Abbildungen der Seite
[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]


3883. To what do you attribute the increase? I think it is very largely attributable to cheaper passage rates, and I think better conditions in the Dominions.

3884. Do you find that when the conditions are booming in the Dominions and they are being talked about in this Country there is a tendency to draw people to the Dominions?-When ditions are good on both sides.


3885. Then bad conditions here and good conditions out in the Colonies do not draw people to the Colonies?—No. I think good conditions here seem to promote migration more than bad conditions.


3886. Have you any special reason for thinking that?-It has been the accepted theory for many years past. It referred to in our last Annual Report. I think it is indisputable.

3887. Are the Dominion Governments helping emigration, or are they raising less difficulties than they were raising in the way of getting people out there?They are co-operating more. I do not think they have ever raised difficulties they could help raising. They help in so far as their conditions allow them to help.

3888. I think that is perhaps a better way of putting it. Have they eased the conditions under which emigrants can get out? Yes, very much.

3889. In Australia has the Brotherhood Movement been any benefit ?-Some benefit.

3890. But not as great as one would have thought?-It does not seem to me to deal with the whole problem at all. It seems more to deal with boys of the Public School calibre.

3891. Are there any steps that this Government are prepared to take that are held up by conditions that exist in the Dominions?-Yes, I think there are. I think this Government would be willing to help on a much bigger scale if, for instance, there were openings for industrial workers in the Dominions. But openings in the Dominions are almost entirely for men who are prepared to work on the land.

3892. Have you found in practice that the short intensive training they have is helpful to get people taken on? Yes, I think it is very desirable.

3893. And it has been helpful in getting people accepted ?-Yes, I think




3894. Are we spending more money in developing that side of the work?-Yes, to some extent.

3895. And it has been quite successful so far? Yes. I am very much in favour of training in this Country.

3896. The training is one thing, but the point is, has it been successful?Yes. I should not be in favour of it if it had not been successful.

3897. Have you any idea what it costs per head? I am told it costs about £4 per head for the boys.

3898. For how long are they trained?— Six weeks in the case of the boys who have been trained, for instance, at Hadleigh. At Bramdon and at Claydon the time used to be six months and it has been now reduced to ten weeks in one case and 17 weeks in the other.

Colonel Henderson.

3899. With regard to the item under subhead A. amounting to £24,000 odd, which is paid in Grants to Voluntary Societies, who I presume undertake the emigration of a certain number of people, are those funds audited in any way? Certainly.

3900. So that the Societies make a return to the Comptroller and Auditor General? They make a return to us.

3901. Showing how the money that has been voted has been spent?—Yes.

3902. So that you can satisfy yourselves that it has been spent for the purpose for which it was given?—Yes.

3903. Is there any definite undertaking given by them that for a certain amount of money they will migrate a certain number of people, or anything of that kind? Is this money allocated in any particular way, so much to administrative expenses, SO much to actual migration, and so much to advertisements, or whatever it may be?-Yes. For instance, for the Salvation Army training farm at Hadley there is so much granted per week per boy.

3904. I am talking about subhead A. What you are referring to will come, I presume, under subhead F. dealing with training? I see. Your are talking about the £24,000?

3905. Yes. Have you any check on the way that that £24,000 is spent?—Yes, a very full check.

3906. Is there any allocation of it?Yes, it is allocated to the various Societies.

M 3

5 May, 1927.]



3907. I am aware of that. Is there any allocation within the Society? Is it purely administration ?-It is largely administration.

3908. Does the Salvation Army, for instance, inform you how this money is spent? Yes, they inform us For instance, we have helped them on their publicity work out of this particular £24,000 to the extent of £1,500.

3909. You gave them £1,500 and they simply write to you and say it is spent on the publicity?-They send us audited


3910. In all cases?—Yes.

3911. How many of these items from C. to H. are also grants given to Voluntary Societies?-None of them.

3912. Some must be under subhead F. surely, and also some under subhead E., because the footnote to subhead E, refers to some such cases. Is not that so?—Yes. Subhead F. is the Salvation Army training.

not entirely.

3913. Entirely?—No, About £5,000 of it is expended by the Salvation Army, about £1,000 is expended by Craigielinn, the Scottish Farm, and £1,652 by the Alberta Government for the training of boys each winter.

3914. Would it be possible, Mr. Chairman, for these items to be set out, or a note to be inserted in the account in the same way to show how much of this money is spent directly by the Government, and how much is spent by being passed on to Voluntary Societies, because it is not at all clear from this Vote how the money is spent?

Chairman.] That is a point of elaboration which I think we shall probably have to consider along with the others.

Colonel Henderson.] Yes. in connection with the matter which was mentioned the other day.

Chairman.] I cannot help thinking that Members should read this Account and Estimate along with the Annual Report of the Overseas Settlement Department which was issued a week or two ago. I will, however, keep that point in mind, Colonel Henderson. But the Report is before us also in a sense, and I think Members should read it. The Report is available for all.

Colonel Henderson.] I have read it.

Sir Robert Hamilton

3915. Have you any figures worked out in your Department to show what the cost to the Home Government is per head of settlement over the last five years during which the Act has beer in force?It could very easily be done. We have got the figures of our expenditure for each year, and we know the numbers of settlers who have gone. We can easily work it out.

3916. That is apart from the cost to the Dominion Governments. I want the cost to the Home Government?—Yes.

3917. Since the inception of the work? -Yes, since the beginning.


3918. You will put that in, Mr. Macnaghten, will you?-Certainly."

Mr. Gillett.

3919. Have you any information as to the percentage of those who apply to go out and are rejected on account of illI do not health? No, we have not. think we can

get that, because a good many of them make enquiries and are told at once that they would not be accepted. I do not myself think there is any ground for supposing that the Dominions are unreasonable in their objections.

3920-21. But it is a very stiff examination ? It is fairly stiff.

3922. Have you ever made representations to them to lower it?—Yes.

3923. Did it have any effect?—Yes. Mr. Bruce, speaking last year, definitely said that they ought to alter their standard of height. He thought they had

been unreasonable about that.

3924. Have you considered that that might possibly explain why the larger number of those who go go from good conditions, because those going from bad conditions cannot get there on account of health? I think that is quite true. think those going from bad conditions, malnutrition, and cannot get through.




3925. Do you not think some of their regulations are unreasonable considering the advantage that the Dominions get from receiving these men and women?-I am not prepared to say I do. Questions have been raised as to whether their eyesight tests are not too severe, and so on.

* See Appendix 23.

5 May, 1927.]



3926. That is what I had in mind?The eyesight is rather subject to special strain, I think, under the new climate of the Dominions, and so on. I think having regard to climate they are not too stiff. 3927. Do you not think that speaking physically they are just draining away the best part of our population by a scheme of this kind? No. I think they are taking good men, but not the best. I think the best men find their feet in their own country usually.

3928. But they get such a good proportion of good men that they ought to be willing to accept a certain proportion of the less physically fit.

3929. I saw a great many of the men who have been settled in Canada under the 3,000 Family Scheme of last year, and I do not think the families were of outstanding physique.

3930. Do they come more from the country districts or from the towns?From both, but I should think more from country districts.

3931. The scheme is not of very much use to the dweller in the centre of London? -I saw several instances of families who come from the centre of London, and who

were also inexperienced, who are doing very well under it. But those are excep


3932. Comparing the population that amounts to practically nothing—the percentage is so small? The percentage is small.

3933. Have you had sufficient experience to know how far those who go out succeed, or whether any big proportion come back again? Under that particular family scheme in Canada the proportion of success was remarkably high.

3934. I was thinking more of the single man? It is much more difficult to speak about the single man. The single man goes out to Canada and he is what is known as a free-footer. He can go where he likes. Very often he is placed in a job, and then he hears about a better one, and it is to his advantage to disappear, and nobody knows where he is. But I think if such men do not succeed we are much more likely to hear of them, and we do not hear of many complaints.

3935. You do not hear of many of them coming back? Not in unduly large numbers.

(Mr. Macnaghten withdrew.)




Sir JOHN E. SHUCKBURGH, K.C.M.G., C.B., and Mr. F. J. HOWARD, O.B.E., called in and examined.


3936. You, Sir John, reply for the Middle Eastern Services account?-(Sir John Shuckburgh.) Yes.


3937. You have a report on account, Sir Malcolm ?-(Sir Malcolm Ramsay.) Yes.

3938. Paragraph 37 refers to the position of the Iraq Railways. That is a matter that I think we have discussed in previous years in the Committee?— Yes. A good many points arose in examining the Iraq Railways account. This paragraph reports the progress which has been made in clearing up the matters left in suspense. On the whole I think the progress has been considerable and satisfactory. I believe that all the items have been brought into clear daylight,


and I hope the matter may be satisfactorily disposed of before very long.

3939. Sir John, there is a reference in paragraph 37 to the fact that no decision has been taken as to the liquidation of the Imperial interest in the capital assets of the Railway. Will you tell us what the position is at the moment?—(Sir John Shuckburgh.) The expert mentioned there as having been recently appointed to examine the position locally was General Hammond, who has done a great deal of work for the Colonial Office before. He returned to England some time in February, I think. We have not had his report yet. We have had two preliminary reports of his dealing with matters of detail only, but the general report on the railways which he is drawing up is still being awaited.

M 4

5 May, 1927.]



Sir Fredric Wise.

3940. Was not General Hammond sent out to East Africa?-He went from Iraq to Nyasaland. He did the two things during this winter.

3941. Did he come home in the meantime?-No. He went from Iraq on to East Africa, and then back home.

3942. I thought you said he was home in February ?-I think it was February. He was in Iraq I think from November until some time in the next year, and then went on to Nyasaland and back home in February, or it may be early in March.*

3943. When do you think his report will be issued? I do not know, but I should think it will get into the hands of the Secretary of State very shortly.

3944. In a month ?-I should think so. 3945. Have you had an offer for these railways?-Not what you would call an offer. There has been a certain amount of nibbling.

3946. Are you certain you have not had an offer ?-I do not think there has been a definite offer. We have been approached by people. By an offer I take you to mean a definite offer to pay so many pounds down. You speak as if you knew of it.

3947. Yes, I do? Well, really I do not. I am far from wishing to conceal anything from you. There have been certain people who have been to see the Secretary of State, and have seen myself, with rather inchoate proposals, but not with anything in the nature of a definite offer.

3948. My main point is to know when the report will be issued?-You mean when it will be issued to the public?

3949. Yes?-I really do not know that I can answer that. It will be for the Secretary of State to decide whether it shall be published at all or not.


3950. Paragraph 38, Sir Malcolm, is again very largely narrative?—Yes, it is narratival.

3951. And also paragraph 39?-That also is narratival.

Actually he returned early in April. I was abroad from the middle of February to the middle of April; hence my uncertainty on the point.J. E. S."

Mr. Gillett.

3952. With regard to paragraph 38, I should like to know how much it costs this country in the matter of military expenditure in Palestine?-(Sir John Shuckburgh.) I have the figures here for the last eight years. For the present year, i.e. 1927, the estimate is £300,000.

3953. Is that £300,000 in connection with the Palestine Gendarmerie mentioned in this paragraph?-The Palestine Gendarmerie is outside the military expenditure, which is in connection with the Air Force.

3954. Do we pay for the Palestine Gendarmerie or does the Palestine Government ?-There was a British Section and a Palestinian Section of the Gendarmerie. The British Section was paid for by Great Britain, and the Palestinian Section was paid for out of Palestinian revenues. The Gendarmerie has since been abolished.

3955. It has all come to an end now?It has all come to an end now. There is a Frontier Force which is to be paid for half by Great Britain and half by Palestine in 1926, but the Palestine share is to increase thereafter.

3956. We only pay now for a certain number of our troops that we keep in Palestine?-We do not keep any troops there, strictly speaking. There is only

the Air Force and certain ancillaries.

There are no regular battalions or regiments.

3957. What I wanted to ask was why do the Palestine Government not pay the whole expense?-The whole expense for the British troops-it has not been considered that they were able to pay it.

3958. But they have a surplus?—They had a surplus one year. An immense amount has been made of that. But they are finding it extremely difficult balance their budget this current year. They had a boom one year.


3959. You mean that at the present time it is probably costing us about £300,000 to keep these British troops out there? Yes. £314,000 is the fair figure of what Palestine is costing the British taxpayer in 1927.

3960. And the financial position really would not allow them, you say, at the present time to bear the cost?-To bear the whole of that, no.

5 May, 1927.]



Mr. Ellis.

3961. It is not quite fair to say it is costing us that sum of money to keep those troops in Palestine. Their expenses would have to be paid wherever they are?—Yes, the expenses of the troops that we are keeping there. That raises rather an important point both there and in Iraq.

Colonel Henderson.

3962. I am under the impression that there are no military troops in Palestine at all. They are practically all Air Force? They are all Air Force and armoured cars. There are no infantry battalions.


3963. Now we come to paragraph 40. We will take the paragraph and the account together. I think it will be more convenient to do that, because, unless I am wrong, Sir Malcolm, the question raised in paragraph 40 arises also on page 406 of the account. The two can be more conveniently taken together? (Sir Malcolm Ramsay.) Yes.

3964. Would you say something on paragraph 40, Sir Malcolm?-As the note on page 406 says, certain works of public utility were handed over by His Majesty's Government to the Iraq Government valued in the first instance at 94 lacs and later at 76 lacs. Then after the Financial Mission appointed by the Secretary of State had reported on the financial position of the Iraq Government, the claim of His Majesty's Government against Iraq for these works was waived with the concurrence of the Treasury. The question of that waiver, as the Committee will probably remember, was raised by a Question and Answer in the House of Commons. The points involved are, first whether this waiver required ratification by Parliament in any sense, and secondly whether, if the to the first was in the negative, Parliament should have been informed in some formal way of the intention. So far as I know no paper was presented to the House explaining that it was proposed to waive any claim in respect of these particular items.


3965. Perhaps it would be more convenient if I now asked the Treasury to say something on this point.-(Mr. Phillips.) I do not know about the paper, as to whether it has yet been presented.

(Sir John Shuckburgh.) No paper has yet been presented. (Mr. Phillips.) Well, the first point is that this is not, of course, a gift. These capital assets were not created for the benefit of the Iraq Government. They were created for the purpose of carrying on the war with Turkey, and holding the territory. When the Iraq Government was set up it was thought expedient to get from them an admission that the debt was due and would be paid. It has not in fact proved possible to collect the debt, and on consideration of the report of the Financial Mission of 1925, and in relation to various other conditions in Iraq, it was decided to abandon the claim.

3966. As this matter was raised by Sir Robert Hamilton in the House I think I ought to ask him to begin the examination on this precise point.

Sir Robert Hamilton.

3967. I should like to ask Mr. Phillips why he said just now it was not a gift. I understand this was a definite property belonging to the British Government which was valued at a fixed sum, and for which an arrangement was come to for the payment by terminable annuities. Why do you say, Mr. Phillips, it was not a gift when it was handed over?-(Mr. Phillips.) When the Iraq Government was set up they certainly took over these


3968. But the assets were the property of the British Government? That is so.

3969. And they were handed over?—It is more like the remission of a certain portion of war debt in the settlement of war debt than a deliberate gift of money and stores.

3970. Is there not, surely, a Treasury rule that when property is handed over it must be with previous Treasury sanction if it exceeds £10,000?-(Sir John Shuckburgh.) It was with Treasury sanction. (Mr. Phillips.) That is so. This is rather analagous to the settlement of a war debt claim.

3971. But it was agreed this was British property. Admittedly there were claims and counter-claims on both sides, but this was British property which was handed over? I could not recall the circumstances in which it was handed over. do not know the date even.


3972. I think I am right in saying it was valued and then handed over?-(Sir John Shuckburgh.) It was valued and handed over, and subsequently the claim

« ZurückWeiter »