House of Commons
Wednesday, December 10, 1930
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
Private Business
Public Works Facilities Scheme (Thorne and District Water) Bill.
Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.
Oral Answers to Questions
Questions
League of Nations Council
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the question has recently been considered of abandoning the permanent seats held by the five great Powers on the Council of the League of Nations and relying for election in future on the votes of the delegates to the Assembly; and what the present position is?
The answer to the first part of this question is in the negative, and I am very doubtful whether this particular proposal would receive any large measure of support, even if it were made.
Would my right hon. Friend be willing to give it sympathetic consideration in the event of it being put forward?
No, I am afraid I could not, at present.
Is it not a fact that most of the commitments and responsibilities entered into by the League of Nations would have to be borne by those five great Powers?
Yes; it opens up a very large field. It would mean a departure from the Treaty of Versailles and would mean altering, I think, the Covenant of the League of Nations. It would be very difficult.
Is it not right that the strong should bear the burdens of the weak?
Great Britain and United States
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any communication has been received from the United States of America Government with reference to negotiations for a consultative pact to be employed at moments of international crisis; and what the policy of the Government is on this matter?
No communication of the nature mentioned by the hon. Member has been received by His Majesty's Government.
Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the possibility of taking the initiative in this matter if the appropriate moment would seem to have arisen?
From my information the appropriate moment is not likely to arise, at any rate at present.
France and Italy (Naval Construction)
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have been informed of any proposals made by France and Italy with reference to their naval building programmes?
As I informed the right hon. Gentleman on the 19th of November, certain conversations have been taking place, and these are still in progress. In the circumstances, I am not in a position to say any more at the present time.
British Passports
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the number of Continental countries that are now made available for British subjects under group heading for travellers intending to visit the Continent?
British passports are now normally made valid for all European countries, including the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Turkey.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is necessary for an intending traveller to apply in that way, or whether he has to apply for one specific country?
No; as I understand it the procedure is as I have stated in the answer.
Russia
Wireless Addresses
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any acknowledgment or reply from the Soviet Government to his protest concerning the broadcast of propaganda; and will he publish the reply, if and when received?
I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which I made in the House on this subject the day before yesterday.
Will the right hon. Gentleman now follow the example of the Soviet Government and prosecute traitors—
That is quite another question.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will arrange for a transcript of the anti-British radio broadcast from Moscow, to which exception has been taken by the Government, to be circulated to the House as a White Paper; and whether steps will be taken to ensure that official verbatim reports shall be obtained in future of similar radio broadcasts?
I am not aware of any general desire that this message should be published as a White Paper, but I am prepared to place a copy in the Library of the House. Arrangements as suggested in the second part of the question have already been made.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the wonderful advertisement this station is getting from the action of hon. Members opposite?
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—
Not because of something the hon. and gallant Member has said.
Lena Goldfields, Limited (Arbitration Award)
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, as a result of his telegraphic instructions to our Ambassador at Moscow urging on the Soviet Government the importance which. His Majesty's Government attached to the case of the Lena Goldfields, Limited, he can now say what action the Soviet Government have decided to take with reference to the arbitral award in favour of that company of the 2nd September last?
His Majesty's Ambassador at Moscow has received a reply from the Soviet Government with regard to this case, and the full text is now on its way to me. Until I have had the opportunity of considering the terms of the reply and communicating with the company it would clearly be undesirable for me to make any further statement.
Without entering into details, can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House, as this is a very serious matter, whether they do intend to make at any rate some payment on account of the very large sum of £13,000,000 which was awarded to this British company?
I cannot add anything to the answer which I have given. I must await their report and read it, and see exactly what it says.
When may I put the question down again?
There, again, I am not in a position to say when I shall receive the report.
Trade Unions
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the all-union council of trades unions in Russia is under the supervision or control of the Soviet Government or the Third International?
I have asked His Majesty's Ambassador whether he can give me any information on the points raised by the hon. Member. If the hon. Member will put his question down again in a week's time, I will then give him a considered reply.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all unions in Russia are free, or otherwise, to join the Third International, exactly in the same way as British trade unions are free to join the Trade Union Congress.
That question does not arise out of the answer.
Soviet Embassy, London
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any military attaché has been appointed to the Soviet Embassy in London?
There is no military attaché to the Soviet Embassy in London.
Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that there never will be?
That is too tall an order for me.
Air Strength
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the strength in machines and personnel of the air force in Soviet Russia, including partially trained men and volunteer men and the Oso aviat Khin?
I would refer the hon. Member to the Armaments Year Book, 1929–30, published by the League of Nations, which contains such official information as is available on this subject?
Private Enterprises
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he will give a list of enterprises in Russia which are not controlled by the Soviet Government?
I understand that under Soviet law only enterprises employing less than 10 hands may be regarded as private enterprises. I am not in a position to state how many such enterprises exist in the Soviet Union at the present time.
Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the industry of broadcasting is a private enterprise or not?
No, Sir. I have no information.
Royal Navy
Replacement Programme
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the decision taken at Geneva to recommend the calling of the world conference on disarmament as soon as possible, the Board has considered the advisability of postponing further new warship building in the meantime; and whether any decision has been reached?
The policy of His Majesty's Government is to spread the replacement of obsolete warships evenly over a period of years. Such a replacement programme within the terms of the London Naval Treaty will not, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, prejudice any agreement which may be reached at the world disarmament conference.
Yes, but have the Board been made aware of the proceedings of and the decisions reached by the Preparatory Commission in regard to this whole question?
My hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that the Board are fully aware of all that happened.
But does the hon. Member recall that last time this matter was raised on the Navy Estimates he himself was unaware of what had happened?
Battleships (Cinematograph Apparatus)
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the shortage of silent films, it is intended to fit the larger British battleships and cruisers of His Majesty's Navy with sound-film apparatus; and will he give particulars?
The installation of cinematograph apparatus in His Majesty's ships is not undertaken as a public service, though the Admiralty have regarded with favour the efforts already made in this direction by the Men's Canteen Committees, assisted by the officers. Silent film apparatus has now been installed in most ships of the Royal Navy, and a serious problem is arising for the men owing to the shortage of silent films. To help them on the question of the possibility of a change over to sound-film apparatus the Admiralty are at the present time undertaking inquiries, which are not as yet completed.
Can the hon. Member say whether inquiries about sound film apparatus have been made from British manufacturers, or whether it is intended to instal American?
I cannot say.
Cannot my hon. Friend take steps to see that any sound film apparatus installed shall be of British manufacture?
Promotions (Mates)
17 and 18.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) whether he will consider the introduction of some method whereby the ex-mates can have more than one recommendation forwarded in order that their chance of promotion may not rest on this one alone seeing that ex-cadets are able to get six;
(2) if he will state the number of half-yearly recommendations received on behalf of lieutenant-commanders (ex-cadet) promoted to commander at six years' seniority and the number received on behalf of lieutenant-commanders (ex-mate) promoted at three years' seniority, now that the lower limit of the zone is three years?
I agree that their greater age has a bearing on the chances of promotion of mates. As my hon. Friend is aware the general question is now under consideration by a committee, and their report must be awaited. As has already been explained, however, the actual number of the recommendations received has nothing to do with the matter. The information asked for in Question 18 cannot be given, since recommendations differ in degree, and any figures given would depend on the precise degree of recommendation which should be counted.
Can the hon. Member say when the committee are likely to make their report?
I cannot say.
Is it not a fact that all recommendations are taken into account in considering the promotion of ex-mates, and not merely one?
Admiralty Purchases
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what quantities of Russian-produced timber and other materials, respectively, have been purchased by his Department for use in the royal naval dockyards since the 1st July, 1929; the respective dates upon which such purchases were made; and the respective prices paid?
The quantities of Russian-produced timber and other materials purchased by the Admiralty in the 17 months since 1st July, 1929, are as follow:
Will the hon. Gentleman state why British-produced timber and materials were not purchased, instead of Russian, on those particular occasions?
If the hon. Member will refer to the answer given some time ago, he will see that much less has been purchased by this Government than by the last Government. The reason for these purchases was that we could not get supplies from Empire sources to meet the needs of the Navy.
Will the hon. Member say whether attempts have been made to obtain Empire supplies?
I should have thought it was obvious from my answer that if we could have got Empire supplies we would have used them, but we could not.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider the desirability of giving instructions that all timber and other materials respectively used in ship-construction, ship-repairing, and other work in the Royal naval dockyards, shall be of British production or manufacture?
The existing instructions already provide that all timber and other materials used in the Royal dockyards shall be of British or Imperial production or manufacture whenever practicable. All manufactured articles used in the dockyards and made under Admiralty inspection are required to be of British manufacture and no foreign product is used when there is a suitable British product obtainable at a reasonable price.
Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to see that the conditions which apply in respect of this timber apply to all the timber which is used?
Oil Fuel
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what progress has been made with the experiments for the use of oil fuel distilled from British coal for the Royal Navy; to what extent shale oil is in use; on what scale the experiments with British oil fuel are being conducted; and whether it is proposed to erect special extraction plant?
Creosote oil mixed with petroleum oil has been in use in the Royal Navy for several years. Three 20-ton samples of oil fuel produced by the low-temperature carbonisation of coal have been burnt experimentally in naval type boilers at the Admiralty Fuel Experimental Station, Haslar. The results which were generally satisfactory are being communicated to the producers. Two further samples are on order and it is proposed to carry out further trials with these oils in a destroyer in the near future. In addition trials have been carried out at the Admiralty Engineering Laboratory, West Drayton, with Diesel fuel oil produced by hydrogenation. Shale oil is used to a small extent for special purposes. The answer to the last part is in the negative.
Now that this oil fuel is being used at sea, why are the trials only made on a destroyer and why could not a larger ship be used for trying this oil out?
I think it is obvious that we should try this experiment on a small scale first, and, if it is satisfactory, it can be extended.
May I ask— I did not hear the first part of the hon. Gentleman's reply—if this oil is extracted by low-temperature carbonisation?
Yes.
Warrant Officers' Mess Servants
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when a decision will be promulgated on the representations received from officers of and from warrant rank asking that ratings of the officers' stewards and officers' cook branches should be authorised for their mess in all ships and establishments?
I regret that the employment of a proportion of seamen and stokers as warrant officers' mess servants is necessitated by considerations of fighting efficiency.
Tuberculosis
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of cases of tuberculosis in the Royal Navy as a whole for each year in the last 10 years?
I will, with the Noble Lady's permission, circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the reply:
The numbers of cases of tuberculosis, pulmonary and non-pulmonary, in the Royal Navy as a whole for each year in the last nine years, were as follow:
Year. Number of Cases. 1921 284 1922 224 1923 173 1924 204 1925 262 1926 222 1927 193 1928 188 1929 272
I regret that the figures for 10 years are not available.
His MAJESTY'S SHIP "SUFFOLK."
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has been called to the gallantry of the sailors of His Majesty's Ship "Suffolk" in rescuing the crew of 14 from the Swedish motor-ship "Hedvig," aground on the Pratas Reef; whether any recognition of the services rendered has been considered; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
A report on the circumstances referred to by my hon. Friend has been called for, which will enable the Board of Admiralty to determine whether special recognition would be appropriate.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary be able to give me an answer to this question if I put it down next week?
Yes, I hope so. I will endeavour to do so.
Building Programmes, 1930–31 (Chatham)
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the amount of tonnage included in the 1930–31 naval programme, orders for the construction of which have not yet been placed; and whether he will consider the desirability of placing a further order in respect of a part of such tonnage with the Royal Naval Dockyard at Chatham?
I cannot now contemplate any alteration of the allocation of orders for the 1930 programme already announced. Although orders have not actually been placed, plans are well advanced. Tenders for contract-built ships are already in office, and it is expected that a decision in regard to them will be reached shortly. The desirability of placing further new construction with Chatham Yard is now being considered in connection with the Estimates for 1931.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary say the amount of tonnage in the 1930–31 programme which was allocated to the Royal Dockyard at Chatham?
I cannot give the tonnage, but the ships allocated to the Royal Naval Dockyard at Chatham under the 1930–31 programme are: One net-layer and target-cowing vessel, two submarines and one sloop.
Shore Patrols
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty to what extent the system of shore patrols is being continued in naval ports during leave periods; and whether, having regard to the improved morale of the men in His Majesty's Navy, he will discontinue this system?
No change is being made in the procedure of shore patrols at the naval ports. I gladly take the opportunity of testifying to the generally excellent standards maintained by the men of His Majesty's Navy and Royal Marines, both afloat and ashore, but naval patrols have their value in other directions than that of dealing with the few cases of misbehaviour which may arise.
General Messing System
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty to what extent the general messing principle has been applied in His Majesty's Navy and what are the reports concerning its effectiveness; and have any complaints been received from the men of the lower deck concerning its working?
Over 40,000 ratings are now victualled under the general messing system, and the system is working satisfactorily. Complaints and suggestions on matters of detail have been received from time to time and are dealt with as they arise. The general trend of representation is in the direction of improving the detailed working organisation.
Cadet Corps
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he proposes to withdraw the Admiralty grant to naval units of the cadet corps?
This matter will be considered in connection with the Navy Estimates for 1931.
In considering this matter will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that these cadet corps give a good many boys to the Mercantile Marine as well as to the Royal Navy?
Yes, Sir, all these facts will be borne in mind.
Will the hon. Gentleman take account of the reasons which were held to be justifiable by the War Office in dealing with similar organisations?
Plymouth (Torpedo and Gunnery School)
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any decision has been arrived at for the utilisation of the late military hospital at Stoke, Devonport, for the purposes of a torpedo and gunnery school for service ratings in the Plymouth depôt?
The matter is still under consideration.
Kenya
Native Lands Trust Board
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies which of the members of the Kenya Native Lands Trust Board have been appointed to represent native interests; and what are their qualifications for so doing?
Apart from special provisions relating to the appointment of an African or Africans as circumstances permit, the Native Lands Trust Ordinance does not contemplate sectional representation on the Native Lands Trust Board. The Ordinance while declaring native lands to be under the management and control of the Board, also requires such land to be administered for the use and benefit of the natives. All members of the Board are therefore in the position of trustees for the natives, and my noble Friend is confident that they will, without exception, fully recognise this responsibility. I will, if my hon. Friend wishes, send him a list of the members of the Board as now constituted; it includes the name of the member of the executive council appointed on account of the value of his advice on matters affecting Africans.
Loan
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the proposed Kenya Colony loan of £2,231,000, of which £1,250,000 is to be spent on public buildings; whether his Department has considered the question whether the Colony can afford at the present time so large an expenditure on building; and whether the proposed expenditure portends an increase in the Government official and clerical staff?
The provision referred to is not new expenditure but represents commitments in respect of a building programme already approaching completion the cost having been met from advances pending the issue of the recent loan. The question of the capacity of the Colony to bear the additional loan charges involved was fully considered when the works were approved. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
Have the Department received criticisms from the settlers there that too much money is being spent on buildings and that it might far better have been spent on roads and other developments?
Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that forced labour is in operation in the colony of Kenya at the present time?
Indian Labourers, Ceylon and Malaya (Repatriation)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether special provision has been made for the repatriation of Indian plantation labourers in Ceylon thrown out of employment as the result of the depression in the rubber industry; and, if so, the number of Indian labourers who have been so repatriated since the scheme came into force?
I am not aware that any special provision has been made for the repatriation of unemployed Indian labourers in Ceylon. My Noble Friend will, however, make inquiries of the Governor.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any special provision has been made for the repatriation of Indian plantation labourers in Malaya thrown out of employment as the result of the depression in the rubber industry; and, if so, the number of Indian labourers who have been so repatriated since the scheme has come into force?
It is the policy of the Malayan Government to repatriate all unemployed Indian labourers. All recruitment of them has stopped, and 13,360 were repatriated from Port Swettenham in the first nine months of this year.
East Africa
Joint Committee (Evidence)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the intention of the Government that evidence should be given before the Joint Committee on East Africa by Government officials from East Africa, by unofficial European representatives from East Africa, and by natives; whether the expenses of either or both are to be defrayed from public funds; and, if so, whether these expenses will be borne on Colonial or British funds?
I would refer the hon. Member to the reply appearing in to-day's OFFICIAL, REPOBT to an unstarred question asked by the hon. Member for Blackpool (Sir W. de Frece), of which I have sent him a copy. I would like to make it clear that it is for the Joint Committee, not for the Government, to decide what witnesses the committee will invite to give evidence, whether written or oral, and this question is already engaging the attention of the committee.
Is it the intention of the Government that those whom the Committee desire to give evidence will have their expenses paid if they come to this country for that purpose, and, if so, will those expenses be borne by the Imperial or the Colonial Government?
Yes, Sir, I give that answer in the case of a later question.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether an opportunity will be afforded to official and/or unofficial representatives of Northern Rhodesia to give evidence before the Joint Committee on East Africa; and, if so, whether the expenses of such representatives will be defrayed from public funds?
The question whether or not representatives of Northern Rhodesia are to be heard is one for the Joint Committee to settle. If invited at the instance of the Committee, their expenses will be defrayed from British funds.
Does that answer apply also to the supplementary question which I put on Question No. 31, with regard to the expenses of witnesses coming from the other East African Colonies?
Yes, it applies to all witnesses from East Africa.
Bermuda (Governor)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the duties for which the Governor of Bermuda is paid a salary of £2,000 from the Exchequer in addition to his normal salary and allowances; and whether it is proposed to discontinue this payment?
The Governor of Bermuda is also in command of the troops comprising the garrison. The allocation of the emoluments of the Governor of Bermuda to which His Majesty's Government and the Colonial Government jointly contribute in agreed proportions is not based on any specific duties of the Governor.
Is it not the case that the salary is continued though practically speaking the garrison has been abolished —it is now less than 1,000 men all told, including officers.
Yes, Sir, that is so.
In that case, is there not a case for abolishing the salary also?
There is a case for consideration, and this matter is now being fully gone into.
Is the Under-Secretary aware that, although a General is appointed to Bermuda, the guns have long since tumbled into the sea, and only a company of troops remain there?
I am aware of that fact.
Questions
British South Africa Company
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies on what grounds the statement of the British South Africa Company that they had authority to agree to terms which would be binding upon the North Charterland Company was accepted by the Colonial Office, seeing that the British South Africa Company were not managers of the North Charterland Company and did not possess that company's authority to agree to terms on its behalf?
The question appears to be based on a misapprehension. No such statement has ever been received from the British South Africa Company.
Is it not a fact that the British South Africa Company have no right to make an agreement for and on behalf of the North Charterland Company, and has not the hon. Gentleman or the Prime Minister received correspondence regarding this matter in the last few days?
I could not answer that question without notice.
Aviation
Air Services (West Indies)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any progress has been made in the establishment of a West Indies air service?
Proposals for the establishment of air services in the British West Indies have been put forward by Atlantic Airways, Limited. It is understood that the initial operation contemplated by the company is the establishment of a service connecting Trinidad with British Guiana, Barbados and Venezuela. Full particulars of this initial scheme have been communicated by my Noble Friend to the officers administering the Governments of the colonies in question, and he hopes shortly to receive their observations on the company's proposals.
Is it contemplated, if it is carried out, that this new service shall carry the mails?
I expect that will be so if the service is established, but the proposals are not yet sufficiently formed to enable me to go into that matter now.
Is it a British company?
Yes, I understand that it is entirely a British company.
Transatlantic Air Service
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been called to an American project for establishing a transatlantic air service viâ, Bermuda-Azores to this country; and whether any steps are being taken to safeguard British air interests in this proposed air route?
Yes, Sir, negotiations for establishing an air service between Baltimore and Bermuda, with a view to the eventual extension of the service across the Atlantic viâ, the Azores to this country, have for some time been in progress. The project is not exclusively American, and involves co-operation between British and American air interests.
Director of Civil Aviation
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when an announcement will be made regarding the appointment of a new Director of Civil Aviation in place of the late Sir Sefton Brancker?
I hope that an announcement will be made in the course of the next week or so.
Accident, Meopham
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when the final Report of the. Air Ministry inquiry into the causes of the Meopham air disaster last July will be issued, and if the Air Ministry will give an undertaking that opportunity will be given to representatives of the relations of those killed to examine witnesses or call evidence at a further inquiry yet to be announced?
The reply to the first part of the question is that, as stated in the interim report on the accident already published, it has proved necessary to carry out extensive tests on a model of this aircraft (which had to be made specially for the purpose), to elucidate some of the technical problems involved. The results of these tests have only just become available, and the sub-committee of the Aeronautical Research Committee are considering them to-day. I hope that a final report from the committee will be available about the middle of January at the latest. With regard to the second part of the question, my Noble Friend would prefer not to make a decision as to the holding of a public inquiry until after he has received the report of the Aeronautical Research Committee; but, if it then appears that any useful purpose can be served by such an inquiry, it will be held.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Air Ministry representative, at the inquest on the victims of this accident, gave an assuraance to the court, when he was asked by the representatives of the relatives of those who were killed, that the Air Ministry would grant such an opportunity as is asked for in the second part of my question?
I know that that question has been raised on several occasions, but I do not think that any good purpose would be served by my amplifying the answer that I have given.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable public anxiety in regard to this matter? In view of the unsatisfactory nature of his reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Colonies and Protectorates
Economic Position
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take for the purpose of consolidating the economic position of the Colonial Empire?
The economic interests of the Colonies and Protectorates formed one of the principal subjects of discussion at the Colonial Office Conference, and are under continuous review by the various appropriate authorities. They present a variety of problems which call for, and receive, separate consideration.
Constitutional Position
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps His Majesty's Government in Great Britain propose to take for the purpose of consolidating the constitutional position of the Colonial Empire?
I regret that I cannot understand the hon. and gallant Member's question. If the hon. and gallant Member will be good enough to put it down again in clearer terms, I shall be glad to try to answer it.
Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no further White Papers will be issued by his Department without consultation with the Governments concerned?
Royal Air Force
Accidents (Engines)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the date of the construction of engines in all service aircraft which have crashed with fatal result since 1st January, 1929?
If the hon. Gentleman particularly wishes, I will have a return prepared giving the particulars for which he asks. I think, however, I can answer his question more briefly by saying that the average life of the engines concerned was approximately one year, either from the date of purchase or from the date of what is known as "complete overhaul," a process which includes the replacement of all parts necessary to bring the engine up to the standard of a new engine.
Can the hon. Gentleman say to what extent the age of the engine is a factor in fatal accidents or fatal crashes?
There is no definite relation, and, of course, a certain proportion of accidents arise from an unknown cause.
Can the hon. Gentleman say how many times these engines are overhauled?
I cannot answer a technical question like that without notice.
May I ask, as an engineer speaking for engineers, what is the particular build of engines with which there are most accidents?
That, obviously, is a question that I cannot answer without notice.
That is exactly the point. Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House to what extent this unknown cause is attributable to engine trouble and the age of the engine? [ Laughter. ]
Schneider Trophy Race
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if it is now the intention of His Majesty's Government to permit officers in the Royal Air Force to compete in the Schneider Trophy contest?
This question, with others in connection with next year's Schneider Trophy contest, is still under consideration.
In view of the importance of this to experimental aviation, as well as to British flying, and of the fact that the British Air Force is the best in the world, will the hon. Gentleman reconsider the question of allowing officers of the British Royal Air Force to take part in the next Schneider Trophy contest?
The whole question of the Schneider Trophy contest is under consideration, and I hope that within the next week I shall be able to give a more definite answer.
If I put down a further question, will the hon. Gentleman be able to give me an answer?
I hope so.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he can make any statement as regards Government support being given to the Schneider Trophy air race to be held next year?
This question is still under consideration.
Expenditure
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the decision taken at Geneva to recommend the calling of the world conference on disarmament as soon as possible, the Air Council has considered the advisability of reducing expenditure on the expansion of the Royal Air Force in the meantime; and whether any decision has been reached?
My hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that this and other relevant considerations will be borne in mind when the Air Estimates for next year are being framed.
Aircraftman T. E. Shaw
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the statement made in the Russian State trial to the effect that Colonel T. E. Lawrence, alias Aircraftman T. E. Shaw, was in London in 1927 engaged in a conspiracy against the Soviet Government, he will state the dates of Aircraftman Shaw's departure to and return from India, and what leave, if any, he had during that period of service?
Aircraftman T. E. Shaw sailed for India on the 7th December, 1926, arrived on the 7th January, 1927, and served in that country till the 12th January, 1929, when he embarked for home, arriving on the 2nd February, 1929. He was not granted any leave whilst serving in India.
Is it not true that Aircraftman Shaw is leading a perfectly-quiet, respectable and useful life?
Questions
Trade Disputes and Electoral Reform Bills
asked the Prime Minister whether the texts of the Trade Disputes Bill and the Electoral Reform Bill will be available to Members before the Christmas Recess?
I hope that the text of the first Bill mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman will be available before we rise for Christmas. As regards the second Bill, I am more doubtful.
In view of the right hon. Gentleman's doubt about the Electoral Reform Bill, may I ask whether all the difficulties with regard to this Bill were not cleared away on Friday by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George)?
Cabinet
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of reducing the size of the Cabinet?
The answer to this question is in the negative.
In view of the manifesto which was recently issued by certain hon. Members sitting behind him, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to give his further and, perhaps, more sympathetic consideration to that portion of the manifesto which suggests his own abdication in favour of the "Big Five"?
I am sure that the Prime Minister will give to every representation the consideration which it deserves.
Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the suggestion that the five dictators should be Low, Strube, Tom Webster, Poy, and Horrabin?
Disarmament
asked the Prime Minister whether an opportunity will be afforded to the House of discussing any proposals that may be formulated by the Preparatory Disarmament Commission before they are considered at the general conference in 1931; and whether a summary of the proceedings and conclusions of the commission will in due course be issued for the information of Members?
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs undertook, in replying on 12th November to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), to issue a White Paper setting out the conclusions of the present session of the Preparatory Commission. This White Paper will be issued as soon as possible after the conclusion of the session of the Commission. The question of a discussion had better wait till after publication of this Paper.
Trade and Commerce
Fur Trade (Imports from Russia)
asked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the resolutions, passed on 3rd December by the meeting representing all branches of the fur trade, concerning Soviet Russian imports; the nature of his reply; and whether he has agreed to the meeting's proposal that he should receive a deputation from this trade?
The Prime Minister has not received the resolutions referred to in the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's question. The second and third parts do not, therefore, arise.
British Industries Fair
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether any decision has yet been reached in connection with the suggestion made in the report of the Chelmsford Committee that a site should be acquired and buildings erected in which the British Industries Fair may be held in future years; and whether a committee will be appointed to formulate definite proposals?
The recommendations of the committee are receiving careful consideration, but I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject.
Can the hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to make a statement?
Not until after the Adjournment.
Transport
Road Transport (Railway Companies)
asked the Minister of Transport what is the number of road transport companies in which the controlling interest is held by a railway company; what is the amount of railway-owned capital and the approximate amount spent in developing them during the last 12 months; and what grants, if any, have been made by the Government towards such concerns?
The proportion of the passenger road transport undertakings of the country actually controlled by railway companies is, I believe, small. At the same time I understand that the railway companies have acquired financial interest in a large number of such undertakings. As regards the second part of the question my hon. Friend will find particulars of the capital invested by the four amalgamated railway companies in road transport undertakings, as at the 31st December, 1929, on page 139 of the Annual Railway Returns for that year. As regards the third part, no grants have been made by the Government for the development of road transport companies.
Arterial Roads (Lighting)
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the lighting on many of the arterial roads at night; and whether he will consider taking this subject up with the various local authorities concerned?
Representations have been made to me from time to time. I have no power to intervene, however, as the matter is entirely one for the lighting authority.
Cannot my hon. Friend take some action, especially in view of the fact that it is extremely dangerous when going through villages which have no footpaths?
My hon. Friend must face the fact that I have no powers to deal with street lighting; and, in the case of arterial roads in rural areas and areas not built upon, I really cannot see that it is necessary that there should be any lighting.
Will the hon. Gentleman advise his hon. Friend that if he would drive his Rolls Royce more slowly it would save a lot of bother?
Traffic Commissioners
asked the Minister of Transport if he is yet in a position to state the names of the persons appointed by him under the terms of the Road Traffic Act to serve as traffic commissioners in England, Wales, and Scotland; and what sum will be allocated from the Road Fund to meet the cost of salaries and expenses of these gentlemen and their offices?
60 and 62.
asked the Minister of Transport (1) whether he has decided what salaries shall be paid to the chairmen of the traffic commissioners; and what remuneration shall be paid to the other traffic commissioners under the Road Traffic Act, 1930;
(2) in how many of the 13 traffic areas he has appointed traffic commissioners under the Road Traffic Act, 1930; who are the men appointed; and what their last employment or occupation had been prior to their appointment?
This answer is rather long, but I assume that the House will wish to have this information given to them this afternoon. I will give the area first, the name of the person second, and previous appointments third. Appointments have been made to 11 of the 13 traffic areas. As I indicated in the course of the discussions on the Bill, it is not proposed to remunerate the commissioners appointed from the panels nominated by local authorities, but they will receive payment of their travelling and out of pocket expenses. The estimated cost of the salaries and expenses of the traffic commissioners and their offices for the year 1931–32 is about £150,000, which in part represents expenditure transferred from the existing licensing authorities. The estimated cost of the chairmen's salaries
Traffic Areas in England. Name. Previous Appointments. Northern … H. Riches, O.B.E. Chief Constable, Middlesbrough. North Western … W. Chamberlain General Manager, Belfast City Tramways. West Midland … Colonel A. S. Redman, C.B., M.Inst.T., R.E. Formerly Assistant Director of Transportation and now Assistant Adjutant General, War Office. East Midland … J. H. Stirk, J.P., M.Inst.T. Transport Manager, Birmingham Co-operative Society. South Wales … A. T. James, K.C. — Western … A. F. Nicholson, O.B.E. Chief Constable, Exeter. Southern … Major-General Sir R. Ford, K.C.M.G., C.B., D.S.O. Formerly Deputy Quartermaster General. South Eastern … Rowand Harker, K.C. —
I have also appointed Sir Haviland Hiley, K. B. E., formerly General Manager, New Zealand Government Railways; Member, Royal Commission on Local Government of Greater London; Chairman, Rhodesian Railways Commission, but his Area has not yet been determined!
Traffic Areas in Scotland. Name. Previous Appointments. Northern … … Sir John Maxwell, C.M.G. After qualifying as a Solicitor in Scotland has held legal appointments and administrative posts in the Colonial Service. Southern … … Archibald Henderson National Secretary, Road Transport Group (Commercial) Transport and General Workers' Union; Member London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee.
I hope to announce shortly the remaining appointments, including the appointments of Commissioners selected from the panels nominated by local Authorities.
Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is intended to pay the other commissioners any money at all, or will their services be entirely without pay?
As I understand the position, the local Government commissioners will receive travelling and out-of-pocket expenses, but otherwise they will receive nothing.
Can my hon. Friend say if the ex-chief constables who have been appointed will draw any pension in respect of their previous police service in addition to their salaries?
I have no doubt that they will, if they are entitled to it.
How much of this £150,000 is new expenditure?
is between £15,000 and £16,000. The name of the chairmen already selected are as follow:
As far as the Road Fund is concerned, I think I am right in saying that it is all new expenditure, but against that—as to the amount I cannot say—the local authorities will save the existing money which they are spending upon their licensing functions.
Will the hon. Gentleman say to what extent these salaries will increase in time? Are they fixed at £1,250, or are they to rise to £2,500?
The salaries which are being paid are fixed salaries. Of course, I cannot commit myself that in the future a revision may not have to be considered, but they are not on a scale. They are appointed at a fixed salary.
Will they be whole-time appointments?
Yes.
What are the qualifications of the commissioner appointed for South Wales? I think the name of the man is James?
Mr. A. T. James is a K.C. with a considerable practice and legal experience, and he has the advantage also that he both understands and speaks Welsh. I may say, generally, that in making the appointments I have selected candidates with varying types of experience, because from time to time they will meet together, and I do not want them to be exactly the same type of people. Some of those appointed (including an experienced tramway manager) have a special knowledge and experience of the co-ordination of road traffic and others have practical knowledge of the administration of other kinds of transport. Legal experience is also represented. Lastly, I have considered the importance of including in my list a well-qualified person familiar with the conditions of labour in the industry of heavy transport by road.
Bridge, Ferry Lane
asked the Minister of Transport whether there is any prospect of the bridge over the canal at Ferry Lane, on the eastern exit from London into Essex, being widened in the near future; and whether he can give the figures for the numbers of accidents that have occurred there owing to the narrowness of the bridge?
As the answer contains a number of figures, I will circulate it with the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Is anything being done in regard to this bridge? That is what I want to know. This sort of thing has been going on for years.
I know that, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to know other things too. Something is being done, and there is something moving.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that things were moving when I was at the Ministry?
I am very glad to know that, and the House may be assured that much more has moved since then.
Following is the answer :
A tender for the work has been let by the Middlesex County Council and the contractors are now assembling their plant on the site.
During the past three years the following accidents are known to the police to have occurred at this bridge, but I am not in a position to say how many, if any, of these accidents were due to the narrowness of the bridge as distinguished from other causes:
Accidents involving fatalities Nil Accidents involving personal injuries * 7 Accidents involving damage to property 23 Total 30 * One person seriously injured. Six persons slightly injured. One person seriously injured. Six persons slightly injured.
Horse Traffic (Restrictions)
asked the Minister of Transport whether any recommendation has been made to him by the London Traffic Advisory Committee to the effect that certain streets should be closed to horse traffic; and, if so, what action he intends to take in this matter?
The London Traffic Advisory Committee have not made any recommendation to me on this subject, but I understand that, at the present time, they have under consideration the question of restricting during certain hours the use of Oxford Street by through slow-moving traffic, including horse-drawn vehicles, in connection with a proposal for the installation of traffic control by light signals in that street.
Can the hon. Gentleman say if this will also include the crossings of Oxford Street?
I am not sure of that. It is rather doubtful on the face of it, but I am not certain.
Road Work, Radnorshire (Wages)
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the fact that the wages paid to the road men of Radnor are 34s. a week as compared with those of the adjoining county of Brecon of 45s. a week; and whether he will make the payment of road grants contingent on the payment of a fixed minimum rate of wages?
In connection with contract works assisted from the Road Fund it is the practice to require insertion of the fair wages clause, but as regards works carried out by direct labour I should be reluctant to interfere unduly with the discretion of elected local authorities. I am, however, always prepared to bring to the notice of those authorities complaints received from responsible trade union bodies.
May I ask whether the Minister of Transport can take any action in regard to Radnorshire County Council, and whether the fact that there is a large proportion of Labour members on the Breconshire County Council has anything to do with the matter?
I will consider the matter, but it is desirable that the men concerned should act through their trade union. I much prefer to act upon trade union representation.
Is the Minister aware that if the wages paid are more than the rate of the joint district board they are disallowed? Cannot the same power be used when the wages are less?
I do not control municipal wages; and I do not want to control them. If they pay above the trade union rate it is not my business, but, if they want me out of the Road Fund to pay an arbitrarily fixed rate of wages above the trade union rates fixed by political people, then I have to consider whether out of the Road Fund I can go above the trade union rate.
Road Traffic Act, 1930 (Administration)
asked the Minister of Transport what provision is made by the Ministry's regulations as to the granting of an application for a licence, under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, in any traffic area by a majority vote of the traffic commissioners when the dissentient vote is that of the chairman of the Traffic Commissioners?
In exercising the duty laid upon them of issuing licences under Part IV of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, the Traffic Commissioners will act as a body and, if they are not unanimous, their decision will, following the usual rule, be that of the majority. This principle is so well established that it would not appear to be necessary for me, even if I have the power, to give directions or to make regulations on this point.
Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider that provision in view of the fact that the chairman is a salaried member specially picked for his experience, and that the two traffic commissioners, the unsalaried members, have less experience?
I am not sure that the unsalaried members will take that point of view. The point, however, was considered, and the hon. Member will probably remember Section 64 of Subsection (2), which provides that if there is a difference of opinion between the chairman and another commissioner, where only two are present, the chairman is given no special voting power, and that what happens is that the three commissioners will meet subsequently and determine the point.
Fuel Oil (Fumes)
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the fumes given off by vehicles using fuel oil, instead of petrol, in internal combustion engines; and whether it is his intention to issue regulations dealing with this nuisance?
My particular attention has not been drawn to the fumes given off by road vehicles using fuel oil instead of petrol in internal combustion engines, but this matter is receiving consideration in connection with regulations which are being drafted under the Road Traffic Act.
Motor Omnibus Accident, Pwllheli
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the accident to a motor omnibus near Pwllheli, Carnarvonshire, on Saturday the 6th instant, when the omnibus took fire and was completely destroyed; whether he can say if there was any fire-extinguishing apparatus on the omnibus; and whether, in making regulations in pursuance of Section 94 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, he will consider the desirability of providing that efficient fire-extinguishing apparatus shall be part of the equipment to be carried by public service vehicles?
My attention has not been called to the particular accident referred to. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is it?"] The name of the place is not mentioned in the answer. I have been there, and I agree that it is a very charming spot. I propose to embody in the regulations prescribing the conditions under which public service vehicles may be used a provision that a suitable and efficient appliance for extinguishing fire must be carried.
Mobile Police Units
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the motor cars and motor-cycles to be used by the new mobile police unite will be of British manufacture?
Yes, Sir. Under the conditions laid down, only machines of British manufacture will be eligible for grant.
Questions
Battersea Power Station
asked the Minister of Transport whether work is still proceeding on the Battersea power station; and when it is expected that the station will be completed?
I understand that the work is proceeding and that the power company expect that the first section of the station will be completed by the end of 1932 or the beginning of 1933.
In view of the fact that this great chimney is belching forth sulphurous fumes, which under certain conditions of the atmosphere may bring about a condition of things such as recently occurred in the Valley of the Meuse, will he take steps to prevent such an unfortunate occurrence?
The hon. and gallant Member's assertions are gratuitous. The Electricity Commissioners have taken every precaution to prevent that state of affairs eventuating.
Can the Minister of Transport say whether these investigations are sufficiently advanced to enable him to decide whether it is safe to go on with the second section?
On that point I would refer the right hon. and gallant Member to the White Paper recently issued containing reports on the subject. As to the second part of the question, we have not yet come to a final conclusion.
House of Commons
Oak Woodwork (Varnishing)
asked the First Commissioner of Works the cost of removing the varnish from the oak woodwork of this chamber; and whether he will test the opinion of Members as to the carrying out of the work?
The answer to the first part of the question is approximately £700. I am advised that the ultimate result might not be satisfactory, but if the hon. Member and his friends care to pursue the matter further through the usual channels, I shall be happy to seek further advice.
I understand the First Commissioner of Works will be prepared to receive representations from various quarters of the House?
That is what I said.
May I ask whether my right hon. Friend will also make representations regarding the building of a new House of Commons?
Tea Room (Exhibits)
asked the First Commissioner of Works if, in view of the facilities granted in the House of Commons Tea Room for the exhibition of Russian posters, he will grant similar facilities for an exhibition of "Come to Britain" posters?
If the hon. and gallant Member cares to organise an exhibit of the posters he has in mind, I shall be glad to put the matter before Mr. Speaker.
May I ask whether before he allowed this exhibition of Russian posters the right hon. Gentleman consulted the responsible officials?
I took the ordinary means of discussing the matter with those concerned, in exactly the same way as my predecessors.
Will the right hon. Gentleman allow an exhibition of religious posters?
Questions
Government Departments (Staff and Accommodation, Acton)
asked the First Commissioner of Works the number of staff at the offices at Bromyard Avenue, Acton, exclusive of office-keepers, cleaners, charwomen, messengers, stokers, electricians, and window cleaners; the number of rooms in the building; and the approximate number of additional clerical and administrative staff that could be accommodated in these offices by closer settlement without injury to health?
The number of staff, which is housed in the offices at Bromyard Avenue, is 4,090 and the number of rooms of all sizes is 201. Owing to the large amount of space necessarily occupied by records required by the staffs in occupation, the maximum number which can be housed in this building is estimated at approximately 4,400, and arrangements have already been made to utilise the building to its full capacity for the staff required in connection with the 1931 Census.
Is it absolutely necessary to keep these records in this building?
If the hon. Member will put down a question I will look into the matter.
Forestry Workers (Wage Deductions)
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, if he will take steps to have a uniform system adopted for forestry workers as to the various charges they have to meet out of their wages, in order that the workmen shall be in a position to know exactly what those deductions are; and will he have posted at each scheme under the Forestry Commissioners' administration a list of such weekly or fortnightly deductions?
There are no charges beyond health insurance which the Forestry Commission's workers have to meet out of their wages. If they are tenants of holdings owned by the Commission, they are liable to pay the rent to which they have agreed. The amount varies according to the size, etc., of the holding.
Sweets (Poisons)
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to a number of recent cases of the poisoning of sweets, notably by arsenic; and whether he intends holding any inquiry into the matter?
My right hon. Friend is aware of the cases referred to and he understands that the local authority concerned has taken suitable action, including the prosecution of the persons responsible. Officers of my Department have kept in close touch with those of the local authority in the course of the investigations and my right hon. Friend does not think it necessary to hold any special inquiry into the matter. I may add that my right hon. Friend is in consultation with my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, on the question of legislation to guard against the danger of the accidental misuse of poisons.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that certain Coroners have expressed the opinion that arsenic and other poisons are too easily obtained, and will she bear that fact in mind in any inquiry?
I have said, in the latter part of my answer, that consultations are taking place in regard to legislation on this matter.
Coal Industry (Nationalisation)
asked the Secretary for Mines whether, in view of the difficulty of arriving at a permanent settlement in the coal-mining industry consequent on the refusal of the coal-owners to recognise the National Coal Board set up under the Coal Mines Act, 1930, he will now introduce further legislation to acquire the coal mines of Britain and work them under a public utility authority?
I could suggest much more cogent reasons for the acquisition of the coal mines by the State, if the time were appropriate for doing so. But the time is not appropriate, and the answer to the question is in the negative.
Is the Secretary for Mines satisfied with the conditions which prevail in the minefields at the moment seeing that the mine-owners refuse to conform with an Act of Parliament and have left the miners worse than they have ever been within the memory of living man? Is not the time opportune to put into operation his pet idea of appointing a public utility authority to take over the mines?
British Army (Experimental Station, Porton)
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that Great Britain is included in the list of those nations who had signed and ratified the Protocol of Geneva, 17th June, 1925, the Government has taken, or intends to take, any action in withdrawing sanction and subsidy from the chemical warfare experimental station, Porton?
I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers which I gave on 25th November to the hon. Members for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White) and Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Freeman) of which I am sending him a copy.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the tremendous feeling which exists regarding the horrible experiments which are going on at this place?
I know that there is feeling on the matter, but I cannot add anything to the answer.
Central Criminal Court
asked the Home Secretary whether he will draw the attention of the proper authorities to the need of a woman usher at the Central Criminal Court to look after the needs of women and children who may be required to attend there?
I understand that the proper authority has considered the matter and has arranged for a lady to perform this duty.
Income Tax
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has been made aware of the custom by which firms under foreign control and employing foreign officials in Great Britain pay by arrangement only a portion of their agreed salary in Great Britain and the remainder in their country of origin; and whether he will in any case investigate this matter with a view of ensuring that the whole of the salary is declared for the purpose of Income Tax and Super-tax?
I am not aware of any such custom as that to which the hon. Member refers but will cause investigation to be made if he will give me particulars of any cases that may have come to his notice. I might add that the fact that a part of the salary is paid abroad does not relieve a person employed in this country from liability to Income Tax on the whole of his salary.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is the business of his Department and not mine to collect the facts; and will he proceed actively to find out whether this does occur or not?
I have stated that I am not aware of any such custom, but, if the hon. Member sends me particulars of any case which he has in mind, I will deal with the matter.
Unemployment (Shipbuilding and Engineering Industries)
asked the Minister of Labour the number of insured adult workers, male and female, over 21 years of age, at present employed in the engineering and allied industries and the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industries, respectively, as compared with the numbers employed in 1914; and the number under 21 years of age, male and female, at present employed and for the year 1914?
I regret that owing to changes in the basis of industrial classification for statistical purposes, and in the classes of person insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, comparable figures for 1914 are not available in respect of the industries in question.
Business of the House
May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date he proposes to ask the House to adjourn for the Christmas Recess; what business he hopes to get through before that date, and on what date it is proposed to ask the House to reassemble?
It will be necessary to pass the following Measures into law before the Christmas Adjournment:
The right hon. Gentleman, in announcing the business which it is necessary to complete before 19th December, makes no mention of any legislation to deal with the problem of the sick people who have been unemployed and whose benefit is likely to expire at the end of the year. I under- stand that the Minister of Health is likely to make a statement, but I should like to know if that matter is to be included in the legislation which must be passed before 19th December?
I believe that there is a question on the Paper to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health dealing with that matter. It does not fall within my Department, but I understand that even if legislation is not passed before the end of the year, it can be taken soon after the reassembly of Parliament and that the position of these people will not be affected.
I am sorry to press this matter, but it is of tremendous importance to a huge number of people whose benefit is due to expire on 31st December unless the law is put right by that date. Their position may be put right afterwards, but, meantime, there will be a period of very grave anxiety for them, and I would ask the hon. Gentleman if he does not consider it important that something should be done for them now?
I think my hon. Friend did not quite hear what I said. I speak under possible correction, but I understand that, even though legislation is not passed before the end of this year, if legislation is passed as soon as possible after the reassembly of Parliament, the position of these people will not be prejudiced.
Are we to understand that no date will be allotted for the Second Reading of the Trade Disputes Bill before Christmas?
indicated assent .
Nursing Profession (Wages and Hours)
I beg to move, fession are employed. In 1927 there was a very representative conference of nursing and medical organisations, hospitals and approved societies over which the present Minister of Pensions presided, and at which the opening address was delivered by the present Prime Minister. In the course of that address the right hon. Gentleman used these words:
With reference to the need for legislation, although a 44-hour working week is in operation in some hospitals, in others the working week is 66 hours, an average of 11 hours daily. In cases where night duty is performed, the working week is sometimes 84 hours, made up of shifts of 14 hours each. In too many cases a 12-hour night duty is still common. Of particular importance in this connection are the probationers, who not merely do the work of the hospitals, but are sometimes simultaneously students and have to prepare for examinations. My Bill proposes that for all nurses, whether in institutions and hospitals or district nurses, there should be a maximum working week of 44 hours, except in cases of emergency, where the time should be made up at a later period.
A commencing wage of £40 a year is now paid to some probationers, £75 to nurses, and £85 to sisters. My proposal is that those figures paid in the past in the best hospitals should become the minimum for all hospitals. Again, the need of legislation of this kind is illustrated by the fact that in some hospitals, the salary for probationers is actually as low in the first year as £1 a month, or 4s. 8d. a week; in the second year, £16; and in the third year, £20. In some cases, the nurses are paid only £30 a year after three years' training, and sisters are paid only £40 a year after, not only three years' training, but many years' service as nurses. I suggest that the rate for probationers should be a minimum of £40 in the first year, £50 in the second year, and £60 in the third year; that nurses should begin at £75, rising to £80 in the second year; and that sisters should begin at £85, rising by £5 annually to a minimum of £100. In the case of district nurses, I suggest that the minimum should be £85 rising by £5 annually to £100, where board, lodging, laundry and uniform are provided; and £185, rising by £5 annually to £200, where these are not provided. The nurses are performing a great service to the whole of the community, and the least that the community can do is to save them from working in a sweated profession.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Brockway, Mr. Jowett, Miss Lee, Mr. Sandham, Mr. Strachey, Mr. Wise, Mr. W. J. Brown, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Stephen, Mr. Kinley, and Mr. Oliver Baldwin.
Nursing Profession (Wages and Hours) Bill,
"to lay down minimum wages and maximum working hours for the nursing profession," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon. Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 66.]
National House-Building
I beg to move, It is generally admitted that the only thing of which there is a shortage in this country is housing for the common people, and I desire to bring in this Bill to meet that shortage, and to set up an authority with that end in view. It will be necessary to acquire land throughout the country, and to get control of factories in order to provide for the materials that will be essential for the houses. The control of all factories will be essential, so that the object of the Bill to provide houses at cheap rentals will not be defeated by those who are in control of materials raising prices unduly high. I desire to provide for the production of these materials in national factories at prices which will be kept fairly low. As there are Housing Acts on the Statute Book, hon. Members may say that it is not necessary that a national housing authority should be set up. Any person who has any knowledge of local authorities will readily realise that almost every one of them is dominated and controlled by property owners. They do everything in their power to prevent the erection of working-class houses on a large scale, because it would tend to reduce rents and prevent them from acquiring the great amount of profit which they desire.
We have in this country a large number of unemployed men who are trained in the art of building houses; 150,000 are admitted by the Minister of Labour. Those 150,000 men take from the Employment Exchanges £250,000 each week for which the nation gets no return at all. It would be better to put that money into a great housing scheme, and I propose a five years' housing plan to deal with the housing shortage in this country. For that five years' plan, I suggest, although not hard and fast, that it would be essential to provide a loan of £500,000,000. That sum would be equal to only 500 days' interest on the War Loan, and would be a negligible amount of money in order to ensure happiness, comfort and decent health for the whole population of this land. I propose that £100,000,000 should be spent annually, and if we take the labour cost at 50 per cent., that would be £50,000,000 a year in labour, so that we could save £250,000 a week in unemployment benefit alone, and, by adding to the 150,000 men, we could put forward an army of 350,000 men trained, skilled and unskilled, for the provision of houses. These 350,000 men would have work for five years, giving them an average wage of £3 per week, and we could set the wheels of industry going in the provision of these houses.
It has to be remembered that a considerable amount of the money would be returned to the Exchequer by the people who would be drawing these wages. By the provision of decent houses, you could also save a tremendous amount of money on your health bill, national and local, and the loan would not all be lost even to the Exchequer. The provision of work for 350,000 men would take the Government of this country out of the tremendous difficulty that it seems to be in at the moment, and I am hopeful of getting Government backing for this Bill. We would be able to provide for rents at something like 5s. or 6s. a week for a three-apartment house, which would bring houses in this country within the realm of possibility for a large section of the people. It would bring a real reduction of unemployment, whereas all the schemes which are suggested in this country are only schemes to provide work of a character that is not essential to the nation.
This is work which is absolutely essential, which you are tied down to carry out in a certain period of time. We are at present not meeting the shortage, and not overcoming the difficulties. It has to be remembered that for every year the present housing shortage continues, there is being destroyed in this country a large army of children belonging to the working-class. If you could use all the ingenuity and resources of the nation during the War to destroy human life, it is not too much to expend that amount on the protection of the children of this country. I submit that there would be a return of comfort, health and happiness for the flower of this nation. I ask the House to agree to the introduction of this Bill, and I appeal for general support, for I am sure that, in the long run, this Bill would bring its own dividend in the shape of greater health to the children of the nation.
I rise to oppose this preposterous proposal, because it is, obviously, a pure waste of time and pure humbug to proceed—
On a point of Order. Is it in order for a Member to say that what another Member has brought in is pure humbug?
Is not what is sauce for the Colonial Secretary also sauce for the hon. and gallant Member for West Dorset (Major Colfox)?
I said before that that word is not a suitable one for our debates.
In that case, I withdraw the expression "humbug," but it is pure nonsense to continue a discussion on such a preposterous proposal.
You are an authority on nonsense!
We have already proceeded a considerable way on the road towards building houses by national effort, and one would have imagined that even the handful of Members of the party opposite who profess to believe in such a scheme would by this time have learnt something as to the futility and folly of proceeding in the direction proposed.
The purely imaginary nights of arithmetic to which we have just listened, of course, impress nobody but the hon. Member who has expressed them.
Speak for yourself!
It will be most interesting to see whether more than a handful of hon. Members opposite will support this proposal in the Division Lobby, because it must be obvious to everybody in this House that the vast bulk of Members on both sides of the House realise the silliness of this proposal. But it will be, as I say, interesting to see whether hon. Members on, the benches behind the Government will on this occasion have the courage of their convictions, which they nearly always so sadly lack, and whether they will oppose this folly.
Question put,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the provision of houses and housing materials by a national housing authority."
The House divided: Ayes, 161; Noes, 100.
Division No. 58.] AYES. [4.8 p.m. Alpass, J. H. Gould, F. Lowth, Thomas Ammon, Charles George Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Lunn, William Arnott, John Granville, E. Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Ayles, Walter Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) McElwee, A. Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Groves, Thomas E. McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston) Barnes, Alfred John Grundy, Thomas W. McKinlay, A. Barr, James Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Batey, Joseph Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) MacNelll-Weir, L. Bellamy, Albert Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Bennett, William (Battersea, South) Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) Marcus, M. Benson, G. Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Markham, S. F. Sevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Haycock, A. W. Marley, J. Brockway, A. Fenner Hayday, Arthur Marshall, Fred Brornfield, William Hayes, John Henry Mathers, George Brooke, W. Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) Maxton, James Brothers, M. Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) Messer, Fred Buchanan, G. Herriotts, J. Montague, Frederick Burness, F. G. Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) Cameron, A. G. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Mort, D. L. Cape, Thomas Hoffman. P. C. Muff, G. Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.) Hopkin, Daniel Muggeridge, H. T. Chater, Daniel Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.) Cocks, Frederick Seymour Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Oldfield, J. R. Compton, Joseph Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. Paling, Wilfrid Daggar, George Kelly, W. T. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Dalton, Hugh Kennedy, Thomas Perry, S. F. Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Pole, Major D. G. Day, Harry Kirkwood, D. Potts, John S. Denman, Hon. R. D. Lang, Gordon Price, M. P. Duncan, Charles Law, A. (Rossendale) Quibell, D. J. K. Ede, James Chuter Lawson, John James Raynes, W. R. Edmunds, J. E. Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) Richards, R. Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Leach, W. Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Egan, W. H. Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.) Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) Eimley, Viscount Lees, J. Romeril, H. G. Freeman, Peter Lewis, T. (Southampton) Rosbotham, D. S. T. Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Lloyd, C. Ellis Rowson, Guy Gibbins, Joseph Logan, David Gilbert Samuel, H. Watter (Swansea, West) Gill, T. H. Longbottom, A. W. Sandham, E. Gossling, A. G. Longden, F. Sawyer, G. F. Scrymgeour, E. Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) Sexton, James Stamford, Thomas W. Wellock, Wilfred Shepherd, Arthur Lewis Stephen, Campbell Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) Sherwood, G. H. Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) Westwood, Joseph Shield, George William Strachey, E. J. St. Loe Whiteley. Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) Shillaker, J. F. Strauss, G. R. Whiteley, William (Blaydon) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) Taylor, R. A. (Lincoin) Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) Simmons, C. J. Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) Wilson, J. (Oldham) Sinkinson, George Thurtie, Ernest Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) Tillett, Ben Wise, E. F. Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) Tinker, John Joseph Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) Smith, Rennie (Penistone) Toole, Joseph Smith, Tom (Pontefract) Tout, W. J. TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —— Smith, W. R. (Norwich) Viant, S. P. Mr, W. J. Brown and Mr. Kinley. Snell, Harry Watkins, F. C.
NOES. Albery, Irving James Gower, Sir Robert Pownall, Sir Assheton Astor, Viscountess Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Pybus, Percy John Arholl, Duchess of Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Reid, David D. (County Down) Bellairs, Commander Carlyon Gunston, Captain D. W. Rentoul, Sir Gervals S. Betterton, Sir Henry B. Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford) Blindell, James Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Hammersley, S. S. Ross, Major Ronald D. Bracken, B. Hanbury, C. Rothschild, J. de Briscoe, Richard George Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury) Buchan, John Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley) Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Burton, Colonel H. W. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Scott, James Campbell, E. T. Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness) Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) Chamberlain Rt.Hn.Sir J.A (Birm., W) Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint) Smithers, Waldron Chapman, Sir S. Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Somerset, Thomas Christie, J. A. Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Clydesdale, Marquess of Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) Southby, Commander A. R. J. Cranborne, Viscount Leighton, Major B. E. P. Spender-Clay, Colonel H. Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) McConnell, Sir Joseph Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F. Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Marjoribanks, Edward Tinne, J. A. Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.) Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Titchfield, Major the Marquess of Everard, W. Lindsay Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement Falle, Sir Bertram G. Morris, Rhys Hopkins Turton, Robert Hugh Fielden E. B. Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld) Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) Wardlaw-Milne, J. S. Ganzoni, Sir John Oman, Sir Charles William C. Warrender, Sir Victor George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley) Penny, Sir George Womersley, W. J. Glassey, A. E. Peters, Dr. Sidney John Glyn, Major R. G. C. Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —— Major Colfox and Mr. Beaumont.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. McGovern, Mr. Stephen, Mr. Maxton, Miss Lee, Mr. Brockway, Mr. Buchanan, Dr. Forgan, Mr. W. J. Brown, Mr. Kinley, Mr. Sandham, Mr. Kirkwood, and Mr. Wise.
National House-Building Bill,
"to provide for the provision of houses and housing materials by a national housing authority," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 67.]
Message from the Lords
That they have agreed to—
Dumfries Waterworks Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.
Use of Motor-Cars in Elections
I beg to move,
It is a mistake to assume that everybody in the Tory party is rich, just as it is a mistake to assume that everybody in the Labour party is poor. It is a mistake to assume that the man who runs a motor car owns the car. There are many men in public life in this country who owe more to four wheels than they do to their forefathers. It is to prevent that kind of lucky entry into public work that my Resolution is framed. The motor car is quite a modern development. Twenty years ago it was a novelty. Today, there are more motor cars in this country than there were push bicycles 25 years ago, and the candidate in any election who secures the advantage of a fine fleet of motor cars has a tremendous advantage over his opponent. I have said that my Resolution is not directed against any party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I have no personal feeling in the matter, because I do not suppose that anyone contesting a seat in the Labour interests in Lancashire gets more motor cars than I do. That, I suppose, is because I am such a decent fellow. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"] There is no question about it; I have said it. In 1924, my opponent in the election was the chairman of a motor car firm, and he won. In 1929, I fought the same man and he lost, but that was because the people had become wiser in the meantime and realised what a mistake they made in 1924 when they turned me down.
What about the next election?
If I had my way in the next one I am quite certain, with the accumulated wisdom and knowledge of the Labour administration of the past 18 months, that we should come back with a clear majority. There can be no doubt that should the weather on polling day be inclement it is a tremendous advantage to have a large fleet of motor cars. Some people advise the electors to use anybody's car but vote for their own party. I have tendered that advice myself on many occasions, but it has not worked out correctly. It is amazingly true so far as the working people are concerned that they have a very fine sense of honour and honesty—I say this irrespective of party colour, because there are working people in every party—and one finds that if someone takes them for a ride in a motor car they invariably vote for that candidate. It is a great disadvantage to a poor man when his opponent has the use of many motor cars, and poor men as candidates ought not to be under any disadvantages.
If we cannot have proportional representation in our Electoral Reform Bill, I see no reason why we should not have proportional representation in motor cars. It would not be difficult to come to some agreement as to how certain cars might be used. It might be done in several ways. The town clerk of each district, as returning officer, might be given control of the cars used by the candidates, and ration them equally. On the other hand, we could abolish the use of cars by making their use illegal except in the case of the sick and the infirm. The cars could be left under the control of the town clerk or returning officer and the agent of each candidate three days before the election could supply a list giving the names of the infirm voters whom they desired to be brought to the poll. Objection is made that in county divisions long journeys have to he travelled in order to vote. That difficulty could be met. The cars could be under the control of the town clerk or returning officer and he could undertake, at the request of each party agent, to send a car on the long distances to bring in people who have to make long journeys. It would not be a difficult matter. Town clerks do much more difficult things than the organisation of fleets of motor cars. All that is wanted is an agreement and the will to do it.
We have had several by-elections recently where Members have been returned who would never have been in this House had it not been that they had the assistance of a large fleet of motor cars. I took part in a by-election recently where there must have been at least 500 motor cars supporting one candidate. It is true that in that Division there was no canvassing. I would like to see canvassing abolished, just as I would like to see the use of motor cars abolished in the election. I think it is an insult to a man's intelligence to tell him which way he ought to vote. He ought to know which way he ought to vote. In the by-election to which I have referred, although canvassing was not engaged in, we witnessed at least 500 motor cars supporting one candidate. That candidate came back to this House with a majority of about 2,000. I am certain that if he had not had the assistance in that scattered constituency of 500 cars he would not have been returned to this House. I understand that before long we are to have an Electoral Reform Bill. That Bill will be very welcome on this side of the House. I see no difficulty in the Government accepting the proposal that I am making to restrict the use of motor cars. That would make matters much more even for the candidates. True, it would take certain privileges away from wealthy candidates, or candidates who have wealthy friends. I submit the Resolution in the hope that the Government will see their way to include the principle of it in the new Bill that is to be introduced.
I beg to second the Motion.
I would like hon. Members on both sides of the House to appreciate the fact that I am anxious that incapable elderly persons, cripples and those who are afflicted with any particular physical defect which prevents them from walking, the blind, the maimed and the halt should be allowed facilities, which could be mutually arranged between the contending parties or through the presiding officer, so that they can register their votes. Anyone who is suffering from any physical disability ought to be provided for. As the vote is so valuable, these people are entitled to demand necessary and in order to give sovereignty to the vote. Every motor car employed in an election ought to be licensed by the electoral authorities, and also numbered, and there should be an arrangement between the contesting interests to see how far they could utilise in an intelligent manner the number of cars at command. I know that there will be difficulties, but there is such a thing in business as the gentleman's conscience. Perhaps in politics it may be said that there is no gentleman's conscience, but there ought to be.
What about the pact we have been hearing about?
The right hon. Gentleman knows more about pacts than I do. I want to get a gentleman's agreement. I believe that politicians are as near an approach to gentlemen as most other folks. Certainly, we are as near to gentlemen as the average business person, but perhaps that does not say much. I am not casting ridicule upon the integrity of this House or of its Members, but I do say that in a fair and square fight there could be an agreement in regard to the means and facilities for voting. The average election becomes an orgy and a danger to children. In some places it becomes a riot rather than an orgy for a large number of persons who may not be voters at all, and who for the sake of a ride and saying "Thank God for an election," will travel in one car and then in another. The very purpose of the organised motor car service is defeated. I agree with what has been said by the mover that our people have a sense of loyalty. I can understand a crippled old lady or man, or bedridden person, being very grateful indeed to the gentleman who has sent a car. "What a nice kind rich gentleman he is," they say. There is no political thought behind it whatever, and it is not representative of the intelligence of the Voters. We have not so much intelligence, the lot of us put together. We would not be in a muddle if we had any real intelligence. But I am speaking of the intelligence of the voter. I feel that where there are cases of the sort I have mentioned, they should be registered, and an agreement should be made.
The vast number of fast-moving motor cars during election night, whether the weather be foggy, wet or fair, are a danger to the children in the streets. I want to pay a compliment to the officers in charge of the polling stations which are usually situated in the very best positions, but even some of these might be improved. There might be a consultation between the contesting parties, the town clerk and the people responsible for arranging the polling booths. I feel sure that hon. Members on the other side will at least give some consideration to our very rational proposals. Very often, Members on that side, fairly well-to-do, are bitter in politics but friendly otherwise. I have had an opponent of that sort in my own constituency. I have known him quite prepared to take up our people without demur. One can frequently meet with that sense of chivalry. But there is no chivalry in mass action. There could be some order by which all those incapable of walking to the poll could be taken there, without the vulgarity and the disgrace that accompanies nearly every election, in consequence of the number of fast-moving cars.
I leave out any mention of corruption and bribery. I have not enough money to bribe other folk and I am not concerned with that side of it. I am merely anxious that the basic intelligent opinion of the voter should have a chance. Whether they be poor, well or ill, physically fit or unfit, voters should have a square chance to register their opinion. I speak without prejudice against any party. I have no prejudices whatever, but I do want an understanding that, where motor cars are employed, they shall be under licence, and shall be known and under control. The contesting parties should come to an honourable understanding that their use of cars shall not be allowed to encumber the streets and cause the death of cripples. I am not complaining on personal grounds, because I have not had a lot of motor cars in election time, nor of the treatment of my opponents. I do not want an election to be decided by motor cars, but by the votes and convictions of responsible people.
The House this afternoon has enjoyed the somewhat unusual experience of two Members representing two divisions of the same city moving and seconding a private Member's Motion. Rumour is perhaps a less sly jade on this occasion than she sometimes is, as we may see this proposal in a more complete form at a later stage during this Session, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said this afternoon.
I venture to suggest that this Motion has very little meaning. I listened intently to the two speeches. The Mover and Seconder hoped the House would accept their "very reasonable proposal." I am puzzled to know how you are going to put the proposal into operation. If anything is going to be attempted by legislation or regulation, I fancy the hon. Gentleman who represents the Home Office will find his hands pretty full. You have to draft some form of regulation or legislation which is at least intelligible. I could not make out from the hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion, and still less from the hon. Member who seconded it, whether it is desired to prohibit the use of all motor cars, except in the case of sickness. I want to know whether they think a man should be entitled to take himself to the polling station in his own motor car. That is a matter of importance. Take my own case. I live 14 miles from my constituency. I am four miles from the nearest railway station, and the only way I can vote on polling day is to motor out in a slack hour and register my own vote. Am I to be allowed to do that? I will take the question a stage further. Am I allowed to take my wife out?
Taking your wife out is not in your own command at all. She will go.
I see the hon. Member fully realises the circumstances and would not propose any law so foolish, as one to prohibit the husband from taking his wife to the poll. If I meet a friend on the road, am I to be pro- hibited from taking him? Anything you put in the law is useless. Nothing will prevent a car owner from saying: "Mr. Jones is my friend. I will take him to the poll." [ Interruption .] Yes, if I met the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) on the road, I would take him.
I would sooner walk than take a ride with you.
The motor car is not under the control of the King, but under the control of the person who owns it. If I said I were going to take a Socialist or a Liberal with me, how on earth could you stop me, except by making the owner of the motor car responsible? There is no other method of doing it. How are you going to sort out on polling day the cars that are being used for one purpose from those that are being used for another? The hon. Member who spoke last said that election day in his part of the world became an orgy. I cannot speak about the north of England, but, if that is the case up there, then my own constituency must be extraordinarily well behaved. We are not troubled on election days, and there are many other constituencies that do not develop into a sort of Bacchanalian festival on such occasions.
You must either prohibit the use of motor cars altogether, or you must leave people liberty to do what they think fit. If people choose to drive their friends to the poll, I fail to see that any legislation which you can devise will stop them. What you will succeed in doing will be to take the police away from other duties on polling day, and have them hunting for motor cars all round the place to see whether or not they are complying with the law. One of the greatest uses of motor cars is to bring in those who live some way out of the constituency. It would be very easy to defeat the law by bringing those voters not to the poll, but to within 200 yards of it, and you could say nothing against that. Any suggestion seems to be unworkable, short of a proposal that there should be no motor cars in elections. We might come to an agreement for special areas.
There are many things that I should like to see abolished. I should like to come to an agreement to make posters illegal in an election. There are many things of that kind that one would like to see done, but there are difficulties. The abolition of posters would be of great advantage to a sitting Member. He is better known than an opponent who comes in at the eleventh hour. It would be almost impossible to draft rules that would be watertight, and to draft rules which were not watertight would add to the complexities of our election laws, which are already very great. Many people will not know whether an action is legal or illegal and whether it may or may not invalidate an election. It is a serious thing to bring this into election law. A petition may be brought against a man who is innocent of an offence because one of his supporters has violated the law without his consent or knowledge. You are up against a great difficulty, and I trust, if the Government propose to introduce any legislation of this kind, they will pay some attention to the points that I have put.
I think the Motion is fairly clear. It aims at the abuses that arise from the use of motor cars in elections. There are legitimate functions for the motor car in conveying the sick, and people of that kind. The abuses we are aiming at are not those, but the indiscriminate pouring into a constituency of a number of cars, congesting the streets and placing one candidate at an unfair advantage. Unfortunately, we have to admit that a very large proportion of the free and independent voters take very little interest in political matters. They do not even know what principles the candidates stand for, and in many cases they do not even know their names. But a candidate may have at his disposal a fleet of motor cars. The energetic person in charge induces these people to get in, and they look upon an election day as an opportunity for a joy ride in a luxurious car which they cannot hope to obtain on any other occasion. They are so grateful for that little ride that the mere sight of the name blazoned on the car or the mention of it by the driver persuades them to vote for him. It is deplorable that there is a certain proportion of the population who do that. We are appealing to the British sense of fair play. We do not see much of it in politics, and during elections it seems to take a back seat. Those who have taken part in elections have always pointed out the abuses that occur through the use of motor cars.
I remember after one election sitting in an hotel listening to some of the bright young things who had been driving cars that had been lent. Cars are sent into a constituency, and there are always young people of either sex who are prepared to do their best and make a day of it. I heard some of these people talking. One said she had had a splendid day in assisting the jolly old party. I thought at first it was a candidate that she meant, but as the candidate was a far more sedate gentleman and not nearly so jovial looking as, say, the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), I could not quite think how it fitted in until I realised that it was not a person they were tailking about, but the party to which he was attached. One young lady was boasting about her bag, and I did not understand that till I find she was alluding to the fact that she had accounted for a few lamp standards, frightened several pedestrians, broken a handcart and finished up with a policeman. Apparently, she had had a good day. The others were boasting about the narrow squeaks and the desperate adventures that they had had in the course of the day's work. That shows that there is a good deal of reckless driving by these people on election day.
It always appears to me that the regulations are somewhat relaxed on these occasions. We see the cars dashing about and they seem to break the law with impunity. It reminds me of a motorist who was run in by a conscientious policeman for suspicious conduct. When they asked him what the suspicious conduct consisted of, he said the motorists was driving well under the speed limit, sounding his horn properly and keeping on the right side of the road. It is not one particular party to-day that has a monopoly of cars. Owing to the low price, large numbers of people are indulging in cars, and we shall soon have to face the situation that cars will be so numerous in the streets as to cause very serious congestion unless some regulations are imposed. If you have cars dashing about congesting the streets at election time, it is a standing danger and you get a great deal of unregulated driving.
Another thing that has always struck me is that people seem to look upon it as an occasion for doing wilful damage to the car. I have been in a smash myself, and, if there is anyone who would welcome the regulation of motor cars at election time, it must be the insurance people. There are other dangers to be guarded against. On one occasion a driver was enticed into a house of refreshment and regaled, not with water or with innocuous drinks, they put the spirits in the wrong place. The driver was filled up with spirit and the petrol tank was filled with water. To fill a driver like that with intoxicating drinks cannot but be dangerous. If one has the use of a car, one naturally desires to decorate it with bunting and a poster or two, and that is a standing danger as far as animals are concerned. Red is supposed to be an infuriating colour to a bull. I know a case in which a driver dashed into a herd of cows and pulled up and demanded the name and address of the owner because he wanted to claim damages caused by the cows running into the car.
People who desire the use of a car are not worth considering, with the exception of the aged and infirm, and to those who cannot very well get to the polling station cars are essential. For the ordinary voter a car ought not to be necessary. A man who has sufficient conviction to record his vote should do it without the aid of such things as that. It recalls to my mind an old lady of 78 whom I saw on a polling day. I told her, if she required it, I would send a car for her. She said, "No, I have always voted conscientiously and walked. If my principles are worth voting for, they are worth walking for." That is the principle that should animate a British voter. In order that this great influx of motor cars at by-elections should be regulated, it is necessary that something should be done. The increase of motoring makes it more essential every day. I heartily support the Motion.
We have just heard a very interesting and humorous speech. As this is the first occasion on which the hon. Member has addressed the House, he is entitled to our congratulations on the way in which he has come through what is, to a newcomer, an ordeal. I lately came across a sentence uttered by one of the most distinguished Members who ever sat in the House of Commons—Edmund Burke:
It may not have been so during the time of Burke. It is only gradually that the House of Commons is becoming the expressed image of the feelings of the nation. After all, all who are interested in representative government are anxious to see that the Legislature should, as far as possible, represent the views, the ideals, and the aspirations of the people whom it represents, and anything, however slight it may be, which is in any way calculated to prevent that being brought about is an injury to the constitution of the House. The Legislature has been attempting for the last century to make the House more representative of the people of the country. There have been extensions of the franchise in 1832, 1867, 1884, 1918 and 1929. All this extension has been calculated to make the House more representative of the people of the country. There has also been the removal of disabilities, the removal of the property qualification for Members of the House, and the diminishing cost of elections. We can scarcely realise what elections meant even 40 or 50 years ago. When I was a boy, I remember an election which took place in the neighbouring constituency where, immediately the writ was issued, the agent of one of the candidates rushed throughout the constituency and did what was then perfectly legal; he hired every vehicle in the constituency. Of course, there were no motor cars in those days. The result was that the election expenses of that candidate became enormous, probably a great deal more than the expenses of candidates in that constituency at the present time.
The Motion moved by the hon. Member for South Salford (Mr. Toole) is calculated to make Parliamentary elections reflect more than they have done in the past the opinions of the electors in this country. I hope that the Electoral Reform Bill which the Government are to introduce will be far-reaching, and I hope that among its provisions will be one dealing with the vexed question of motor cars. I have already referred to what an eminent Member of the House said with regard to the representation of the House of Commons, but I also find that one of the greatest political writers of the last century, John Stuart Mill, in his remarkable work on representative government, used those words in referring to the electoral arrangements:
The hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), who opposed the Motion, raised a number of difficulties. May I say that similar difficulties had to be faced when the Corrupt Practices Act was passed, I think in 1883, with regard to the conveyance of electors to the poll. I believe it was perfectly legitimate before that Act was passed to pay the railway fares of electors to enable them to go to the poll. Where you had a large constituency and a large number of removals to various parts of the country, this became a great charge upon the candidate or the organisation which he represented. It would be possible, of course, for a voter to go by train at his own expense, and, if the voter's son or any member of his family was also a voter, there would be no objection to his fare being paid to take him to the poll. These are, after all, minor difficulties which need not concern us in considering this matter. All that is wanted is co-operation between the candidates and their agents, and the workers of all parties in the constituencies. Everyone at any rate professes to be anxious that elections in this country should be carried on in such a way as to ensure that the opinion of the electors is expressed in the result of the poll. It is our pride that our elections are carried on with very little corruption and very little in the way of undue influence. That is proved by the small and greatly decreasing number of election petitions. These are very much fewer than they were formerly.
There is no doubt that for one party to have at its disposal a large number of cars in excess of another party does give it undue advantage whether in an urban constituency or a rural one. When persons are called upon by the owner of a car to take him or her to the polling station there is always an inducement to those persons to vote for the party whose colours they see on the car. I remember a few elections ago an old lady who had pledged herself to vote in a particular way was taken to the polling station in a car belonging to another political party. After she had been brought home she told a neighbour that she did not know how to vote. She said, "I wanted to vote for Mr. A. to carry out my promise, but I was in a difficulty, because the car that took me was running for Mr. B.'s people, so I was obliged to vote for both Mr. A. and Mr. B." So she gave a vote for two, and her vote was spoiled. [An HON. MEMBER: "That would be all right with the alternative vote."] Everyone who has had experience of elections must realise that the party whether Liberal, Conservative or Labour which has at its disposal the largest number of motor cars has an undue advantage, and there is no reason why an arrangement should not be made whereby all the cars should be pooled.
In the committee room of each candidate there are provided lists of persons who have to be conveyed and a list of motor cars. All you would have to do would be to hand over those lists to some person appointed by the returning officer, and arrangements could then be made. Apart from that, I think there should be no necessity whatever, if you have, as John Stuart Mill suggested, polling stations so numerous as to be within the reach of every voter, for motor cars or conveyances to take anyone to the poll except the infirm and those otherwise unable to go. I think the time must certainly come when every person who enjoys the privilege of the franchise should be called upon to exercise it, when it should not be merely a privilege but an obligation which he owes to the State of which he forms part. I think when that day comes there will be no necessity whatever for any arrangement to be made with regard to the transport of electors other than those suffering from indifferent health, and the infirm. For the present, I am quite certain that the Motion which was so ably moved by the hon. Member for Salford South should commend itself to the House, and I trust, when the Government introduces its Electoral Reform Bill, this will be one of the subjects included.
I have some hesitation as to my attitude towards this Motion, for the reason that I have always thought that the motor-car question at elections is a most awful nuisance. I believe that that attitude is shared by nearly every Member of this House, and every candidate who has had to fight an election. At the same time I have to ask myself two questions. The first is supposing the proposal in the Motion could be brought about, would it make for a smaller poll? One of the disgraces of our electoral system is the smallness of the poll. If the present proposal has the effect of making that disgracefully small percentage smaller still, I would be against the Motion. The second question is, is it workable? I do not believe, when we come to examine it, that it is. I think the Mover or the Seconder talked about the almost riotous things which happen at election time. My constituency must be extraordinarily lucky, because election days are always the most mournful days of all. It is said that cars are dashing about on election days, causing innumerable deaths. Does the hon. Member who made that statement know of more than one or two that have taken place at elections? Every candidate wants, above everything else, to avoid running over a constituent or a constituent's child. If he did so, he would spoil his electoral chances. I think you will find, for that reason alone, that the standard of driving is not low, and that the cars are driven rather more carefully on election days than on other days. As regards the question, is it workable?
The hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) put an extremely pertinent question which everyone must ask himself. Is the owner of a car to be allowed to go to the poll in his own car, or has the unfortunate owner of a car suddenly to take some other means of progression? I do not think a workable scheme could be evolved. Another trouble is this: Everybody is agreed that people who are ill or are crippled should be allowed the use of motor cars, but who is to tell whether somebody is ill or crippled? Is the period preceding an election to be one in which doctors will be seen hurrying from house to house granting certificates to people in order that they may be taken in motor cars to the poll; and when the polling day comes is a policeman to pull up every car to find out how ill a man is and whether he has a certificate? I do not believe that, it will be found to be a workable scheme. Further, a great many cars are used not so much to take voters to the poll as to take canvassers round to different places to get the voters out to vote. I wonder whether the Mover and Seconder of this Motion intend that that practice shall be stopped; and is the candidate or his agent to be allowed to drive round in a car; and if that is to be allowed, how on earth are we going to differentiate among the various classes of people who are engaged in a modern election?
The question of outvoters will need to be very seriously considered, especially in relation to a constituency such as mine, on the outskirts of London. Voters are always moving, and no matter at what time we have an election it is found that there are enormous numbers of people who have moved. Usually they have not moved very far, but there is only one way of getting hold of them, and that is to look them up by motor car and, if possible, bring them to the constituency by motor car. There is nothing wrong in that. They want to give their vote in that part of London in which they happen to be registered, although they are living in another part, and it would be extremely hard on them if we said, "Yes, you can register your vote, but in no circumstances must a motor car take you to the poll." I would also emphasise this point, because it affects particularly my own constituency. In some cases a motor car provides the only means of getting quickly from another part of London to my constituency, which is North Hackney, owing to the fact that there is no connecting link with some of the outer suburbs, although there is with the centre of London.
The Mover and the Seconder suggested that people who are ill or crippled might be provided for by means of some kind of pool of motor vehicles which would be under the orders of the returning officer, who is normally the town clerk, but I can see a great difficulty there. Who is going to lend his car to a pool? People lend cars either because they are personal friends of a candidate, or want the particular party to whom they lend their car to win, but nobody is going to lend his car to a pool for election purposes. We all know that cars are very apt to come back not quite in the same condition as they went out; they are apt to be scratched, to say the very least. It would be practically impossible to get a pool of cars, and the town clerk would have to hire cars, and the expense of such hiring would come on the Treasury; and when it is remembered that there are 615 constituencies, the expense would be very considerable. I would observe that hiring cars for an election is illegal at the present time. As regards voters who are taken in a car to the poll voting for the party which is providing the car, I do not think that point often arises, because the vast majority of people who want a car to be sent for them make a request for a car two or three days beforehand, or on the actual polling day itself. They say, "Could you come and fetch us?" and then a car is sent to take them to the poll and take them home again. The number of people who just see a car and are picked up by it and then vote according to the advice of any posters on the car is absolutely negligible. There are a certain number of cases—we have all had experience of them—but I think that the number is very small.
Another point to consider is how many voters take advantage of the present system. Even where a large number of motor cars are provided, the number of people who can be taken to the poll is very small indeed, owing to the size of the cars and the time taken on journeys. The number is practically negligible, and when we look at the large majorities secured by hon. Members who are returned to this House, and know how the number of electors has been swollen during the last few years, we must see that whether cars are used or not will make practically no difference in any constituency. Because I think the plan is unworkable, and because even if it could be worked the effect would be to make the percentage of the poll still smaller than it is already, I shall vote against the Motion, and I hope there is no suggestion that such a scheme will be put into a Government Bill.
Whatever opinion hon. Members may have regarding this Motion, I think that no one has failed to appreciate the bright and witty speech of the hon. Member for South Salford (Mr. Toole), who introduced it. His speech was charged with good humour and, I think we may also say, with good sense. The Motion refers to the use of motor cars in elections, to the need of equalising the facilities, and speaks of prohibiting the use of motor vehicles for conveying electors to the poll except in special cases which are provided for by prescribed conditions. The existing law relating to the conveyance of voters to and from the poll is contained in (Sections 7 and 14 of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices (Prevention) Act, 1883, and it is perhaps as well to recall what the conditions are. Under Section 7, it is an illegal practice there is also nothing in the law at present to prevent the loan of a private motor car for the purpose of conveying supporters of a candidate to and from the poll so long as the lender receives no payment or reward of any kind. That is the law briefly, without going into it more technically.
In a few brief sentences I can convey to the House the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards this Motion. In the first place, the Government are fully in sympathy with the object the Mover and Seconder have in their minds. I think it will be generally conceded that the loaning of large numbers of motor cars to any particular candidate does create an unfair advantage, and having regard to our experience of the growing use of motor cars in this connection, it may well be desirable to seek to equalise that advantage if it be at all possible to do so. Reference has been made by more than one speaker to the proposal to introduce an Electoral Reform Bill, and although, of course, I am not in a position to say what that Bill will include, I am able to say, so far as the use of motor cars is concerned and is referred to in this Motion, that we shall seek to include a provision on this subject in the proposed Bill. The hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) made reference to special exceptions which might arise and which the Movers evidently had in mind, and wanted to know what would be the position of the owner of a car driving himself to the poll, and possibly taking his wife, or members of his family, being residents within his own home. I am expressing only a personal opinion, but I should think that if any exceptions are to be made, such cases would be in the minds of my hon. Friends who submitted this Motion.
Reference has been made to the responsibility for prescribing the conditions being laid upon the shoulders of the returning officer. As the law stands at the present moment, all the powers in relation to Parliamentary elections and to elections in general are well defined, and it may well be that it would be difficult to make arrangements for placing those responsibilities upon the returning officers. I see difficulties in that direction because the great thing in elections is to secure uniformity of administration, and, if we were to place the responsibility upon our returning officers, the result might be that we should get all kinds of discrimination and different decisions. Consequently, we shall have seriously to consider how far we should put such a responsibility upon those officers. If such a provision as that which is proposed with regard to the use of motors were incorporated in the law, I think it would go a long way towards fairly controlling their use so far as elections are concerned. There might be people who would seek to evade the law, but they would be running their own risk, and it is quite necessary to have this power to ensure a minimum of evasion.
I wish to emphasise the fact that we shall take steps to include provision in our Electoral Reform Bill to deal with this question, and, as the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford has already pointed out, the House will have every opportunity of discussing the principle of this Measure and its machinery at a later stage. The hon., and gallant Member for Oxford made such a reasonable speech and expressed the desire that some arrangement might be made for putting certain aspects of this Measure into force that I hope when the Government proposals are made known they will receive his support.
It seems to me that this question, when it comes to be dealt with in the new Electoral Reform Bill, will be found to bristle with difficulties, because motor cars at election times are used in so many directions. Who is to decide on the election day whether a person is sick or otherwise? Will the doctor have to go round to every house and give a certificate in these cases on the morning of the election? Will motor cars be allowed to fetch up the infirm voters, and who is going to decide whether they are infirm or not? When these voters arrive at the polling booth, are they to produce a certificate of infirmity and hand it to the presiding officer or some other official? There will have to be exceptions in the case of people who are old. What conditions are going to be attached to old people? Roughly, my own con- stituency extends over 27 miles. I have in mind the case of a farmer who lives five miles from the nearest polling station. This farmer possesses a motor car, and no doubt he would use his car when he goes to register his vote. If that man, while driving to the polling station, happens to meet some of his friends who want to vote, I would like to know if, under this Measure, he will be permitted to give them a lift, or will those voters be compelled to walk? As I have already stated, this question bristles with difficulties and needs very careful consideration.
Not long ago I had the opportunity of taking part in a by-election on behalf of two candidates and over 200 motor cars were sent into that constituency from Manchester.
It is quite possible that in the case of a by-election a Division may be flooded by an influx of motor cars, but that cannot happen at a General Election, because the motor cars used at that election would be owned by those living in their own Division. Therefore, such an influx of motor cars could only happen in connection with a by-election. Probably I have to travel over 120 miles at an election in my own Division and therefore I must use a car. What is to be done at an election in the case of an absent voter who happens to be 20 or 30 miles away? Many difficulties will arise if restrictions of this kind are placed on the use of motor cars on the election day.
Neither the Mover nor the Seconder of this Bill indicated that there would be any such use of motor cars. It is not a matter of logic, but of common sense.
It so happens that at my own election approximately 200 motor cars were used, and I do not suppose that any one car would convey more than 20 electors in the course of the day. Some of the cars have to travel very long distances, and many difficulties will arise if the restrictions imposed by this Bill are put into force. For these reasons I hope the Motion will be rejected by the House. I do not think that we ought to interfere with the free use of motor cars by their owners at election times, and they should be permitted to place their cars on the election day at the disposal of that cause which they desire to be successful.
Hon. Members opposite in their speeches seem to me entirely to ignore the real principle of this Bill. Surely it is not suggested that this legislation will prevent any elector having a ride with either a friend or his wife on the election day. The Bill will prevent shoals and processions of motor cars flooding constituencies at an election when they are occupied in doing door-to-door canvassing—the cars being formed in procession while the electors are collected from house-to-house.
How can it be contended that that is corrupt when the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has told us distinctly that, in relation to this matter, there is no corruption or abuse if the vehicles are used without payment being made for their use.
True, there may be no actual legal corruption, but the bribe and abuse are there. On the election day we often see long processions of motor cars in every street being used by canvassers who go from house to house talking to the women voters, who are very susceptible to influences of this kind, because they want a ride in a motor car. I am aware that that is quite legal to-day, but it is corrupt and amounts to bribery. These cars go from house to house, and when they are full they drive the voters to the polling station. That is the kind of thing to which I strongly object. I have known cases where not only the blind, the lame and the halt have been brought up by motor cars but dead men, and in one case the resurrections were so numerous that with these and wholesale personations of alleged removals and duplicate votes of the men who were personated insisting upon their legal right, that more votes were recorded than were actually on the register. I am pleased that the Under-Secretary has assented to the principle of this Measure being embodied in the Electoral Reform Bill. As to the present law affecting the illegal use of vehicles, may I suggest that "the law is a hass," because you can only take action after a crime has been committed. I have known instances where, hot only motor cars, but motor wagons, have been hired to take people to the poll, and the town clerk has been unable to prevent this being done, the only remedy at the moment being to lock the garage when the car has gone and after the event. With the exception of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), the speakers who have opposed this Measure have not given one substantial reason why this proposal should not be accepted by the House.
I agree with some of the speakers above the Gangway that it is very hard to tackle this problem. There are two points which occur to me. In the first place, the problem, will continue to exist until we have more polling stations, both in towns and in country districts, and it is necessary that a distinction should be made between town and country divisions. The principal cities nowadays have very good services of omnibuses and trams, by which people can get quickly from point to point, but there is nothing like that in the country. I know that in my own Division, although the county council did slightly increase the number of polling stations just before the last election, people still have to walk something like two miles to vote, and one must take into account the case of the man who has been doing a very hard day's work and finds himself forced to go out on a very wet night to vote. An experiment has been made in this connection about which the House might perhaps be interested to hear. In the town of Oldham—and I am very glad to see the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lang) in his place—in 1911, all three parties signed this clause:
I was very glad to hear the Under-Secretary say that the Government's object would be to try to bring about a state of affairs in which no party would get a big advantage from having a superfluity of motor cars, and I hope that that will come about. I conclude by making the suggestion that all cars should be registered and licensed by the returning officer, who would issue some sort of permit or placard for each car. In doing that, he might take into account the number of people concerned in the Division. For instance, in the country—I only put forward this figure as a suggestion—he might say that one car should be allowed for every 1,000 people. I would ask the Government if they would consider this suggestion, and see if something could be done along these lines.
The Noble Lord the Member for East Norfolk (Viscount Elmley) has been good enough to refer to the town which I have the honour to represent, where for a number of years this agreement between the three parties has worked smoothly and effectively and without any complaint. I could understand the necessity for such a Resolution as this in regard to the rural areas, but I could wish that my hon. Friends the Members for South Salford (Mr. Toole) and North Salford (Mr. Tillett) had turned to the more modest but much more enlightened town of Oldham, when we should have been glad to gave them the benefit of our experience and show them how really progressive we are. Not only in the matter of motor cars, but with regard to election posters and many other things, we have come to a sound working agreement, saving ourselves a great deal of money and saving a great deal of that bitterness which always creeps into elections when at the last minute there may be stunts either of transport or of posters on hoardings; but, unless we suspended the Eleven o'Clock Rule, it would not be possible for me to tell all the virtues of the towns which I represent, and which is so near to Manchester and Salford that probably some attention will now be paid to the benefits that we have gained.
With regard to the Resolution generally, there are three things that I wish to say in reinforcement of what has already been said. I agree with the Mover that it is very unlikely that any considerable proportion of people are influenced to vote by the fact that they ride in somebody's car. Although I represent a very enlightened constituency, I live in one which is entirely the reverse, and at election time there are always fleets of motor cars. I feel that the effect produced is a psychological effect. When cars bearing the name of the candidate and an appeal to vote are dashing through towns and villages, people get the idea that a candidate with such a fleet of cars is bound to win. It is an extraordinary psychological fact, but it is very real, that people like to vote for the side that they think will win in an election. That is the serious effect of the use of a fleet of cars, and not so much the change in people's minds brought about by giving them a ride. After all, rides now are not so infrequent as they used to be for such people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Flint (Mr. Llewellyn-Jones), and also the Noble Lord the Member for East Norfolk, have pointed out the need for more polling booths, and I feel that, so long as care can be used, nearly always for the benefit of one particular party, there will not be a very great inducement to erect the number of booths or use the number of places that there ought to be. In many country districts that is a serious grievance, and, if it were remedied, the use of cars would not be so necessary. Some time ago there was an amendment of the law which made it possible, where the parties, or any one of the parties desired it, to extend the hours of polling from eight o'clock to nine o'clock. That is a most valuable provision, but obviously, in a constituency where any one of the parties is handicapped in the matter of cars, there is a danger that for the last hour of polling cars can be rushed in from adjacent constituencies where the hours have not been so extended, and that the hour which ought to be a boon will become a positive injustice. The case for this Resolution is a strong one, but I could wish that at any rate important towns, such as the city represented by my hon. Friends who are responsible for the Motion, had adopted the reasonable arrangement referred to, which is perfectly effective in small areas where there is a lack of transport. In that case we might have been able to attend to the greater difficulties of the rural districts.
I am sure that the whole House is very grateful to the Mover for having provided the subject of a very interesting debate. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lang), and many other hon. Members on the Labour benches, did not show much regard for the intelligence of the electorate, and I was rather shocked to hear the views they expressed as to why people voted at elections. I agree with the hon. Member for Oldham that it is very necessary to have more polling booths, and I agree with the feeling expressed by the Mover of this Motion. I do not want to prevent anyone who is opposed to me politically from voting. I, like many of us, have often given a lift to political opponents. But, on the other hand, we do not want the result of this Motion to be that people who are able to vote now may not be able to get to the poll in future. I do not think that the hon. Member who moved the Motion would wish that to happen either. What we want is to see fair play on every side.
I believe that the best way is to have more polling booths, especially in country districts. The Noble Lord the Member for East Norfolk (Viscount Elmley) mentioned that in his Division some people have to walk two miles to the poll, but in some parts of my Division they have to go considerably further. At the same time, when the suggestion has been made to the treasurer and various officials of the county that the number of polling booths should be increased, it has been opposed on the ground of economy. I suggest to the Mover of the Resolution that he should use his influence against that policy, and that, when the Government bring in their Bill, it should include provision for more polling booths.
The hon. Member for York (Mr. Burgess)—I apologise for having interrupted him in a humorous way, not realising that he was making his maiden speech; we all hope that we shall hear him speak again shortly—said that a man or woman who was not ready to walk to the poll was not worthy of a vote.
I do not quite agree. People are sometimes very busy, and a man may only be able to get off for a short time and it may be quite impossible for him to walk to the poll. Therefore, I think there is a danger, if the use of motor cars is abolished, that many people who now vote would not vote in future.
The Mover suggested that there might be proportional representation in the pooling of cars between the various parties, but, as was pointed out by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Hackney (Captain A. Hudson), it is very difficult to get people to lend motor cars to a pool, whereas they would lend them to one candidate or the other. Again, I do not think that such an arrangement would necessarily be very fair. Hon. Members have been giving instances in their own constituencies, so perhaps I might give an instance in mine. It is half agricultural and half industrial, and one might say that perhaps, on the whole, I get more votes from the agricultural part than from the industrial part. If cars were pooled and each candidate had the same number, obviously I should be the greatest loser, because one wants more cars in an agricultural area than in an industrial area, since the distances to be covered are greater. As I have said, I am rather nervous that the effect of this proposal would be that some people who vote to-day will not be able to vote in the future, and I am sure that that is the last thing that the hon. Member wants.
Might I remind him that he did say, in the course of his very interesting speech, that, with the great growth in the number of motor cars in the country to-day, the motor car is no longer just a plaything of the idle rich? I remember that in the last Parliament, when the late Chancellor of the Exchequer put a tax upon petrol, we were accused up and down the country of always taxing the necessities of the working man. The class-conscious feeling about the motor car no longer exists in this country as it did a few years ago. Many Members on both sides of this House own motor cars. We are delighted to see the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Day) driving down in his barouche every day to put down his three triplicate questions, and it would be very sad if, when election time comes, his constituents could not have the oppor- tunity of riding in his humble vehicle. There is also our right hon. Friend who has amused us so much in the House for many years, the First Commissioner of Works. We often hear the police saying that his car blocks the way, and there again I think it would be a great limitation on the electors of Bow and Bromley if he were prevented from driving them in that family barouche. Every day we see in this country more motor cars, and one day we may reach the American figure of one car to every five of the population. Then there will be no difficulty about getting to the poll, and the question will gradually solve itself.
6.0 p.m.
There is another point which I do not think the Minister has taken into consideration. It is the question of motor bicycles. Many of the younger people like driving about the country on motor bicycles and they like to carry a member of the fair sex on the carrier. It is going to be very difficult for the police to stop each motor cyclist on polling days and ask whether his companion is his wife or his daughter or is about to become his wife. The result of this sort of thing would be that many officials would have to be drafted into the country districts to prevent people from breaking the law when their only crime would consist of trying to get people to vote in order to return to power those who have to make the laws of the country. I understood the Under-Secretary said that he welcomed the principle of this Motion and that his right hon. Friend proposed in the near future to introduce the principle of this Motion into the Electoral Bill. When he talks about equalising facilities, I am not sure whether he means the prevention of the use of motor cars altogether or whether he intends to try to pass a law which will give what we all want to see, namely, equal opportunities to both sides. The Motion says: their less fortunate neighbours, it will mean that you will be increasing your class distinction instead of abolishing it. You are going to say that the man who has a car can go in it to the polling booth, but that the man who has not a car has either to walk or not vote at all, that he cannot accept a lift from his more fortunate neighbour. Before the conclusion of the debate, the Under-Secretary of State might enlighten us a little further and let us know whether they intend to abolish the use of motor cars altogether on polling days, or whether, on the other hand, they intend to try to make matters even. I fear, however good are their intentions—I am not for one moment suggesting that the hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion is doing this for political motives; I am sure that he is not—that the result will be, that, while you may want to level out matters, fewer people will be able to vote, and, in the long run, you will be creating a greater injustice than the injustice you are seeking to remedy.
Like the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Thornbury (Captain Gunston), I represent a Division which is, roughly, half rural and half industrial and urban, and I have had an opportunity of seeing how scientifically a certain party can exert its power in the command of motor cars. In 1924 I had the experience of fighting an election in the Division. On the day of the poll we had about 10 motor cars, but as I was fighting in a Division where one of the Whips of the late Government was a candidate, I had to be content with an overwhelming concentration of cars on the part of my opponent. By reliable estimate it was considered that against our 10 cars the other side mobilised and used about 200 cars. While I was touring the Division it was difficult for my modest car to get through the country lanes because of the numbers of cars used by my opponent. Those cars were being very cleverly used, the rural district being worked in the early part of the day, and, as the votes were polled, the cars began to concentrate upon the urban and industrial districts. Such a course is a great advantage, particularly in the last few hours of the poll.
There seems to be a suggestion from our opponents that the cars are used by a certain party in rather a philanthropic way with no desire to secure a party advantage, but with a desire of helping the voters of all sections to get to the poll. Does practical experience of the working of those cars bear out that suggestion? Is it not the practice of our opponents in the urban and industrial districts to prepare a list of voters whose political opinions are known and whose political opinions are those of the party using the most cars in this way? During the last few hours of the day the drivers of these cars are provided with lists, not of the voters at large who have not voted but of those belonging to the particular political party who have not voted. The result may be that by the speed with which that party can rush up its supporters in the last few hours of the polling day they may win an election, and win it in such a way as not properly to represent the political opinion of the voters of the Division.
This is an old grievance, and I am glad that this Motion has been brought forward and that the hon. Gentleman who spoke on behalf of the Government has promised us that it is an evil which is to be dealt with in the coming Electoral Reform Bill. I rather wish that the Motion had been a little wider. I do not know why it should have been confined to motor-cars. I know that the age of the horse is practically over, but after this proposed reform has been carried it may be possible for the clever election agents of certain parties to resuscitate the old grey mare of Uncle Tom Cobleigh and also to find some old vehicles which that grey mare may be able to draw. It would certainly add to the gaiety and interest of future elections, but it might restore the advantage to a certain party which they already possess. The whole trend of reform, electorally, has been in the direction of putting, as far as possible, all sections of the community upon a basis of equality. It is an axiom of law that all men are equal before the law. It is also true that if you go to law it is better that you should have a very deep pocket, and in politics much the same argument applies. In the public interest we have had to restrict the expenditure upon elections so that wealth should not have an undue advantage over parties which are poor. That undue advantage, I sub- mit, still exists in the extensive use of motor-cars by the parties to whom we on this side are opposed.
As I have said, I had in my election in 1924 10 motor-cars, eight of them were fairly reliable and the other two were poor starters and very doubtful arrivals. On the other side, there was a most splendid fleet of motor-cars, and I attributed my defeat on that occasion largely to the splendid combination of motorcars which was then used against me. The difficulties of the party which sits on this side of the House in the rural districts are already very heavy. It is difficult to make headway against the popularity—the deserved popularity in many cases—of the noble squire, and particularly against the charms of his lady, especially when she adds to her charms charity in the shape of coal and blankets. But when on the day of the poll we have, in addition, motor-cars used against us it is really the last straw. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) raised an objection to the effect that it was very difficult to control the use of cars at election times. I suggest that the case he instanced was not a very important one, that there was a certain amount of chaos, and that the objection is not to the use of cars by husbands and wives but to the organised use of cars entirely in the interests of one section of the public who are the party far more favoured than they ought to be by the wealth and social influence which they exercise in the rural areas, and, in fact, in all Divisions throughout the country.
This proposed reform, I am glad to say, seems to be considerably supported by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway who have recently shown a very wise tendency to support reforms put forward on this side of the House. I remember when I was a boy hearing a speech at Llandrin-dod Wells which was delivered by a gentleman whom, at the time I entered the meeting, I did not know. This fine young man was attacking the undue influence of the squirearchy in political contests and he condemned, in those days, the excessive use of conveyances during elections. That young man to-day is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). The reform which he seemed to be advocating in his speech in those rather far distant days has yet to be carried out, and I am glad that we seem to be on the eve of it being carried out. I have the greatest pleasure in supporting this Motion.
In view of what has been said on the Front Bench, and if the House will give consent, I should like to withdraw the Motion so that we may proceed to the next Motion on the Order Paper. I, therefore, beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Public Expenditure
I beg to move,
I know that this is a highly controversial subject, and the remarks I shall have to make this evening will be con- troversial. It is perfectly useless to think one thing and say another; we have to be straightforward about it. But I shall be as little provocative as possible. Hon. Members on this side of the House realise the immense importance and the great difficulties which are involved in the subject of this Motion, and in that remark I include hon. Members of the Liberal party, because I am asking them this evening to depart from their recent practice of supporting their political opponents in every sort of mischievous expenditure and to revert once more to one principle of that great trinity which was the standard of their party during the days of their great political prosperity and influence—I refer, of course, to economy. As far as hon. Members on the other side of the House are concerned, there are a few who honour economy with their lips, and in that number I include the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Anyone who reads again his speech in introducing the Budget as I did last night—I should like to read it to the House now but it would take up too much time—will find that he laid enormous stress on economy during the coming year. But the vast majority of hon. Members opposite dishonour economy in their hearts, whatever they may say. And the reason is not far to seek. They do honestly think that their is an inexhaustible supply of cash and credit in this country upon which they can draw, and, indeed, they think that the more they draw upon that supply the larger the supply gets—it is a veritable widow's cruse.
In making their attacks they want, and I think honestly, to concentrate upon what they call the bloated millionaire. I would like them to remember what probably they do not know, but they can at least remember it in the future, that if you set a leech on one limb you apply it to the whole body of those people who have, with endless self-sacrifice and self-denial and the exercise of thrift, amassed certain capital which is really the capital resources of the country. It is a complete fallacy to imagine that if you make the rich poor you can thereby make the poor rich, and it is an absolutely certainty in any community in this or any other country that if you make the rich poor you are going to make the poor still poorer. The sooner that lesson is learnt the better.
Hitherto nothing has been done since the War in matters of economy. We have heard a great deal about it, but nothing has been done, and the reason is quite apparent. An hon. Member earlier this afternoon during the debate on the previous Motion, in a maiden speech which I did not interrupt on that account, although I should like to have done so, said that a large number of people in his constituency did not know the principles upon which any of the parties were fighting, they did not even know the candidates' names and that when they were taken to the polling stations they voted for the man who took them there. With the enormous electorate we have to-day and with the pressure of what I deliberately call to a considerable extent an uninformed electorate—or shall I say a misinformed electorate—hon. Members find themselves coerced by the pressure of this uninformed electorate, and it results in candidates giving pledges on every conceivable form of expenditure and come to this House tied hand and foot. There is no chance under conditions such as those for effecting any measure of economy or retrenchment. And what is worse, hon. Members are so tied by these pledges of increased expenditure that in this House they cannot take part in any debate on uneconomic legislation. The House is deprived of their services, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer loses some very useful criticism.
It is very distressing, but it is quite intelligent in such circumstances, that with all our experience of unemployment and distressed industries, with a declining revenue and a deficit facing us today, the Government in spite of placing an additional £46,000,000 of direct taxation on the country by the last Budget, are now engaged in putting a further expenditure on the country of £20,000,000 for drainage, £8,000,000 for education, £6,000,000 for agriculture and £10,500,000 for transitional benefit. I am constantly asked in my constituency and elsewhere, why expenditure is not reduced, and I always say that what surprises me is not that it is not reduced but that it is not increased more than it is owing to the circumstances to which I have just referred. They are bad enough, but when you implant into this vast electorate, which comprises practically every adult person except the criminal, an evil germ, which they like and which spreads, you are going to get a disastrous situation.
I am referring in this case to the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), whom I regard as the most astute politician I have known, one who regards political tactics rather than political principles. He was the man who started the cry of nine-pence for fourpence. It is an easy cry from nine-pence to fourpence to something for nothing, and when you get a largely uninformed electorate they are very like Oliver Twist, they ask for more, and the cry comes down to everything for nothing. There is no end to it; hence the demand for fresh public expenditure every day. Now these vicarious givers on the other side of the House, these large-hearted gentlemen with other people's money, are foisting on unwilling parents an extra year's education, which is going to cost this country immense sums of money which it cannot afford. There is no country in the world with such overwhelming taxation, direct taxation, as this country of ours. It is almost intolerable to think that nearly half the revenue of this country is derived from 2 per cent, of the population, and when you consider that 2 per cent, in relation to our vast electorate one realises what little influence they can have.
They have all the money.
I am coming to that.
Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being present —
Before I proceed further, I should like to draw the attention of the House and the country to the fact that when a Count was being taken on a Motion of this sort, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stood at the doorway and did not come in to make one of the number, showing quite clearly that neither he, nor the Labour party generally, take the least interest in this subject. There is no doubt whatever that their desire in having this Count, and in the action which the Chancellor of the Exchequer took, was to stop discussion on this vital question. When interrupted, I was saying that it was almost incredible that nearly half the revenue of this country was taken from 2 per cent, of the population and that the 2 per cent, were virtually disfranchised and almost treated as criminals. The Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other day that £250,000,000 sterling was derived by taxation from 96,000 people and he mentioned, as a wonderful achievement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the £250,000,000 derived from that number of people had been raised to a figure of £286,000,000. He prided himself on that achievement. How can any country provide sound finance with views of that sort? But it is the policy of the Socialists to do all in their power to destroy initiative, to discourage thrift, to encourage inefficiency, to dissipate the resources of the country and to drive capital to seek other spheres where it is going to receive reasonable treatment and is not going to be penalised.
Shocking! That is not patriotic.
Our democratic system of Government, while it permits or encourages extravagances, does not permit of any drastic measure with the object of reducing public expenditure and lifting the weight of taxation which is so heavy on the shoulders of industry. We can, however, do something in this House to prevent further expenditure and to cut down such amount of the expenditure passed during the current year as is possible. But before I tackle that question, I wish to analyse our public expenditure as it was on the last Budget day. I propose to take round figures; I wish to be brief and I am only going to be accurate within those round figures. I also propose to divide our public expenditure into three categories, and I shall first deal with the £480,000,000 of public expenditure represented by the service of the Debt, Sinking Fund and defence and, then, I shall deal with the £300,000,000 for social services. These two sums together make a total of some £780,000,000, including the service of the Sinking Fund and excluding the self-supporting services of the Post Office and the Road Fund.
The Debt service costs something like £300,000,000 per annum and it is often pointed out to us that if that were removed more than one-third of our expenditure would be removed, and we could make far greater progress with social schemes than we are making at present. I am not going to speak of repudiation or demonetisation, or forced loans, or premium bonds, or anything of that sort which I regard as impracticable, at the moment, or at any time. I am going to devote myself to the consideration of such savings as may be made on this £300,000,000 which we spend annually on the service of the Debt. I feel that we are going to have an opportunity of economising here. Owing to the cheaper money which is ruling to-day, I believe we shall be able to convert our Debt and save, probably, some tens of millions upon it—which saving, I trust, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will devote to the reduction of direct taxation.
I shall give my reasons for thinking that this saving is probable and possible. Money has been becoming progressively cheaper during the last 18 months, and that movement has synchronised with a very steep fall in the price level of commodities. I think that, in very large degree, that cheaper money is due to the fall in the price level of commodities That fall, again, has been due to the relatively short supply of gold which, naturally, forces down prices, and it has also been due, in some measure, to the perfection and increase of industrial machinery, tending towards greater production. Greater production has also the effect of forcing down prices. These two causes are largely responsible, according to my way of thinking, for the cheaper money which is in existence to-day, and I see no reason to suppose that those price levels are going back to the average height at which they have been during the last 10 years. Prices will remain on a lower level altogether for a very long time to come. Therefore, we are in for a period of cheaper money, certainly for some years, and it is more than likely, as I say, that we shall be able to convert a portion of our debt and effect a saving in consequence.
I have referred generally to deflation. By that I do not mean deflation in currency, but deflation in prices, and that deflation ought, equally, to be accompanied by an all-round reduction in income and salaries and to some extent, but not wholly, as I shall explain, in wages too. To-day incomes are coming down. One has only to open the newspapers any day to see that such and such, a company has passed its dividend or is reducing its dividend. It is from those dividends that the revenue is obtained. It is from those dividends that the supply from which the Labour party want to draw is obtained. To-day I open the paper and I see that three companies have passed or reduced their dividends. One very large concern has made practically no profit and has been unable to pay anything. We are not feeling the effect of this to-day. Our revenue, as far as Income Tax is concerned, is based on last year, and Super-tax is based on the year before. But these are facts from which we cannot get away and they indicate that our revenue is declining, and I am justified therefore in stating to the House that incomes are materially coming down. If, as I foreshadow, a conversion scheme can be put into operation reducing the interest rate, it means lower incomes for all those people who derive their incomes from holdings in War Loan and so on.
I have referred to salaries. I think that in many of those concerns which are feeling the strain, the salaries of highly-paid officials in managerial and directorial control will have to come down and I think it is better that those salaries should come down before they touch wages, rather than after they attempt to touch wages. I further think that wages in certain cases have to come down. I shall explain what I mean. Part of the community is living on a standard of life above that of another part of the community. I refer to considerable sections of the community in each case. There is no doubt that the sheltered trades and the municipal employés and the Government officials are on a standard of life above that of the competitive trades and the burden of the one is thrown on to the other. The burden of this higher standard of life in the sheltered industries is thrown on the competitive industries. What is the result? The competitive industries are suffering from unemployment which has to be paid for in transitional benefit. That benefit comes out of taxation and taxation falls heavily on industry—again on the competitive industries—and it is all in a vicious circle.
To my mind, the only way of breaking that vicious circle is the way I have described, by bringing the standard of living in the sheltered industries down somewhat, by reducing salaries, by the reduction of incomes, which, as I say, is going on, and by the avoidance of the extravagances which we see all round today. We heard yesterday from the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) a most eloquent speech about the riches of this country. I have indicated to-day, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. O. Stanley) did yesterday, that incomes are falling and that the supply on which the hon. Member is relying, will not be forthcoming in a very short space of time. I would like to warn him here and now of that fact.
It is an extraordinary thing that we should put up some £50,000,000 into the Sinking Fund each year, and on almost every occasion raid that fund. I do not obviously agree with the hon. Baronet the Member, for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley), who as I understand him, wants to abolish the Sinking Fund altogether. I want to go the opposite way, and establish an adequate Sinking Fund. I believe, after having read the Colwyn Committee's report, which produced a great deal of evidence in one direction and decisions in another, that it will be a tremendous advantage to this country if both the Death Duties and the Sinking Fund were removed from the Budget altogether, and the one set off against the other. Death Duties are capital payments, and the proceeds should be used for the reduction of Debt, for that is the only logical use to which they should be put. I strongly recommend to the attention of the House that the Sinking Fund and Death Duties should be removed from the Budget altogether in future. I look upon the Sinking Fund as of vast importance, if for no other reason than that it maintains our credit throughout the world, and if we were to abolish it, or make it a farce, our credit would suffer accordingly.
With regard to the Defence Services, on which we are spending something over £100,000,000 a year, I notice on the Order Paper an Amendment in the names of several hon. Members of the party oppo- site. I should like to save them a certain amount of trouble by telling them that if it be a question of peace or war, I am in favour of peace all the time. Ten years ago I got up in this House, and was hauled over the coals for saying that I looked upon a reversion to a state of war as a reversion to a state of barbarity, but every reasonable and sane person must think so. I would like to see armaments come down, but I disagree with those on the other side of the House who wish to see our defence armaments abolished while other countries are arming to the teeth. Who showed the way in disarmament? We did. We were the first to demobilise, and we have been constantly reducing expenditure on armaments. I am not in favour of reducing our margin of safety any further, because I believe that that margin has already run out. It is absurd to think that we are going to get to the Utopia which is suggested in the Amendment. As long as there are quarrels between nations, or between bodies of people, or between individuals, there will be war. As long as hon. Members on the other side of the House come down in a fit of temper, and cross the House, as I have seen on two occasions, and hit somebody on this side with a rolled up Order Paper—
Have you ever seen your sort throw a book?
You have never seen it.
I remember it.
If the hon. Gentleman is replying for the Government, he will have plenty of opportunity of telling us about it. I see some prospect of making a slight reduction in our defence expenditure. I have always advocated co-ordination—a word I very much dislike—between the three Services, and I have always had at the back of my mind that the sane and logical thing is to have a ministry of defence. I go further than that. One of the most able politicians who has sat in this House during my lifetime, the late Lord Haldane, was Chairman of a machinery of Government committee, and he advocated a reduction of the number of departments and of Cabinet ministers. I quite agree with somebody who said to me the other day: "I should be very sorry to try and run a village club with 23 members of a committee." We could do a great deal by cutting down the numbers of departments and of Cabinet ministers.
I have dealt with £480,000,000, and I am afraid that I have not been able to show very much reduction, except from the conversion of the Debt, and a little perhaps in the Defence Services. There is a balance of £300,000,000, which is primarily for social service, insurance and pensions. Of that sum, £120,000,000 should not be touched, for it is spent on pensions for old people, the sick and men disabled in the War, and it is the business of the State to touch them last of all. That leaves a balance of £180,000,000, which is allotted to social services. This sum gives a false idea of what is spent on the social services, for I have had it in answer to a recent question from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the expenditure of local authorities makes the total a sum of £376,000,000. I am not going to touch the question of unemployment—
Do I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that this £376,000,000 includes the £180,000,000?
Yes, the £376,000,000 is the amount spent altogether on social services, both grants from this House and outside. With regard to unemployment, the House has heard so much about it lately, that I am not going to deal with it except to say that there has been an excessive expenditure on transitional benefit and in irregularities which we propose should be cut out. The transitional benefit requires tightening up. So far as roads are concerned, it has always amazed me that we have gone on building this immense number of magnificent roads all over the country when the country really does not want them. It seems to me rather that we are building a great road to ruin, and it is time that some of this vast road expenditure were stopped. I should like to see a considerable saving in that way. With regard to education, we are not entitled to spend a penny on the new Education Bill. It is sheer folly to spend further money in this direction when the country is in its present financial position. I would go further and say that the money which it is proposed to spend under previous education legislation should be cut out, and that there should be no further expenditure on extensions to school-buildings and the employment of teachers. I am opposed to the Agricultural Bill, because I feel that the only way to help agriculture is by some system of tariffs.
There is not much in any of the subjects with which I have dealt which enables very much reduction to take place, but there is some economy to be effected, and all fresh expenditure should be avoided. We have an excellent example in Salford, where the corporation has decided that they will have no fresh capital expenditure in the current year. They have shown the way which this House ought to show. We must have all-round economy, not only in public expenditure, but in private life, if we are going to help the foreign market. We must cut expenditure down. The best way of improving our export market is to have all-round economy, and we should do all we can to secure our home markets by means of tariffs. I have been more than 12½ years in this House, and I have had the honour of listening to many debates on various subjects, but I have seldom desired to intervene. The Motion which I am moving this evening is my honest judgment of a situation which I believe is almost unparalleled in the history of this nation. Probably, this is the last occasion on which I shall address the House at any length, but I trust that the House will recognise that it is only the painful effort of public and private economy which can lead us, if not to prosperity, at any rate, away from the abyss to which we are at present fast heading.
I beg to second the Motion.
7.0 p.m.
I support my hon. and gallant Friend in his censure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in trying to compass a Count in order to prevent a debate on economy. It is typical of the right hon. Gentleman, who poses as a Glad-stonian financier and who has shown himself to be one of the most profligate Chancellors in the history of England. And it is a striking fact, too, that the Liberal party, the party of peace, retrenchment and reform, should be represented by a handful of Members— intermittent Members who look in on the course of the debate to see if there is a possibility of a Division, and, being in doubt, disappear. My hon. and gallant Friend dealt with this Motion in a broad and courageous spirit and censured quite impartially the records of all parties in their attitude to the austere virtue of economy. It is neither easy nor popular to talk about economy, and it it even more difficult to practice it. Many will remember the fate of the Economy Bill of 1926. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the author of that Bill, compiled a statistical record of the epithets used against him by many hon. Members and some right hon. Members who now sit on the Front Bench opposite. That statistical calculation is extremely interesting. The word "robbery" was used 67 times; "confiscation" 10 times; "plunder" 10 times; "steal" four times; "raid" 11 times; "filch" once—that came from the Liberal benches; "grab" once; "theft" twice; "breach of faith" 19 times; "betrayal" five times; "rascality" once; "perfidy" once—I think that came from the present Chancellor of the Exchequer; "despicable" once; "mean" 15 times; "shabby" once; and "dastardly" three times. He also received the following compliments: "cat burglar," "artful dodger" and "mean robber" It was with infinite difficulty that the Bill was piloted through the House and many of its provisions were abandoned at the behest of Members of all parties.
The few observations which I have to make will be almost entirely confined to dealing with the effect of taxation upon industry. For the purpose of this argument, let us contrast the position of an American and an Englishman who buy the rights of come invention or some new process which might form the basis of an important new industry.
Let us suppose that both secure a capital of £500,000. The English enterpriser will probably form a limited company, which is the most convenient form of industrial organisation, and the American will incorporate a company under the law of a State such as Dela- ware. No sooner has the Englishman attempted to form his company than the tax gatherer arrives and demands £5,000 in exchange for an indifferently printed stamp which probably cost a few pence to produce. After this cheerless start, the enterpriser sets out on the long and difficult task of building up a new industry. In the years of development he will not only have to give up a great deal of his time to creating an effective organisation, but will probably sustain heavy trading losses and his difficulties will be increased by the arrival of another type of tax collector—the local authority's official. Although relief has been granted to the industrialist under the late Government's De-rating Act, rates still form a very heavy charge on industry and they tend to increase year by year as Parliament forces new functions upon the local authorities.
When the enterpriser at last reaches his objective and is able to pay a dividend, the tax gatherer re-appears and demands 4s. 6d. from every pound paid by way of dividend. That is not all or nearly all of the tax gatherer's exactions. From every pound put to reserve in order to provide against bad times or in order to provide new plant and equipment the State demands 22½ per cent. And if the poor enterpriser dies—as well he might under the burdens imposed upon him by the State—the tax gatherer again rushes in to exact Death Duties, which often lead to the removal of every penny of cash out of a concern and the mortgaging of most of its resources. And what is infinitely more serious, the company is left with nothing but a lot of rapidly depreciating machinery and no money to provide for new inventions or for the new plant and equipment necessary to compete effectively with foreign rivals. The result is that a hopeful industry is smothered, good prospects of employment are terminated and capitalists are deterred from investing their money in new industries.
Let us consider the case of the American. He has to pay about a hundred dollars for incorporating his company against the £5,000 demanded by the British Government before his English rivals joint-stock company can be registered. His local rates are, on the average, a sixth of our rates and the Income Tax he has to pay on his company's profits is about half our rate. His reserves after a generous allowance for obsolescence—which is between twice and thrice the allowance granted by Somerset Houses—are only taxed at the rate of 11½ per cent., while his death duties are minute in comparison with ours. Can anyone wonder why America has been so successful in developing new industries? Why need we be surprised that England is so backward in developing them? The dead hand of taxation has almost stifled them, and this is indeed one of the principal causes of our present unemployment. Let those who talk of the State organising or reorganising industry ponder these facts. The politicians have —to use a fashionable word—insulated England from prosperity. Having debilitated industry and turned the House of Commons into an almshouse and made statecraft a term of contempt, they now bustle about with schemes for organising or reorganising our home and foreign trade.
What of our older industries? Many of them are suffering from pernicious anaemia due to the depressions caused by War and post-War difficulties and to the rigidity of our present system of unemployment insurance. They are now in a vicious circle. Taxation has increased in order to cope with these depressions and recovery is indefinitely retarded by reason of the weight of taxation. Employment is taxed to finance unemployment, and the unhappy industrialist, staggering under his burden, is further exasperated by criticisms and patronising advice thrust upon him by politicians. For instance, the Prime Minister recently thought fit to criticise the obsolescent condition of some of our industries. Many of them are obsolescent, but how could they be otherwise when, apart from the ludicrous obsolescence allowance granted by Somerset House, taxation and death duties have crushed all initiative in their proprietors? Since 1918 British industries have paid in taxation from their reserves—the main sources from which they can provide new plant and equipment—no less than £600,000,000. If our heavy industries could devote £600,000,000 to re-equipping themselves, they would not be in their present decayed condition. Industrialists are entitled to say to the Prime Minister and to all politicians, "Your clutching hand is mainly responsible for our failure to maintain our place in the world."
No impartial observer can deny—I believe the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is an impartial observer, and I want him to direct his attention to the instance I have given of the difficulty of an English business competing with an American business in a new industry since the War—the harmful folly of our present system of taxation. It is important to remember that the life of industrial capital to-day is about two-thirds shorter than before the War. It depends on new demands and new inventions. Hence the importance of adapting our antiquated system of taxation to this remarkable change. Taxation is not a static problem, it is not merely a division of wealth. If it puts a brake on production and discourages enterprise there can be no health in English industry.
The evil of mixing up taxation policy with party politics is almost incalculable. The fiscal problem which is causing so much doubt and distress to this generation arises directly from the actions of politicians who took sides between the landlords and manufacturers who strove to put the main burden of taxation on each other's shoulders in the early part of the nineteenth century. As a result, the balance between town and country was broken to the great detriment of England and the fiscal problem then created has been the curse of every Successive generation. But the sins of the nineteenth century politician are white in comparison with ours. Consider the record of the present Parliament. We have sanctioned fresh expenditure amounting to hundreds of millions of pounds and we have done this during one of the worst economic tempests in our history, and our justification is that we are bettering the condition of the people. What a justification!
The last Budget probably threw tens of thousands of people out of work. Did that better their condition? It is an odd fact that an eminent Liberal politician who was in this House this evening but who has disappeared when the word "economy" was mentioned and a Division seemed probable, described the last Budget as "honest and courageous and in the Gladstonian tradition." Courageous—that was the sort of courage described by Swift when he said, "Ten armed Hussars can subdue one man in his shirt." Gladstonian! Was ever a great name more used in vain? In Lord Morley's "Life of Gladstone" we read:
Why should the maintenance of these social services at their present level be regarded as sacred during a time of falling prices and financial crisis? Why should we in this House be stultified by the cry that the public will not have economy in the social services? I do not believe that the public are so feckless as not to see the need for economy, when the nation is on the brink of catastrophe. But even if the whole nation is so deluded, it is our imperative duty to act as we think best in the public interest, and not to be deflected from our course by maudlin sentiment or ignorant agitation. If the public do not like our actions, they can turn us out and instal a race of marionette politicians; but so long as we are here, let us face up to the problems created by the social services and let us deal with them as members of a great legislative assembly, and not as mere listeners in to the discordant jazz, called public opinion. Upon this point sufficient attention has not been given to the recent highly important report of the National Health Commission, from which the following observation is taken:
Would you like to go back to the old system?
Yes. It would be much more economical for the nation, and it would mean the disappearance of the hon. Member who has interrupted me.
When the day comes, as come it must, when the public realise that we have consumed the savings of the past and mortgaged the resources of the future in order to increase our already swollen social services, they will not clamour for a new Reform Bill. They will realise that prosperity by Act of Parliament is delusive and corrupt, and they will not attempt to mend the system of parliamentary Government. They will end it. It is for these reasons that I feel it a privilege to second the Motion, and I hope that it will be brought to a Division and that the House will make one effective protest against the appalling system which has turned England into a universal pocket borough.
I lay no claim whatever to expert knowledge of high finance, and I have not been able to follow very closely the national or municipal expenditure of this country, but I have listened with great interest to the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Motion. Although my knowledge of public expenditure may not be very great I gained the impression from some of the remarks made by the two hon. Members that I may know as much about the subject as they do. The most pertinent remarks of the two hon. Members fall into two categories. In the first place, they complain very bitterly about the heavy burdens of taxation. In the second category they have not suggested, so far as I could understand them, any means whereby that burden could be reduced by lessening national expenditure. The hon. and gallant Member suggested that there might be an advantage in conversion loans, but I do not want to pursue that point. I gathered from their remarks that they represent a point of view which is gradually emerging from the Conservative party, and which is apparent at present in the reactionary parties of the whole of Europe. There is emerging all over Europe a change in the social policy of employers and capitalists.
I have studied the last Estimates put before this House, and I would ask the two hon. Members which items of expenditure in those Estimates they would like to curtail. Let me give the increases in national expenditure in 1930 compared with that of 1929. There is an increase of £750,000 in the expenditure upon colonial development. I should have thought that colonial development would be in accordance with the desires of the Conservative party. There is an increase too, of £285,000 in the expenditure on the police services. Would the two hon. Members curtail that expenditure? Are we spending too much on the police in this country? They were a little critical of the increased expenditure upon education. But would they be willing to do anything to reduce the increased expenditure of £5,000,000 upon old age pensions? The hon. and gallant Member who moved the Motion said the State had gained very largely from the action of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and the hon. Member who seconded the Motion quoted certain epithets. I might later add a few other adjectives in regard to the Economy Act of the right hon. Member for Epping. It is not generally known that the State has gained millions of pounds by the reduction in the amount due under the original Old Age Pension scheme by putting a large part of the burden upon the employers and the employed in respect of Contributory Old Age Pensions. The cost to the State in years to come of non-contributory old age pensions will be very limited, because as the insured population reaches the age of 65 they will receive contributory pensions and not old age pensions under the original Old Age Pensions Act. There is an increase of £1,150,000 in the Estimate this year for the subsidy on beet sugar. Will the two hon. Members ask for a reduction in that respect? I thought it was part of Tory policy to contribute to these subsidies.
We have been told this evening that our own manufacturers cannot possibly compete with foreign manufacturers because of heavy burdens upon industry. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion compared in this connection the American manufacturers with our own. Strangely enough, when the Tariffist and the Protectionist wants an argument he goes to Germany for it, if it suits his purpose. If he would compare the manufacturers of this country with those in another country it would be very much better to make the contrast between Britain and another European country rather than go to the United States of America for comparisons.
I was not talking about tariffs. I was talking about the difficulties of an English enterpriser who started a new business, as compared with an American enterpriser. If I had drawn the contrast between an English enterpriser and a Dutch enterpriser it would have been even more unfavourable to the manufacturer of this country.
I have always understood the arguments from the Conservative benches to be, and I gathered the same impression from the speeches we have heard to-night, that we are suffering because our industries cannot compete with those of foreign countries. I think the hon. Member who moved the Motion mentioned tariffs in his speech.
No.
The remedy for all these things in the opinion of hon. Members opposite is to reduce taxation and other charges upon industry, in order that we may capture the trade of foreign countries. That was the burden of the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member at the end of his speech. Hon. Members who talk about public expenditure forget one or two things. The population of this country has increased enormously and the national services have naturally increased in consequence. Hon. Members opposite complain of the present Government spending money on social services. If that be the test, I will endeavour to show which Governments have spent most of the nation's money upon social services. One of the first Bills that was ever introduced to provide money payments from State funds was the national health insurance scheme of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George).
There was the old age pension scheme.
Yes, old age pensions. I am glad of the correction. It was a Liberal Government that established the old age pension scheme. A Liberal Government established also the national health insurance and the unemployment insurance schemes. They were constituted in the same Act of Parliament. It was, in fact, a Conservative Government that established the first widows' pension scheme too. If hon. Members will go through the whole list of such Acts of Parliament, they will find that other parties have been responsible for more Measures providing public expenditure than has the Labour Government. Consequently, they cannot blame Labour Governments for the expenditure about which they are now complaining. As stated, our population has grown. If hon. Members care to look at the figures they will find that in 1851 our National Debt was only £816,000,000; in 1928 it stood at £7,000,000,000. When hon. Members speak about our terrible poverty, depression and the lack of money and enterprise I say to myself, "How unpatriotic they are." When the capitalists of this country read the speech of the hon. Member who seconded the Motion they will begin to wonder whether any British business is safe, and whether they can afford to trust any money at all in capitalist concerns in this country.
In 1921 there were 14,804 persons in this country in receipt of incomes between £2,000 and £2,500. In 1928, the figure had increased to 23,120—almost double. I get my figures from that wonderful Blue Book called the Abstract of Statistics—a very interesting document indeed for us on this side of the House. The interest on the National Debt in 1882 was only £23,000,000. It had risen by 1930 to £307,000,000. When the hon. and gallant Member who moved this Motion speaks of expenditure from public funds, he ought to remember these facts. He rather blamed the Labour party for its advocacy of public expenditure. But the biggest item of public expenditure in this country is the interest on the War Debt. That is admitted. But who caused the War? Not the Labour party, surely.
Who caused the War?
I will answer that question in my own way. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has suggested in his speech that were it not for the Socialist party, the State would not be burdened with even that expenditure. That seemed to be his main contention. I repeat that the biggest item of national expenditure is interest upon our War Debt. The British Labour party has stood against war, and argued in favour of disarmament more than any political party in the State. Consequently that expenditure cannot be put to our account.
You made something during the War.
I did not.
Your party or your class did.
Our internal debt in 1881 stood at £769,000,000. In 1930 it was £6,490,000,000. The Labour party cannot be blamed for that. There was no external debt in 1916. In 1930 it was £1,074,000,000. Hon. Gentlemen always complain that the nation is going down, that we are depressed and all the rest of it. Really, it seems to me that we are to-night the only patriotic party in the House of Commons. If the capitalist class of the world took the picture of Great Britain indicated by the two hon. Gentlemen this evening, they would not invest a single penny in any company in this country any more. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion has apparently no room to complain of any depression.
Would the hon. Gentleman explain what he meant by that statement?
I am not called upon to explain anything to the hon. Member.
Here is a personal reference which I do not understand, and which seems to be highly improper. I think, as the hon. Gentleman has made it, he might explain it. He has apparently referred to me as a sort of profiteer, and I should be grateful for an explanation.
I think the hon. Member should give an explanation, now that it has been asked for. That is the usual practice.
I meant that so far as I understood the hon. Gentleman's posi- tion in life, he has no room to complain of depression. I think that can be substantiated by what I have read in the Press.
I am busily complaining all day long.
The hon. Gentlemen complain that the wealth of this country is declining. I am quite ready to admit at once that there are changes in value; but in spite of those changes, these figures are very interesting, too. The net capital value of property on which Estate Duty was paid in 1914 was £250,000,000. In 1928, it had grown to £454,000,000. Britain is not doomed, according to those figures. Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like the State contributing to what is called social insurance services, but they are afraid to say so. The attack made by the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Economy Act, 1926, which was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, was an instance of the attitude of the Conservative party towards these social services. The action of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Churchill) on that occasion will be found to have destroyed the financial basis of some of our healthest institutions.
The employers of this country are complaining, too, that they are called upon to pay 3 per cent. on the wages of their workpeople towards the two national insurance schemes, unemployment and health insurance. They say that this big percentage makes all the difference between profit and lose in their business. It would interest them to know, and to hon. Gentlemen opposite to learn, that in France, payment by the employers for these purposes is riot 3 per cent., but 4 per cent. In Germany the cost of social insurance scheme to the employers is 7 per cent, on wages. I saw a memorandum issued the other day by East Lancashire mayors on behalf of cotton employers on this very important subject. Those who complain of being unable to compete in the markets of Europe should remember that the cost of the social services to the employers with whom they wish, to compete is at least twice as great.
This is a debate on taxation, not on insurance.
But taxation in part is for the purpose of spending money on these social services. The Economy Act, 1926, was the only courageous thing done in this House in connection with expenditure, so I understood the hon. Member to say. Let us see what was the result. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer reduced the State grant towards the health insurance scheme to such an extent that a total sum of £11,000,000 has been lost up to date to the approved societies. The valuations of some of these approved societies have just been received by them, with this result, that the financial foundations of some of them are shaken almost beyond repair. The House of Commons ought to be very careful, indeed, in dealing with a problem of this kind, not to destroy these great schemes of social insurance. The hon. Member complained, too, about the burden of rates. He forgets one important factor in this connection. When I went to school I carried my twopence to pay for my schooling every Monday morning. That came out of my father's wages. Instead of that, the rate collector comes round to-day and collects the twopence. That is the way education is paid for now. I prefer that it should be paid for out of the rates than that children should carry pennies to school. It is a more economic and efficient way.
I was interested in the point that the hon. Member made with regard to the growth of expenditure in connection with local government. If there is any complaint whatever on that score, it ought to lie with the ex-Minister of Health. These figures are to be found in the official documents. The Local Government Act, 1929, is responsible for an increase in Exchequer grant of £28,847,029, in 1930 over 1929. The hon. and gallant Gentleman never said a word about that. Something really ought to be said about that De-rating Act which provides one of the biggest items in the increase of our national expenditure. I agree with one point made by the hon. Member, and that was the immense increase in salaries as compared with wages. He said that in a general reduction of incomes, wages ought to come last. If I did not mistake him, he said almost the same thing in regard to old age pensions, meaning of course that there might be a reduction even in those two items at some period. The increase in salaries as against wages undoubtedly is enormous. In the book to which I have referred, the figures given are very illuminating indeed. Hon. Members will find that the total amount of salaries of corporation officials and civil servants have increased four times. The wages of the workers however have declined almost in proportion to the increase of those salaries. If there is going to be an adjustment in this connection it ought, therefore, not to be on wages. There is one source that I am always suggesting ought to be taxed.
When hon. Gentlemen are talking about the lack of profits from industry, I wish they would turn to distribution and see what is happening there. There are large stores in this country, some of whom still make profits of from 20 per cent. to 25 per cent, by distribution. If there is any adjustment I would like to see, it would be in relation to these profits of distribution. The people who produce commodities are totally unable somehow to retain the amount required to carry on the industry properly, because too big a proportion passes to distribution and retained there. That is to say that distribution gets more than its share of the national pool of wealth and production too little by far. Show me the man who does the most necessary work of the world, the man who gets nearest to the soil, to the production of coal, to engineering, to textiles, and I will show you the man who gets the least for what he does. On the other hand, when a man is removed to distribution, banking and insurance, to the things that are least essential to the life of the community, he is the person who is well paid. I should like to adjust things in such a way that those who do the necessary work of the world in producing, either as employers or employed, should have a greater share of the national pool than at present prevails.
The Mover of Motion has to be congratulated for his courage and wisdom in bringing it forward, for his courage in the first place because it is never a popular subject to bring forward at any time or anywhere, and for his wisdom in that, if we could, and when we could, bring about some substantial reduction in taxation, we should by that means enable industry to recover quicker than by any other means. But there are two tendencies which always come in our way when we begin to talk on this subject. The first is the prejudices which seem to possess us in this House and elsewhere. We have had an exhibiton of them here to-night. The Mover had not been speaking long before he tripped upon the question of tariffs, and his Seconder went on at considerable length pointing out many things which were not helpful to the debate but which were very prejudicial to the quiet and calm consideration of the whole question. On the other side of the House, as soon as the Motion appeared upon the Order Paper, an Amendment was put down to cut out from it certain social services, because along those lines their prejudices seem to run. I do not think there is any party in the House that can claim immunity from the amount of spending that has led us to the position in which we are to-day. The Minister of Labour last week said that in that matter we are all sinners, and I think I could say to-night that, so far as the parties, and the expenditure that we have at present are concerned, "all we like sheep have gone astray, we have wandered each his own way, and the Lord hath laid on the taxpayer the iniquity of us all." Our prejudices trip us at every point.
Not only that, but we get confused by the masses of detail and by our efforts after exhaustive search and scientific inquiry. In seeking causes for our present discontent, we have distributed those causes from gold to the Government, and we seem to wander around in every direction instead of trying t oget down to some simple facts. We shuffle the figures and try by rearrangement to make improvements, only to find in the end that you cannot create wealth by book-keeping and that the shortest way to to save money is still not to spend it. Of books on this subject there are no end. Every time you buy a paper or turn up a magazine you find some fresh article as to the reason why our trade does not revive, until a large number get lost on the way, and you get different counsels proposed and all sorts of opinions as to the way in which we are going to do things. We try from time to time to be profound. It seems to me we had better try to be simple. We tread the mazes and get confused, and it would be very much better if we could cut a direct way to the heart of it as quickly as we can.
I have asked myself, in facing our national difficulties, what would an honest man do in his own affairs if he were faced with the conditions that we are faced with in our national life. If he were faced with loss of capital and debt, if his efficiency had been diminished, and his output reduced by conditions over which he had no control, what would he do? The answer is plain. Any honest man would reduce his expenditure, and as quickly as possible increase his output. I want to examine the situation from this standpoint. There is no doubt that we have lost wealth and have created immense debt. We have destroyed millions of wealth producers. One of the things we do not give enough emphasis to in our discussion of world conditions is the loss to the world of the enormous amount of personal ability in the War. We are poorer by the millions who have gone, and we have to face that and to remember the position. Our national efficiency has been incalculably reduced by sacrifice. We have to consider whether our expenditure has responded to our conditions. Those who have preceded me have been dealing with a question of national expenditure.
Taking the parallel that I have been using of the individual as compared with the nation, that expenditure runs along three lines. First of all, there is domestic expenditure, the expenditure that might be considered as establishment expenditure and that extra establishment expenditure which comes in other ways. The first of these in the nation stands for our expenditure on local administration. That is where our housekeeping is done in our national life. The local authorities look after the administration of the country. How has this responded to the serious times through which we have passed? Taking the three decades, pre-War, the War, and post-War, I want to give some figures. In 1900 we had a population of 32,000,000, a rateable value of £175,000,000, and a rate per head of £1 5s. 6d. In 1928 our population had risen to 39,000,000, our rateable value had increased to £292,000,000, and yet the rate per head of the population has increased to £4 4s. 10d. With a larger rateable value and a larger population, we had still almost four times the rates per head collected. Take it another way. If you go back to those happy times round about 1900, we had a total expenditure by local authorities of £76,000,000. By 1928 that had risen to £403,000,000, an increase of 430 per cent. Government grants in 1900 were £12,000,000 and in 1928 £90,000,000, an increase of 635 per cent.
There is one point I should like the House to notice in these figures. A very large percentage of the expenditure of local authorities does not come from rates at all but from other sources, cutting out loans. Taking the figures for that, in 1928, while the expenditure from rates was £167,000,000, the expenditure from other sources, not being loans, was £159,000,000 or, if we had been in the happy position of having no larger expenditure in 1928 than we had in 1900, without a penny of rating all the rates would have been paid and a bonus of an equal amount would have been given to each of the people in the local authority's area. Take some of the details in these matters. In 1900 the expenses of education, other than revenue expenses, were £8,000,000, and in 1928 £72,000,000; in poor relief, £8,000,000 in 1900 and £33,000,000 in 1928; and police, £5,000,000 in 1900 and £20,000,000 in 1928. Notwithstanding the fact that between 1900 and 1928 we had brought in insurance for old age, national health insurance and all the other reliefs that come directly or in cognate ways, our expenditure on poor relief went up from £8,000,000 to £33,000,000 between those two periods.
8.0 p.m.
The same thing applies when you come to the central Government. If we turn to what happened there we find some simple examples which tell us how we have drifted in the way of expenditure. Take the Post Office. In 1914 I find there were 208,000 on the staff and the total salaries were £14,000,000. In 1930 the staff was reduced to 197,000 and the salaries had gone up to £32,000,000. The engineering establishment salaries and wages had in the same period risen from £1,500,000 to £4,500,000. Take the War Office. In 1914–15, with a staff of 2,800 and an Army personnel of 186,000, we had salaries of £419,000, but when we get to 1930, with 40,000 less of personnel, we have an extra 1,000 staff. Salaries have gone up double, while half-pay and retired-pay have gone up from £846,000 to £3,794,000. Why, with a reduced personnel, there should be an increased staff is difficult to tell. Exactly the same thing has happened in regard to the Admiralty. There, with a decreased personnel— 97,550 against 151,000—there is an increased staff of 1,500–7,437 as against 5,800. I will turn again to the question of expenditure on the relief of the poor, and take a few examples of how the increases have come about. In relief of the poor, salaries, superannuation and allowances have risen from £2,000,000 in 1900 to £8,000,000 in 1928. Those are serious figures, but I want to point out some of the effects of these things upon industry. I have asked those who know what this additional cost has meant to them in their various industries. One reply from Lancashire says that with 1,048 looms in 1913 the cost due to local expenditure was 1.971 pence per loom. By 1926 that had risen to 7.745 pence per loom. Here is another: In 1907 the cost per piece for this service was 0.43 pence. By 1926 that cost had risen to 12.4 pence per piece. Take a shipowner. In his establishment, the cost per employé in 1913 was 23s. 11d.; in 1926 it had risen to 107s. Those are serious figures, because, while it is true that the present trade conditions are due to world causes beyond our control, it is equally true that they are aggravated by over taxation, and that with a reduction, our trade could show a much greater buoyancy than it does.
There is a further point. One consequence of over-spending, whether in individual or national affairs, is the reduction of confidence and credit. There never was a time in the history of human beings where the possibilities of a great and pronounced advance in prosperity were so great as they are to-day. When we have increased scientifically our powers of production and by organisation increased them still further, if we get a move on, prosperity can become unbounded. We cannot get that move on because of the lack of confidence and want of credit throughout the world. We shall be told that we ought to save money on war, whiskey, and other things. I agree. I am not going to fall out with anybody who wishes to save every penny he can on preparations for war. I do not think anyone in this House wants us to be extravagant on war. So far as whiskey is concerned, I would clear it all out to-morrow, but I would not take part in this debate if I did not honestly believe that it is possible through all our services to bring about economies and at the same time to maintain efficiency. We need everywhere to inculcate the spirit of sacrifice and the will to serve. If hon. Members will study these returns from the standard of the cause of personal service they will find there is a strange absence of that on many occasions.
What can be done? I want to speak with a certain amount of caution, because I see the Chancellor of the Exchequer sitting there. I look at that £403,000,000 of local expenditure and, having had perhaps as long experience as any man in this House in administration of local affairs, 'and especially finance, I say without hesitation that a sympathetic inquiry could cut £50,000,000 out of that expenditure and produce greater efficiency in the muncipalities at the same time. With a sympathetic but clear and definite attempt, the same thing could be done throughout the national service. Other Members have spoken of dealing with the War Loan. I do not propose to touch on that, but one thing we have also got to do is to deal with the spirit of luxury, personal and class, rampant in this country. It is no use talking to the man who goes for a little bit of luxury at the end of the week, after a hard week's work, and telling him to cut down his bill while he sees wealth and luxury flaunting themselves at every corner. Cannot this House lead against that sort of thing? I think we might; but whatever we do, wherever we curtail expenditure, we can only start retrenchment at the top. Other hon. Members have said that, and I am glad that they have done so. It wants reiterating in this House and outside; everywhere we want to start retrenchment, and it is right that we should start at the top. If the three Leaders in this House would get together and make up their minds that they wanted, without bickering, to do something and could, with sympathy, help the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Department in going through our national expenditure; if we know that we are not going to have taunts launched from one side of the Chamber at the other, then I think we should begin to make progress. We are told, in that old Book to which we still sometimes go for its words of wisdom, that in a certain national crisis a goldsmith helped a joiner, and the joiner helped the man that struck upon the anvil, and because of that unity they carried on, and succeeded. We want to face this question of national economy in that spirit, and then we shall succeed.
I have listened to the speeches on this side of the House, and to one speech from the Government benches. All the speeches from this side have dwelt on the excessive expenditure under which this country is suffering, and have advocated the urgent necessity for a reduction in national expenditure. I do not propose to deal at any length with the actual expenditure. All the figures have been given, and I do not want to worry the House; but I want to say at the start that no party is free from blame. I do not think any political party has recognised the seriousness of the post-War position, and I propose to show some ways in which we can save money. At present we are mortgaging the future heavily; we have increased our actual indebtedness since the War by much more than the War Debt. That is a very serious thing. I have grounds for thinking that that large expenditure has been financed out of items which will become exhausted. That being so, we are running the country on what is really borrowed money, though it is not actually debt.
I am glad to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer here, for I want to say something about the burden of taxation on production. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will dispute that the producers of the world pay the taxes. I shall not overlook the doctrine sometimes enunciated from the other side of the House that taxation comes out of idle wealth, but it will not be denied that the producers pay the pensions given to the non-producers; that every non-producer in the country who might be a producer keeps down wages; and that the people we ought to encourage are those who produce. When you tax people, and when you tax the immense amount of wealth which is in industry and which is represented by limited companies, you do not, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer once said, tax profits only. He said that taxation was not a burden upon industry because taxation came out of profits. I think that the right hon. Gentleman for once overlooked the immense amount of taxation that comes out of reserve. All properly run companies have got to put to reserve the amount they want for development and expansion, and every penny they put to reserve pays the full rate of 4s. 6d. in the £ of Income Tax.
This has two results. The first is that it actually depletes the amount which they can put back into the business, and use for increasing production. Further, the heavy taxation by Income Tax and by Death Duties depletes the—
Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present ,
The House was adjourned at Sixteen Minutes after Eight of the Clock until To-morrow.