On the last day of our sitting before the Summer Recess, I should like to refer to the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops. I regard the report as one of the most human documents ever enclosed in blue covers, and I congratulate the inspectorate of factories in the Home Office on the very admirable work they are doing in administering the Factory Acts. It is typical of the people of these islands that we have the habit of leaving the most important problems affecting our people until almost the last day. When Parliament is confronted with such Measures as the Incitement to Disaffection Bill, or the Betting and Lotteries Bill, the House of Commons can be roused to fury. When a foreign politician is assassinated, the whole nation to which we belong stands aghast and questions galore are asked as to how and why it happened. But the report of the Chief Inspector of Factories is regarded as a mundane document, and that in spite of the fact that it affects the health and welfare during their working lives of from 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 of our factory operatives.

My duty this morning is to try and place this problem in its proper perspective. I should regard it as nothing short of a tragedy if an important document of this kind were allowed to remain in the pigeon holes at the Home Office without any reference being made to it on the Floor of the House of Commons. The Factory Department of the Home Office is a very important one. It has just celebrated its first century of existence, and I think those who study the history of industrial progress in this country will congratulate the Home Office on the very excellent work which has already been done by the inspectorate. No matter what may be the colour of the Government in power the Department administers the Factory Acts irrespective of the political opinions of Ministers. I sincerely hope that at the beginning of the second century of the history of the Department its activities will grow, its vigour will be unabated and that it will pay as much attention to the negligent and delinquent employer and bring him to book under the law with as much effect as has been the case in the past.

Machinery is travelling faster than ever, rationalisation in factories and workshops has nearly reduced the operative to an automaton, and the demand for increased production for private profit is proceeding apace in an almost inhuman fashion. In this process the factory inspector must be more alert and more qualified than ever to do his task. He ought, therefore, to be equipped by the State with all the weapons to which he is entitled in order to carry on his very onerous duties. The report deals in the main with legislation affecting young persons and the conditions under which hundreds of thousands of young people are employed, although, of course, there are some factory laws affecting adult workers. There is no doubt, and here I speak with a little authority, that some unscrupulous employers in this country are taking undue advantage of the poverty and lack of trade union organisation of certain factory workers and exploiting them with a severity which has been almost unknown in this country for the last 50 years, as I shall endeavour to prove from the report itself.

A few cases of harsh treatment of young factory operatives which came to light during 1933 are just an indication of the ferocity of some employers. In fact, we have reached the stage in this country where a large number of young persons are working too hard and too long whilst hundreds of thousands of their fellows are standing idly by. It is one of the anomalies of the industrial situation in this country that those who are at work, work harder and longer and work more overtime than ever, whilst the number of persons unemployed is still increasing during some periods of the year. I am going to quote from the report, and I confess that, although the report is an excellent picture of factory and workshop life, I have been amazed at some of the disclosures in the chapter under the head of "Employment." If some of the cases which I shall quote, which have happened in England, had occurred in Japan or China, there would have been a howl from the Tory benches, and the Press of the country would have created such a noise that we should have required more tariffs and quotas against Japan and China in order to prevent goods coming into this country, because it would be said they are manufactured by exploited labour.

The instances which I shall quote from the Factory Inspector's report are happening day by day within our own shores, and they alarm me beyond measure. During the 13 years I have been in Parliament the cases I am about to quote are the worst that I have ever seen in any Factory Inspector's report. These cases are indicative of the manner in which we are slipping back not only to the conditions of 10 years ago but to a period of 50 years ago, when factory operatives had little or no legal protection. The Chief Inspector states:

"One of the worst cases of inhuman treatment"—

he uses those words in an official document—

"was discovered in a dry cleaning works in the North, where a boy was employed for 156½ hours in 11 days, including spells of work of 24½ and 37½ hours."

This case brings to light an amazing state of affairs that a boy should ever be called upon to work for one spell of 37½ hours. The object of this Debate, the object of calling attention to this report, is to make it clear to this sort employer that no Government and no Parliament, whatever its political complexion, will ever allow such inhuman treatment to be meted out to our boys and girls in factories and workshops without penalty. I am pleased to know that the inspectorate of the Department is pursuing this kind of case, but this sort of thing, I am sorry to say, seems to be growing amongst us from day to day. It might be worth while to plaster the name and address of every employer who exploits labour in this fashion on the hoardings of every town and city. That is a case from the North.

Let me take a case from the Eastern counties in which little girls of 14 and 15 years of age have been illegally employed in some cases from eight o'clock in the morning until 12.30 at night, and then from 6 p.m. one evening until 3 p.m. the following afternoon. They have been employed for 14 and 15 hours at a stretch, with only brief intervals for meals. That sort of thing should not be allowed to continue. Although I am a critic of our institutions and laws, I have always been proud to think that in the main our factory laws are the best in the world, and I am unwilling that any employer should try and prevent us from administering these laws for the benefit of young employés. Take another case. It was found that over a period of several weeks boys under 18 years of age have been employed from 7 o'clock in the morning to 8 o'clock in the evening, 13 hours a day, and this at a time when practically the whole industrial world has adopted a maximum 48 hour week.

It is a terrible thought that where trade union organisation is strong the workers, the adult workers, have a maximum 48 hour week, but that these young people under 18 years of age, who are not entitled to join a trade union until they are 17, are exploited in this manner. In Birkenhead a boy of 16 years of age employed in a bakehouse worked from 6.30 p.m. on Friday until 1.15 p.m. on Saturday afternoon, a period of nearly 19 hours. Women were also employed in this bakery from 6 o'clock in the morning until 10.30 at night. The owner of another small bakehouse employed young girls under 16 for 15, 16 and 17 hours without a proper interval for meals, and on one occasion they were employed for 36 hours at one stretch. I shall be pardoned, therefore, for speaking strongly on this matter.

Let me quote two other cases. In an aerated water factory in the North it was reported that during the busy summer months boys and girls had been employed on Sundays and statutory holidays for as many as 89¼ hours per week, exclusive of meals, and that in a cheese blending works women and young persons were employed for 78 hours in the week, including Sunday employment. I object most strongly when there are 2,000,000 persons in this country seeking work that employers are so unscrupulous as to exploit the labour of these young persons. They ought to employ more workpeople to cope with the work. In another small factory the boys were employed from 6.30 in the morning until 11.30 p.m. the same day, and up to 15 hours on Sundays during the months of July and August. I think that I have now proved the necessity for not allowing this extraordinary document to be left in the pigeon-holes of the Department without being debated in this House.

There is one pleasing feature about the report. For some years I have interested myself in the two-shift system in factories employing women and young persons, and in this report, for the first time, it is shown that the workers in factories where a two-shift system is proposed are stiffening their lips against it. I am glad they are doing so. I cannot see the sense of a two-shift system when there is so much unemployment in the country. I cannot see why a factory should be continuously at work and people employed for 70 and 80 hours per week. Work should be given to those who are unemployed. I hope the Committee which has been appointed by the Home Office to inquire into the two-shift system will read the paragraph relating to this matter in the report of the chief inspector. I hope also that the Under-Secretary will tell us when this committee is likely to report. I see that in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill the Government are including a provision to carry on the two-shift system for another year. I hope we shall abolish it. It was not necessary before the War, and I am sure that the conditions under which we are living to-day make it less necessary than ever for a two-shift system to be continued.

Now I come to a point of considerable interest to hors. Members on these benches. The first complaint I have to make against the Home Office is that while these bad conditions exist, and, unfortunately, in my view are accumulating, the factory inspectorate is not up to requirements. The authorised staff of the Department is 245, but five vacancies remain to be filled, and the post of senior engineering inspector has been in abeyance for some time past. Let me put the case in other words. We have vacancies on the inspectorate staff unfilled, probably for economic reasons, although we can spend millions of pounds on aircraft, £2,000,000 for feeding cattle, £3,000,000 for producing milk, and £5,000,000 for beet sugar subsidy. We cannot find the money necessary to fill these five vacancies on the Home Office inspectorate staff at a time when these terrible conditions prevail in some of our factories. I hope the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us something about these vacancies and whether they are going to be filled. The report, nevertheless, has the excellent feature that 166,185 factories and 86,851 workshops were in existence during 1933, an increase of 2,294 factories and a decrease of 4,008 workshops.

I have raised on more than one occasion a little problem which had bothered me for some time past. The Government ever since it came into power have been rejoicing that it has attracted foreign capitalists to this country to establish factories and thereby find employment for our own people. We are troubled as to the conditions of employment within these factories. I have already given one definite case to the Minister of Labour, showing that these foreign capitalists are degrading the standard of employment to which we are accustomed in this country. I gave a case the other day from Mossley, in Lancashire, where the operatives have been accustomed to what I call a decent British standard of life. A French firm of capitalists came to that town and the wages they are paying are really scandalous. One thing they do that is new in our industrial life: they employ their adult men for eight and a-quarter hours a day without a moment of time for meals. Surely that should not be allowed to continue. More than that, if the Factory Acts are not up to date, if there is not power in law to prevent that sort of thing spreading in this country, the Government ought to ask Parliament to give them the necessary legal power. I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell his Chief that he should not allow this state of affairs to continue.

This is what happens: When a German or a French workman wants to come to this country to be employed by an English firm there are definite conditions laid down for that foreign workman, but when a foreign capitalist firm wants to come here to exploit British workpeople there are no conditions at all laid down. It is one of the anomalies of our industrial life which I fail completely to understand. We would like, therefore, to know whether the inspectorate has been given the hint to pay special attention to these foreign firms. We were told yesterday, in reply to a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), that there were about 100 foreign factories established in Lancashire. We all rejoice that our people are employed by anyone, because work is better than unemployment. But in the county of Lancashire there has been a standard of employment, of wages, hours and conditions, of a character that is far better than these foreign firms have brought here. I ask again that the inspectorate be told to pay specific attention to these foreign firms and their treatment of their workpeople.

There is another problem affecting Lancashire. The Under-Secretary has had little to do with the problem, but he has to deal with the effect of what has happened. There was an agitation amongst the employers, consequent upon Japanese competition, to increase the number of looms per weaver. I am assured by women weavers who are operating the new system, what is called the six-loom-per-weaver system—the increase was from four looms to six—that it is too much for them physically to carry on. I ask, therefore, has not the time arrived when the medical section of the factory department should conduct an inquiry as to the effect of this six-loom system on the health and physique of the operatives? I know that there have been excellent reports issued on fatigue, and that those reports cover several industries. I suggest that another inquiry be conducted in order to find out what is the effect upon the health of the operatives of the introduction of this speeding-up by what is called the more-looms-per-weaver system.

I was rather surprised to read in the report that there is a high incidence of chest and bronchial troubles amongst the workers in malt-houses, which I suppose are connected with breweries, though I do not know much about it. Whether they are or not, the malt-houses ought to be brought up to date so that these diseases do not affect the workpeople. I trust that something will be done to prevent the spread of these two diseases. There is something very menacing in this report, in spite of the excellent picture which it gives of the factory and workshop life of the country. We are informed that skin cancer is the most menacing of all our industrial diseases, and that the incidence is highest in mule spinning. A strange thing to note is that while nearly all the other diseases that afflict mankind, consumption, infectious and contagious diseases, are gradually coming under medical control, the same cannot be said of our industrial diseases. We have the anomaly that the scientist has made it possible for the capitalist to exploit certain raw materials and that, although the handling of these raw materials has brought about some new industrial diseases, medical science has not been able to catch up with the processes at the other end. I should be glad if the Under-Secretary will tell us what is the intention of his Department in relation to this skin cancer.

We all know that industries are travelling Southward. I think I am right in saying that one-fifth of the population of these islands lives in London and the surrounding districts. I am wondering whether it is a good thing in itself that the people should congregate in London and leave the industrial districts of the North, where there are plenty of empty factories, good machinery, skilled operatives, good waterways and good Members of Parliament too. I am wondering whether the Government has any policy on the problem, or whether we are to drift to the stage at which London and England will be synonymous and all the people of England or nearly all will live ultimately in London. I think it is a bad thing in itself. It would be well, therefore, to state why I think these gentlemen are coming down South. Trade unionism has always been strong in the North and they do not like trade unionism. I am sure that whatever opinions hon. Gentlemen may have of trade union organisation, the cases that I have brought to light of the exploitation of young persons would not have been possible if trade unionism had been encouraged as an organisation in this country. The lawyers are all organised, and so are the doctors, and they have their minimum wage at every turn.

Which they generally do not get.

That is their own fault. They get their payments regularly from the National Health Insurance Fund anyhow, and I would not deny them proper payment, for they do their work well. I wish however more of them paid attention to industrial diseases. I shall be told that it is not necessary to have so many factory inspectors because the unit of the factory has grown. One firm manufacturing motor cars employed 8,000 people in 1932, but 15,000 in 1933. Another firm which manufactures gramophones and radio sets has increased the number of its workmen from 5,000 to 10,000 in a year. That is all very well and I like to see figures showing that more persons are employed anywhere but I do not think that the picture is complete. The factory inspector in his report tells us of the increase in the number of factories and workshops in the South. I wish he would balance that statement and complete the picture by telling us of the areas in the North that are becoming derelict.

I turn to another subject which has interested me for some years. I find that reports were received by the Department last year on the conditions applying to the work of scaling ships' boilers and cleaning flues in oil-burning ships. I remember some years ago examining this problem and I was amazed to find that boys were employed for this purpose because they were small and thin. If I remember aright boys, in the performance of this work, had to crawl in some cases about 100 feet through pipes and for this reason boys of small physique were selected. I thought that regulations had already been issued to deal with that matter and I should be glad if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would tell us what is the situation at the moment in relation to this class of juvenile employment. Then I find that conferences are taking place between the Home Office and the film producers with special reference to precautions against fire and the employment of children in studios. I do not know much about the conditions of employment of children in the studios but I feel sure that unless the Home Office is alert these gentlemen who produce the films will have no compunction about exploiting boys and girls for their own gain. I would like to know what is going to be done in that connection. I am also very pleased to learn that some attention is being paid to the question of better lighting in factories. It is worth noticing that in one of the industrial towns of the north it was found that only 27 out of 475 factories possessed up-to-date lighting installations. We are told that the local authority there is coming to the aid of the Home Office in this connection which is a very good thing.

The saddest feature of this report on all occasions is the return of accidents, and it is a sadder feature on this occasion than it has been for some years past because the total number of accidents increased in 1933 as compared with 1932. The number in 1932 was 106,164 and the number in 1933 grew to 113,260, while the fatalities have increased from 602 to 688. The Chief Inspector expresses the view that more accidents have occurred because men have been brought into the factories who had been unemployed for long periods and who were consequently unable to adapt themselves to the conditions of employment. Although that may be true in part, I am inclined to the view that the speeding-up process in industry has been largely responsible for this increase. The greatest number of fatal accidents in any single industry was 91 in the metal industry—smelting, conversion, rolling and founding. I see the hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. L. Jones) in his place. I think he has something to do with that industry and it would be interesting to know what the employers in the industry have to say to the fact that the metal industry—tinplate, iron and steel and so forth—stands out supreme as the industry with a greater number of fatal accidents than any other. The building industry comes next with 80 and the docks next to that with 69. I have never been able to understand how it is that regulations which apply to part of the building industry do not apply to the whole of the industry, with a view to the prevention of these accidents. I must refer to the fact that some employers nowadays are wise enough to employ full time safety officers in their factories. Not only will this reduce accidents but I imagine that, as a consequence, workmen's compensation premiums will be lowered.

I now come to a point which is a little nearer home. We find that about 10,000 retail butchers' shops were visited during 1933 and inspections made of the dangerous mincemeat machinery in those shops. Nowadays some butchers' shops are almost like factories, and I am glad that the Home Office is paying attention to that sort of thing. We are told that more than 7,000 of these 10,000—

When we were interrupted, I was referring to the dangers of meat mincing machinery, I will now pass on to call the attention of the Home Office to the growth of enormous machinery in the way of adding and subtracting machines in the large offices of this country. I am assured by those who know best—and in fact I have seen one of them myself—that there are offices which, in fact, resemble an up-to-date factory, with huge machinery for the purposes of typing, adding, subtracting, and duplicating. It occurred to me that the hon. and gallant Gentleman might take note of that point. As one who took some part in helping to pass the Lead Paint Act some years ago, I feel very proud to-day that the passing of that Measure is absolutely vindicated, as these figures will show. The number of cases reported in 1900 was 1,058; in 1933 they only numbered 168; the number of deaths in 1900 was 38, and in 1933 only 18. That is the best vindication of protective legislation for the working people of this country that can be quoted, I think, and I feel sure that there will have to be more protective legislation of that kind.

I want to mention now the slight increase of anthrax. This Government has a tendency to economise wherever the welfare of the working people is concerned, while handing money out by the millions to their friends and the farming interests. I think it worth while pointing out that we want to see more things done that will safeguard the health and welfare of the working people. The one other blot on this excellent report is the number of cases of pitch cancer. I think some of them come from South Wales. In 1920, there were one death and 45 reported cases; and in 1933,40 deaths and 143 cases. That is a sad state of things, and I would like to know from the hon. and gallant Gentleman what is the intention of the Home Office in dealing with the increase of some of these, what I may call, new industrial diseases which have arisen in the factories and workshops of this country.

I conclude as I started. We have opened this Debate to-day on this excellent report in order to do two things, namely, to press upon the Home Office to see that the administration of the Factory Acts is kept right up to date, and, above all things, to let those unscrupulous employers—happily there are only a few who exploit the young labour of our country in factories and workshops—know that no Government of whatever political colour will ever allow those laws to be transgressed as indicated in this report. Having said that, I hope that I have done a little to enlighten ourselves on this excellent report.

I want to express my agreement with what the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) has said in offering his congratulations to the Home Office and to the Chief Inspector of Factories for this most humane document. I agree with the hon. Member that probably there is no document issued by a Government Department which is more humane than the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories. My one regret is that it was issued only within the last 48 hours, and there has been so little time to study it in detail. I must confess that I spent hours into the night trying to get through it. I suppose that the experience and training of the present Chief Inspector of Factories, one who did so much in the years immediately after the War in research work into industrial fatigue, are responsible for the very humane document we have in our hands to-day. I hope that hon. Members, whether they are interested in industrial organisation or not, will find some time during the Recess to get acquainted with some of the most important sections of the report itself, especially where it deals with questions of the welfare and safety first work carried on in industry generally.

I am very glad that the hon. Member for Westhoughton was so heated in his criticism of the very unfair tactics adopted by some employers in the country in the employment of young people for such excessive overtime. I hope that the Home Office, through its inspectors, will continue its vigilance and deal very drastically with those employers of labour; but I would be very sorry if the impression were created, not only in this House, but in the country generally, that those individual employers who have been prosecuted, and most of whom have been convicted and fined in the courts of the land, were typical of employers generally. As a matter of fact, the hon. Member was very careful to pay what I thought was a very handsome tribute to the employers in their general attitude to safety first regulations and to welfare conditions generally.

The hon. Member emphasised the fact that at the present time the Home Office inspectorate is below strength. I think an examination of the figures in the report confirms that, because the Chief Inspector points out the vacancies on his staff. There are a few statistics on the last page of the report which are rather illuminating. It is pointed out that in 1928 the number of factories and workshops in this country was 261,000, and in 1933 the number was 247,000. Lower down in the table information is given as to the visits paid to factories and workshops. In 1928, although the number of factories and workshops was 261,000, the number of visits paid was 275,000, whereas in 1933, with a reduction in the number of factories and workshops in the country, the number of visits paid by our inspectorate shows a substantial increase. Therefore, although the figures show that our inspectorate is below strength, this information definitely conveys the message that they have been more active, in view of the fact that they have carried out a larger number of visits.

There is one other point in the speech of the hon. Member for Westhoughton to which I would like to refer. He mentioned the tendency to move factories from the north and north-east parts of this country to London and the south, and he suggested that probably one of the main reasons was that trade unions were stronger in other parts of the country, and weaker in the south of England. I doubt very much whether that is the actual reason for it. If I thought for a moment that there was that tendency where trade union organisation was weak in London or the south of England I would be very sorry. As one who has been in close contact with trade union organisations from the employer's point of view for a, large number of years, I would say definitely that trade unions have played and are playing a very noble part in the industrial organisation of this country. From my own personal experience I can say that I would always welcome the strongest possible trade union organisation in industries.

I think I could go so far as to suggest that it is most desirable, not only that every industry should have its strong organisation, but that trade union organisation should be on an industry basis, and that every employé should be within his industrial organisation. This should be so for one important reason only. Enlightened employers look upon a trade union, not as a body they have to fight in the industrial field, but as a body through which they can carry on any negotiations on industrial matters; and, having carried their industrial negotiations to a successful conclusion and having come to an agreement, they expect the trade union organisation to see that the agreement is carried out. That to my mind is the main object of a trade union. Therefore, I hope that the suggestion of the hon. Member, that the removal of factories to other parts of the country is due to the weakness of trade union organisations, is not true; but, if there be any truth in it, I hope that the industrial relations department of the Ministry of Labour will keep a watchful eye on the movement.

There are two or three matters to which I should like to refer in the Factory Inspector's report. I want to thank the Chief Inspector and the Home Office for the tribute that is paid to other organisations for the co-operation given in the safety first and welfare movement. I am grateful for the tribute paid by the Chief Inspector to the Confederation of Employers' Organisations. As a member of that organisation, I know how sincere every member is in his efforts, by the introduction of safety regulations and conditions in works, to reduce the accident rate in every industry. Some people may be very loth to give employers of labour credit for any humane feeling in this matter. Be that as it may, looking at it merely from an economic and selfish point of view, the question of accident frequency is a matter of financial concern. I have watched carefully for the last few years how gradually the compensation rate charged for insurance is gradually going down, as it is based, of course, on the reduction of accident frequency generally. I, therefore, want to thank the Home Office, and the Chief Insector particularly, for the reference to the assistance given not only by the confederation, but by those two wonderful voluntary organisations that are doing so much for safety, namely, the Industrial Welfare Society and the Safety First Association. These two organisations, working quietly day in and day out, are doing a wonderful work both on the road and in factories.

The hon. Member for Westhoughton was rather alarming in his reference to the present accident rate. The report on pages 42 and 43 really heartened those who are interested in this subject. I think there is a slight increase in the accident rates to which the hon. Member referred last year, but it must be pointed out that in dealing with these figures the Chief Inspector is very careful to say that probably the increase in the accidents last year was due to the fact that there was a substantial increase in the number of persons employed. I would refer the hon. Member to a comparison on page 43. For 1928 the accident rate for all industries was 2,780 per 100,000 persons employed, or roughly one person in every 36 was injured. In 1932 the rate was 2,090 per 100,000, which corresponds to a rate of one person in every 48. I do not think it is necessary for me to pursue this matter further. The hon. Member for Westhoughton referred, in particular, to the heavy accident rate of the iron and steel trade. Unfortunately, an examination of the schedules which are provided in this report does not make it possible for us to dissect the iron and steel trade from the other metal extracting or metal conversion industries. In the table on page 45 there is no such dissection of the figures, but obviously one anticipates that in a heavy industry like the iron and steel industry, with its heavy machinery, rolling mills, furnaces and pits, there is a liability to a greater accident rate.

What is of vital importance is that, in spite of the fact that there is a greater tendency to a higher accident rate in those heavy industries, there is a definite tendency, and there has been a tendency during the last few years, gradually to reduce the accident rate. There have been introduced in all the heavy industries safety first committees, safety engineers, and so forth, and an amazing co-operation takes place between the trade unions and the employers throughout the steel trade, which has resulted in a substantial reduction. I would refer the hon. Member to a statement by the chief inspector on page 42, where he says:

"Yet it by no means follows that the industry with most accidents involves the most risks to the individual workers. In order to assess this risk some kind of accident rate is required, and this should preferably take into account not only the number of persons exposed to risks, but also the duration of exposure."

The hon. Member has made a statement that the accident rate in the industry with which he is most familiar has been declining. Are statistics secured in South Wales, for instance, covering the whole of the industries of tinplate and iron and steel, and do those statistics prove his contention?

I thank the hon. Member for his interjection. I am able to say definitely that we have probably as detailed information on the frequency of accident rates as any industry in the country. We have big sheets setting out every accident and every day's loss of work of every workman, and I am satisfied that there has been a gradual dwindling in the number of accidents over a period of years. I also know that, as the result of that continual reduction in the accident rate in those industries, there has been a continual reduction in the insurance rate charged per £100 of wages by the insurance companies which insure our workmen in respect of workmen's compensation. I am satisfied that the organisation which is now in force in the iron and steel and tinplate trades is really a first-class one and doing wonderful work. I think the trade union leaders will agree with me that excellent work is being done.

I rise to make a few submissions to the hon. and gallant Gentleman in respect to the Silicosis Orders, which have been the subject of discussion from time to time, and to request information from him when he replies to this Debate. It is a subject which has been before the House for many years. Some of my colleagues and myself have for long been interested in the cause of the rapid increase in deaths among men who have been employed in certain occupations in the mining industry, and about 10 years ago I looked into the cases of 20 men known to me personally who had died in the preceding years. As the result of representations made and the evidence submitted silicosis was accepted as an industrial disease, and from the end of 1925, through 1926, 1927 and 1928, and up to the beginning of 1929, a long series of negotiations took place between the parties in the industry with the object of providing compensation for those who were subject to this special form of pulmonary disorder. In 1929 an Order was issued which provided compensation for these men, but from the outset some of us who knew the conditions under which the men were employed were convinced that the Order was inadequate. We knew that a large number of people who would be subject to this disease would not be covered by the Order and that there would be many disappointments.

When in 1930 and 1931 we approached the Home Secretary on the subject we were told that the Order would have to be tried out, and that experience would teach both the Department and those in the industry what modifications, if any, were required to make the Order satisfactory. We have found by experience that a very large number of people have been disabled, and that there are a very large number of deaths in this industry week by week and no compensation is obtainable by either the disabled people or, in the case of death, by their dependants. In the last year or two we have again approached the present Home Secretary, and I will pay him the tribute of saying that he has always received us with consideration and with every evidence of warm sympathy with our representations. My colleagues and I have met him on various occasions, and we also met him in a large deputation composed of all the miners' Members of Parliament from South Wales, where the incidence of silicosis is very much higher than in any other coalfield, and where there are already hundreds of men certified to be disabled and who will never work again and some men who expect a premature death without any possibility of escape. We have spent considerable sums in legal proceedings. Cases have been taken to the lower courts, with all the expense of a host of witnesses and expert witnesses, both medical and legal, and where the lower court has failed to give satisfaction cases have been taken to the House of Lords, at a very considerable expense indeed, yet we still find that in that coalfield alone there are more than 200 men certified to be suffering from silicosis who will not be able to qualify for compensation under the terms of the Order.

On our first visit to the Home Office the Home Secretary promised that he would give our representations favourable consideration. A little meeting was arranged, and we met a few weeks ago, accompanied by the officials of the South Wales Miners' Federation, the men who know most as to the incidence of the disease, because they are in daily contact with the men employed in the coalfield. Figures were given then to the Home Secretary and to the predecessor of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. They are so well known to the Department that I do not propose to repeat them, but they do show to what an alarming extent this disease is disabling our people, and how insecure are the possibilities of their obtaining compensation under the present Order. The Home Secretary did not promise that he would do all we asked him to do. He pointed out that, as in all these matters, there are two sides to be considered, that of the employers and that of the work people. I make this allegation, without heat and without party prejudice, that we have not been assisted at all by the employers to make provision for the men disabled in the mining industry. We have met with persistent and determined opposition and obstruction from the employers in the matter of granting compensation. I believe that they have now recognised that it is too late to maintain that attitude, and have become convinced, as we were 10 or 12 years ago, that it is their duty to provide compensation for these men, and I believe the employers are now more sympathetic and more ready to accept their obligations to the men.

I want the hon. and gallant Gentleman to tell us whether the draft revised Order which the Home Secretary promsied to send to the Miners' Federation is ready, whether it has been submitted to the two sides, and whether it contains what we desire that it should contain. The essential condition in order to safeguard the interests of these men is for all reference to processes and to conditions of labour to be eliminated from the Order, leaving as the sole condition that the man shall have been employed in a coal mine and shall have been certified to be disabled by silicosis. If we do not get that simple essential condition we shall again find ourselves involved in a series of legal pitfalls, and our disabled comrades of the mines will in many cases find there is no possibility of obtaining recompense. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us on this side of the House and those whom we represent, whom we shall see during the three months when this House will not be sitting, and to whom we have to give an account of our stewardship, some assurance that the revised Order will ensure the compensation to which these men are rightly entitled. If, however, he still has to announce that there is delay, owing to the necessity of consulting all sides, I hope he will be able to tell us that the delay will be confined within the strictest possible limits, and that we may really be able to give encouragement to the men suffering physically and enduring a great deal of mental anxiety because of the uncertainty of their position.

I would like to add a few remarks on the subject raised by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), in relation to its bearings on the health of the factory worker. I notice in the report the tribute which is paid to Sir A. Whitelegge, who was chief inspector of the board for 21 years and who died last year. He had formerly been a county medical officer of health. The reorganisation of the Department which he brought about raised the health side of the work to a pitch of efficiency of which we have heard a great deal. It should always be emphasised that in this work, the Home Office is indeed a ministry of health. We are often inclined to forget that, in having co-ordinated departments of local and national government into the Ministry of Health, we have not included the survey and the care of the health of the people comprised in the system of inspection of factories and workshops. That is still outside the purview of the Ministry of Health and is under the Home Office. That fact has perturbed for a long time many people who consider it essential that the work should be brought under the one roof with other health departments.

Closer co-operation is required between departments. The improvement of health in our factories and workshops depends rot only upon the inspectors but much more upon the individuals who work in the factories and workshops. It depends upon the certifying factory surgeon and so on, but it should depend still more on the relationship, which is not yet properly established, between the factories and the workshops on the one hand and the schools on the other. Children going into employment, and entering at an early age into industrial careers in our factories and workshops, should be properly guided into the new life which is opening before them. I should like the Under-Secretary to say whether any advance is being made to establish a proper line of communication between the system of school medical health which leads up to the school-leaving age at 14, and the health of children in the factories. This question is referred to directly in the report, which points out the necessity of individual industrial health and the application of such measures as industrial vocation guidance.

I had opportunity during some four or five years upon the Industrial Health Research Board to work at some of these problems. The Industrial Health Research Board, to which reference has not yet been made in the Debate, is little understood. Its functions, established under the Medical Research Council, include the working out of problems which lie at the base of questions of health, from the physiological point of view, of workers in the factory, and of safety against accidents. The board went into the question of vocational guidance with investigators, and studied as to how far some individuals were more prone to accidents than others, simply because of their individual makeup, and especially their nervous make-up. It was shown by simple tests that it was possible to decide clearly the difference between individuals, and to say to which branch of industry an individual should be directed—or rather from which branch he should be warned off.

That brings me to the remarks which have been made with regard to safety against accidents. It is right that attention should be drawn to the necessity of protecting machinery, and of employers doing all that they can for protection against industrial disease and accidents. No amount of physical protection against danger will save workers from accidents, and I am not sure that this line of thought may not be carried too far. A large number of people are careless. They get a very rough idea of the risks to which they are exposed, and then they do not worry about the risks. It is stated in the report that there is an almost incredible contempt for transmission machinery and that it is responsible for a wholly unnecessary toll of death and disablement. That refers to individuals who are very much as we are. Despite the fact that he has been warned that there are certain risks, he deliberately disregards them just as a large number of pedestrians disregard the risks of crossing the streets. If we are engaged in conversation or our thoughts are otherwise directed we ourselves may run into danger. In directing the individual as to the part which he has to play, if you protect him at every corner and spoon feed him with legislation, regulation and physical protection, he may continue to cause just the same number of accidents. A good deal of stress must be laid upon education of the individual worker to take care of himself. A very large number of workers, especially the experienced and elderly ones, are particularly careful, shrewd and wise in protecting themselves and their mates, but young workers are liable to be very careless, and they need direct education. The work of the Safety First organisation, and the industrial welfare organisations are all to the good. We need to continue into the factories and workshops the work which is carried on in the schools so well and which encourages children to think for themselves.

How should this be done? Certifying factory surgeons are in some cases distinguished men who are making a special study of their subject, but in many cases the appointment has been given to a man in general practice who has had no special training in the diseases of occupation, or the prevention of diseases. This is a very serious question, and many people have suggested that such appointments should be given to medical officers of health. The suggestion does not carry a very great weight, and other people have suggested that there should be whole-time certifying factory surgeons who are men in general local practice and who know their people well. Those suggestions direct attention to the necessity for a change in medical education. This is not the place in which to enlarge upon that subject, but I want to touch upon it for a minute, in its bearing upon the question of safety education. The ordinary medical education is provided in hospitals by men who are engaged in the treatment of individual disease, and very little provision is therefore made for teaching the budding doctor prevention, especially the prevention of industrial disease and for teaching him the conditions in the factories. I believe that that situation will continue as long as medical education is largely run by those members of the profession who are engaged in treatment, however distinguished they may be, and while there is very little advice from those who are engaged in prevention or in the official side of medicine. I think that the Home Office should direct their attention to this question. I know that there are two or three distinguished practitioners of preventive medicine on the General Medical Council, but what are they among a total of some 40 or 50 persons? I think that inadequate pressure is brought by the Government on the General Medical Council to secure that the tendency of medical education should be more in this direction, in order to meet the requirements of the nation as a whole, instead of being carried on, as it still is, in the old tradition based on hospital treatment of individual cases.

The hon. Member for Westhoughton, with whom I agree so frequently on these subjects, laid, I thought, rather undue stress on the deficient success that had resulted from the work of the factory surgeons, the medical officers, and the whole factory system in regard to the prevention of industrial disease. He even went so far as to say that nothing had been done to reduce industrial disease. Later on, however, he contradicted that, and showed what a wonderful check had been given to lead poisoning as a result of treatment. This matter is one that has to be carefully considered. We often hear complaints made, and rightly, that so little is done as regards industrial diseases, and especially as regards new diseases which arise in connection with new processes. I rather understood the hon. Member to suggest that these new processes should not be put on the market until they were safe, and that there was some suggestion in the report that it was up to employers using new processes, and especially processes in which new chemical substances were used as solvents, to see that their safety had been proved. But we have to be very careful about that. The object is right, and I think that employers realise as a rule that they must, as far as they can, take general precautions to see that anything which they introduce into industry is prima facie safe. But it can only be prima facie. If you were to wait until there was complete certainty, and it could be guaranteed that no harm would result from using these new chemical substances and new processes, it would introduce a very great clog into industry. We have to recognise that the improvement of employment depends very largely on the adoption and discovery of new industries, and the adoption of new industries means taking risks. I do not think that speakers for the employes always recognise that to get new employment there must be risk, and that they cannot have it both ways. If the risks are to be reduced to a minimum before any new process or industry is allowed to arise, it will not be possible to get the fresh employment that is required. You must take risks.

At the present time a very large number of new industries and processes are being discovered as a result of research in industry, especially through the channels that were so well described upstairs the other day in connection with the Department of Industrial and Scientific Research. A large amount of the work that is being given to this country at the present time is due, for instance, to fresh steels being discovered as the result of fresh processes and the use of fresh chemicals, and fresh industrial diseases will constantly arise as a result of such discoveries. That being the case, how are we to deal with these fresh industrial diseases? By increased vigilance on the three sides of industry. As regards the employers, I think there is reason to believe that that vigilance is being applied. Increased vigilance is also required on the part of the factory inspectorate of the Home Office in all Departments, including the certifying surgeons and the whole machinery under them; and on the part of the workers themselves as a result of increased education, particularly of those who are coming fresh into industry. These last have to be taught and handled, and they can be taught and handled during their first years in industry after they leave school at the age of 14. I want to see a larger development of this co-operation between the health side of the Home Office and the other Departments, especially the Board of Education, so that we may get what is fundamentally required, namely, proper education and assistance of the employé from the tender age at which he enters into industrial life.

I would like to raise a question which was brought before the House yesterday by the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor), because, in putting a question to the Home Secretary, the hon. and. learned Member stated that a Member of this House had delivered a speech at the spot where the young men in question were arrested. As that Member was myself, I feel bound to say a few words on the matter, and to try, if I can, to get from the Home Office a definite statement on the legal position and, if possible, an alteration of the declaration made in this House in 1931. I am speaking with special reference to the fact that a question was asked of the Home Secretary in this House on the 2nd December, 1931:

"Whether he is aware that the police authorities are breaking up meetings of the unemployed held near Employment Exchanges in the London area … and that such meetings have been held at these pitches during past years without disturb- ance … and will he … give instructions that at such places where traffic is not interfered with and where the proceedings are conducted in an orderly manner such meetings shall not be dispersed by the police?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1931; cols. 1087-8, Vol. 260.]

The Home Secretary, in the course of his reply, said that the disturbances came first, causing the work at the Employ Exchanges to be interrupted, and that the Commissioner of Police thought it necessary, at all events for the time being, that such meetings should not be held in the proximity of Employment Exchanges. I must say that no great objection was taken to that decision, because, perhaps, at that moment the staffs of Employment Exchanges were very much taxed to get their work done, and I think the Under-Secretary will agree with me that from that period to the end of 1933, if any meetings were held, there was no disorder.

Recently there has been established in London the Council for Civil Liberties. I must explain to the House that this is not a Communist body, and is not a revolutionary body; it is a body comprising many Members of this House, including the acting Leader of the Opposition, one or two Members of the Government, and the junior Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh), and also Members of the other House. This new council has nothing whatever to do with inflammatory speeches, or with any endeavour to get what is usually termed a revolutionary stunt; but we feel that the right of free speech in this country, which was won by the work of our forefathers should not be idly or lightly treated. Therefore, on the 24th of this month—last Tuesday—it was decided to hold a meeting outside the Employment Exchange at Stratford. To the best of our ability we complied with the decision of the Home Secretary in 1931, which made it perfectly clear that, if there was obstruction, it was the duty of the police to clear the highway for the passage of ordinary citizens. But the street outside the Stratford Employment Exchange—I do not want to go into topography and give the names of streets, because it will not help the House at all—is a cul-de-sac, and, therefore, there can be no obstruction of the highway. When I held the meeting there on the 24th, I thoroughly assured myself, understanding the volume of my own voice, that I should not be getting so close to the Employment Exchange as to interfere with the work of the staff. The meeting, which I admit was held as a protest against the decision of the Home Secretary in 1931, was orderly and there was no objection by the police. I am assured that a meeting was held by the local unemployed on the 26th instant on exactly the same spot. If that is true, I should like to ask why these young men were arrested for obstruction. There could be no obstruction from the point of view of vehicular traffic and there could be no interference whatever with entry to the Employment Exchange, because there are posts, and a barrow could not pass between them.

Then we come to a more serious aspect of the situation. It is admitted by the Home Secretary that the facts regarding the application for adjournment are substantially correct. I feel a little disturbed because I am myself a member of the court. I think it a very serious reflection on the administration of the law that, when these men made formal application for a week's adjournment, it was refused, and when they asked for an adjournment until 2 o'clock the same day, that was refused. Finally, they asked for an adjournment for 10 minutes in order to get advice, and that equally was refused. It appears that there is no contradiction of that assertion because in his reply yesterday, the Home Secretary said:

"From such inquiries as it has been possible to make in the time available, I understand that the facts regarding the applications for an adjournment are substantially as stated by my hon. and learned Friend. The two men in question had been charged with obstructing the police in the execution of their duty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July, 1934; col. 2296, Vol. 292.]

According to the reply of the Home Secretary in 1931, the action of the police would only be involved if there was obstruction, and in this case there could be no obstruction. If the Home Office has decided to continue this ban upon meetings within the vicinity of Employment Exchanges, whether meetings of the Council for Civil Liberty, meetings of local councillors or meetings of the unemployed, please let us know, and let us know the reason. The number of people registering at the Exchanges is smaller and the obstruction must be correspondingly minimised.

If there is any objection to meetings of the unemployed merely because of the unpleasant way, from some points of view, that they put their case, let us understand that, too. Surely, we are not going to-day to impose a ban upon certain meetings because of the character of the speeches. Our freedom has grown greater because we have tolerated unpleasantness and unpopular statements at meetings.

We are breaking up to-day for a well-earned holiday; it would be a very graceful act if the Home Secretary could follow through the appeal of the hon. Member for West Nottingham. These two young men feel that they have a serious grievance. I feel sure that, if their stand had been moved from the position from which I spoke and had accidentally been placed so near to the Exchange as to cause a bit of a nuisance, it would have been better if the police had indicated that to them and asked them to shift a little further down. I am convinced that, if anything untoward happened, it was not wilful. It would be a very graceful act if the hon. Gentleman could see his way clear somehow to remit the fine. These young men are appealing to quarter sessions. It will cost $20 or $30. They are both unemployed and they have not got the money. We shall, therefore, be compelled to continue our activities in order to raise the money to pay the expenses of the appeal. Time has eased the situation, and the peculiar tenseness of 1931 certainly does not apply in 1934. If there were a little misunderstanding, it would be easy for the Home Office to put it right in a graceful way. A fortnight ago we had the very great distinction that the Member for another Nottingham Division, who is the Recorder of West Ham, was presented with a pair of white gloves because there were no cases before the court. We have been through trying times in West Ham, but we have arrived at an understanding between the authorities and the local unemployment movement which I should like to see maintained. Nothing is done deliberately to incur the displeasure of those in whose keeping civic order is placed. I feel a little concerned, because I took the initiative of holding a meeting of protest against the ban imposed by the Home Secretary in 1931 and, if these young men held their meeting at the spot where mine was held, there could be no more obstruction than was entailed at the first meeting. I appeal to the Home Office to do something to avoid the necessity of an appeal to quarter sessions. If the hon. Gentleman could do anything to get in touch with the local unpaid magistrates and remit the fines, it would be an act of grace on his part and would be understood as a gesture of goodwill which I feel sure would be reciprocated by all connected with the movement.

We have had a very interesting Debate on the administration of the Home Office with regard to the Factory Acts, which proceeded on a very smooth course, but we have had the incursion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves) on an entirely different subject. I hope, therefore, the House will not mind if I answer him first, because his speech, in comparison with other speeches, appeared to meet a comparatively small point. He raised the question of a public meeting which was held just outside the Employment Exchange in West Ham, I presume in his own constituency, and he expressed disapproval of the course which was taken, and asked why we should continue to act along the lines which were laid down in December, 1931, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) to deal with these matters. He tells us that there is no tenseness to-day like there was in 1931 and that there is really no reason why meetings should not be held outside Employment Exchanges. That may be his opinion, but it is not the opinion of my right hon. Friend, who thinks, as his predecessor did in 1931, that the experience of those days, and of to-day, is that it is an inconvenient place, to put it mildly, at which to have meetings. It is hardly fair to the officials in the Exchanges who have a great deal of work to do that they should have, what I presume is the same in West Ham as in most other places, the pandemonium of a public meeting just outside. The noise naturally increases their difficulty. It is an impediment, and, if it is a large crowd, a great impediment, to those whose business it is to go in and out of the Employment Exchange. Therefore, in 1931, the then Home Secretary said in answer to a question, not to a supplementary question, and it is the considered opinion of the Government:

"This Commissioner of Police has considered it necessary to take steps to prevent the holding of meetings in the streets near Employment Exchanges since recent experience has shown that meetings held in such circumstances are liable to lead to breaches of the peace. There has been in the past, and there still is, ample opportunity for holding meetings elsewhere."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1931; col. 1988, Vol. 260.]

That is really the answer to the hon. Gentleman. There is, after all, a general obligation on the police to prevent obstruction of the thoroughfare and to keep order. I am afraid that I have not been able to learn the exact topography of these particular streets, but I understand that the hon. Gentleman addressed the public there. He was put into a cul-de-sac some 20 yards or so away from the nearest window of the Employment Exchange because it was thought to be a reasonable distance, and, from what I gather, he made no objection at all. I understood from what he said just now that there was some cul-de-sac where there was no obstruction in the street, and that they were moved on in that direction. He asked why the two young men who were mentioned in a question yesterday were not allowed to have their meeting in the same place. As a matter of fact, that is exactly what they were directed to do, and it was because they did not do it that the obstruction was caused. They were eventually arrested, one because, on being asked to move on, he refused to do so, and the other because he endeavoured to prevent the police from arresting his companion. As far as I can make out from this sad story, if they had only acted in the same sort of way as the hon. Gentleman did in somewhat similar circumstances, there would have been none of this trouble at all.

With regard to the point which the hon. Gentleman made about the conduct of the case by the bench, I can only say that the Home Secretary has no jurisdiction over such a question as an application for an adjournment, which is the trouble in this case. The Home Secretary could not do anything about that matter even if he wanted to do so. It is entirely outside his jurisdiction, and we can only hope that there will not be any recurrence of this kind of disturbance. I believe that on reflection the whole House will agree that, considering the enormous amount of space there is not only in London, but everywhere else on which to hold political and public meetings, it is rather unreasonable to go to a place which causes the maximum of inconvenience to a very large number of people and benefits no one at all.

The Under-Secretary of State stated that I—

Does the hon. Gentleman really want to press his point. Notice has been given of a great many questions to be raised to-day and the hon. Gentleman did not give Mr. Speaker notice of this question. I went out of my way to let him know, if he wished to raise it, that I would answer it briefly, and I do not think that we should now enter upon a discussion.

The last statement which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made is not correct. I certainly did not give notice to Mr. Speaker, but to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State last evening. Surely it was sufficient notice to say to a Cabinet Minister that I wished to raise this matter. The first statement made by the Under-Secretary that I was placed in a cul-de-sac is not true. I regard that, no doubt said unwittingly, as such a reflection upon me that I must correct it. It is not nice to be told that I was put into a cul-de-sac. I do not take undue objection to this, but it is a very important matter to me. I arranged the meeting at such a distance from the building that I honestly assumed that it would not be inconvenient, either owing to the sound of my voice or to obstruction, and I ask the Under-Secretary of State why, if those young men did the same, and it could be proved that their station was on the same spot, they were arrested? They could not have caused any more obstruction than was caused on the previous occasion.

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not like the word "cul-de-sac," but he introduced it.

No, Sir, the hon. and gallant Gentleman said that I was put there. I was not.

We will not quarrel about that. There is no occasion for any heat to be generated. All I can say about the young men as regards the meeting is that I understand that they did not go to speak at the place from which the hon. Gentleman had spoken.

I do not agree.

If they had there would not have been this trouble. I turn to the main question which has been raised this morning. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) who opened the Debate and the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. L. Jones) were absolutely right in the congratulations which they offered to the factory inspectors for their work during the last year. But when the hon. Gentleman opposite complains that we take this matter on the last day and that there is no enthusiasm or excitement shown in the House with regard to the report compared with some of the other topics of public discussion, it is not entirely my fault. The report was only published yesterday morning, and, taking it the other way round, one can quite well claim that not a moment has been lost in debating it. In fact, such time as was lost was lost because the Opposition themselves put down a Vote of Censure yesterday. It is a good thing that the points which have been raised to-day should be brought to public notice just before we break up for our holidays, because nothing can be more tragic than the continued number of accidents as they are reported here. It is perhaps pleasing to reflect that, just as in military warfare there is a constant race between the offensive and the defensive, so, in the question of these accidents, as soon as a really dangerous machine is invented, you will find at once great pressure being brought to bear to make it as safe as possible.

As soon as new symptoms of industrial disease are discovered, all the skill that can be found is brought to bear to try and find remedies. At the end of it, one is still left with the fact which strikes one on practically every page of this report, and that is the almost incredible number of avoidable accidents. I can only suppose that it is very much on the lines of the analogy which the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) made, that just as these who travel about the roads frequently think that motorists have no idea of the danger and power of the cars which they are driving, so in industry one can only imagine that the employers and the workpeople have become so accustomed to, or perhaps have not fully realised the potential dangers of, the engines which they are working. There are also the old-fashioned ways which still exist in many industries. The hon. Member opposite referred in particular to the improvements which have been made, to the great advantage of the sight of the workpeople of this country, in regard to the lighting of factories. That is true, and it is also true that on page 21 of the report there will be found most astonishing cases of the use of batswing gas burners and even of candles in certain works in the silversmith, cutlery and allied trades. One gets there evidence of the varied activities of the factories.

Hon. Members by looking at the index and headings of the report will see the wide variety of subjects dealt with. For instance, there is the question of safety. The hon. Member for Swansea, West referred to the work that is being done by safety committees and conferences, and one can only hope that that work will go on and develop. If hon. Members would like to note a very interesting example on that line they will find on page 36 an interesting account of a building contract of some considerable size, to the amount of £180,000, which lasted for 22 weeks and found employment for 300 men, where packets of cigarettes were offered each week to each contractor who did not have a lost time accident amongst his workmen, and as a result only two slight accidents occurred. I quote that case as an instance of what can be done by exercising a little imagination and incentive. It seems to me that in regard to some of these problems if one could only strike home to those concerned the dangers and difficulties involved one might get more satisfactory results than we are getting to-day.

The employment and welfare problems are very fully explained in the report. With regard to staff, to which the hon. Member referred, there are still the vacancies to which he alluded, some of which were left unfilled during the economy campaign a short time ago, but I can give him an assurance that the strength of the Department is to be reviewed before the next Estimates are presented to the House. As regards the non-appointment of a new senior engineering inspector, I would point out that the work has been reapportioned and other arrangements made, and they are working perfectly satisfactorily. The hon. Member asked me a great number of questions, and I hope I shall be able to reply to them, but if not, and if other hon. Members wish to see the replies, I will do my best to let him have replies later, or perhaps when we meet in the autumn I shall be able to give him full information. I was very much struck by the hon. Member's questions, because I looked through my own copy of the report as he was asking his questions, and I had marked the very matters to which he referred. Therefore they are not only of particular but of general itnerest.

He asked a question about the foreign factories and said that there was some danger that the working conditions of the employés in the factories were being degraded. Our experience has been that we have found that the factories which have come here comply with the requirements of the law, but if the hon. Member knows any case of any firm to which he would like to draw my attention, we will have the matter specially investigated. I am to receive a trade union deputation to-morrow in regard to one of these problems. The inspectorate has been given instructions to watch this matter very closely, because the last thing we want in foreign factories being attracted here is that the conditions of employment should be worsened. If there are any cases which any hon. Member has in mind to which attention should be given, I hope that they will let me have details of them.

The hon. Member asked me if the time has not come for a medical inquiry in regard to the more looms per weaver problem. Whether the time has come or not there appears to be a slight misunderstanding in regard to what the report says on that subject. The details of piece work on page 81 to which the hon. Member alluded have nothing to do with that question. Those are details with regard to certain prosecutions, but they had nothing to do with the more looms per weaver question. The position is that we have not yet sufficient medical data. The process to which the hon. Member referred of the now method of working looms is comparatively recent and anyone with the slightest knowledge of medical matters knows that you cannot make deductions without a certain period of time having elapsed. We have not sufficient data for scientific investigation, but I can give the hon. Member the assurance that this is one of the matters to which the inspectorate intend to devote their attention this year. Beyond that I do not think I can go.

With regard to the question of the dust trouble in malthouses, we have taken up that matter with the industry with a view to preventing the inhalation of dust, and conversations are going on as to the best method of dealing with it. The hon. Member also referred to the very distressing problem of skin cancer, which is not only an industrial disease but one of the great scourges of civilisation. He told us that there had been a tendency for this disease to increase. I do not think that we can make that deduction. Because the figures go up it does not necessarily mean that there are more cases. It may mean and probably does mean that the cases which exist are notified more quickly and perhaps earlier than before. I do not think that anyone reading the report would feel warranted in making the deduction which was made by the hon. Member. There has actually been a decrease. In regard to one class of case which the hon. Member quoted, and which he said had increased, the figures on page 55 indicate that there has been a decrease in each year since 1929. If you take the figures back as far as 1920, when there were very few recorded cases, I think that in that year there was one death in 45 cases reported as compared with 40 deaths in 143 cases reported last year. The hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans who knows more about medicine than I can ever hope to know will agree with me that in 1920 the occupational nature of this disease was only beginning to be recognised. Therefore, it is a question of more accurate records to-day than a greater incidence of the disease. I hope that may be the case.

As regards anthrax, the increase in the number of cases is only small, And it has nothing to do with the Liverpool disinfecting station. As will be seen from the report it arises entirely from hides and skins, cases due to which have risen from 2 to 10. The answer to the question of the hon. Member is simple though not perhaps satisfactory; it is that no one has yet devised a method for treating hides and skins for anthrax and, therefore, there is some risk. The hon. Member pleasantly suggested that we were doing a great deal for British agriculture, providing large sums of money, but not doing anything to deal with this disease. I think I should tell him that the cases of anthrax come entirely from imported hides and skins, and, therefore, the more we can do to improve British agriculture and reduce the imports of hides and skins the more we are doing to prevent this disease. No doubt in time some method will be found for dealing with this disease, but at present it defies all scientists and medical people. I hope that only in rare cases will this disease be found in the future.

The hon. Member also asked whether the Government had any policy with regard to the removal of industries to the south. That is a much wider problem than anything with which I am concerned this afternoon, but my answer to him is that no doubt it will be one of the considerations which will influence the attitude of the Commissioners who are reporting on industrial conditions in the so-called derelict areas. As far as the Home Office is concerned, it is not a matter with which we are directly connected. I agree with the hon. Member, I do not want all the factories to come to the south of England. I sit for a northern constituency, and I should be glad to have new factories established in that area, but it is not a matter within our competency.

The two-shift system is at present being investigated by a committee. How soon it will report I have not the faintest idea, but until it does report, and until we have had time to consider its suggestions as to what should or should not be done, the Government could not really contemplate suspending the issue of any further orders authorising the working of two-shifts in response to the joint application which is necessary under the Act, because that would be asking the Government to do something which is against the expressed will of Parliament. The hon. Member probably knows that the Labour Government issued a considerable number of orders authorising the two-shift system, and I think we must wait and see what the committee reports. For the moment we could not possibly _undertake not to issue any further orders when they are drawn up in accordance with the Act, after joint consultation.

The accident at Brackley is being investigated by the chief inspector who himself went to Manchester. He held a conference with employers and workers, and a committee, with representatives of the Factory Department, is being set up to investigate the whole matter. I understand that the workers do not want, to be represented on a technical committee but naturally they will be kept informed of all that goes on and every effort will be made to deal with the problem. As regards buildings and the dangers which arise, the hon. Member will no doubt have been informed by his hon. Friend the Member for East Woolwich (Mr. G. Hicks) that the group of trade unions with which he is asociated came to see my right hon. Friend yesterday on this subject, and as regards the scaling of boilers by boys a recent report shows that there has been considerable improvement in recent years, which is satisfactory. As regards film studios—this is a catalogue of quite unconnected problems but I am answering them in the way the hon. Member put them to me, and he appears to have been at some pains to find out the interesting points in the report—we had a report from the chief inspector and the position is now being reviewed. As a matter of fact, the report shows that the dangers are considerably less than they were three years ago. Long may that continue.

The hon. Member also raised the question of meat mincing machines. That is a very interesting subject and I hope everyone will read pages 39 and 40 of the report where they will find that as a result of discussing the problem with the National Federation of Meat Traders Association they at once fell in with the view that it was necessary to make mincing machines safer. If the hon. Member would like to come to the Home Office Industrial Museum in Horseferry Road he will be able to see the actual safety device—the neck of the machine is now so narrow that it is impossible to get the hand in at all and consequently impossible to have your fingers chopped off. The 7,000 shops referred to by the hon. Member were retail shops, not factories or workshops, but the inspectors of the Home Office made a special visit to them last year and advised the owners as to the dangers of mincing machines in general and of the machines they were themselves using. Appropriate action was taken, the advice was put at their disposal and they were warned that they should put in this comparatively cheap improvement. What further action will be required to be taken will depend on the extent to which the advice is taken but the matter will not be lost sight of. There is also the question of machinery in offices and banks. Offices and banks have a lot of machinery, but I do not think that hitherto it has been considered as dangerous. Most of them are the same kind of machines which people have in their own houses; they are not dangerous except when they get the figures wrong.

Some of these machines are run by electricity, in some cases firms print all their own matter by machinery.

That is not quite the machinery which I thought the hon. Member had in mind, but I will tell him this, that until we get some evidence of their being dangerous it is difficult to inquire. If the hon. Member will give me any cases where an investigation will be useful we shall be prepared to make the investigation. Really, neither accounting nor tabulating machinery in offices can be considered as making the Factory Acts applicable to offices.

The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) asked me to say something with regard to silicosis. My right hon. Friend has for a very long time had the matter under consideration. He has now completed his review of the proposals which were submitted to him for the amendment of the silicosis compensation scheme for coal mines. Last week he sent to the Mining Association and the Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain a memorandum indicating his conclusions. The main fact which emerges from the memorandum is that the Home Secretary recognises that the limitation of the scheme to particular underground processes gives rise to serious difficulties, and he proposes therefore to extend the scheme so as to bring underground employment generally in coal mines within its scope. I think that that probably will be satisfactory to a great number who have been seriously worried by this problem. That is the main point which representatives of the miners have been urging upon my right hon. Friend. He did, however, promise at one stage of these negotiations that he would give both sides a final opportunity, before he proceeded with the scheme, of sending in observations. So when he sent a memorandum last week to the two parties concerned he enclosed a draft of the actual scheme which he proposes to make, subject to the consideration of any further observations which reach him within the next few weeks. We do not want the matter to drag on but it is only reasonable that at the end of these long negotiations, each of the parties having been sent the draft order, should have one last opportunity of putting any points to my right hon. Friend.

The only other point oil which there is anything to be said is the tremendous increase in accidents, to which hon. Members have referred. It may be unpalatable but it must be the case that as employment increases, unless a great deal more attention is paid by all concerned to safety devices, there are likely to be more accidents. There is more likelihood of accidents with 1,000,000 on the job than with only a few. The hon. Gentleman will see in the chapter relating to safety some discussion as to the causes of the increase in accidents. It is partly because there have been long periods of unemployment, and because many of the workers are suffering from lack of nourishment, and physically and mentally are less alert and more liable to mishap than in normal times. That is obviously true. On restarting work the workers tend to over-exert their strength and energy and others take some time in getting used to working conditions again. That is unfortunately part 'of the aftermath of the great period of unemployment. It is a tragic reflection that in all probability by the law of averages before we meet again there will have been something approaching 30,000 accidents in industry and probably as many as 150 people will have lost their lives.

This fact puts considerable responsibility on everyone concerned. We here represent our constituencies in Parliament, but in the Recess we ought to represent Parliament in our constituencies. There is a great deal that hon. Members can do. I wish, therefore, that they would study this report for themselves, and that those who have most influence with employers would take such opportunity, as come their way of indicating the nature of the Chief Inspector's Report; and that those who have most touch with the workpeople would indicate to them where in the report there are remarks made—I will not say criticisms—showing where greater attention on the part of those employed in industry would help to diminish the number of accidents. If that were done I think we might get some reduction in the number of accidents.

These matters are largely matters of education. If only more would come to the Home Office Industria! Museum and see the kind of safety devices which up-to-date factories can employ to avoid accidents, I think we might get an improvement. The House may rest assured that the Home Office will do its utmost to improve working conditions and reduce danger. An increase of accidents must not be taken as any indication of failure on the part of a very hard working department of the Home Office in that regard. There is bound to be a certain amount in the human element, but it is the duty of the Home Office and the inspectorate of factories to try to minimise as far as possible, by warning, by advice, and in the past by legislation, the terrible toll of accidents which year by year we see reported.

We have had a very interesting discussion, in which two and a-half hours have been well spent in giving publicity to the remarkable work of this side of the Home Office. I only wish the discussion could have taken place at a time when there would have been a bigger attendance in the House and more publicity, especially for the highly interesting speech of the Under-Secretary who, in the very short time he has been in the Department, seems to have mastered his subject. The hon. Gentleman displays a sympathy and understanding which justify the promotion of a back-bencher after years of apprenticeship. It would have been a tragedy if we had adjourned without having a discussion of this particular section of the Department's work. It is perhaps due to tremendous congestion and the number of reports that come before the House that an earlier opportunity was pot taken on an Estimate to have this Debate.

This is a great historic occasion—the Adjournment of the House—when grievances should be ventilated. It is our duty when there are grievances to bring them to the notice of Ministers before rising for the Recess. On 24th July my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the classes of persons in the service of the Crown or local authorities whose pensions would be diminished by the fact that their pensions were assessed on rates of salary which had been affected by the temporary cuts in salaries or grants made by Parliament in 1931. My right hon. Friend was prompted to ask that question because of the big responsibility he had as a Member of the Cabinet at the time when the cuts were made. An assurance was given to the country and to the persons concerned that the cuts would be of a temporary character, and that every effort would be made to avoid any section of the community suffering permanently.

It has been repeated time after time that the earliest opportunity would be taken to remove the cuts and redress the grievance, and we have had a Very substantial instalment in that direction in the restoration of half of the loss of salary by the recent Finance Bill. But, as this report shows, this particular section of the community through special circumstances have suffered peculiarly. The local government officers are mentioned in the reply of the Chancellor. They are largely out of our purview. It is a matter of their relation with their local authority. Many of the local authorities have been generous and have met their grievances. It is remarkable that the third section of the question refers to the police. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen was Home Secretary at the time, and I have a vivid recollection of the agitation among the police against interference with their pension rights. An arrangement was then made as to the year which was to be the basis of their pension, and that largely conciliated the police. Unfortunately the teachers come under a peculiar arrangement. Their pensions are based on the average of the last five years of their service, and therefore those who happened to retire just at the unfortunate psychological moment, when the cut was still in full operation, are under a serious disability.

Does the hon. Baronet suggest that the teachers' pensions could be altered without legislation?

I know I would not be in order in suggesting that there should be legislation, but I suggest that there should be a grant from the Treasury to meet these particular cases. I suggest that there should be a special grant as a mark of good will and in order to meet the pledge which was given to the country that no one would be called upon to suffer permanently. A teacher who retired on 31st March, 1934, and who enjoyed a salary of £408 a year, on the basis of the present arrangement will, for the rest of his life, suffer a reduction of £10 a year. That may seem a small sum, but when it is remembered that the pension only amounts to £193, it is a serious percentage and a serious contribution by that individual towards meeting the unfortunate financial emergency of 1931. While other sections of the community will, we hope, in a year or two years have forgotten all about their cuts and their grievances and will have had their full salaries restored, while they will be able to look back on 1931 as a nasty dream, the small section of teachers who happen to have retired in 1934 will be suffering for the rest of their lives losses equivalent to that which I have described, according to the amount of their superannuation.

That is a real and permanent grievance, and our business here is to redress grievances of that kind and to remove injustices. I suggest to the Treasury that this is tantamount to an injustice. I have seen a number of teachers on this question. They were not unreasonable about it, but they felt it a hardship, and I suggest there is a responsibility on the Treasury to find some way of meeting the case of the teachers in this respect. I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is familiar with the figures and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, no doubt, knows the facts of the case. It would be a great comfort to the profession as a whole and to the section I have mentioned in particular, if the Government were able to say that they would seriously consider the question of making some substantial grant to meet this case. I agree that, legally, the Government have an unanswerable case. They are within the four corners of the law; they are entitled, in fact compelled under the Superannuation Act to make this deduction. The fund is watertight. It is based on contributions from the teachers, the local authorities and the State and legally it cannot be required to meet a claim of this kind. But as this is the case of intervention by the Government in order to meet a special emergency, it is not unreasonable to ask them to make some grant to meet this very substantial grievance.

The point raised by the hon. Baronet is one which I have on more than one occasion submitted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the representatives of the Board of Education in this House. I appreciate the fact that one cannot raise any question this morning which would involve legislation. The hon. Baronet has made the suggestion however, that the Government should consider an ex gratia payment in respect of this matter. I am not sure that hon. Members realise the full measure of the injustice. They must keep clearly in mind the fact that a teacher's pension depends upon his salary for the last five years of his service. A person retiring in July, 1934, would have two years of unreduced salary and three years of reduced salary within that period on which his pension was calculated. That obviously means that he would retire with a smaller pension than the person who will retire two or three years hence after the cut has been restored. As I have said over and over again on previous occasions, the injustice is that those affected in the way I have described will carry this imposition of a reduced pension with them to the grave. I submit that that proposition is incapable of justification.

I have no right to speak on behalf of the teachers' profession in this matter and I do not know how far the hon. Baronet does so, but, speaking for myself, I am inclined to take objection at this stage to any suggestion of an ex gratia payment. I am inclined to stick literally to the legal claim—I would say the rightful claim and the moral claim—of these teachers to a full restoration of their pensions, just as other classes will have their full pensions restored to them when salaries have been brought back to the original level. As I say I do not know how far the hon. Baronet speaks officially for the teachers, but I should say that it is like giving away half of their case to suggest that it can be met by an ex gratia payment, when we know that their moral claim is just as strong as the claim of any other teachers who will, in time, have their full pensions restored. I cannot speak on that side of it, because obviously that involves legislation. But on the merits of the case I am fully in accord with the last speaker. There is an overwhelming case on the ground of equity for these people, who will, unless something is done, have to carry right to the end of their lives an imposition in respect of a national crisis which others who are in the same grade and similarly qualified will not be called upon to bear. I do hope, therefore, that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will take note of the appeals which we are making, for we are both of us confident that the case which is submitted, if not legally sound, is certainly based upon every ground of morality so far as we understand it.

I have no objection to this important matter having been raised as it has been raised to-day, and although I cannot hold out any hope to the two hon. Members who have spoken on it that I shall Joe able to-day to say anything which will give them complete satisfaction, which I do not think either of them anticipated when they raised the matter, I would point out that at the present time, while, as they are aware, this matter is under discussion with the National Union of Teachers, it is perhaps not altogether desirable that it should be discussed in this House. Even the slight discussion that we have had already has emphasised that point. It is a great mistake, when you are negotiating an important cause, to allow that cause to be presented from two different points of view at the same time, because I think the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) has already, in the eyes of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), given away an important point. I do not say that one hon. Member was more right than the other, but one was certainly more in order than the other.

The hon. Member who has just sat down made it plain that he considered legislation the best remedy and the legal remedy, and that there was no question of ex gratia payment about it. We cannot discuss legislation on this occasion, and, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education said in reply to a Parliamentary question on this subject, any legislation which might me introduced could only be introduced if the Board of Education were satisfied that they had got complete agreement with all the pa0rties concerned. I think the House is aware that they are making at the present time every endeavour to reach some agreement of that sort. I am not in a position to make a statement as to the result of those negotiations, but I can assure the two hon. Members that I have taken note of what they have said, and that what they have said will be conveyed to all those concerned.

A Scotsman has the same problem to face as has been raised by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris). I, too, have drawn the attention of those concerned to the case of these teachers, and it is welcome news that the matter is now under consideration and may soon, one hopes, reach some kind of settlement. I rise to draw attention to another subject, namely, the proposed road bridge across the Firth of Forth. It almost seems to be the fate of new Ministers of Transport to have this problem thrown upon them in the first weeks of their appointment. It is becoming a kind of mental stimulant to them in their Ministerial teething stage. Something like three years ago, at about this time, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Sir J. Pybus) was confronted with precisely the same question within a few days of his taking office, and the new Minister now is having a similar experience. The only difference that one notices is, that whereas the hon. Member for Harwich three years ago returned to the. House from the great ocean, whence he had been summoned by wireless message, the hon. Member who is now Minister comes to us, or I hope will come to us, from more humble but no less exciting adventures on the streets of the East End of London. I hope his experiences there will not in any way damp his ardour for other adventures further north.

The raising of this matter arises out of the action, or the want of action, on the part of the Minister's immediate predecessor, who is now the Minister of Labour. It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman is not here to defend himself, but things move so quickly in transport these days that it is very difficult to know who is at the head of the Department at any particular moment. One issues a challenge to one Minister, and it is replied to suddenly by another. I selected this particular afternoon to suit the convenience of the new Minister of Transport, but I shall not be in the least bit surprised if some entirely new figure turns up to answer for him. I do not know what it is about the Ministry of Transport that makes its political head so reluctant to stay. Whether it be that the pace over there is too fast and there are no islands of refuge, or that the other offices look too ravishing through the windows of Whitehall Gardens, I cannot say. I am very glad to find that my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has now actually turned up. Certain it is that we have had three Ministers of Transport in three years, and each one of those who have gone has gone to higher fields. When the present Minister goes, which seems inevitable, I am sure we all hope that he too will step to a higher place. But I hope he will linger just a little before changing his 'bus, in order to grant the one simple request that I shall address to him this afternoon.

The question of the road bridge across the Forth has been before Parliament and the country for at least 10 years in active form. There have been innumerable questions asked and answers given on the subject in this House. At the direct request of the Minister of Transport, the Corporation of Edinburgh has in the past called conferences of local authorities to consider the matter. There have been official inquiries and investigations, and the Scottish Press has written at great length and with much enthusiasm upon this subject over that number of years. Recently there has been formed in Edinburgh a very powerful and representative Promotion Committee with the object of promoting the building of such a bridge. Therefore, it is no flash-in-the-pan idea that we are here raising, nor, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich suggested when he knew very little about the subject, some Puddleton-in-the-Mud scheme that is not worth serious consideration. I want to emphasise to the new Minister of Transport that this is a matter of first-class importance and interest to Scotland, and it simply cannot be pooh-poohed in the manner of his predecessor as something quite out of the question.

When the late Minister of Transport received a deputation of Scottish Members, he apparently thought so little of the project and, it seemed almost, of the Scottish representatives that he did not even trouble to ascertain the facts of the situation. In an effort to sustain a case for doing nothing, he quoted figures which were at least six years out of date. I hope the new Minister of Transport—indeed, I am sure of it—will not emulate those efforts. You simply cannot treat great corporations like the City of Edinburgh and the local authorities round about, not to mention Scottish Members of Parliament, in that cavalier fashion.

In his reply to the deputation, the late Minister said that he could do nothing and intended to do nothing until the new bridge which is about to be built at Kincardine and the new ferry service at Queensferry had had time to show results. I have the greatest possible respect for the Noble Lord who was responsible for these two enterprises. He was confronted with the alternative of something or nothing in the way of an improved crossing over the Firth of Forth, and I suppose he accepted the something. The Kincardine Bridge when it is built will be an excellent thing for the merchants of Glasgow, who will get a free run into Fife at Fife's expense and at the expense of merchants in Edinburgh. But nobody can pretend that the Kincardine Bridge will make any contribution to the problem of crossing at Queensferry, which, as everybody agrees, is the real problem with which we are faced. The Kincardine Bridge, 'as many of us feared, seems likely seriously to prejudice any chance of the bigger project ever being carried out. We do not need to wait, as the Minister suggested, for two, three or 10 years to see how that bridge is going to function. We know now that we are going to make a bridge not running into a new highway to the North of Scotland but into a range of hills—and that is not much of a contribution to the problem of that part of the country.

Nor can the new ferry service be considered adequate or satisfactory. Thanks to Lord Elgin the service is very much better than it was, but scarcely a day passes without one of the two steamers breaking down, through mechanical, or tidal, or pier troubles. Who is there in this House or the country to-day who will say that that old-fashioned system is the way to deal with modern transport? Neither the Kincardine Bridge nor the new ferry service is adequate; yet a greatly improved means of crossing the Firth of Forth in the vicinity of Edinburgh is urgently needed both from a national and a local point of view. I do not think that anybody outside Whitehall Gardens disputes that. Indeed, I would quote on this subject the predecessor of the present Minister of Transport, who on 9th January, 1930, sent to the Corporation of Edinburgh a letter in which it was said:

"The Minister is satisfied from the representations made to him that the present facilities are inadequate so far as vehicular traffic and foot passengers are concerned."

I would go further and say that not only is a bridge needed at the Forth, but it is needed, for completion of the route, across the Tay. I am leaving it to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. D. Foot) to deal with that branch of the subject. With regard to the Forth crossing, the only question we have to face is whether the new bridge at or near Queensferry would be justified on economic grounds. It is that question that the local authorities in Scotland have been asking for the last 10 years. It is that question that it is in the power of the new Minister of Transport to answer. There are at least three proposals in the air at the present time. First, there is the bridge at Queensferry, which was estimated some time ago to cost about £6,000,000. Later there was a scheme for a suspension bridge at Rosyth, which would cost something like £2,500,000. I have just recently heard of another scheme prepared by the firm of Blyth and Blyth, of Edinburgh. That, I am told, is a reasonable proposition, but I have no further knowledge of it. At the recent meeting with the Minister of Transport the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Guy) seemed to favour the first of these three projects, that for the £6,000,000 bridge, and he made certain proposals for financing it. I should like to say here how much we are indebted to my hon. Friend for the trouble he took in arranging that deputation. He is responsible really for this new urge, which is welcomed throughout Scotland. As he knows, however, I do not share my hon. Friend's views about the £6,000,000 bridge.

I do not ask the Minister of Transport to support the building of any one of the three bridges now or to take any steps in that direction. For my part, I believe that a bridge there or somewhere near there is necessary, but without the full facts and figures, without a full report on the practicability of the scheme as regards cost and the possible economic effects, traffic development and so on, I think it quite impossible to come to any proper conclusion. I ask the Minister of Transport for such a report. I do not ask any more at this stage. The £6,000,000 project was examined properly some years ago by a firm of experts. No doubt the figures need some amendment now in view of the changes in costs which have taken place, but we have there something to go upon.

But the alternative £2,000,000 scheme at Rosyth has never been fully examined. Those Members who were here in 1931 will recall that a survey was started in the spring of that year, but was stopped at the time of the financial crisis. The Minister of Transport at that time told the House that it was going to cost only £5,000, and it was announced that Edinburgh Corporation and Dunfermline were prepared to meet 25 per cent. of the cost of the survey. That survey has never been completed. That is the reason why the local authorities up to now have refused to pay their contributions. They say, and I think rightly, "If you complete the job you undertook we will pay our 'whack'; otherwise we shall not do so." I am told on good authority that such preliminary borings as were made in the Forth at that time showed that the Rosyth Suspension Bridge scheme was a perfectly practicable proposition. The Edinburgh Corporation, the local authorities concerned, the Scottish Members of Parliament and the Scottish public want to know the facts about that scheme.

I have always taken the view that the responsibility for the cost of building such a bridge across the Firth of Forth must be borne in considerable measure by the local authorities. I am sorry to see that the chairman of the new promotion committee, at the opening meeting, said:

"It is not really our business to deal with that aspect of the question."

—meaning the aspect of finance. For my part, I should have thought that was the most important question to which they could possibly have set their minds. I think it quite unjustifiable to expect the Minister of Transport, whose energy we are all admiring, at a time when he has to meet special expense for the saving of human life on the roads and streets, to make a grant of anything like 80 per cent. to 90 or 95 per cent, for this bridge in the East of Scotland. A tunnel was built under the Mersey the other day, and I am glad to see that the "Scotsman," that most influential newspaper in Scotland, gave full details of the financing of that scheme—because it is a contribution more along those lines that I have in mind for the Minister of Transport and the local authorities in connection with this Firth of Forth Bridge. But though these contributions would appear to local authorities large at the beginning, they need not be permanent and impossible contributions, because the whole service of the funds required could be met by a system of tolls. Such a system has been practised with similar bridges in this country and abroad. I read only yesterday of a great new bridge being built in America, that modern up-to-date country, which is to be financed for 20 years by a system of tolls. They are no hindrance to motorists and take up no more time than the red light in traffic signals.

It is useless to expect the local authorities to formulate any scheme or suggest any contributions to the cost of the bridge until the surveys have been completed. It may be that the boring operations for the smaller scheme will show that it is impracticable. If that be so, I am prepared to abandon the idea. It may be that a still wider survey into the whole economic condition of the surrounding country, into the possibility of trade development and of population changes, and into traffic developments, would show that the scheme was not justified. I am prepared to accept the findings of such a survey, but let us have the facts so that we may dispose of this matter once and for all, one way or the other. The request I make is not big. It is not expensive. I understand it will not cost the Minister, when he gets in the contributions from the local authorities, much more than £1,000 to complete these borings. I would remind him of the pledge of his predecessor on this point. Answering a question in the House exactly three years ago to-day, the Minister of Transport made this announcement:

"At the request of the local authorities concerned, a grant is being made from the Road Fund towards the cost of a preliminary engineering investigation into the possibility of constructing a road bridge across the Forth at Rosyth …I hope that the borings will very shortly be done."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st July, 1931; col. 2649, Vol. 255.]

There was reasonable cause for stopping that survey during the time of the financial crisis, but we are told that the finances of the country are now restored. The Minister of Transport, in one of his last speeches when he was at the Treasury, rightly claimed that the credit of this country had been re-established. That being so, I ask him to abide by the bargain of his Department and to carry out and complete that survey. I should not have thought that for £1,000 it was worth while breaking the promise made three years ago.

Scotland is entitled to have this enterprise properly examined. Taken as a whole, Scotland has not gained much from the national recovery. In my part of the country, in Fife, we have gained considerably by the new coal agreements, but other parts of the country are as derelict to-day as they were three years ago. Since the National Government came into power there has been a reduction of unemployment in England from 20 to 15 per cent. In Scotland unemployment is still 25 per cent., which is some 50 per cent. higher than it is in England. In addition, industries are year by year drifting south away from Scotland, and capital is leaving the country and going mostly to London. Some stimulus is needed to restore the industrial vitality of Scotland. Therefore, this is a very much bigger issue than the mere building of one or two bridges.

The Minister of Transport has it in his hands to do something great, courageous and imaginative to bring new life into the derelict industrial areas of Scotland. I often thinkȔit may be because I am patriotically prejudiced—that if the Firth of Forth had been in England this particular work would have been done years ago. Because it happens to be north of the Tweed, and we are so modest that we do not press our claims like hon. Members from Durham or South Wales, nothing is done. It is a punishment for our modesty. Unfortunately, the Minister of Transport has not the privilege of being a Scotsman, but he is the next best thing. He is a very shrewd and sensible man, and he knows that you cannot maintain the balance of a country's economy if one part of the country is allowed to go by default. The Firth of Forth bridge might have profound effects for good upon the industrial and social life of Scotland. I ask the Minister, and I believe I am supported by the great majority of Scottish people, to let us have the facts so that we may know what we are doing.

I endorse the eloquent appeal that my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) has made to the Minister of Transport as to the importance of a road bridge scheme across the Forth. It is not merely a local question, but a question of considerable national importance. If the scheme went forward, it would be of importance to the iron and steel industry in the west of Scotland. From the transport point of view, it would affect all tourists by road coming from the south of England. I would remind the Minister that the main artery into Scotland, the road which is known to the Ministry as Al, which connects the two capitals of London and Edinburgh, stops at Edinburgh. We in Edinburgh do not wish tourists coming from the south to consider that city as the end of their journey, and we would like them to have the alternative of going west to Glasgow or to Stirling, or north across the Forth into the kingdom of Fife, or further north to Dundee and Aberdeen. At present, travellers who come from the south are, when they arrive at Edinburgh, faced with the estuary of the River Forth, and they have the alternative of either taking the ferry or going round by Stirling. Even when the new bridge at Kincardine is completed, visitors will have to make a considerable detour to get north.

The next point I want to emphasise is the local value of this bridge. I would remind the Minister that in Edinburgh and the Lothians there is a population of 600,000. In Fifeshire there is a population of 200,000, and the main communications between the two counties at present are very limited. It is true that for the last 50 years there has been a famous railway bridge crossing the Forth, but many people prefer to travel by road, and they are entitled to all reasonable facilities for the completion of their journey. As things are now, the River Forth forms a real obstacle between the inhabitants of Fife and those of the Lothians.

As to the demand for the bridge, I can speak for opinion in Edinburgh, and can assure the Minister that for the last 10 years there has been a steady demand for a road bridge across the.Forth. It is not a party question, because Liberals, Socialists and Conservatives are united in the demand for it. There is one point on which I would like to correct my hon. Friend. He said that at the recent deputation to the Minister's predecessor I came down in favour of the £6,000,000 at Queensferry. He explained that the complete survey for a bridge at Queensferry was made in 1929. At that deputation we were mainly concerned with the general case for a bridge and did not go into details regarding one place or another. It is true that I did not give up altogether the idea of the larger bridge at Queens-ferry, and for a particular reason, namely, that the survey for the bridge at Rosyth has never been completed. When the borings have been taken it may be found that a bridge there is not regarded as practicable, and if we had abandoned the larger scheme and then the smaller scheme had been held to be impracticable we might have lost the whole case for the bridge; but in the light of facts which have come to our knowledge I would say to the Minister that if when this incompleted survey is finished it is found that the Rosyth bridge is a practicable scheme I do not think any of us will bother very much about the larger scheme.

Much could be said in favour of the more expensive scheme, but we have to be reasonable and I feel that most people would be quite satisfied with the more modest alternative. If the Minister would complete the survey for the Rosyth bridge he would make it very much easier for the local authorities to prepare a scheme and submit figures to him for his consideration and, I hope, acceptance. They are not in the position to do that now because they have not all the relevant facts to enable them to make up their minds. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is surprising, considering the strong case there is for a bridge across the Forth, and the demand for it, as reflected in the local and the national Press in Scotland, that the bridge has not been started before now. One would almost think there were some bogy connected with it. Whenever the time has appeared to be ripe for starling the bridge some very attractive red herring has been drawn across the trail—either an improvement in the ferry service, or the idea of the Kincardine bridge to distract the attention of people from the question of this bridge. But although the ferry system has been considerably improved, and although the Kincardine bridge will have a certain local value, it is obvious to all who have considered the subject that the only solution of the problem of cross-river communication will be a road bridge at either Queensferry or Rosyth. It is very seldom that anybody comes into the open to say that a road bridge would be a mistake. I understand, however, that certain railway interests are rather opposed to this bridge. They would like to have the monopoly of traffic across the river, and they have the idea that their railway traffic might be affected by the road bridge; but that is a profound mistake, and for this reason. If I am right in what I said earlier about the lack of communication between Fife-shire and the Lothians, and the lack of a vital link in the road communications for those coming from the south and going to the north of Scotland, a road bridge would stimulate the general traffic between Fifeshire and the Lothians and in the long run the traffic by rail across the river would not be materially affected but might be increased. In any event, in a matter of this sort any question of commercial profits is a minor consideration in the face of the public interest, and I ask the Minister to regard this question from the broad point of view of the needs of the travelling public, and I would press upon him to take the first step in a work of considerable value by completing the survey for the bridge at Rosyth.

It is quite clear that my hon. Friend who is now the Minister of Transport has taken over the duties of an office which is no sinecure. It is a position which will find employment for all the talents which he undoubtedly possesses and we all wish him well in his very important post. I intervene only to say a word in connection with the Forth road bridge. My hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) has, in my opinion, made out a case for the completion of the survey, and that is all he asks for at the present time. There is a strong and influential body of opinion in Scotland which considers that a road bridge across the Forth is necessary. In my opinion the immediate prospect of the construction of such a bridge has been prejudiced for some time by the arrangement made for the construction of the Kincardine bridge. That may very well delay the immediate practicability of the bridge lower down, but I think all reasonable people will agree that the survey begun in 1930 and 1931 should now be completed.

We want an expert and inpartial examination of the position from every point of view to discover whether a bridge is desirable in the interests of transport conditions in Scotland, and from commercial and economic points of view. That is a very modest request to make to the Department. Various proposals for the site of the bridge have been mentioned—Queensferry, Rosyth and another suggested by some firm in Edinburgh. I do not wish to intrude my personal ideas in this matter, but Dunfermline is represented on this rather important promotion committee, and, if it were discovered first of all that a new road bridge were desirable, and that the proper place for the construction of that bridge on one side was Rosyth, I should be very gratified. At Rosyth, we have virtually a derelict area from the naval point of view, and if its ancient glories can be in part revived by a construction at that point of one part of the bridge, that would be welcomed by the important constituency which I represent.

Having regard to the possible cost of erecting a suspension bridge there, and to the very much lower price than that which was mentioned for a bridge lower down, I feel sure that the claims of Rosyth will not be overlooked. I suggest to the Minister that he will not be committing his Department in any way, or undertaking any responsibility for the future, if he can see his way to agree to the simple and reasonable request that I am making for the completion of the survey. I assure him that that would satisfy Scottish opinion which is, in point of fact, somewhat divided upon the subject of the bridge itself. It would settle a matter which has been agitating public opinion for a very long time, and would at the same time re-assure us in Scotland that Scottish interests are not neglected in this House. People sometimes suspect that projects of this character receive more favourable consideration in the south than north of the Tweed, but I do not believe there is a word of truth in that idea. There is very considerable interest taken in the proposal in Scotland. All that Scottish people want is an enlightened and expert inquiry, and a definite decision upon this very important matter. The first step is the completion of the survey.

I entirely agree with hon Members opposite in regard to the proposed road bridge over the Forth. I want to bring to the Minister's attention the very similar question of a road bridge over the Tay. One has only to look at the map of the east of Scotland to realise that both projects march together. Neither of them is merely a local question, and if the Minister were to carry them out during his tenure of office, that would be national development in the widest and fullest sense of the term. The two bridges together would make a new great east coast road for Scotland, stretching from Edinburgh to Dundee land Aberdeen, and it would constitute a new artery for Scottish trade and industry.

I have always considered it fantastic that in the 20th century there should be no direct road link between two of the principal cities of Scotland, Dundee and Edinburgh, except by cumbersome and slow ferry crossings. If a motorist in Dundee wishes to go due south, he has first of all to use the Tay ferry crossing. That is a half-hour service, and he may have some time to wait on the bank of the river. Getting across takes a quarter of an hour If he be in a four-seater car, he has to pay 3s. 6d. single fare or 5s. 6d.for the return fare. If he be driving a lorry which does not exceed two tons in weight, the fare which he has to pay is 4s. single, or 5s. 6d. return. If the vehicle be heavier, he has to pay a greater amount still. When he comes to the river Forth, he has to go over a similar crossing, involving similar delay and similar charges. The only way in which he can avoid paying that tax upon transport—that is what it amounts to—is by making a very long detour round by Perth and Sterling.

This is not a new project, like the question of the road bridge over the Forth. It has been under consideration for a number of years. It first came prominently before the attention of the Government in 1929, and was very seriously considered by Mr. Morrison, the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor and by Mr. T. Johnston, who was then Lord Privy Seal and was in charge of works of national development. A survey was actually made, and it was estimated that the cost of a bridge just near the present railway bridge would be in the neighbourhood of £2.100,000. On 5th May, 1931, a Conference was held in this building between representatives of the Corporation of Dundee on the one side and on the other, Mr. T. Johnston, Mr. Adamson, who was then Secretary of State for Scotland, and Mr. Morrison. It was agreed that a conference of local authorities should be called at Dundee to consider the financial contribution that should be made, and the question of tolls if the bridge were actually erected. In August of that year the financial crisis supervened, and at the initiative of the Dundee Corporation consideration of the project was postponed.

Financial conditions are less stringent, and, now that it has been possible for the Government to advance £9,500,000 to help employment in the West of Scotland, it is felt very strongly, at any rate in Dundee, that there is a reasonable chance that the scheme could be proceeded with. Recently there was a unanimous vote of the Corporation that the bridge scheme should now be further considered. The Minister may reply that the initiative ought in the first place to come from the local authority, but it is useless a local authority taking steps, either on its own or with other local authorities interested, unless they are assured that when they have taken all the trouble the project will be considered by the Minister and his Department with an open mind. The matter has already been taken up this year with the Ministry of Transport. A letter was sent to the Ministry by the Town Clerk of Dundee on behalf of the Corporation, and a reply to it was sent on the 13th March, in which it was suggested that there should be a fresh conference of local authorities. But I would draw my hon. Friends attention to the last paragraph of the letter that was sent on that occasion. It reads as follows:

"I am, however, to add that, in view of the present commitments of the Road Fund, the Minister does not regard the present time as likely to be opportune for granting assistance from the Fund towards the suggested bridge."

Obviously, that kind of attitude is not going to encourage any local authority. It is an intimation that, even though they may call their conference of local authorities interested, nothing is going to happen, whatever recommendation may come out of it. I hope that my hon. Friend will show a more sympathetic attitude today. I would like to make my appeal to him, because I think that these two projects, a bridge over the Forth and a bridge over the Tay, are really projects after his own heart. I have heard my hon. Friend make many powerful and eloquent speeches, both in this House and outside. One of the finest speeches that I ever heard from him was made some years ago when he came to speak in my support when I was Liberal candidate for the Tiverton Division of Devon. At that time the Liberal Yellow Book was before the electorate, and my hon. Friend gave a very powerful address advocating the proposals contained in that volume. One of the features of the Yellow Book policy is its proposal for great works of national development. My hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart), when he raised this subject about an hour ago, pointed out that the Ministry of Transport was, as it were, a stepping stone for those who go there, and he anticipated, as I anticipate, that my hon. Friend will not be long at that Ministry. At any rate, when he is called, and I hope it may be soon, to a higher sphere of utility—when, as it were, he once more rises on the stepping stones of his dead life to higher things—I should like him to leave behind these two great bridges stretching across the Forth and the Tay as a lasting monument of his work and of his tenure of office at the Ministry of Transport.

I begin by repelling the attack which was so unjustifiably made upon my predecessor by way of exordium to this discussion. I will content myself with saying that, if I can reach my predecessor's high standard of ability and sound judgment, I shall be well content. The matter which has been raised is a simple one, although it would be difficult to gather that from the speeches which have been delivered. Fair treatment has been asked for on behalf of Scotland, and that fair treatment I and every other Member of the Government would be willing to concede—in fact, we should find it impossible to resist—on this as on every other occasion. But, surely, it is a far cry from fair treatment to preferential treatment, and, unless my hon. Friends are asking for that, they will have no cause to be dissatisfied with the reply that I am about to make. I realise the deep local interest in these matters, whether native or acquired, and I congratulate my hon. Friends on the ability with which the case has been argued. They began with a request for one bridge, but my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot), not content with one bridge, asks for two, and he says that no expenditure would be too great, because they would be a monument to my tenure of the office which I now hold. The procedure is quite simple, and applies in every similar case. It is not the Government that is to be charged with inactivity. If any authority interested in any project will put it before the Ministry, I can assure him that it will receive the most equitable and sympathetic consideration. But there is only one Road Fund, and I desire it to be spent to the very greatest advantage. I recommend those authorities who are interested in this subject to put their proposals forward in time, if they have any proposals, so that they may be considered with the rest.

Some years ago, investigations were made for the improvement of the road transport facilities across the Forth. Three possible locations for bridges were considered, one just east of the Queens-ferry Bridge, one about three miles higher up the river at Rosyth, and one 14 miles further up at Kincardine. The last-mentioned bridge is now being built. The local authorities knew their own minds; they came with specific proposals, and it is hoped that this bridge will be completed within a reasonable time. With regard to the Queensferry Bridge, all the facts are in our possession. A full investigation was made, and we know every detail down to the price, which, I agree with my hon. Friend, is a fluctuating item depending upon the cost of labour and materials at any particular date. The facts, however, are fully known. With regard to the Rosyth proposal, here also we have a full memorandum of investigations, complete in every engineering detail except that the foundations have not actually been proved. I am asked whether that investigation can be brought to the point of completion, but the only action that I am required to take is to place the facts at the disposal of those interested—

To complete the borings.

To complete the borings. The cost of completing the investigation, including the sounding of the foundations, would be about £13,000. That is not a vast sum of money, and, if it is going to lead to any practical result, I am willing to complete the borings upon the condition that I shall presently mention to the House. I could provide Londoners with about 200 more pedestrian crossings from that sum of money, so I do not want to throw the amount away, as I am sure my hon. Friends, with their economic instinct in all matters except, perhaps, in this instance with regard to the taxpayers' money, will agree. Therefore, I make this statement to my hon. Friends, which I hope they will consider to be satis-factory. If the local authorities were to indicate, as they never yet have done, that they would themselves be prepared to find a substantial portion of the cost of constructing the bridge at Rosyth and accept their fair share of responsibility for maintaining it—I understand from the hon. Member for East Fire (Mr. H. Stewart) that that is what he would recommend them to do—I will then consider whether I am justified in agreeing to the completion of the investigation, and I will pay 75 per cent. of the cost of completing the investigation. I should, of course, expect the local authorities to pay at once their fair share of the costs already incurred, which they have under taken to pay but have not paid, doubtless upon good grounds. I cannot make any promise of a Government grant, but that is the offer that I make, and it is exactly the same offer that applies to any other local authority. The offer is universal, and I hope my hon. Friends will consider it satisfactory. I do not think they will expect me to Say any more, because they have not asked for more, but if this Debate has helped to clarify the situation, as they desire a clarification of the situation, my hon. Friends will have rendered a useful service, particularly the hon. Member for East Fife who so painstakingly and fully laid the case before the House.

The hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the point that I raised about the Tay Bridge. Will he consider with an open mind the question of proceeding with the. Tay Bridge?

We suggested some time ago a regional conference to investigate the financial aspects of the project. I have not yet heard the result, but I assure the hon. Member that I will consider any proposals that are made with what he is pleased to call an open mind.

At the same time the Ministry of Transport said they thought the time was inopportune. May we take it that the hon. Gentleman does not think that the time is inopportune?

I have given the hon. Member a perfectly fair answer to his question, that I will consider the proposal with an open mind when it is made.

We have been told that this is an historic occasion for Members to voice grievances. I have been waiting a long time to voice a grievance which deals with an item of public expenditure. We have not had an opportunity of discussing it, as we should have had. In December last the Prime Minister was asked what were the Government's intentions in regard to a piece of work called the Codex Sinaiticus. The reply was that they were making a grant to buy it. It was valued at £100,000. They were finding the money, and it was hoped that the public would contribute, and the Government would pay pound for pound of the contribution. Asked if there would be an opportunity of discussing it as an item of public expenditure, the reply was that there would be. A further question was put in February, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) asked whether there would be a Supplementary Estimate. Again, the answer was "Yes." A further question whether a free vote of the House would be allowed met with no reply. From that time onward many other questions have been asked, but we have always been put off. We were told that later on there would be an Estimate, and we should have a chance of discussing it. On the 19th instant, when the Lord President of the Council was telling us about the business for the rest of the Session, he was asked whether we should have an opportunity of discussing this Supplementary Estimate, and he said he did not think we should owing to the rush of business. He was quite candid at that moment. At once one realised that we were being taken away from the point when many wanted to express an opinion upon the matter.

Therefore, I have been watching for an opportunity, and on Wednesday night of last week, which was the last possible occasion when an opportunity for discussion might arise, I waited to see whether the Estimate would be reached before 10 o'clock. After 10 o'clock, when an opportunity for discussion had passed, I decided to take the only course open to me, and I appealed to Mr. Speaker to give me the opportunity to-day to express my opinion upon this matter. I had hoped that many other watchdogs of public finance would have been here, because from time to time certain hon. Members opposite ask that public. expenditure should be most carefully considered, and that no money should be given away. I remember on the occasion when the House granted £2,000,000 to Palestine, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) getting up one Friday afternoon and displaying great indignation about money being thrown away, and claiming to be a watchdog of public finance. This morning I told him that I was going to raise this matter, and said that I hoped that he would help me to defend the public purse against any wasteful expenditure. At any rate, he cannot be here this afternoon, and it would appear that I have lost his help in protesting against money being voted before we have had a chance of discussing the matter.

I have been to see this piece of historical work. I wanted to know what is supposed to interest our people, and to get some idea of the aesthetic taste which some people possess in desiring to obtain ancient literature. I cannot say that I was greatly impressed with what I saw. I am in the same position that I was before I saw it. It is evidently an old manuscript, and it is in a glass case at the British Museum, described in language which I cannot understand. A Supplementary Estimate of £41,440 has been passed as our share towards its purchase, and we understand that, if public subscriptions come in, the amount may be reduced. In any case, there will be a considerable item which this House will have to find. Is it right at a time like the present, when there is such a call for economy and such a cry for people to be provided with the means of life, that the House of Commons should be allowed, without any public discussion at all, to grant such a sum of money for what I consider to be a useless piece of manuscript. Is it right that any public expenditure should be allowed to go through without an expression of public opinion having been given upon it, and why should we buy this kind of thing for the purposes of the State?

From time to time, on the Floor of this House, I have brought forward the needs of our people. I remember quoting an instance of an unemployed man who spoke over the wireless, and said that after he had met all direct calls the family was left with 4d. per head per day. I have also brought forward cases where people are known to be living in sordid surroundings without decent accommodation, and yet here I am, a Member of the House of Commons, taking part in the granting of a sum of money for something for which I claim there is no need at all. How can hon. Members face any of their electors and claim that they are watching the finances of the country when they have allowed an item such as I have described to go through without any comment? There are some public-minded men and others who view this as an opportunity to get hold of a valuable manuscript for the benefit of the State. They will say that there are valuable paintings which we ought to have for the State, and that other manuscripts, such as the one I described, ought to be bought. I do not dispute that question with them, but if they really believe that, they ought to put their hand down and pay for it. If I have any particular bent in life, and there is something which I consider to be essential for my pleasure and taste, it is my duty to get it myself. If public-spirited men think that this manuscript is something that the State ought to have, they ought to be public spirited enough to say: "We recognise that the country has not the means of providing this document, and it is wrong for us to ask the country to provide it at this time, when there is so much want and poverty; therefore we will find the money ourselves."

The £100,000 which it was thought would be subscribed by the public has not been forthcoming; consequently we have to meet the Supplementary Estimate. I hope that the people to whom I have been referring will take to heart what I have said and that they will feel that it is their duty to come forward and find the money in order to relieve the State of that obligation. It is not fair or proper that such a burden should fall on the State. If opportunity had been provided for Debate earlier, it is possible that by protest on the Floor of the House we might have aroused the consciences of those people. It is argued that we ought to have this manuscript in the British Museum, that it ought not to be left in Russia, and that it ought to belong to a civilised country where they respect and honour that kind of thing. Those who take that view will, I hope, take note of my words and find the money. I do not think that it is right that a few men, including the Prime Minister who has taste in that direction, should be persuaded to grant public money without any question being brought before the House of Commons. It is unfair that such a Supplementary Estimate should go through without any chance being given for protest. I hope the Government will realise how we feel on this matter and that the people to whom I refer will also realise it, and that they will respond to the appeal that they should find the money.

I want to add a few words to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) on the question of the Codex, the name of which I will not endeavour to pronounce. The Government have not quite kept faith with the House on this matter. We had a definite promise that any financial commitment that we were involved in would be brought before the House in circumstances which would give an opportunity for criticism of the expenditure. The Government may say that the money has been voted by the House. That is true, but it does not seem to be an implementing of the undertaking to bring forward a money Vote in the huge collection of Estimates that was put through under the Guillotine. The Government ought to have brought forward this Estimate in a form which would have enabled the House to discuss it. I do not think that there would have been an extended discussion on the subject, but there are points of view to be expressed and there should have been an opportunity of expressing them in the House.

I do not want to criticise the action of the Government too much. Hon. Members know that I have very strong interests in the Russian nation. I want to assist its progress in every possible way, and I do not allow myself to forget that the £100,000 we have spent on this document went into the coffers of Soviet Russia. Therefore, I cannot arouse myself to the same degree of hostility as I would had some enterprising private commercial capitalist been hawking the document around. I do not pretend to be a religious man, but I think there is something indecent in carrying on a trade in this particular kind of document. I do not know how the Secretary for Mines feels about it, he is more in touch with the religious life of the House than I am, and I do not propose to rush into territory where angels may well fear to tread, but the hawking around of a document of this description to the highest bidder is not in keeping with my conception of religious people.

The one point with which I am concerned in this matter is this—I think the House should give some little consideration to it. This was initiated very eagerly and was arranged with tremendous facility by the Government. Some of us have shouted at the pitch of our voices for concessions of one kind and another to the very poorest in this land. We have asked for bread, and did not get it. Those who asked for the manuscript got it with tremendous facility. It was all arranged inside a week. Although it is not a huge sum of money that is involved in relation to the whole national income and expenditure there is, nevertheless, a principle involved. The British Museum have become the owners of this document. On the directorate or governing body of the British Museum are, as private individuals Members of the Cabinet, holding office at this moment, and I am certain that if a railway company or a bank was involved in a transaction of this description it would be regarded as quite improper that Members of the Government should vote to themselves, as governors, a particular property—

As trustees.

I hope the hon. Member sees my point, and will not either mislead himself or others by quibbling about words. I might claim to be a trustee of a dozen concerns, and if I was Prime Minister or Lord President of the Council it would be improper for me to use my influence to facilitate the granting of public money to some body of which I was a trustee. I know that it is a difficult subject. There is not much involved financially, as I have said. I think it can be said that it is a good thing that a great national institution like the British Museum should have on it distinguished statesmen, but I certainly do not think it is right or proper that while these distinguished statesmen are actually holding office they should be in a position to vote additional public funds or to procure the voting of additional public funds to the institution in which they have a special and peculiar interest. That very fact should have made the leaders of the Government feel a special obligation to bring the proposal before the House in a form that would take the responsibility off their shoulders as members of the Cabinet and put the responsibility on to the House of Commons. I hope that at the earliest possible opportunity the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will convey to the Prime Minister and to the Lord President the question that I have put as to the propriety of their holding the position that they do hold and at the same time holding positions as directors or governors of a private institution.

I wish to detain the House only for a few moments to offer to it certain observations on the remarks that have fallen from the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) and the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). Neither of them has made any reference to the destination of the money which constitutes the purchase price paid to the Soviet Government for Codex Sinaiticus. The hon. Member for Bridgeton stated that the sum of £100,000 goes into the coffers of the Soviet Government. But it does nothing of the sort. The Soviet Government, as the House no doubt well knows, has pledged itself to devote the purchase price of this manuscript to goods manufactured in this country. It is, therefore, wholly inaccu- rate to say that this sum of money is to go into the coffers of that Government, whose stability and interests the hon. Member is so anxious to ensure. That seems to me to be a point of substance. It is perfectly true that the goods to be made in this country go to Russia, but the manufacture of them has in the meantime provided employment for British workmen. That aspect of the matter was wholly omitted from his consideration by the hon. Member for Leigh. I therefore respectfully submit to the House that upon mercantile grounds alone this transaction is justified.

But I should like to offer to the House a few observations upon another aspect of the matter. It is not only upon mercantile grounds, surely, that this question ought to be considered. The wealth of a nation does not consist only in its fields, its mines, its factories, and its marts of commerce. It does not live by bread alone. The wealth of a nation consists also in the things that contribute to the culture of the mind: it consists also in its music, its books, its statuary, its paintings, and all those things that go to make up the domain of art. The hon. Member for Leigh, having regard to this aspect of the question and showing himself, as I thought, sympathetic to those who desire to enjoy works of art, argued that those who desire to possess them should pay for them themselves. That argument, I think, is of force where the enjoyment of works of art inures only to particular individuals, but the case is different when the enjoyment of them inures not only to individuals but to the whole nation. The things that are in the British Museum are things the study of which is open to the whole people. It seemed to me that on this point the hon. Member for Bridgeton fell into an error. He several times referred to those who are charged with the management of the affairs of the Museum as governors or directors, and he sought to establish some analogy between the governors or directors of an industrial concern and those to whom is entrusted the management of the affairs of the Museum. He was corrected by an hon. Member who reminded him that it is not a question of directors or governors but of trustees, but he waived the interruption aside as though it were of no moment. His error however was more than a verbal one. It indicated a real fallacy and a real confusion of thought. These individuals are not in the position of governors or directors of an industrial concern. They are trustees of the British Museum, and as such, they are trustees of an institution the possessions of which are available to the whole people.

Does that entitle them to pillage the public purse at any given moment?

Certainly not. There is no question of pillaging the public purse. So I say that the argument of the hon. Member for Leigh that those who wish to enjoy works of art should themselves purchase them, has here no application. The hon. Member referred to this manuscript as useless. Let me assure him that there are many to whom it is by no means useless. He says that it is written in a language which he could not understand. Many Members of this House might experience the same difficulty. I may perhaps remind him that it is described by the trustees as being written hi a script which is "a rather large and handsome uncial, regular and exact but a little heavy." Possibly it was this feature of the script that presented difficulty to the hon. Member. This manuscript is something which it is good for this country to possess. It is one of the primary sources for the text of the Bible. It is certainly one of the earliest, if not the earliest, of those sources. The question of the relative value of the different manuscripts is a highly technical one, upon which I should never venture to pronounce a dogmatic opinion, but this is agreed, that this manuscript is one of the most valuable and interesting of the primary sources for the text of the Bible. The Codex Sinaiticus is not merely a thing which is of the greatest value and interest to Biblical scholars; it is also one of those things which contribute to our culture. It is now part of the wealth of this country, and I am delighted that His Majesty's Government have made the provision which has rendered possible the acquisition by the British Museum of this manuscript.

I have to ask the leave of the House to speak again, having already spoken once, but assuming that I have that leave, I hope to say a few words on this subject, though I think the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has largely established the case for the purchase of this manuscript. I noticed that the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) was anxious to take part in the Debate on the Forth Bridge. Had he done so, he also would have exhausted his right to speak, and we should not have had the advantage of his views on the Codex. With all due respect to the hon. Member, I think his views on the Forth Bridge would have been more valuable to the House than his views on the Codex Sinaiticus. It is the end of the Session, and I am sure that the hon. Member, as most of us, needs a holiday, but I think I can say with truth that seldom have I heard him to less advantage than this afternoon.

In the first place, his strictures on the behaviour of the Soviet Government, which, coming from him, rather surprised me, were not wholly deserved perhaps. It seemed to him, from a religious point of view, hardly decent to hawk about a manuscript of this sort. Nobody would think that he was criticising His Majesty's Government, for it is they who have prevented this manuscript from being hawked about. The people who hawked it about were the Soviet Government, because they offered it first to one Government and then to another, and as they are notoriously and violently anti-Christian and anti-all forms of revealed religion, I do not think they are to blame for trying to sell a manuscript that has to them no value, any more than I can see that His Majesty's Government are to blame for spending money on a manuscript that is to this country, more than to any other country in the world, of very particular value. I would not pretend for a moment that the people of this country are more religious than the peoples of other countries, but I think the hon. Member for Bridgeton himself will agree with me that there is no country in the world on which the actual text of the Scriptures has had a greater effect than this country. There is no country where these words are so well known, where they are so engraved on the hearts and minds of the people, and where they have exercised so powerful an influence, if not wholly over the condition of the people, at least over the whole of English literature.

Then the hon. Member for Bridgeton made the mistake of referring to the British Museum as though it were a private institution. To say that it was improper for His Majesty's Government to assist that institution to purchase anything, in view of the fact that certain Members of the Government are also trustees of the British Museum, is an utterly untenable proposition. The British Museum is not a private institution at all. The salaries of its clerks and other officials are paid by this House, and it is public property, under public control. For the hon. Member to say that the Government ought not to hand over money to the British Museum is as ridiculous as it would be to say that they ought not to hand it over to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture or to any other Department of the State.

The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) raised two important questions. He divided his speech into two parts, and he complained, first, that no opportunity had been given for discussion. If no opportunity has been given, the only people who are to blame are the leaders of his own party and himself. He knows perfectly well that it is only for his Front Bench to ask for any matter to be discussed, and it is discussed. There have been 20 separate opportunities when, if the leaders of his party had wished to discuss this matter, they might have done so, and they have refused to do so. The hon. Member talked about pilfering from the public purse and spending money without the consent of Parliament. Both hon. Members know as well as I do that not every penny that is spent by this country can be discussed in this House. There is not time, and it is for the Opposition, and nobody else, to decide what matters shall be discussed and what matters shall not be discussed.

The Prime Minister on two occasions said that an opportunity for discussion would be given. That is what I am basing my claim upon. I trusted in his word, and we felt that the opportunity would be given.

I do not think that the Prime Minister has broken his word. Not only one opportunity but 20 separate opportunities were given, and the Opposition refused to take advantage of them. The hon. Member himself said that he would raise the matter at the first oppor- tunity. The other night the House rose at eight o'clock and I was here in my place with all my papers about the Codex, and he was sitting there. I had expected that we should have had a Debate lasting possibly from eight to 11 o'clock on this subject.

I must protest against that. We have to make arrangements to get an hon. Member present to give a reply. I did not make any arrangement, and I did not expect that any opportunity would be given.

It is open to the hon. Member to make this arrangement. I was here assuming that he would take the first opportunity of raising the matter, and I was prepared. There is no case at all for saying that no opportunity was given for discussing this matter. There are, no doubt, many matters which hon. Members opposite would have liked to have discussed. It is their own fault and that of their leaders if those things have not been discussed. The hon. Member says that it is a waste of money to spend such a large sum on a manuscript of this kind. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) in his place, for I know that he is a noted bibliophile and I assume that I shall have his support in this piece of book collecting on a State basis. The hon. Member opposite has said that the money might have been spent very much better in other ways. You can bring that argument to bear concerning any expenditure of public money not directed solely to improving the health and condition of the people. Is that fair? No doubt it is true that in private life, as the hon. Member has said, a person who wanted a thing of that kind would consider it his duty to pay for it out of his own pocket. That is a very different proposition. But the argument appears to be that although people in this country are still in want, yet we spend £41,000 on an ancient manuscript.

Where does that argument lead us if pursued to its logical conclusion? It you are going to talk that sort of sentimental stuff you may as well say: How would you choose between buying a beautiful picture or feeding a child? If you are to choose between getting a beautiful picture and giving more money to poor people, what would you do? Does the hon. Member suggest that we should sell the whole of the National Gallery and that we should refuse to raise money to prop up the fabric of St. Paul's Cathedral and Westminster Abbey until we have satisfied the needs of every poor person in the country The Government has to preserve a sense of proportion. It has to harden its heart and say that some things must be of greater importance than others. Money must be spent on maintaining the beauty and dignity of this country. Money must be spent on our museums in making them the finest museums in the world. You can take the parallel of the father and the child. A father may spend money on getting something for the child when the child would prefer to have some other thing, but, none the less, die money is better spent on something that the child will not appreciate and cannot hope to appreciate until he is grown up.

There are many things in this country to-day which the vast majority of people do not appreciate. I am unmoved by the argument that the majority of people cannot read the Codex. The majority of people do not appreciate the most beautiful works of art in the National Gallery. Are we, therefore, to make a bonfire of those works of art, or have a sale to the highest bidder Should we not rather look forward to the time when most of our people, through improved standards of education and a higher standard of civilisation, will be able to appreciate these things It is the duty of the Government to act as the trustee of the people in matters of this kind, and not to wait for a popular vote before they spend a few pounds of the nation's money in securing a manuscript of international fame, the earliest complete manuscript in the whole world of the New Testament, which is particularly sacred to the people of England. Was it not right that the Government should say it was a thing that England ought to possess when it was for sale and a thing upon which the Government ought to be prepared to spend money?

It is within the recollection of the House that in September, 1931, some disturbance arose in some of His Majesty's ships at Invergordon. It is with great reluctance that I remind the House of that event, but I have been forced to do so in order to call attention to the grave injustice that has been done to the admiral who was temporarily in command of the Fleet at that time. The sequence of events and the time and dates are so important to my case, that, with the permission of the House, I will read a brief statement of facts. On Monday, 7th September, 1931, the ships of the Atlantic Fleet were assembled at their home ports ready to leave for exercises in Scottish waters. The Commander-in-Chief, Sir Michael Hodges, was discharged to Haslar Hospital, and temporary command of the Fleet was assumed by the next senior admiral, Rear-Admiral Wilfred Tomkinson, commanding the Battle Cruiser Squadron. He sailed on the 8th September, with the Portsmouth ships with the exception of the "Nelson," which was detained. The other vessels of the Atlantic Fleet joined the Fleet at sea, and Fleet exercises were carried out. These fully occupied the Admiral's attention and necessitated his presence on the bridge until the afternoon of the 11th, when the Fleet anchored off Invergordon. The newspapers were received on arrival, giving the Government's decision with regard to the reductions of pay in the Services. This was, incredible as it may seem, the first intimation received by the Admiral and the Fleet.

On the afternoon of the following day, Saturday, 12th September, the ships at Invergordon received the Admiralty Fleet Orders giving full details of the reductions of pay. On Sunday, the 13th, there was some disturbance on shore in the canteen. The chief staff officer of the Battle Cruiser Squadron was sent ashore to investigate, and he reported that it was occasioned by a few men who appeared to have had too much drink and that it was not of a serious nature. All the liberty men returned that evening by 9.15 p.m. The "Nelson" arrived at Invergordon that evening, and Admiral Tomkinson saw for the first time the Admiralty letter dated 10th September, addressed to all Flag and Commanding Officers, explaining the views of the Admiralty on the reductions of pay. This letter was of vital importance, and the Admiral at once signalled that certain paragraphs were to be explained by com- manding officers to officers And ships companies without delay. On Monday, 14th September, two of the battleships, "Warspite" and "Malaya," proceeded to sea in accordance with their programme. There was no reason to suppose that anything abnormal was occurring, and the usual leave was given to the ships companies of the other ships that afternoon; but in view of the disturbance of the previous evening special arrangements were made to land an additional patrol if necessary. At 7 p.m. there was some disorder in the canteen, and it was closed by the patrols and all liberty men returned on board, but in a disorderly and noisy manner. On the morning of the 15th "Repulse," one of Admiral Tomkinson's battle cruisers, sailed in accordance with the programme. The battleships failed to get under way, and Admiral Tomkinson decided to recall all ships in order that the grievances of the men might be thoroughly investigated. He despatched the Commander-in-Chief's Chief of Staff from the "Nelson" to the Admiralty to report what had occurred, and to request that a member of the Board of Admiralty might be sent to Invergordon at once to explain matters to the Fleet, as the inequality of the cuts caused the greatest concern and anxiety, some classes being treated most harshly and called upon to make sacrifices out of all proportion to those demanded of others. The Admiralty were in possession of all the facts the following morning, and telegraphed their approval of the steps taken by Admiral Tomkinson.

Thus far the disaffection at Invergordon closely followed the lines of that which broke out at Spithead on 15th April, 1797. Lord Bridport had just assumed the command a the Fleet, owing to the failing health of Lord Howe, and he sent his Chief of Staff to the Admiralty, and, in response to his request, three members of the Board and the Secretary, in fact, a legally constituted Board of Admiralty, including the First Lord, proceeded to Portsmouth and arrived on the 18th, in order, to quote from a contemporary record,

"To endeavour by their presence to restore order amongst the seamen and to investigate their grievances."

I think it is fitting here to remind the House that 1797 was the year before the Battle of the Nile, and to affirm that although it was deplorable that the men of 1931 should have been misled into following the example of their predecessors in calling attention to their grievances in such a manner, there is no more loyal body of men in His Majesty's kingdom than the men of the Royal Navy. The lessons of history are invaluable if people will only study them. Lord Howe had warned the Admiralty that the men had intolerable and legitimate grievances, but the Board of Admiralty had allowed matters to drift. However, they faced the situation for which they were responsible, they did not seek for victims among the officers they had let down so badly, and Lord Bridport continued his distinguished career. It is true that, later, when the Government failed or were slow to carry out the promises of the Board of Admiralty, trouble broke out afresh. In one squadron at Spithead, other measures were taken by the Admiral in command with the most deplorable and humiliating results.

In these days of quick transport, it would have been quite possible for, say, the First Sea Lord, who by virtue of his office is responsible for the discipline of the Fleet, or other members of the Board, or senior officers whom the Admiralty might have delegated to represent them, to have flown to Invergordon and to have been ther8 within a few hours. After all, the Admiralty were entirely responsible for the situation which had arisen, and they alone had the power to investigate and deal with the men's grievances. The presence of their representatives would have been just as valuable to Admiral Tomkinson as Ns as that of the Board of 1797 to Lord Bridport.

On the morning of 16th September, Admiral Tomkinson had every right to expect the support and intervention of the Board of Admiralty. The action he had taken up to date made that intervention quite possible. I think the Service agrees with me that if the Board had taken bold and proper steps on the spot, the Service would be happier than it is to-day. No such action was taken. On the 16th, the Admiralty ordered all ships to return to their home ports. On the 17th September the then hon. Member for Central Portsmouth (Captain. W. G. Hall), moved the Adjournment of the House to discuss these events, and during the discussion he paid a warm tribute to the conduct of the Admiral who was in temporary command of the Fleet. That tribute was endorsed by the First Lord, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), who announced that the Admiralty had conveyed to Admiral Tomkinson their full approval of the action he had taken. The ex-First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr. A. V. Alexander, also expressed appreciation.

With the permission of the House I will read an extract from the OFFICIAL REPORT of 17th September, 1931. Captain W. G. Hall said:

"Another thing that emerges is that the Commander-in-Chief, in the absence of Admiral Hodges, who is unfortunately ill, acted with promptitude, with despatch, and with great common sense. We remember previous incidents that have happened in the Navy when officers in charge have perhaps not seen their duty so clearly as the present Commander-in-Chief."

The First Lord of the Admiralty, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham said:

"I was particularly glad to hear the lion and gallant Member pay a tribute to the senior officer commanding the Atlantic Fleet during these anxious days, in the absence of the Commander-in-Chief, who, unhappily, is ill in hospital. The Admiralty have already conveyed to him their full approval of the action which he took and of his service during these times. The compliment which the hon. and gallant Member paid to him is one that is well-deserved and which, I am sure, will he most warmly received by the men of the Fleet."

Finally, Mr. A. V. Alexander who was the ex-First Lord said:

"The sympathetic and tactful action which the acting Commander-in-Chief of the Atlantic Fleet, has taken is only what I have expected of him from my knowledge of him."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th September, 1931; cols. 1105-21, Vol. 256.]

Admiral Tomkinson also received a warm letter of thanks from the First Sea Lord, and was personally commended by the First Sea Lord on 19th September.

Cases of indiscipline in His Majesty's Fleet are happily rare, but they have invariably been followed by a properly constituted inquiry. Although it was generally felt in the Navy and throughout the country that there should be a thorough and impartial inquiry into the events which occurred at Invergordon and of the circumstances which led up to them, no such inquiry was held. The First Lord of the Admiralty the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had made it perfectly clear on 17th September that there would be no penalisation, a promise which my right hon. Friend would have most honourably kept, and one which his successor the present holder of the office declared in this House, in November, 1931, had been scrupulously carried out. Moreover, the inequalities of pay which caused the unrest had been adjusted, when the Atlantic Fleet sailed upon its winter cruise in January, 1932. Admiral Tomkinson's command went to the West Indies, and at that date he had not been given a hint of any sort that his conduct of the affair at Invergordon had had anything but the full approval of the Board of Admiralty, who had publicly commended him so warmly. On the 20th February, 1932, when still in the West Indies, he read in the wireless Press that a Rear-Admiral had been appointed to relieve him, and this was the first information he received that he had been superseded. He at once telegraphed to the Admiralty and asked for an explanation, and he was informed that a letter was on the way to him. He eventually received it. He was told that he had committed a serious error of judgment in omitting to take decided action on the 13th and 14th September, when dissatisfaction began to show itself among the men. If, he was told, the situation had been well handled on those two days, instead of being allowed to drift, the board considered it improbable that the outbreak would ever have occurred. In a letter of the same date he was informed that his command of the Battle Cruiser Squadron, to which he had been appointed for a definite period of two years, would be curtailed by eight months.

I have been closely associated with Admiral Tomkinson for over 30 years. I have been with him, for instance, in a frail destroyer in a typhoon on a lee shore in the Formosa Channel; I have been with him in submarines in difficulties, in the heat of action at Taku, and in the Great War on several occasions; and I have always found him courageous and imperturbable. I know him to be a firm disciplinarian; who has never hesitated to do the unpopular thing if he thought it in the best interests of the Service; and, incidentally, he wears the gold medal of the Royal Humane Society for the bravest deed of life-saving in the year.

I can assure the House that he is quite incapable of having allowed matters to drift in the manner suggested by the Board of Admiralty, when he was plunged into a situation, which, but for their lack of foresight and dilatory methods would never have occurred.

The generous appreciation of the way in which Admiral Tomkinson handled this matter is in the official records; but there is another record at the Admiralty—the censure which I have quoted; and I submit that this censure is an outrage to justice and fair play in the absence of any judicial and properly constituted inquiry. Whatever opinion may be held as to what might or what might not have occurred or have been done at Invergordon—and there are two opinions—one thing is absolutely certain. The policy, which Lord Bridport carried out in 1797 and which Admiral Tomkinson repeated in 1931, was the policy of the Board of the day, and they were profoundly grateful to him for the way in which he handled the matter then.

But there are no two opinions in the Navy as to the impropriety of the sudden disciplinary action taken during his absence abroad and when he was not in a position to defend himself Moreover, that action was taken by the deeply implicated Board of Admiralty which had promised that there should be no penalisation. An accused has certain definite rights and privileges. And none of these have been accorded to Admiral Tomkinson. I have recently been reminded by the First Lord that Admiral Tomkinson and I had said we would be content to leave his future in the hands of the new Sea. Lords I fully appreciate their difficulty in instituting an inquiry into the conduct of their predecessors and of finding him employment after such a lapse of time and in view of his existing rank, and on that account I have confined my protest to the late Board's treatment of Admiral Tomkinson, which the present First Lord condoned. But it is not too late to hold a judicial inquiry at which Admiral Tomkinson can defend himself against the censure that he has received. Failing this, as I suggested to the First Lord only a few days ago, it would be only fair that this censure should be withdrawn and that he should be allowed to remain on the active list until he attains the rank of full Admiral—this could easily be arranged—a rank which he would have been absolutely certain to reach but for the premature termination of his appointment. I told the First Lord when I first heard of Admiral Tomkinson's supersession that I regarded it as a submarine torpedo attack without a declaration of war and that, if un honourable career was to be terminated, the officer should at least be allowed to fight a surface action and, if it was decided against him, go down with his colours flying.

I was told by the First Lord that the hasty action taken during Admiral Tomkinson's absence abroad, only a month before the squadron was due to return to England, was taken for Admiral Tomkinson's sake, to spare him the unpleasantness 'and publicity of certain questions which would have been asked if he had been allowed to retain his command. I know now that those questions were designed to bring about a thorough and impartial investigation into the whole affair. However, the questions were staved off. I pointed out that Admiral Tomkinson had nothing to fear from publicity and that he had courted an inquiry and had asked for it. It was the Admiralty that would not face an inquiry. No doubt I shall be told that I ought not to have reminded the Navy and the country of this distressing affair of which the Navy is thoroughly ashamed. Since I became a Member for Portsmouth, North, I have learned many things which were a closed book to me before, and I know that this is not the only open wound that has been left open by actions of the Board of Admiralty of 1932 for which the First Lord is responsible. While such things are possible in the Navy, the Navy can have no trust in its administration or faith in its future. I think the Service generally will be relieved to learn that such actions have not been allowed to pass unchallenged and will not be accepted as precedents.

I have tried every conceivable way of avoiding this and to get fair play for an officer who deserves well of his country. I think that this House is the proper place and this Adjournment the proper time to make one last appeal for fair play for Admiral Tomkinson. It would have been far easier to let this matter drop and to have avoided this ordeal, which is by far the most formidable I have ever had to face in my life, but I should have felt a coward if I had shirked it. I make one last appeal—and I hope that the House will support me—to the First Lord to give a proper and fair reconsideration to Admiral Tomkinson's case. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for having allowed me to raise this matter, and I thank the House for the indulgence they have accorded me.

I speak in this Debate with very great hesitation, because the Naval Service has a wonderful standard of its own, far above that of any other public service, and, I think, far above even that of the political parties of this House, because the rights, And even the wrongs, of the individual must be subordinated to the good of the Service itself. We have had a most moving speech from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes), and I feel that all who have heard him will realise the spirit which has aways led him to undertake forlorn hopes and desperate actions when there would appear to be no chance of success, and yet, on the whole, usually he has achieved his object. I am not sure whether his object now is absolutely to demand an inquiry, or whether it is only to put before the House in the right perspective the position of Admiral Tomkinson. I do not want to say very much, but two things stand out. The first is that Admiral Tomkinson received the approbation of the then existing Board of Admiralty. The Board of Admiralty are always changing. They are hardly the same from one month to another. But he received the approval of the Board of Admiralty in regard to Invergordon.

Again, it is perfectly clear that his appointment in command of the battle cruiser squadron was cut short. I do not know if the First Lord is going to say that there is a precedent for it, and that other admirals only served a year, or whatever the period was, but I do not think he could possibly say that if the events of Invergordon had not happened, Admiral Tomkinson would not have served his full time in command. I think that we may take it that it was the feeling of the Board at that time that the whole case of Admiral Tomkinson must be more or less mixed up with the events at Invergordon. The more I consider it—and I do not suppose that many days have passed since then when I have not spoken of it with officers concerned—it seems to me, that if there had been a free and an impartial judicial inquiry the people who would have suffered would have been the Board of Admiralty. It is ass extraordinary thing, and it may surprise military officers especially, that in the Navy we know the men intimately; but know little of their private lives ashore. We know that the men on the ships are well provided for, well fed, and well looked after, and the factor which brought about this mutiny was not their treatment on board but the surplus of their pay which they were able to send to their families ashore. It was that which determined the action the men eventually took.

I think that if the Board of Admiralty had been more in touch with the position of the men and had more fully realised the very close margin between the actual pay of the sailor and nothing at all, what a very little extra amount he had, if they had fully appreciated the effect the cut was likely to have, they would have approached the matter really in a better manner. If my information is correct, the actual information was not sent to Admiral Tomkinson's ship, but, I believe I am right in saying, to the flagship, and consequently there was delay in getting it to the acting flagship in which Admiral Tomkinson was serving. Therefore, the men only got the information through the medium of the popular Press, and it was almost impossible to represent the case truly, if indeed the officers knew the case accurately, which I very much doubt. If an inquiry had been held I am forced to the conclusion that a great deal of fault must have been put actually on the Board of Admiralty at that time. It surprises us now, certainly it surprises me, that such an inquiry was not held then. Whether it should be held now is rather a different matter. We have not very long memories, thank goodness, and my feeling is that we must use the mistakes of the past not so much for going back into the troubles of the past but rather to influence our workings in the future.

Another thing stands out about the mutiny at Invergordon. After all the talk about young admirals, distinguished officers with tremendous staff training, when a mutiny happens it is the old seaman who has spent all his life at sea among the men who is sent in command. It was Lord Howe in 1797 and Admiral Kelly on this occasion. When the men are treated by an admiral whom they can trust and respect, there is a wholly different atmosphere. Admiral Tomkinson is known throughout the Service as a most gallant and dashing officer. No question of personal danger or private interest would ever have stood in the way of what he considered to be his duty. On this occasion he may have made an error of judgment, and that must remain for ever, I am afraid, as entirely a question of personal opinion. Now that the gallant Admiral of the Fleet has ventilated the case in the House and brought forward the facts in a manner that they have never been brought forward before, and the House realises that whatever Admiral Tomkinson may have committed as an error of judgment, at least he behaved throughout as an officer and a gentleman. If the House is of that opinion, and this case having been ventilated, it might be as well now to let the matter rest where it is.

The hon. and gallant Member apparently instituted this Debate in order to criticise the Board of Admiralty for its treatment of Admiral Tomkinson. The hon. and gallant Member leas thought it necessary to raise very much larger questions relating to the lamentable incident that occurred in 1931. The House will remember that very soon after I went to the Admiralty, which was some time after these events had taken place, I took an early opportunity of coming to the House and asking that the Navy might be allowed to settle these difficulties within, by itself. The House most generously acceded to that request and, in fact, this is the first public reference that has been made in the course of very nearly three years to what took place at Invergordon in 1931. I think that the policy which I asked the House to allow me to pursue, and which the House agreed that I should pursue, has been amply justified, because although Invergordon was only a short three years ago the Navy has made tremendous progress in forgetting about it. There is absolute confidence in the Board of Admiralty as it is constituted to-day.

The discipline of the Fleet, I think, was never better than it is to-day and, what is perhaps even more important, the old faith of our people in the British Navy has remained unshaken.

My great aim ever since I have been at the Admiralty has been to try to help the officers and men to forget. The House will therefore understand when I say that I am going to do as little as I can to widen the Debate, but, on the contrary, I am going to contract it to the smallest possible limits. I am going to answer for that for which I am responsible and for which I accept responsibility, namely, what has happened to Admiral Tomkinson. The hon. and gallant Gentleman criticised the Admiralty for the treatment of Admiral Tomkinson on three grounds. First, that directly after the incidents at Invergordon the Admiralty telegraphed their full approval of his conduct; the hon. and gallant Member for North Battersea (Commander Marsden) also said that he, Admiral Tomkinson, received the approbation of the Admiralty. That is not so. What did occur was that a telegram was sent from the Admiralty on the 15th of that month, in reply to a telegram from Admiral Tomkinson, saying that he had taken certain steps, the chief one of which was to send the Chief of Staff up to London. The reply which the Admiralty sent to that message, 802—which everybody in the Navy knows referred to the specific information contained in the message—began:

"Your 802. Their Lordships entirely approve of the action you have taken."

That is, the action contained in the telegram 802, and so limited to a very small extent. These things took place some time before I went to the Admiralty. The hon. and gallant Member talks about various letters, private letters. I have no knowledge of these things, and all I can say is that at the time of that Debate there was almost a complete lack of information available as to what really occurred. The next point which the hon. and gallant Member raised was the question of the relief of Admiral Tomkinson. Admiral Tomkinson, in fact, after Invergordon was promoted to Vice-Admiral and kept on in commission for six months on re-appointment. No great victimisation there. But the opinion of the Board of Admiralty at the time was that:

"It is in the best interests of the Service that ships which were concerned in these incidents should be paid off as soon as conveniently possible and should make an entirely fresh start."

For the same reason their Lordships decided that it would not be expedient for the Flag Officer who was in command when these incidents occurred to remain in the same appointment for a protracted period. I think that the chief grievance of the hon. and gallant Gentleman is the way in which Admiral Tomkinson was informed of his supersession.

One of them.

If that be not so, I will pass on to the main question of the employment or non-employment of Admiral Tomkinson.

I have not raised the question of his future employment.

When I went to the Board of Admiralty it was in a very troubled state, so also was the Navy. I had many important and anxious decisions to make. Of course, the constitutional practice is for the First Lord to be advised upon questions of the employment of senior officers by the Naval members of the Board. It is one of their chief duties to advise the First Lord in those matters. Owing to the conditions at the time I went outside the advice of my ordinary Naval advisers. I sought the advice of senior officers in the Navy, whom I knew were considered wise and just men by the Navy and whom the Navy thoroughly trusted. On that combined advice I approved the letter of censure that was sent to Admiral Tomkinson, and I also approved that he should not receive any more employment. I received advice from a great many people, including the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in 1932. The hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested to me that this decision—for which I take responsibility —on the advice of my properly constituted Naval advisers, meant that an injustice had been done to Admiral Tomkinson, and he asked that as then I had an entirely new Naval Board at the Admiralty the case should be reviewed—

No.

that my decision should be reviewed. So anxious was I to see that I had not done injustice that I cheerfully assented to the proposition, and I have a letter from the hon. and gallant Gentleman which says:

"I have nothing but friendship and good will towards their successors—

he was talking about the old Board—

"and after my talk with Tomkinson I am content, as he is, to leave his future in the hands of Chatfield and your new Board."

An exhaustive and careful inquiry was made by the Naval members of the new Board and they upheld the decision of the old Board.

On what evidence was that based? Was it evidence that was given in Admiral Tomkinson's presence? Where did they get the evidence from?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows very well that an inquiry by the Sea Lords of the Admiralty is the highest authority that you can get. It is the supreme court of the Navy, and there is no appeal whatsoever from it. The new Board, whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman trusted so much, upheld the decision. I put it to the House that I am bound to accept these decisions, and I think the House will agree with me that these questions of employment must be left to the responsible and serving members of the Board who alone are in possession of the facts.

I cannot say that I feel extremely happy with regard to the subject which has just been under discussion, but it is not my intention to pursue it, beyond saying that I know the difficulty which anybody must have who takes on a great organisation like the Admiralty, and I have felt the same thing in connection with a younger organisation such as the Air Ministry. I rise this afternoon; with sincere apologies to my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air, for having kept him until this late hour, to deal with the question of civil aviation. We had a Debate only yesterday upon the broader issue of air armament which took the trend usual in these Debates and became a general discussion on disarmament rather than a discussion on the actions and the programme of the Government with regard to the new squadrons. I think it will be agreed that we are falling into a, very sad habit, in that when we discuss air matters the Minister who is primarily responsible for the Department in this House is never allowed to speak. I think that we have had three Debates of this kind without any opinion having been given on technical matters by the responsible Minister. I am sure that he will not blame me for raising this question which gives him an opportunity of speaking to us from that Box, because he seldom does so and I am sure that he is very welcome to the House when he does intervene in these discussions.

The Lord President of the Council yesterday gave us very definite views as to the future policy of the Government in reference to the increased number of squadrons. The right hon. Gentleman sang the Londonderry Air with a faithfulness which was surprising. The right hon. Gentleman on air matters has always shown certain philosophic doubts which to me have been singularly attractive, because this question of the air is much more complicated and difficult in all its branches than questions affecting the two older Services. It may be said about aviation in general that it is a hot-house growth due to the tremendous activity which was concentrated upon it during the War. Let us imagine what would have been the result had the motor car only been invented during the War and had been tied to the War Office. To-day we would have been going about in tanks and not 'ordinary motor cars. That is the case with aviation. The whole trend of design and development has been tied up with military requirements in a way which has not been for the good of aviation. It is much too late to-day to go into the recommendations in the Gorell Report, but I hope we shall have an opportunity on a future occasion of dealing with that. I wish to thank the Minister and the Under-Secretary however, for having adopted so generously and so quickly many of the recommendations in that report.

I want to ask my right hon. Friend for some guidance as to what is the true policy of the Government in regard to the air. Broadly speaking, there are two schools of thought in the world on this question. One school of thought maintains that aviation is nothing but a new form of armament and that everything must be subservient to that idea. The other holds that aviation ought to be a blessing to mankind and that the fact that it has military uses is very unfortunate. Frankly, I cannot help saying that I belong to the latter, though I know I am in a minority. The difficulty is that one seems quite unable to take both sides in this matter. One wants to know what is the policy of His Majesty's Government one way or the other.

One of the curses of the whole movement has been the question of subsidies. After the War it was thought that if national Governments could only subsidise aviation, there would be born and there would arise a new form of transport, knitting the world together from an international point of view, for the good of mankind. But the very reverse of what man thought was going to take place has taken place. The people who give the subsidies see well that the machines that are produced because of the subsidies are machines which will be used, should they want them, for war purposes, and in Germany this state of affairs has become simply farcical, for this reason: Germany has not any military machines at all, and yet she has used the power of subsidy to such an extent that the network of civil aviation throughout Germany is nothing short of astounding, though there is not one service that would exist to-day if it had to earn money and exist on its own earnings. It is entirely built up and kept up, as civil aviation, as a potential menace in war. We had our Debate yesterday on our new squadrons. What was the underlying fear which animated us in order to get our increased squadrons? It was not the fear of France. It was named definitely by Members here that it was Germany, and yet, as I say, Germany has not one military machine. Could anything be more ludicrous than that, that a nation without a military air force at all can threaten the world to such an extent that we have to increase our expenditure upon our air armaments?

The right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council has, I know, in his heart very many misgivings as to the future of this dangerous weapon, and his speeches on the subject are looked upon almost as the Bible up and down the country. I hope he will, through the mouth of the Under-Secretary of State, tell us what is at the back of the Government's mind as to what can be done internationally to see that this race does not go on again. We all agreed yesterday to an increase, but we may go on from increase to increase without really; getting any solution of the matter, and I would ask him to consider this proposition that internationally we should agree that subsidies should not be granted, because subsidies do produce a machine which is essentially not a civil machine. If there were no subsidies throughout the world, it is true that there would not be so many air services, but the services which would be running would be services which would pay.

It is quite true that in the recent Gorell Committee I put in a Minority Report in which I pleaded for the divorcement of civil aviation from the Air Ministry altogether. But I will say this about our own Air Ministry, that they have been far and away the most honest of all the Ministries concerned with air up and down Europe. If you look at what they have done, the line running between London and Paris is the only one in Europe that could exist to-day without a subsidy. It flies by itself; it actually earns money, and I want the House to observe that when you get a line of civil aircraft paying as that one does, how different it is from any war machines. No one can pretend, I believe, that the London-Paris great air liners would be of any use in war. They would be of very little use in any event. There you see the divergence straight away from the wedding of these two separate and distinct things, the military and civil machines. I would ask my right hon. Friend to tell us broadly what really is in the mind of the Government.

Is the Air Force to rely upon its own right arm for the defence of this country, or is it going to look upon civil aviation as a sort of ally to be brought into use in case of need I It seems to me that we are at the parting of the ways. Either we encourage civil aviation to thrive by itself in every way we can, or we take the other method and wed civil aviation to the military side. Frankly, I think that would be a deplorable policy, because it would never allow civil aviation to develop in the way it should and which is so urgently required.

I am afraid that I cannot follow my hon. Friend's argu- ments. On the one hand he says, that the subsidy is providing a type of machine in use for civil aviation which may be useful in war, and, on the other hand, he tells us that various types of machine will be no use at all in war. Yesterday we had complaints that our machines are definitely inferior to those of the Germans in speed and performance and would be quite useless for military purposes, whereas the subsidised German machines are not only efficient for civil flying but could be made available for war purposes.

The English subsidy is less than anybody else's.

But I understood my hon. Friend to say that we should divorce civil aviation from any Government subsidy, and that at the same time we should see that it becomes an economic unit, and by"we" he, of course, must imply the Government and this House. Surely the two things are incompatible. If civil aviation is not an economic unit, we should have to subsidise it. Civil aeroplanes can be turned to military uses, but that applies equally to horses and motorcars. I am quite prepared to accept my hon. Friend's view that flying is a boon and blessing to men but it is equally true that it can also be turned to military uses and the military side of the Government, including the military side of the Air Ministry, must pay some attention to it. The War Office gave a form of subsidy to light-horse breeding for many years to make sure that there was the type of horse required for cavalry and artillery purposes if necessary. Again, the Government gave a subsidy to commercial six-wheeler motor-cars because it was seen that the six-wheeler was absolutely essential to military transport. Therefore I suggest that the Government are well within their rights in giving a subsidy to civil aviation as long as it requires one, so that we may assure ourselves of a sufficent number of trained pilots, a sufficient reserve of machines and, what is still more important, the plant with which to make machines should they be called upon for the defence of this country. Now comes the question of what form the subsidy should take, and there I share my hon. Friend's view that if the subsidy is accompanied by too much restrictive legislation and red-tape, it may have the effect of retarding instead of improving the progress of aviation. There have, indeed, been many complaints from aircraft manufacturers on this score. But the private owner, I think, is more concerned with the conditions relating to the issue of the certificate of airworthiness, and these have been considerably relieved from red-tape since the Air Ministry handed over the inspection of aircraft due for C. of A. renewal to Lloyds and the British Corporation.

There are two questions I would like to ask the Under-Secretary. One of the most efficient forms of subsidy that the Government can grant and the greatest fillip they can give to aviation, would be to see that there is an aerodrome conveniently accessible to the heart of London. I have raised this question before, and I raise it again in the hope that some steps have been taken in the interval. There are, of course, two ways of doing it. One is to select a site in London. In flying over London one sees Wormwood Scrubs, which appears to be an ideal site. I do not know far what it is used, or to whom it belongs. Probably it is operated by the Forestry Commissioners or the Department of Woods and Forests, or the Ministry of Agriculture, or by them all jointly. If that is not possible, there is another alternative, namely, that Hendon should be vacated by the Royal Air Force. The protection of London should not be in London itself, but should be operated from a ring of aerodromes further a field. To have an aerodrome in London is only to give a target to enemy bombs. It might be possible for the Royal Air Force at Hendon to be moved to Kent or the coast of Suffolk, so that Hendon could be used as an airport for London. The third alternative is that if no such area nearer to London is possible, the London Transport Board and the railways should be approached in order to provide a railway giving a 10-minute service to any one or two of the existing aerodromes outside London. It is important that the railway or tube should run actually at the aerodrome. That is most important of all, because a passenger or pilot and he can fly 30 or 40 miles in the time that he has to wait for the conveyance to turn up.

Members of the Air Committee of this House went the other day in an air liner to Bristol, and they were impressed by what they saw. One thing that impressed them deeply was the advance that has been made in producing a really efficient crude-oil engine, which is called the Bristol Phoenix. I should like to ask the Under-Secretary what experiments have been made by the Air Ministry in this particular development, because it appears to be an important one. They told me that one of these engines fitted to an aeroplane had already reached the height record for crude oil engines, and that while the tankage of this machine when filled with petrol gave only a four hours' cruising range, it gave a cruising range of 10 hours when filled with crude oil at a vastly reduced cost. There seems to be a future for these machines, and they should be fitted with the utmost expedition to some of the long-range flying boats in the East Indies and elsewhere. I should be glad to hear if tests have been made, and if any progress has been achieved in this direction. In America, progress has been stopped because of the oil interests, but in this country we are free from that sort of thing, and I should be glad to know whether there is any defect in these engines that prevents their being adopted or, if not, whether progress has been made with their development.

We shall not have an opportunity of asking a question for three months, and I want to ask whether, in relation to the expansion programme which has been announced, there will be a Supplementary Estimate?

I think that the Session could not end better and the holiday could not begin in a better atmosphere than that the last two days should be devoted to a certain extent to air Debates. It was a great pleasure to me that, as my hon. And gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) was not able to get in in yesterday's Debate, he was able to speak to us for a short time this afternoon. I know he would have liked a longer time in which to develop his views on what he described as the tying-up of civil aviation with military aviation. He said there were two schools of thought on this matter, one consisting of those who look upon flying as a boon and others who look upon it as a calamity, and be wished to know the view of the Air Ministry on the subject.

The object of the Air Ministry is to develop flying for either military or civil purposes so long as they are needed. We hope, as everybody must hope, that the day will perhaps come when military aviation will not be needed, but when that will be is not for the Air Ministry to decide. It is a question for human nature all over the world to settle. Meanwhile, I say with the greatest confidence that this country, more than any other country in the world, has done everything it possibly can to divorce civil aviation from any military atmosphere. Our whole view, our whole policy, and our whole aim has been to develop civil aviation for purely specific and commercial purposes, and I think that when we look round and see the enormous sums spent in other countries we may be well pleased to see the already very successful results we have had in this country for comparatively small sums of money.

My hon. And gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey gave us to believe that the way to make commercial aviation really fly by itself would be not to give a subsidy at all. If that were so, His Majesty's Government would be the first to fall in with his views, but I am afraid that is not the case. I fear that for a certain number of years a moderate subsidy, such as is all that this Government allows, will be necessary. I think I cannot do better than quote the words in the Memorandum to the White Paper published with the report of the Committee on Private Flying:

"British air transport policy, unlike that of almost every other nation, has, in fact, been directed throughout first and foremost to commercial development for pacific and Imperial purposes."

Therefore, although we naturally look upon civil aviation as an object of the greatest importance, and one which needs the greatest possible assistance, we do riot in any way look upon it as an ally from the point of view of military purposes. My Noble Friend the Member for Central Bristol (Lord Ansley) raised a point which he has brought up on other occasions and which is obviously of the greatest importance, and that is the location of London aerodromes from the point of view of their accessibility. He knows as well as I do the difficulties of the situation. Wormwood Scrubs, which he suggested, is already accessible as a forced landing place, and whether it could be entirely devoted to a great central aviation As far as crude oil engines are concerned, we are, and have been for several years now, experimenting to the best of our ability with this particular form of engine. Other countries have done the same thing, and although perhaps the Noble Lord would say that more use has been made of it in Germany than in this country, I can tell him that in other countries where experiments have been going on the experiments have not progressed so satisfactorily as ours. Considering the difficulty and complexity of this new form of fuel, the progress that we have made has not been unsatisfactory, and we shall continue our efforts.

Are any air service machines in commission using oil fuel?

Not in this country. I believe there are in Germany. They have, on certain occasions, used crude oil, with moderately successful results. I do not know of any others. In reply to my right hon. And gallant Friend the Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Captain Guest) I can assure him that we are fully alive to the developments in other countries. I cannot give a pledge because that is not possible at the moment.

It was in pursuance of a reply to a question which I addressed to the Lord President of the Council, and upon his suggestion, that some of my hon. Friends hoped to-day to raise matters in connection with the memorandum of the Secretary of State for Air on the Report of the Gorell Committee on Civil Aviation. May we express the hope, in view of the fact that we have not been fortunate to-day in raising the matter and in view of its enormous importance to the country and to those interested in civil aviation, that we may be given an early opportunity to discuss this question on the reassembly of the House?