what has been said, can take place. I will give one illustration. The motor industry offers more hope for employment than any industry in this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because there are, roughly, 5,500,000 cars manufactured each year, because last year America manufactured 4,500,000 cars, because last year 17 companies in this country manufactured only 211,000 cars, and because our Dominions and Colonies, exclusive of Canada, took 200,000 cars, 87 per cent. of which were taken from America. Brains, skill and knowledge are here, and we have a right to assume that the skill and knowledge at our disposal in this industry ought to be used to develop and encourage our export trade. That is only one illustration of many others which could be given.

Why destroy that one?

My hon. and gallant Friend ought to agree that if we can capture any substantial portion of the export figures which I have enumerated, that in itself offers the best avenue for employment. What I have said of that industry is true of many others. In the steel industry trade changes are taking place, and the steel industry at this moment is passing through a difficult period. The cotton industry is in the same position. I am applying myself, in consultation with those interested in these trades, to see how far we can stimulate industry. Therefore I say to the House that I will do all I can by the expenditure of public money to provide employment, provided always that it will not be dead capital but will add to the efficiency and, general prospects of the country. I do not subscribe to the view that mere talking about or spending millions of money will solve the unemployment problem. The right hon. Gentleman opposite put on the break; I am putting on the accelerator. He did not do enough, but it would be equally a mistake foolishly to assume that it can be solved by spending money. I do not intend to adopt either policy, and I hope I have said enough to warrant the £10 being given.

How does the right hon. Gentleman think he is going to help employment in the motor industry by taking off the McKenna Duties?

Answer!

When the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1924 took off the Safeguarding Duties, did not the production of motor cars go up?

There is one important matter I should like to raise. The right hon. Gentleman when he came back from Canada told us that the result of his visit would be the export of a further 500,000 or 600,000 tons of British coal to Canada, and that the greatest proof of the success of his visit was that shipowners in this country were ordering immediately 35,000 tons of new ships to carry that coal. Can he say whether a single ton of that new tonnage has been ordered yet?

I said that I had the authority of the firm I mentioned to say that they were ordering five ships. That was the figure I gave, and I gave it on their authority. I go beyond that now and say that I saw the representative of the firm recently and the prospects for the coal trade for next year—not this year, because harbours are closed—are favourable.