Commons Sitting of 23 July 1931

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Bristol and Leicester) Bill [Lords],
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Godalming and Scunthorpe and Frodingham) Bill [Lords],
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Portslade and South-wick Outfall Sewerage District and Seaton Burn Valley Joint Sewerage District) Bill [Lords],
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (St. Helens and York) Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Abertillery and District Water District and Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board) Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.
Midlothian County Council (Calder) Water Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  PERTH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Perth Corporation," presented by Mr. William Adamson; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow.
  Public Works Facilities Scheme (Padstow Harbour) Bill,
  Public Works Facilities Scheme (Rother-ham Corporation) Bill,
  Read the Third time, and passed.
  Public Works Facilities Scheme (Swindon Corporation) Bill,
  Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    INSURANCE FUND.
    Mr. COCKSasked the Minister of Labour whether she can estimate what would be the income of the Unemployment Insurance Fund if there were brought into the scheme everyone normally employed in some occupation whose earnings do not exceed £500 a year?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): The total number of persons employed is estimated to be in the neighbourhood of 18,000,000. If they all paid Unemployment Insurance contributions at current rates, the gross income of the Unemployment Fund from contributions, which is now about £45 millions per annum, would be increased by about 50 per cent.

    WORK SCHEMES.
    Mr. MANSFIELDasked the Minister of Labour if the Unemployment Grants Committee have received the application for a grant forwarded by the Guis-borough Rural Council and the Marske Parish Council to enable them to commence certain schemes of work at Marske to provide employment for the unemployed in that area; and why this application has not yet been granted?
    Miss BONDFIELD: This application has been considered by the Unemployment Grants Committee, who have felt unable to recommend grant.
    Mr. MANSFIELDasked the Minister of Labour how many schemes for the relief of unemployment have been submitted to the Unemployment Grants Committee by the Eston Urban Council and the Redcar Borough Council; the combined cost; the amount of the Government contribution; and the number of persons found employment by the schemes from 1st July, 1929, to the latest available date?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Since 1st June, 1929, three schemes of a total estimated cost of £34,700 have been submitted by the Eston Urban District Council and have been approved. One of these, estimated to cost £10,500 was subsequently withdrawn and the other two are now completed. During the same period the Redcar Borough Council submitted 31 schemes, estimated to cost £119,600. Of these schemes, six, estimated to cost £20,000, were withdrawn, or found not to comply with the conditions, and three, estimated to cost £8,000, are still under consideration. The remaining 22 were approved, 20 have been completed and two are still in operation, on which 47 men were employed on 26th June. The amount of Government contribution to approved schemes varies with the nature of the scheme.
    Lieut.-Colonel GAULTasked the Minister of Labour whether her attention has been drawn to the instances where labour-saving machinery is taking the place of manual labour in some of the schemes undertaken by local authorities under the various Acts governing the relief of unemployment; and if, in view of the fact that the public money involved was voted primarily for the assistance of the unemployed, she will take steps to see that the maximum number of people are employed under the schemes concerned?
    Miss BONDFIELD: This point has been considered by the Unemployment Grants Committee and I cannot dissent from their view, as stated in paragraph 29 of their report to 30th August, 1930, of which I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a copy.
    Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: Will the right hon. Lady consider the advisability of specifying, with each Grant-in-Aid, that a certain number of men should be employed?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I am afraid that it is wholly impracticable, because the local authorities have power to decide that they must accept the contract that shows the least cost to the ratepayers, and that may involve the use of mechanical devices.

    WATER SCHEME, MIDDLETON-IN-TEES.
    Mr. LAWTHERasked the Minister of Labour whether the Unemployment
    1654
    Grants Committee have considered the application of the Barnard Castle Rural District Council for a grant for their scheme for the Middleton-in-Teesdale water supply?
    Miss BONDFIELD: This scheme has been approved for grant, in so far as it complies with the conditions, and the rural district council were notified by letter dated 21st July.

    MUNICIPAL AERODROMES (GRANTS).
    Mr. EVERARDasked the Minister of Labour which municipal authorities have made application to the Unemployment Grants Committee for assistance in laying out municipal aerodromes; whether grants have been made to any; and the amount of such grants?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Since 1st June, 1929, grants-in-aid of the cost of laying out municipal aerodromes have been approved by the Unemployment Grants Committee in respect of schemes submitted by Bristol, Cardiff, Kingston-upon-Hull, Norwich, Plymouth, Portsmouth and Stoke-upon-Trent. The rates of grant vary according to circumstances. In addition, the question of a grant in respect of an extension of the Kingston-upon-Hull schemes is under consideration, and a grant in respect of a scheme submitted by Liverpool was not approved.
    Mr. EVERARD: Is there any time limit, when once sanction for the grant is given, as to when the work has to start?
    Miss BONDFIELD: It varies. In some schemes a time limit is inserted.

    BENEFIT (APPEALS).
    Mr. GEORGE OLIVERasked the Minister of Labour whether any steps are taken by her Department to satisfy themselves that the established procedure in respect of the granting or disallowance of appeals from the courts of referees is working satisfactorily?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the procedure for allowing appeals to be made to the umpire. I have no reason to suppose that it is not working satisfactorily. As my hon. Friend is probably aware, trade unions can in all cases appeal on behalf of their members.
    Mr. OLIVER: Have the Department taken any steps to find out whether any substantial injustice is done to an applicant whose appeal is refused by the court?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I think on the whole the system is working fairly well, because when complaints reach me I can refer the matter to a divisional officer if a further enquiry seems necessary.
    Mr. McSHANE: Is there not a considerable amount of dissatisfaction in respect of the number of appeals that are not allowed, and would the right hon. Lady ask her officers, in view of the appointment of the Advisory Committee, to make reports in that respect?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I have often said if only insured persons were members of a trade union organisation they would be assured of full right of appeal.

    EXCHANGE VACANCY, RUGELEY.
    Mr. LOVAT-FRASERasked the Minister of Labour if she is aware that, when the last vacancy occurred in the Employment Exchange at Rugeley, Staffordshire, a man fully employed, working five night shifts a week, was appointed to the vacancy, although suitable unemployed men applied for the post; and if she will see that in future preference is given to unemployed men in filling any such vacancies?
    Miss BONDFIELD: If my hon. Friend will let me have the name and address of the man in question, I will make inquiries and let him know the result.

    MUSICIANS.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Minister of Labour if she has any information as to the number of musicians at present unemployed; and how far it can be shown that their unemployment is due to the development of the talking-film industry?
    Miss BONDFIELD: At 22nd June, 1931, there were 4,478 wholly unemployed men and women registered at Employment Exchanges in Great Britain as applicants for work as musicians. No information is available that would show how far their unemployment is due to the development of the talking-film industry.
    Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Lady provide statistics of unemployed musicians at a near date previous to the production of sound films so that comparisons can be made with the figures she has just given?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I will look into that question, but I am afraid it is not possible.

    BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
    Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Labour if she is aware that because Miss Elsie North, residing at Darlington, registered at Darlington Employment Exchange, claim No. W2,474, refused to accept a position as shop assistant at Skegness, for the reason that full particulars of the employment offered were not given, her claim to benefit was disallowed for six weeks; and whether she will instruct Exchange officials that all applicants for work are to be given full details of employment that is offered?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I am making inquiries and will let my hon. Friend know the result.

    CLOTH INDUSTRY.
    Mr. PERKINSasked the Minister of Labour the approximate number of people unemployed in the cloth industry as at the last available date?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I am not quite clear as to what the hon. Member means by the cloth industry. He will, however, find all the available information regarding unemployment in the various industries tabulated in pages 270–273 of the current issue of the Ministry of Labour Gazette, of which I am sending him a copy.

    SERVICE CANTEEN VACANCIES.
    Mr. McSHANE(for Mr. LONG-BOTTOM) asked the Minister of Labour if she is aware that, although only 21 vacancies were notified by the Army, Navy, and Air Force Institute, York, during the three months ended 1st June last, 40 unemployed persons resident outside York had their benefit discontinued because they would not leave home to accept the vacant positions; and why the vacancies were not filled from among the 800 unemployed women who were at the same time on the books of the York Employment Exchange?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The particulars in the first part of the question were given

    1657
    in a letter which I sent to my hon. Friend on 17th July. As regards the 800 unemployed women at York, 243 of them were on short-time, and 60 per cent. of the remainder were married. Apart from such considerations as these, I could not agree that the opportunity for obtaining this class of work should be limited to women residing at the town at which the canteens happened to be situated.

    EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.
    Captain WATERHOUSEasked the Minister of Labour which of the principal countries in Europe show an increase in unemployment during the last month for, which information is available?
    Miss BONDFIELD: For most of the principal European countries the latest month for which information is at present available is May, 1931. In none of these countries do the statistics relating to that month show an increase in unemployment as compared with April.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Is this Government unique in creating unemployment?

  WOOLLEN TEXTILE INDUSTRY (DISPUTE).
  Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Labour if she can state the number of firms that are involved, either directly or indirectly, in connection with the woollen and worsted trade dispute in various parts of Yorkshire; whether she is aware that should the present wage reductions remain the rates of pay will be less than those of other workers governed by the various trade boards; and if she can state what efforts have been made by her Department to persuade the representatives of the employers and workmen to confer with a view to arriving at a settlement?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I am unable to state the number of firms that are involved in the dispute in the woollen and worsted industry. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the last part, I cannot usefully make any statement on the position.
  Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELD: Would not a little Protection solve this problem?

  CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
  Mr. LOVAT-FRASERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what prisons in England and Wales executions have been carried out during the past year; and in which of such prisons are young offenders under 21 confined?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): Since 1st, July, 1930, executions have been carried out at Pentonville, Birmingham, Leeds, Bedford and Manchester. There are no young prisoners in Pentonville, as in London it is possible to arrange for them to go to Wormwood Scrubs.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Home Secretary what steps he proposes to Lake to give effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee that capital punishment be suspended for five years?
  Mr. CLYNES: As the Select Committee recognised, legislation would be necessary for this purpose, and, until Parliament has had an opportunity of considering and pronouncing upon the recommendations of the committee, I am afraid I could not see my way to propose legislation on this question.
  Mr. MANDER: When is it proposed to give Parliament an opportunity of discussing this matter?
  Mr. CLYNES: I am unable to say.
  Mr. MANDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries?
  Mr. CLYNES: I am unable to say when Parliament will decide the matter, and representations ought to be made in another quarter.
  Mr. W. J. BROWN: Would the Home Secretary make representations to the Prime Minister, who has charge of the allocation of Parliamentary time, that Parliamentary time is being spent on issues of much less substantial importance than this, and that this should be looked into?
  Mr. CULVERWELL: What importance does the right hon. Gentleman attach to the recommendations of eight Members, of whom two are members of the Society of Friends?
  Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Home Secretary whether the International Penitentiary Congress has at any time considered the question of capital punishment; and, if so, what conclusions were arrived at?
  Mr. CLYNES: Any such inquiry should be addressed to the Secretary of the International Commission, but, so far as I know, capital punishment is not among the subjects which have been discussed at the International Congresses.
  Mr. PHILIP OLIVERasked the Home Secretary how many persons have been executed in England and Wales since the report of the Select Committee on Capital Punishment was presented; and what were the respective ages of each?
  Mr. CLYNES: The number is five, and their ages 21, 23, 26, 36 and 41.
  Mr. AYLESasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that the Governments of the countries which have abolished capital punishment sent official witnesses to give evidence before the recent Select Committee as to their experience, he proposes to transmit to the Governments concerned a copy of the report and evidence of the Select Committee, together with a statement as to the steps which he proposes to take to give effect to the committee's recommendations?
  Mr. CLYNES: This report and the evidence have been published and are thus available to any foreign Government that may desire to have them. It would be a departure from practice to send it unsolicited. As regards the last part of the question, I am not at present in a position to make any statement.
  Mr. AYLES: Is the Minister aware that the Governments whose representatives came here went to a very great deal of trouble in order to assist the Committee in carrying out the desires of this House, and, even though the usual practice might be departed from, it would be an excellent departure to show the same courtesy to them as they showed to us?
  Mr. CLYNES: I will consider the point, but there is the other view of the case that reports sent out contrary to international custom might not be welcomed.
  Mr. FREEMANasked the Home Secretary how many persons have been sentenced to death in England and Wales since the report of the Select Committee on Capital Punishment was presented; how many of such persons have been executed; and how many were reprieved?
  Mr. CLYNES: The number sentenced to death is 12. Four have been executed; two reprieved; the conviction of one was quashed on appeal; and in the remaining five cases a decision has not yet been reached.
  Mr. FREEMAN: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the strong body of public opinion which objects to this principle of an "eye for an eve and a head for a head"?
  Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITHasked the Home Secretary how many persons are included in the list kept by his Department of persons qualified to act as executioners; and how many of the persons included on that list have officiated during the last five years?
  Mr. CLYNES: The number is seven and all have been employed in connection with executions during the last five years.
  Mr. GRIFFITHasked the Home Secretary whether any change has been made in the rates of pay made to executioners and assistant executioners since the prison rules and standing orders, 1911, were issued; and, if so, in what respect the rates have been changed?
  Mr. CLYNES: Persons employed by the Prison Commissioners as assistant executioners receive a fee of £3 3s. The fee paid in 1911 was £2 2s. Executioners are appointed and paid by the sheriffs with whom it rests to fix the amount of the payment.
  Mr. W. J. BROWN: Is it the intention to reduce the payment in accordance with the decline in the cost-of-living figure?
  Mr. McSHANE: Would not the stoppage of this payment solve the question of capital punishment?
  Mr. COCKSasked the Home Secretary how many persons included on the list kept in his Department of persons qualified to act as executioners have been

  1661
  removed from the list during the last 10 years; and what were the reasons for which they were removed?
  Mr. CLYNES: Five names have been removed from the list, the usual reason being that owing to some change in his circumstances the man was no longer available for such employment.
  Mr. COCKS: Have any of these men gone mad?
  Mr. F. SMITHasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the increasing volume of public opinion in support of the recommendations of the recent Select Committee on Capital Punishment, ho will say whether the House will be given an opportunity of discussing the recommendations in order that the House may have an opportunity to express its views?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The Prime Minister can add nothing to the reply which he gave on the 9th June last in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. P. Oliver).
  Mr. W. J. BROWN: In view of the fact that, since the date of the reply referred to, the Prime Minister has announced that facilities will be given for the discussion of a Resolution to deprive Members of their salaries during suspension—
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.
  Mr. BROWN: The point I am trying to put—and I hope that I shall be able to put it in a form which is not out of order—is that since the earlier reply referred to the Prime Minister has announced that—[Interruption.] May I put my question?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It has nothing to do with the question on the Paper.
  Mr. BROWN: On a point of Order. With great respect, I should like the end of the question to be heard, and the question which I am asking is whether, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister has announced since the date of that earlier reply that Parliamentary time will be occupied and facilities given—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is trying to get into a supplementary question
  1662
  a statement which has nothing whatever to do with the question on the Paper.
  Mr. BROWN rose—
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member wishes to raise a point of Order, I will listen to him.
  Mr. BROWN: My point of Order is that I made three attempts to get my question put.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not, in a supplementary question, introduce something which is put of order as regards the question on the Paper.
  Mr. BROWN: May I ask how it can be known whether any question is out of order or is in order before it has been completed?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I heard the first part of the hon. Member's question.
  Mr. HORRABINasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons have been executed for each class of capital crime in Scotland since 1900?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Westwood): 19 persons have been executed in Scotland since 1900. All were convicted of murder.

  INFANTICIDE.
  Mr. LOVAT-FRASERasked the Home Secretary how many women proceeded against for infanticide during the five years following the passing of the Infanticide Act, 1922, were certified under the Mental Deficiency Acts?
  Mr. CLYNES: I am afraid the only figure I can give is for women convicted of infanticide who were ordered by the Court to be sent to Institutions for Mental Defectives. That number for the period in question is two.

  MENTAL DEFICIENCY (CAPITAL OFFENCES).
  Mr. P. OLIVERasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that the Mental Deficiency Acts do not apply to persons charged with capital

  1663
  offences, he will consider the possibility of introducing legislation to remedy the existing law?
  Mr. CLYNES: The answer is in the negative.

  CONVICTIONS FOR MURDER.
  Mr. EDEasked the Home Secretary how many persons in England and Wales serving commuted death sentences were released from prison during the five years ended 1925; and what percentage of such persons have subsequently committed further criminal offences?
  Mr. CLYNES: The number released during the years 1921 to 1925 inclusive was 48. Without detailed inquiry, which has been impossible in the time available, I cannot say with certainty whether any of them have since been convicted.
  Mr. EDEasked the Home Secretary how many persons confined in Broadmoor criminal lunatic asylum, after having been found guilty of murder but insane in England and Wales, were released during the 10 years 1921 to 1930?
  Mr. CLYNES: The number was 80, of whom 34 were males and 46 females.
  Mr. W. J. BROWNasked the Home Secretary how many persons serving-commuted death sentences in England and Wales have been released during the last 20 years; and how many of such persons have committed further murders after their release?
  Mr. CLYNES: I can only give figures for the 10 years from 1920 to 1929. The number was 87. So far as is known, none of them has committed a further murder.
  Mr. BROWN: In view of the experience revealed by the reply to this question can the Home Secretary make arrangements or representations to the Prime Minister in order to give the House an early opportunity of discussing a resolution which the Select Committee on Capital Punishment recommended that we should discuss?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That matter does not arise out of the question.
  Mr. CULVERWELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what relevance this has to the question of the abolition of capital punishment?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is more a subject for debate.
  Mr. WHITEasked the Home Secretary how many persons in England and Wales have been sentenced to death for murder during the 10 years ending 1929; and how many of such persons had been previously convicted once, how many twice, and how many more than twice for criminal offences?
  Mr. BROADasked the Home Secretary what percentage: of persons sentenced to death for murder in England and Wales during the last 10 years had not been previously convicted of any other offence?
  Mr. CLYNES: The number of persons sentenced to death in the 10 years from 1920 to 1929 was 234, and in the 10 years from 1921 to 1930 was 213. Figures are not available which would enable me to state the number or percentage of these persons who had previously been convicted.
  Mr. WHITEasked the Home Secretary how many women proceeded against for murder in England and Wales during the five years 1925–29 were sentenced to death; how many were found guilty but insane; how many were found insane before trial or on arraignment; how many were found guilty of lesser offences; and how many of those sentenced to death were subsequently executed?
  Mr. CLYNES: During the years in question eight women were sentenced to death; 35 charged with murder were found guilty but insane; three were found insane before trial and 24 insane on arraignment. Of those sentenced to death one was executed. I regret that figures are not available to show how many proceeded against for murder were found guilty of lesser offences.
  Mrs. MANNINGasked the Home Secretary how many persons found guilty of murder in England and Wales have been recommended to mercy by the jury in each of the years 1925 to 1929; how many of such persons have been reprieved; and how many have been executed?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): With my hon. Friend's permission

  CAPITAL CASES: Recommendations to mercy during the years 1925–1929, and Home Office action thereon.

  Year.

  Recommendations to mercy.

  Executed despite Recommendation.

  Reprieved.

  Removed to Broadmoor.

  1925

  …

  …

  …

  9

  3

  6

  —

  1926

  …

  …

  …

  9

  4

  4

  1

  1927

  …

  …

  …

  6

  —

  5

  1

  1928

  …

  …

  …

  7

  3

  4

  —

  1929

  …

  …

  …

  5

  1

  4

  —

  Total

  …

  …

  36

  11

  23

  2

  POLICE (EX-INSPECTOR FISHER).
  Mr. MATTERSasked the Home Secretary if he can now state what settlement, if any, has been reached in the case of ex-Sub-divisional Inspector Fisher, of the X division of the Metropolitan police force?
  Mr. CLYNES: This officer resigned from the force after having been reduced in rank to that of sergeant. The Commissioner has now acceded to an application made by him to be allowed to rejoin the force, and he will rejoin accordingly, on Monday next, in the rank of sergeant.
  Mr. MATTERS: Can my right hon. Friend say if this decision also involves any payment to the officer in question?
  Mr. CLYNES: I cannot give further information without notice.

  DISCHARGED PRISONERS (SUBSEQUENT CONVICTIONS).
  Mr. BROADasked the Home Secretary what percentage of persons in England and Wales discharged from convict and local prisons during the five years ending 1925 have been subsequently convicted of further criminal offences?
  Mr. CLYNES: The figures for which the hon. Member asks are not available and could not be obtained.
  Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the reason for this uneasiness among Members opposite?
  I will circulate the particulars requested in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following are the particulars:

  EQUAL RIGHTS.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Home Secretary if he will consider the desirability of appointing an inter-departmental committee to consider what changes in the law would be necessary for this country to comply with an international treaty for equal rights as between the sexes?
  Mr. CLYNES: No, Sir. The only proposals for an international treaty which I have seen do not afford any sufficient definite basis upon which a committee could usefully be invited to consider the question of changes in the law of this country.
  Mr. MANDER: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Home Office and the Foreign Office have given contradictory answers on the matter, and does he not think that that is a good reason for the appointment of a departmental committee in order to see which is right?
  Mr. CLYNES: I am certain that the Home Office in this matter is not in the wrong, and I do not agree that contradictory answers have been given.

  SECONDARY SCHOOLS (FREE PLACES).
  Mr. EDEasked the President of the Board of Education what steps he has taken to ascertain what action has been taken by the local education authorities on his permission to increase the number of free places in secondary schools?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Lees-Smith): Local education authorities and governing bodies have been informed in Circular 1412 of the special arrangements which the Board are prepared to approve to increase the award of free places for the school year 1931–32. The returns which will enable me to say to what extent they have availed themselves of these arrangements are not yet available.
  Mr. EDE: Is my right hon. Friend making arrangements to get such returns before the opening of the secondary school educational year in September?
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: It will be too late to take any action now, but I propose to obtain returns in order to decide what action to take next year.
  Mrs. MANNING: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it would be quite possible for local education authorities to have supplementary scholarship lists made?

  PALESTINE (AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister what will be the opportunity granted to the House of Commons to discuss the proposed loan for agricultural development in Palestine?
  Mr. THOMAS: As stated in the despatch which has been laid before the House, it is proposed to bring before Parliament in due course a Bill by which Parliament will be asked to authorise His Majesty's Government to guarantee a loan by which the funds required for this purpose will be raised. Opportunity for discussion will then arise.
  Mr. SMITHERS: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the approximate amount of the loan?
  Mr. THOMAS: I cannot.

  NAVAL ARMAMENTS.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether consideration has now been given to the desirability of a moratorium in warship building in connection with the European financial crisis, including the construction
  1668
  of artillery, tanks, and other warlike equipment?
  Mr. THOMAS: The answer is in the negative.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does that mean that, while we have this extraordinary economic situation, we are all going on piling up armaments just the same?
  Mr. SMITHERS: Who is?
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: All the nations concerned?
  Mr. SMITHERS: Except ourselves.

  FINANCE AND INDUSTRY.
  Mr. MACLEANasked the Prime Minister whether ail the evidence taken before the Macmillan Committee was of a confidential character; and, if not, whether it is proposed to publish the evidence which was not confidential, and when such evidence is likely to be available?
  Mr. THOMAS: On making further inquiries the Prime Minister finds that in the main the evidence given was not of a secret or confidential character. That evidence will be published and will be made available as soon as possible.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    INFANT MORTALITY, WOOLWICH, POPLAR AND NORTH KENSINGTON.
    Mr. WESTasked the Minister of Health what were the infant mortality rates for 1930 in Woolwich, Poplar and North Kensington?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): The provisional infant mortality rate in 1930, i.e., the number of deaths of children under one year of age per 1,000 live births, was 42 for the borough of Woolwich and 55 for the borough of Poplar. The Registrar-General has no similar information in respect of North Kensington, but according to the annual report of the medical officer of health the infant mortality rate in 1930 for that portion of the borough of Kensington was 76.
    Mr. WEST: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that there is some-

    1669
    thing vitally wrong when in a district like North Kensington, a middle-class area, there is an infant death-rate of 20 per cent. above that of Poplar?

    MILK (TUBERCLE BACILLUS).
    Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Health whether he has any records and can state the number of samples of milk alleged to have been pasteurised that have been found by local authorities on examination to contain tubercle bacillus during the previous 12 months?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I regret that I have no records which would enable me to give the figures asked for.
    Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider asking the local authorities to make reports to him on those examinations?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I am always unwilling to put new responsibilities on local authorities, if I can avoid it.

    IMPORTED RUSSIAN BUTTER.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the Minister of Health whether any recent steps have been taken by his Department to examine the quality of the butter which is being imported into this country from Russia; and whether there has been any investigation of the conditions from a health point of view under which the butter is produced?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Some samples of Russian butter have recently been examined in the laboratory of my Department, and the reports which I have received so far have been satisfactory. I have not had any investigation made of the conditions under which the butter is produced.
    Sir F. HALL: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the report of the Russian authorities, in which they state that this butter is produced in some cases under the most filthy conditions, and will he look into the matter with a view to protecting the poor people of this country?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I am satisfied from the investigations we have made so far that the butter is quite satisfactory.

    VACCINATION.
    Mr. FREEMANasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the case of the child of W. A.
    1670
    Nance-Kievill, of St. Julians Road, Newport, Monmouth, who died on 11th July, following vaccination on 6th June; whether he is aware that the child was previously found to be quite healthy; whether Government vaccine from calf-lymph was used; whether the operation was performed by the public vaccinator; whether the instrument was properly sterilised; and whether vaccination proceeded in the ordinary way?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: My attention had not previously been called to this case, but I am making inquiries and will communicate the result to my bon. Friend.

    ICE CREAM.
    Mr. de ROTHSCHILDasked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the representations from the Wisbech Town Council expressing the opinion that power should be given them to exercise effective control over all premises used for the manufacture and sale of ice cream and kindred commodities; whether he has received similar representations from other localities; and whether he is taking steps to ensure that such articles are manufactured under hygienic conditions?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I have received such representations from the Wisbech Town Council and from a number of other local authorities. As. regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to Section 72 of the Public Health Act, 1925, which enables the local authority to enforce the maintenance of proper sanitary conditions in places where food is prepared for sale.
    Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure of the purity of these articles, and how do they compare with the purity of the butter imported from Russia?

    LONDON REFUSE (DISPOSAL).
    Mr. ALBERYasked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to take any legislative action in the near future to control the dumping of London refuse in adjacent areas?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I am not at present in a position to make a statement on this matter. I may state that the Town and Country Planning Bill now before Parliament contains provisions which will empower local authorities in

    1671
    planning schemes to deal with the prohibition, regulation and control of the deposit or disposal of refuse.
    Mr. MILLS: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that London is infested with borough councils which dump their refuse?
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to support an Amendment tightening up the regulations regarding the dumping of refuse, in connection with the Bill in its Committee stage?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The Committee stage is past.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Then on the Report stage?
    Mr. SMITHERS: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to introduce some Amendment on the Report stage to deal with the matter?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: It is not possible to me to refer to what happened in Committee, but I think that the Members of the Committee will agree that we dealt with the matter satisfactorily.

    TUBERCULOSIS (TREATMENT).
    Dr. HASTINGSasked the Minister of Health, in view of the fact that Clause 16 of the Local Government Act, 1929, does not necessitate a charge being made for the treatment of tuberculosis, if he will say for what reasons instructions have been issued to local authorities to make a charge for the treatment of this disease?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: If my hon. Friend will furnish me with particulars of any case which he has in mind, I will communicate with him further.
    Dr. HASTINGS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is freely stated by the clerk to the Middlesex County Council?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: No, I am not aware of that, but, if the hon. Member will discuss the matter with me, I will go into it further.

  PUBLIC STREETS ACT.
  Miss PICTON - TURBERVILLasked the Minister of Health whether, in
  1672
  view of the fact that the Public Streets Act was passed in 1872, when material and labour were cheaper than they are now, with the result that in many places the Act is not operated either efficiently or even healthily, he will bring in an amending Bill?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: Under the Private Streets Works Act, 1892, and also under the corresponding provisions of the Public Health Act, 1875, local authorities are empowered to contribute from the rates towards the cost of private street works. The general subject of the law and practice in regard to private street works is now being considered by me in consultation with the Associations of Local Authorities.
  Miss PICTON-TURBERVILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider making representations to the Unemployment Grants Committee for grants to be made either in part or in full?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I am afraid that I have no power to do that, but I will consider the suggestion of the hon. Member.

  SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS (MODEL BY-LAW).
  Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Health whether there are any local authorities in England and Wales who have not yet adopted the Ministry of Health's model by-law 9 b with reference to the humane slaughter of animals; and will he give particulars?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The local authorities who have statutory power to adopt this by-law and have not done so are 224 town councils, 618 urban district councils and 516 rural district councils.
  Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the number of councils who have adopted it?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: Over 100 town councils, over 100 urban councils and over 100 rural district councils.

  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.
  Mr. G. OLIVERasked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to state the approximate number of men

  1673
  in receipt of contributory pensions whose wives have not attained the pensionable age?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I regret that the information desired by my hon. Friend is not available and could only be obtained at a cost which could not be justified in present circumstances.
  Mr. OLIVER: In view of the fact that this information is badly needed not only in this House but by the people outside, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to acquire it?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: It is a matter of expenditure which would be very considerable. The task is much greater than my hon. Friend understands.
  Mr. OLIVER: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman realises the importance attaching to this question and that it is impossible to do anything until we get the numbers of this class of person?

  HOUSING.

    RURAL WORKERS ACT.
    Mr. HURDasked the Minister of Health if he will circulate, for the benefit of housing authorities, the report of the officers of his Department who have visited the rural district of Atcham and other areas to ascertain the means by which the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, has been successfully used to provide houses for agricultural workers at low rents?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I am to-day issuing to the authorities concerned a circular letter covering a copy of this report, and will send a copy to the hon. Member.

    RURAL AUTHORITIES BILL.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Minister of Health if he is now in a position to announce the composition of the advisory committee he proposes to set up in connection with the Housing (Rural Authorities) Bill?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I had hoped to announce the names of the members of the committee to-day, but I regret that I am unable to do so as the composition of the committee is not finally complete.
    Sir K. WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it will be published?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I think within the next day or two.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health whether the chairman of the new committee to be set up under the Housing (Rural Authorities) Bill will be paid a salary and/or expenses and, if so, how much?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: No payment for services will be made to the chairman or other members of the committee, but any travelling or subsistence expenses required to be incurred will, of course, be refunded.

    CLEARANCE SCHEMES (COMPENSATION FOR DISTURBANCE).
    Mr. ALPASSasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the hardships which in some instances result to the occupiers of houses situated in areas which are cleared by local authorities, and particularly to shopkeepers resident in those areas; and what action he proposes to take to mitigate these hardships?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I am aware that the clearance of an area and the enforced removal of the occupiers, including shopkeepers, may in some cases cause inconvenience and even financial hardship, but I would refer my hon. Friend to the provision made in Section 41 of the Act of 1930 which confers upon the local authority, so far as regards displacements under the Housing Act, 1930, a discretion to pay reasonable allowances towards expenses of removal or towards any loss which in their opinion a shopkeeper may sustain by reason of the disturbance of his trade or business.
    Mr. ALPASS: Have the people affected, and who are suffering these hardships, any right of appeal; and, if so, to whom?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The matter is entirely within the discretion of the local authority. Normally they would make their claims to the local authority. They have no right of appeal.

  NECESSITOUS AREAS.
  Sir K. WOODasked the Minister of Health whether there is any sum in hand of the £440,000 allotted to necessi-

  1675
  tous areas in England and Wales except such amount as has been kept for engineering contingencies?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: No sum is in hand beyond that reserved for engineering contingencies.
  Sir K. WOODasked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to give any special assistance during the coming winter to necessitous areas; and whether he can state the reply he has given to representations in relation thereto to the South Wales (Monmouthshire) Necessitous Areas Conference?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I am not in a position to make a statement on this subject at the present time. I informed the deputation which attended recently from the body mentioned in the question that I would bring their representations to the notice of the Government.
  Sir K. WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to make any statement before the summer Recess?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I cannot make any promise.

  ASYLUM OFFICERS (SUPERANNUATION).
  Mr. RAMSBOTHAMasked the Minister of Health if he can now make a statement as to the action which he intends to take in consequence of the actuarial investigation into the superannuation of asylum officers?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: No, Sir. The actuarial investigation is however on the point of completion.
  Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: When the right hon. Gentleman is able to make a statement on this matter will he consider calling it the Asylums Procrastination Bill?

  BUILDINGS (COST).
  The following question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Captain WATERHOUSE:
  67. To ask the Minister of Health the estimated cost of buildings for which plans were approved in those towns from which returns are received in the second quarters of 1928, 1929, 1930 and 1931?
  Captain WATERHOUSE: On a point of Order. I received a notice just before I came to the House, asking me to transfer this question to the Minister of Labour. As far as I am aware, the Minister of Labour has nothing whatever to do with buildings, and I am rather at a loss to know why that request was made.
  Miss BONDFIELD: I have been asked to reply. The figures required are approximately as follow, for the second quarter of each year:

  £

  1928

  …

  …

  …

  17,200,000

  1929

  …

  …

  …

  22,100,000

  1930

  …

  …

  …

  20,200,000

  1931

  …

  …

  …

  16,900,000

  Captain WATERHOUSE: Does the right hon. Lady think that those figures are satisfactory from the point of view of a right hon. Friend who does not like to answer the question himself.
  Mr. MILLS: May I ask if the Minister of Labour is answering on behalf of the Unemployment Grants Committee, in view of the innuendo of the hon. and gallant Member?
  Miss BONDFIELD: The question has been transferred to me, because the collection of statistics falls to my Department.
  Captain WATERHOUSE: It seems to me that the right hon. Lady's last remark does raise a point of considerable importance. Surely we have the right to put down questions to the Minister who is responsible, not merely to the Minister who collects the statistics.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member has had his answer.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  Mr. THOMAS LEWISasked the Minister of Health the total amount spent by approved societies in connection with the provision of dental benefit since the inception of that benefit; and what effect, if any, the provision of this treatment has had upon the benefit funds of approved societies?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The total amount spent by approved societies on dental benefit from the commencement of the

  1677
  benefit to the end of the year 1930 is approximately £10,500,000. It is not possible to state what effect this expenditure has had upon the benefit funds; but the importance of dental treatment in avoiding or reducing the liability to ill-health is widely recognised.
  Mr. LEWISasked the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied that the medical practitioners undertaking insurance work are only issuing certificates of incapacity to insured persons who are genuinely unable to follow any occupation by reason of sickness; and, if not, will he provide that the cost of sickness visitation undertaken by approved societies shall be borne out of the funds payable by approved societies towards the cost of medical treatment until such time as he is satisfied that the medical practitioners are issuing certificates of incapacity strictly in accordance with the regulations?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: My hon. Friend will be aware that steps have recently been taken by the amendment of the Medical Benefit Regulations and by the issue of a memorandum on certification to all insurance doctors with the object of ensuring that claims on the funds of approved societies are not supported by medical certificates in any case in which the claimant is not incapable of work. I could not undertake to consider favourably the suggestion made in the question, which appears to be based on the assumption that sickness visitation is required solely as a check on medical certification.
  Mr. LEWIS: Is it not a fact that additional supervision is being requested from the societies on account of increased sickness?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: That may be true, but the point of the question is the assumption that because of that there is a need for increased visitation, which I do not accept.

  LOANS AND GUARANTEES.
  Major GLYNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total liability of the Treasury concerning loans authorised at home for unemployment grants, etc., for assisting development of the
  1678
  Dominions and Colonies, and in aid of trade credits in foreign countries, respectively?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): The capitalised present value of state liabilities outstanding in respect of loans for unemployment works is approximately £36,500,000. The liability in respect of loans, guaranteed loans or grants approved for assisting development of the Dominions, Colonies, etc. is approximately £14,000,000. I regret that there are no figures available for trade credits, which are properly comparable with those given above. The total liabilities assumed by the Export Credits Guarantee Department since July, 1926, in connection with exports to foreign countries have been about £13,000,000 and in connection with exports to the Dominions and Colonies about £1,250,000; but the hon. Member will understand that these are short term liabilities of which the greater part have already run off.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    BONUS.
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAMasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to make any statement before the House rises for the Summer Recess as to the action which he intends to take with regard to the possible change in the rate of the Civil Service bonus on 1st September?
    Mr. P. SNOWDEN: A decision on this matter will be reached at the earliest possible moment, but I cannot say whether it will be possible to make a statement before the House rises.

    ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT.
    Major GLYNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when it is expected that the report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service will be published;
    (2) whether he will reconsider his decision regarding the automatic reduction of pay of civil servants on 1st September in consequence of the fall of the index cost-of-living figure, at any rate as far as those classes of the Civil Service in receipt of pay under £250 per annum are concerned, pending the Report of the Royal Commission being made public?
    Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The matter will be considered in the light of such recommendations as may be made by the Royal Commission on the Civil Service whose report is being published this evening.
    Mr. W. J. BROWN: May I ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer can definitely assure the House that there will be no further reduction in bonus payments before an opportunity is given to the House to discuss the matter?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: No, Sir.

    LAND VALUE TAX (STAFF).
    Mr. TINKERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the method to be adopted to fill the positions required to make the valuation under the land tax Clauses in the Finance Bill; and will he make known to intending applicants for such positions the standard of qualification required?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): An announcement as to the positions to be filled and the qualifications looked for in the candidates will be made in the Press as soon as the Finance Bill has become law.

  AGRICULTURE (BUTTER).
  Dr. HASTINGSasked the Minister of Agriculture the quantity of butter produced in this country and imported from abroad, respectively, that is made from clotted cream and is therefore free from the germs of tuberculosis?

  —

  Year to 31st March, 1929.

  Year to 31st March, 1930.

  Year to 31st March, 1931.

  Gross amount paid in rewards

  £1,110

  £1,294

  £700

  The amounts sanctioned by the Treasury were.

  £990

  £1,095

  £250

  Number of informers rewarded

  12

  13

  11

  The highest reward paid in these years was £500.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    HARD HABEDASHERY.
    Mr. PERKINSasked the President of the Board of Trade the value of buttons and small wares imported into this country between 1st January, 1930, and
    Mr. WILLIAM WHITELEY (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend is not aware that any imported butter is made from clotted cream and he has no information which would enable him to answer the question in regard to butter produced in this country.

  INCOME TAX (REWARDS TO INFORMERS).
  Mr. de ROTHSCHILDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of the sums paid in each of the years 1929, 1930, and 1931 by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, under the Inland Revenue (Regulation) Act, 1890, by way of reward to informers in cases of tax evasion; how much of these sums in each year was directly sanctioned by the Treasury and how many informers were so rewarded; what was the highest reward paid to any informer; and what total of taxation has been recovered in each of these years as a result of such information?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I will circulate information on the earlier parts of the question in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As regards the last part, it is not possible to allocate the total amounts of tax recovered in these cases as between sums directly attributable to the particulars furnished by the informers and sums attributable to the investigations by the officers of the Inland Revenue.
  Following is the information:
  the last available date; and the approximate number of people employed in the manufacture of these foreign articles?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): During the period from the 1st January, 1930,

  1681
  to the 30th June, 1931, the total declared value of buttons and other hard haberdashery imported into the United Kingdom from foreign countries, amounted to £1,251,000. I have no information regarding the latter part of the question.
  Mr. PERKINS: Is it not the fact that the number of people employed in the manufacture of these imported foreign goods is approximately equal to the number of people unemployed in this country?
  Mr. GRAHAM: No. I am afraid all arguments of that kind are very misleading.

  INCOME TAX (REWARDS TO INFORMERS).

    WOOLLEN AND WORSTED INDUSTRY.
    Mr. PERKINSasked the President of the Board of Trade the value of foreign woollen and worsted cloth imported into this country between 1st January, 1930, and the last available date; and whether he can state the approximate number of people employed in the manufacture of that foreign cloth?
    Mr. W. GRAHAMDuring the period from the 1st January, 1930, to the 30th June, 1931, the total declared value of woollen and worsted piece goods imported into the United Kingdom from foreign countries, amounted to £9,296,000. I have no information regarding the latter part of the question.
    Mr. BROTHERS(for Mr. THORNE) asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now consider the advisability of taking action in getting the employers engaged in the woollen and worsted trade in the various parts of Yorkshire to meet together with a view to changing the method of organisation in that industry, in accordance with the recommendations made by two commissions which inquired into this matter during the past four years?
    Mr. GRAHAM: While the position in this and other industries is kept constantly under review, I do not think that the action suggested by my hon. Friend would be likely to lead to any useful result. The reports of the inquiries, to which I presume my hon. Friend refers, did not contain specific recommendations for the reorganisation of the industry.
    Mr. BEN RILEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any actual investigations of any kind are taking place?
    Mr. GRAHAM: There is no formal committee of inquiry into this industry, but all the circumstances in Yorkshire and other parts of the country, have been reviewed, mainly from the point of view of amalgamations.
    Mr. BROOKE: Are the Government not prepared to set up a special commission of inquiry into the conditions in the industry?
    Mr. GRAHAM: No, I have already informed hon. Members that I do not think that there is a case for an inquiry on those lines, but, in fact, as regards organisation, the ground is being covered in another way.

  COMPANY LAW.
  Mr. MARCUSasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will take legislative steps to compel private limited companies to send their creditors every year a copy of their balance sheet and directors' report;
  (2) if he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to compel limited companies, in cases where a general debenture is registered, to mention that fact with the name of the debenture holder on all stationery, so as to prevent firms, with an authorised capital of £1,000 of which only 1s. or 2s. has been taken up, from obtaining credit?
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: As I have already stated, I am not in a position to promise legislation affecting limited companies but these and other suggestions have been noted.
  Mr. ALBERYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that a concern called the Bank of London, Limited, advertises for business in the foreign Press; that this concern is not in fact a bank in the accepted sense of the word; and whether he will take steps to prevent the use of business names that mislead the public?
  Mr. GRAHAM: I have no information regarding this company other than that which appears on its file at Somerset House and in the Press. The question of restricting the use of certain words in the names of companies was considered

  1683
  by the Greene Committee and is dealt with in Section 17 of the Companies Act.
  Mr. ALBERY: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the very misleading nature of this name, and will he consider what further steps can be taken by legislation or otherwise to deal with it?
  Mr. GRAHAM: I have looked carefully at this case. The company appears to have been registered in 1904, and the Companies Act, even if it had been stricter in its terms, is not retrospective and would not cover a company of this kind. But I will make further inquiries.

  HUMBER (TRAINING WALLS).
  Mr. MUFFasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will convene at an early date a conference of all bodies of persons interested in the navigation of the Humber in order to ascertain the views of the navigation authorities upon the subject of the provision of training walls on the Humber?
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: Yes, Sir, I am arranging for the issue of invitations to such a conference.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Major COHENasked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been drawn to a decision of the Assessment Appeals Tribunal, made on 4th June, 1931, affecting a disabled officer who was awarded a gratuity before August, 1921; and whether he proposes to take any action to inform all disabled officers and men affected by this decision of their right to appeal?
  The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. F. O. Roberts): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The matter is under consideration.
  Major COHEN: Will the Minister of Pensions continue to grant permission to these disabled officers and men to apply to the appeals court, and for that body themselves to decide as to the time limit?
  Mr. ROBERTS: That is a matter which shall certainly have consideration.

  HISTORIC BUILDINGS (CASTLE AND BARN, ACTON BURNELL).
  Mr. MANDERasked the First Commissioner of Works what steps he is taking to preserve the castle and tithe barn at Acton Burnell where the Lords and Commons sat at the assembly of Parliament in 1283?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): The castle of Acton Burnell is now in the charge of my Department and the necessary work of preservation is in hand. My Department is not in charge of the barn. I am informed that very little is left of the latter structure: but I shall inquire whether any steps need be taken to preserve what is left.
  Mr. MANDER: Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman is only taking an interest in the place where the Lords sat and is not taking the same interest in the old home of the Commons?
  Mr. LANSBURY: I am a good loyalist, and I am looking after the old home of the peers.

  TRANSPORT.

    WATERLOO BRIDGE.
    Mr. ALBERYasked the Minister of Transport with reference to the present temporary Waterloo Bridge, if he will state what period of service it was estimated at the time of construction could be safely expected?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Parkinson): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave yesterday to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Dart-ford (Mr. Mills), of which I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. ALBERY: Can the hon. Gentleman say, with reference to that answer, what steps are to be taken to provide a safe crossing of the river pending the construction of the new bridge?
    Mr. PARKINSON: As the hon. Member is aware, the whole matter is under consideration in view of the Charing Cross proposals.

    VIADUCT, PETERBOROUGH.
    Mr. HORRABINasked the Minister of Transport the reason for the continued delay in the commencement of work on the scheme for a viaduct over the River Nene and London and North Eastern Railway crossing at Peterborough?
    Mr. PARKINSON: There has been considerable delay due to matters connected with the acceptance of a tender; but the county council were informed on the 30th May last of my right hon. Friend's approval of the tender which they desired to accept. Grants have already been made towards both the preliminary expenditure and the acquisition of land and the county council have been informed that the formal grant towards the cost of the works will be issued in due course. The issue of the final grant would not be prejudiced should the council decide to put the work in hand at once.

  TRANSJORDAN.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the new inquiry to be held on the possibilities of land settlement and cultivation in Palestine will extend to the unoccupied or uncultivated lands beyond Jordan?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): No, Sir. The scheme does not apply to Transjordan, which, as my hon. and gallant Friend is no doubt aware, is under a different administrative system.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: With great respect, may I ask whether the High Commissioner in Jerusalem is not also responsible for His Majesty's interests in Transjordan; and why a survey should not take place over a mandated area on which we have spent a great deal of money voted by this House?
  Dr. SHIELS: I think we feel that we have quite enough material to deal with in Palestine.

  COASTGUARD HOUSES, FELIXSTOWE (SALE).
  Mr. de ROTHSCHILDasked the Secretary of State for War why the five coastguard houses at Bawdsey Ferry,
  1686
  near Felixstowe, were sold last summer privately and not by public auction; what price was obtained for them; and why one was not kept as a pilot's house, in view of the fact that the shortage of accommodation in that district has obliged one young pilot to sleep in a hulk on the river?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): It is in the discretion of the Department to sell either by public auction or by private treaty, and in this particular case the latter was the more advantageous method. As regards the sum realised, it is not considered desirable to disclose prices unless and until they are published in the Army Appropriation Account. The accommodation of pilots is not dealt with by the Government.
  Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: When will these accounts appear, and when shall we know for how much these houses were sold?
  Mr. SHAW: I cannot state if these accounts ever will appear. There are certain accounts and prices which are published, but there are other accounts as to commercial transactions, which are not individually disclosed.
  Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these houses were hawked about London for £1,600 and were finally sold to a lady who lives at Felixstowe; and is he sure that this transaction is above board?
  Mr. SHAW: If the hon. Gentleman had given me that allegation before and had given me a chance of inquiring into it, I would have done so.
  Mr. MILLS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one Government Department in 1928, sold—
  Mr. SPEAKER: That appears to be another question.

  BRITISH LEGATIONS.
  Mr. C. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the intention of the Government to raise any of His Majesty's Legations to the status of Embassies?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): There is no present intention of altering the status of any of His Majesty's Legations.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Why not?

  ROYAL NAVY (SOUTH WALES COAL).
  Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the quantity of South Wales coal supplied to the British Navy each year from the year 1919?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  The figures are as follow:

  Tons.

  1919

  …

  …

  …

  1,068,000

  1920

  …

  …

  …

  957,000

  1921

  …

  …

  …

  735,000

  1922

  …

  …

  …

  500,000

  1923

  …

  …

  …

  495,000

  1924

  …

  …

  …

  274,000

  1925

  …

  …

  …

  392,000

  1926

  …

  …

  …

  265,000

  1927

  …

  …

  …

  321,000

  1928

  …

  …

  …

  220,000

  1929

  …

  …

  …

  207,000

  1930

  …

  …

  …

  167,000

  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.
  Captain WATERHOUSEasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons in receipt of public aid, whether by local authorities or insurance schemes to which a State contribution is made, at the last convenient date?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I will see whether it is possible to bring together figures of this kind and will communicate with the hon. and gallant Member.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Commander Sir BOLTON EYRES MONSELL: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer four questions: First, if he can state the Business for next week; second, if he can give the date for the reassembly of Parliament; third, whether there is any alteration of the Business as announced for Friday, particularly with
1688
reference to the suspension of Members; and, fourth, if the Government will be in a position to make a statement next week on the international situation, because, if so, I think the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill would be an appropriate opportunity.
Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The business next week will be as follows:
Monday: Supply, 18th Allotted Day. I understand that the Vote of the Mines Department will be taken.
Tuesday: Supply, 19th Allotted Day.
Wednesday: Supply, 20th Allotted Day.
I am not in a position to say what Votes will be set down for these two days.
Thursday: Appropriation Bill, Second Reading.
Friday: Appropriation Bill, further stages, and Motion for the Adjournment.
I regret that it is not possible to announce to-day the Votes which will be discussed on Tuesday and Wednesday, but I may remind the House that under the Standing Order all the outstanding Votes are put from the Chair for decision on the last two days. During the week it may be necessary to ask the House to take, in addition, any business necessary to pass into law before the Adjournment, the Measures included in the reply which I gave on the 9th July, in so far as such business may be expected not to involve unduly late sittings.
The House will reassemble on Tuesday, 20th October.
I understand that the business already announced for Friday, namely, the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill, will be taken.
In reply to the third question put by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in regard to altering Standing Orders as to the suspension of Members, the Prime Minister desires me to say that, since he answered a question on this subject by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on 15th July, it has become evident that there is considerable diversity of opinion in more than one quarter of the House as to the precise method in which the matter should be dealt with. In view of this, it is obvious that it will be impossible, within the time remaining between now and the Adjournment, to find an adequate opportunity of discussing the question. In

1689
these circumstances, it is proposed to put down a Motion for consideration at an early date after the reassembly of the House referring the matter to a Select Committee for an early report.
In reply to the fourth question, in regard to some debate on the international situation, I am always anxious to give the House of Commons an opportunity of discussing any matter in which they are interested, but I think that the House will appreciate the delicacy of the present international financial situation, and I do not think that it would be either in the public interest, or in the interest of the successful carrying out of the recommendations which have been made by the Conference which closed this morning, that any public discussion of the matter should take place.
Mr. W. J. BROWN: In view of the Chancellor's statement that the Government are anxious to give the House an opportunity of discussing matters in which they are interested, may I ask whether the Government can provide time between now and the Adjournment for a discussion of a matter which is of common interest on all sides of the House, namely, the possible drop of the Civil Service bonus?
Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not think that it would be possible before the Adjournment. I can only repeat what I have said. I gather from the newspapers—which are my main source of information—that the report of the Civil Service Commission will be available some time to-day, and I have already promised that it will be taken into immediate consideration so far as it deals with the question of the Civil Service bonus.
Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: In reply to what the right hon. Gentleman said in regard to the international situation, may I say that the Opposition would not think of pressing the Government unless it was convenient; but may I put this forward, that this question will probably be discussed in other capitals of Europe, and it would be of great topical interest to this country if it were possible to have a discussion here.
Mr. SNOWDEN: This may be discussed in other countries. Their methods of procedure are rather different from ours, but I think that the Debates that do take place on these questions in
1690
foreign Parliaments sometimes do not help international relations.
Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: I realise the delicacy of the position, but would it be possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to let us have a statement before the Houses rises?
Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not think that I can add anything to the statement that will appear in the Press, probably this evening or to-morrow morning.
Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any intimation that the Opposition are to use any of the opportunities that will arise—at least three—before we part for the holidays, to raise the economic situation of this country, apart from the international situation, and the general question of unemployment in this country?
Mr. SNOWDEN: I have already said that one part of the Opposition has chosen the Mines Department on Monday, and I have no intimation as to what subjects have been selected by the Opposition on the two days that remain.
Mr. SMITHERS: Is it proposed to take the Public Works Loan Bill on Friday?
Mr. SNOWDEN: No, I understand not.
Mr. SMITHERS: May we take that as definite?
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. T. Kennedy)iadicated assent.

CIVIL ESTIMATES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1931).
Estimate presented, of a further sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1932 [by Command]: referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (CLERKS) BILL [Lords.]
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee D.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered To-morrow.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Public Works Facilities Scheme (Great Western Railway) (No. 2) Bill, without Amendment.
Taunton Corporation Bill.
West Hartlepool Corporation Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a scheme under the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, relating to Rothesay Water." [Public Works Facilities Scheme (Rothesay Water) Confirmation Bill [Lords].]

PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES SCHEME (ROTHESAY WATER) CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
Ordered under Section 1 (9) of the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, to be considered.
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE D.
  Mr. Frederick Hall reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D: Sir Kingsley Wood; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Bertram Falle.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [17TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.
    CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1931.
      CLASS VI.

        MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT.
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        "That a sum, not exceeding £103,522, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Transport, under the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, Expenses of the Railway Rates Tribunal under the Railways Act, 1921, Expenses under the London Traffic Act, 1924, Expenses in respect of Advances under the Light Railways Act, 1896, Expenses of maintaining Holyhead Harbour, Advance? to meet Deficit in Ramsgate Harbour Fund, Advances to Caledonian and Crinan Canals, and for Expenditure in connection with the Severn Barrage Investigation."—[NOTE: £60,000 has been voted on account.]
        The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Parkinson): I have to ask the approval of the Committee for a sum of £163,522, which is a decrease of £45,452 on the Estimate introduced last year. I should, however, point out that the gross expenditure of the Ministry has increased from £418,206 last year to an estimated gross expenditure this year of £517,307—an increase of £99,101. The increase in the gross estimates is largely due to an increase in salaries and in travelling and incidental expenses consequent on the establishment of the Traffic Commissioners organisation, and as this cost is recoverable from the Road Fund as an Appropriation-in-Aid, the net expenditure is reduced accordingly.
        Not the least important of the changes introduced by the Road Traffic Act, 1930, was the new machinery set up for the purpose of ensuring that passengers are provided with more satisfactory road transport facilities. Operators of public service vehicles are required to obtain from the Traffic Commissioners of their appropriate area certificates as to the fit-
        1710
        ness of the vehicles for the conveyance of passengers, and road service licences, which are granted after due consideration of the traffic needs of the area. The Commissioners are now working at considerable pressure in hearing applications for road service licences, and I have no doubt that the effect of their activities will be highly beneficial in eliminating a considerable amount of wasteful competition, and in giving the country a more economic transport system than it has had during the past few years, when the development of omnibus services has been somewhat chaotic. This new machinery has naturally involved a considerable increase in staff shown under Sub-head A. It numbers at present 390, with salaries, wages and allowances amounting to £111,060, as shown on page 123 of the Estimates.
        Further expenditure arising from the appointment of the Commissioners is included under "Travelling and Incidental Expenses" (Subhead B) and "Telegrams and Telephones" (Subhead D), respectively. The gross provision made in the Estimate for expenditure under the Road Traffic Act is, therefore, in the neighbourhood of £140,000, and it will be observed that the amount recoverable from the Road Fund under item 2 (a) of Subhead N is increased by approximately that amount. It is somewhat difficult to form an exact estimate of this expenditure, as the organisation has not yet been working for a full year, but I would ask the Committee to compare this figure of £140,000 with the figure of £165,000 which was given when the Financial Resolution in connection with the Road Traffic Act was under consideration—Command Paper 3490—as the cost of the Commissioners and their staff in a full year.
        The Committee will recollect that provision was made in the Road Traffic Act for fees to be charged by the Commissioners for the issuing and backing of licences. The scale of fees prescribed has been worked out with a view to making the Traffic Commissioners' organisation, so far as possible, self-supporting. The fees are paid direct to the Road Fund, and are estimated to amount to £140,000 or £150,000 for the year. While the staff of the Commissioners numbers 390 this does not represent a net increase in the number of

        1711
        public officials, as the staff employed by the local authorities on the duties now performed by the Traffic Commissioners are no longer required. Where possible transfers of staff were made, and in cases of loss of office compensation has been paid. The other duties imposed on the Minister by the Road Transport Act have not involved any appreciable increase in these Estimates.
        The contributions towards the cost of equipping and maintaining the mobile police units are borne by the Road Fund. I would refer to the appreciation which has been expressed of the institution of police motor patrols, commonly called mobile police. Provision is made in the Road Traffic Act for advances to be made out of the Road Fund towards any expenses incurred by a police authority in the provision and maintenance of vehicles or equipment for use by the police force in connection with the enforcement of the Act. The advances are strictly confined to expenses incurred by the police forces in this connection. The object of employing traffic patrols is to make the person responsible for checking the wrongdoer on the highway as mobile as the wrongdoer himself. It is the mobile policeman alone who can effectively deal with the man who "cuts in" or who passes on a blind corner. The mobile policeman's official authority also enables him, apart from dealing with serious traffic offences, to offer advice which will have some weight with the drivers of motor vehicles. Although less than a year has elapsed since the passing of the Road Traffic Act considerable progress has been made in the organisation of mobile police forces.
        There is a small increase, £1,879, in respect of salaries for the staff of the research station which was opened at the beginning of last year at Colnbrook, on the Great West Road, with an adjoining stretch of road for conducting experiments, for the improvement of road construction and for testing the effect of various classes of vehicles on various types of roads. The first annual report dealing with the work of the experimental branch will shortly be issued, and should prove of interest to highway authorities and engineers both on the constructional and the economic side of highway administration. If the numbers
        1712
        and salaries of the staff of the Traffic Commissioners are excluded, the numbers of staff under Sub-head A shows an increase of 47, and the payment for salaries a decrease of £561. The increase of staff is largely due to the development of road schemes and research work.
        In connection with research work, I may say that the construction of the station buildings was undertaken by the Office of Works, who handed them over on 1st December, 1929. The equipment of the station was substantially completed in April, 1930, when the technical staff took up duty. The Ministry of Transport constructed the embankment and road, which are 550 yards in length. The road was first used for public traffic on 11th December, 1929. A special process was employed in the preparation of the concrete surface, in and below which instruments have been inserted for measuring variations of temperature, expansion and contraction and changes of level. Further expenditure on capital account has been or will be made in the current financial year, including £661 in respect of the station buildings, the total cost of which will amount to £1,797, and £550 in respect of equipment in the nature of plant and scientific apparatus. The salaries and wages of the staff employed at the station are shown in the estimate for the Ministry of Transport Vote.
        An item in Sub-head C, "Special Services and Enquiries," which perhaps calls for comment is £12,300 in respect of "Fees and Expenses of Consulting Accountants, Engineers, etc." Of this £10,000 is in respect of fees to consulting accountants in connection with the London Passenger Transport Bill. The next item is £15,000 in respect of fees to counsel and Parliamentary agents in connection with the same Bill, I was happy to learn that on Monday last the Joint Committee of both Houses which is now considering the Bill decided to allow it to proceed, subject to certain modifications which the Lord Chairman indicated. In connection with expenditure under this Sub-head the Bill provides for the recovery from the Board of all the costs and expenses in connection with the Bill, but no recovery of these items will be possible during the current financial year. Sub-head E—"Expenses of Railway Rates Tribunal"—shows a small increase. The

        1713
        whole of the expenditure under this subhead, however, is recoverable from the railway companies.
        4.0 p.m.
        As I indicated earlier, there is a net decrease on this year's Estimate as compared with last year s, and this has been brought about, speaking generally, by a reduction in the expenditure expected to be incurred on the undertakings vested in the Minister, namely, Ramsgate Harbour and the Caledonian and Crinan Canals. At present, losses are incurred on the working of all these undertakings, but while there have been negotiations for the transfer of Ramsgate Harbour, it seems unlikely that either of the canals will again become self-supporting. With the increase in the size of coasting and fishing vessels, these craft are more able to make the journeys by open sea and the competition of road transport causes a decline in receipts from passenger and goods traffic. The expenditure on the Severn Barrage Investigation (Sub-head L) shows a decrease of £6,700. This expenditure will enable a further stage of the inquiry into this scheme for the generation of electricity by harnessing the tides in the Severn Estuary to be completed. The main bulk of Appropriations-in-aid—Sub-head N—is composed of repayments from the. Road Fund, to which I have already alluded.
        With regard to the present position of the trunk road and five years' programme, the present trunk road programme envisaged a total expenditure of £21,000,000, covering works which are likely to extend over a period of five years and reach completion in March, 1935. Up to the present schemes to the value of upwards of £9,000,000 have been authorised for commencement or are in progress, while further schemes to the value of another £9,500,000 have been approved in principle in order to enable surveys to be made and the preparation of engineering details to be put in hand. At the moment, there are upwards of 9,000 men actually engaged upon these works. In respect of the five years' programme, we have quite a large number of schemes which have already been approved. The estimated total cost of the proposals which have been accepted is £27,500,000, and at the end of last May works to the value of some £14,000,000 were in progress, or had been authorised for co-
        1714
        mmencement, while approval in principle had been given with respect to works involving a further £12,500,000. Upwards of 13,000 men are actually engaged upon this programme. Including the road and bridge improvement schemes which are receiving grants from the Road Fund, but which come outside the scope of these two programmes, the present total number of men directly employed is something like 42,000, and, taking the indirectly employed, the figure is something like 84,000 people employed in connection with these works.
        In introducing this Estimate I have attempted to indicate the main features of variation from that presented last year, and to point out the effect of the Traffic Commissioners organisation on it. I have not attempted to deal with the more important work carried on in the Department which is not directly reflected by a comparison with last year's Estimate. I think the Committee will bear me out when I say that there was a tremendous number of schemes last year and that the work of the Department has been growing larger and larger. Consequently, I do not intend to deal with that portion of the work this afternoon. I leave that to the Minister to deal with in his reply. There may be also many points in connection with road schemes, and working of the Road Traffic Act, the supply and distribution of electricity and other matters, which may be raised in the discussion this afternoon, which, of course, I can leave to my right hon. Friend to answer when he makes his reply. I am sure that, in asking for the Vote this afternoon, we are only asking for something which is reasonable, something which is in keeping with the Department, and something which is necessary in the interests of county authorities and the people in the country, and I hope that we shall get the Vote in due course.
        Sir GERVAIS RENTOUL: I am sure that those Members who happen to be present must have been interested in the necessarily rapid survey of these Estimates to which we have just listened from the Parliamentary Secretary, and I should like, if I may, to take this opportunity of congratulating him on what, I believe, is his first appearance at that Box in that capacity.

        1715
        I rise not so much for the purpose of making a speech as to avail myself of a legitimate Parliamentary opportunity, which does not too often arise, of putting a few questions to the Minister, and of endeavouring to elicit from him a little definite information with regard to one or two matters which, I think, are of general and substantial importance. The first of these matters which I would like to raise is the main line electrification of the railways. I would like to ask the Minister whether he will, when he comes to reply, give the Committee, and indeed the country, some indication of the attitude of the Government towards this most important and, at the same time, highly controversial question. No one will deny that this is a matter of supreme importance from many points of view. It raises issues industrial, commercial, financial and political in character. It will, undoubtedly, affect directly one of the basic industries of the country, that of coal mining. We know that, at the present time, the railways consume between 15,000,000 and 16,000,000 tons of large round coal in the year, and I understand that if this electrification scheme is carried out, that will mean a reduction in that consumption of over 70 per cent., and that there is no alternative market readily available for this coal, bearing in mind that it is useless, as I am informed, for power station purposes. The net result of all that may well mean permanently throwing out of work some 60,000 coal miners.
        It has another very important bearing from the point of view of employment. There is the question of the effect on the railways themselves, because the Weir Report, I notice, estimates that there will be a 50 per cent. saving in locomotive wages, and a 10 per cent. saving in superintendence, and, therefore, the report contemplates, presumably, a considerable reduction in employment on the railways themselves. Even if you place against that a certain amount—possibly a large amount—of additional employment which will be provided in carrying out the scheme, I fear, from such consideration as I have been able to give to the matter, that the result will be very much on the debit side of the employment ledger. After all, the great industries of coal, iron and steel are tied definitely to
        1716
        railway transport. I do not think anyone could suggest that to any substantial extent they avail themselves of the road. They are practically maintaining the standard revenue of the railways to-day. Railways are losing money on passenger and light goods traffic, and such profits as they are making are made with regard to the heavier traffic.
        That being so, there arise two questions which I would venture to put to the Minister, if he will be good enough to try to answer them. The first is, Does he consider that there is any reason to believe that this scheme is going to cheapen railway transport? That is really the vital question so far as the industry of this country is concerned. The second question is Does he consider it likely that this scheme, if it were carried out, would do anything to bring back traffic from the roads on to the railways, and to restore that just balance, which we would all desire, I think, to see as between road traffic and railway traffic? If that were the case, one has to bear in mind that it would probably necessitate a 50 per cent. reduction in the cost of railway transport, if there was to be any-real hope of getting a great deal of the traffic which has been driven on to the roads back again on to the railways. I feel sure that the Committee would very much appreciate the view of the Minister and of the Government on those vital questions.
        A few days ago I ventured to put, in the ordinary course, a question to the Minister as to whether he had received any reply from the railway companies with regard to this electrification proposal, what was the nature of the reply and whether he would publish it. For some reasons, which I am not quite able to appreciate, he evidently thought it necessary to invest the matter for the moment with a good deal of secrecy, because he took refuge in the recognised ministerial device of referring me in his reply to some answer he had given a few days before. When I turned it up, I found that it amounted to practically nothing at all, so far as vouchsafing information in reply to the question was concerned. I do not know why that should have been necessary, because we now learn from the Press that replies have, in fact, been received from the railway companies, and, in passing, I

        1717
        should like to utter my protest against the increasing practice of furnishing important information to Members of this House through the columns of the Press rather than on the Floor of the House itself. As I say, I do not quite know why the Minister did not supply the information. At all events, I do ask him now whether he is in a position to tell the Committee what is the exact nature of the replies which he has received from the railway companies, and is there any reason why those replies should not be published in order that the country may judge as to the considerations involved?
        There is, of course, the vitally important question of finance. The figures mentioned in the Weir Report or scheme amount to the somewhat startling sum of £300,000,000. Even that may possibly be an under-estimate, because we have the example of what happened with regard to the earlier report of the Weir Committee on the grid electrification. There the estimates, I believe, were £33,500,000 and this has already been extended to £50,000,000. If these figures of £300,000,000 are correct, does that, in the opinion of the Minister, necessarily involve a Government subsidy? Is there any possibility that the railways would be able to raise such a colossal sum themselves, and, if so, would it not mean that the railway shareholders, as I have heard it suggested, might well have to go without dividends for the next 20 years. If there is any question of a Government subsidy involved, will this House have an opportunity, at the earliest possible moment, of discussing the matter fully before the country is committed in any way to such a scheme? There is no doubt whatever that that is a very controversial matter on which strong views are held.
        One alleged advantage of a railway electrification scheme is that it will definitely assist the operations of the Central Electricity Board. Is the Minister of Transport able to express any opinion whether the electrification of the railways would act favourably or otherwise on the electricity supplies? If the railways are able to pay an economic price for their electricity well and good, but, if there is no reasonable prospect of them being able to do so, they will receive their supplies at the expense of
        1718
        other consumers, industrial or domestic, or else the amount of loss will have to be carried as a national charge. In other words, this may be the first step towards the nationalisation of the railways. The Minister of Transport himself may favour such a scheme but, at all events, I would like to express the hope that if such a scheme is brought forward, it will not be introduced by a side issue, but will be brought before the House in a straightforward way, and that we shall not be committed to these large sums, and then be told that the country must assume control of the railways in order to collect the money which it has put up on their behalf.
        I am not asking the Minister for an official opinion on all these controversial matters. I think that would be unreasonable at this stage, but I would respectfully invite him, when he replies, to take the Committee into his confidence; not approach this matter from the point of view of how little he can tell the Committee, but how much information he is able to give at the present stage. To a very large extent, this question is bound to be sub judice at the present time, but already it is creating considerable anxiety in many industrial and commercial circles in the country, and for that reason, if for no other, I think it would be helpful if the Minister could make a definite statement. I think the Minister will agree that nothing is more disadvantageous and harmful to trade than uncertainty and lack of confidence with regard to what is likely to happen in the near future upon questions of this kind. So far as the proposals of the Weir Report are concerned, the general opinion in industry at the moment seems to be that the proper verdict to give is the Scottish verdict of "not proven," and that a great deal more information should be forthcoming before we embark upon such a tremendous and far-reaching undertaking.
        I want to pass from that matter and come to the Road Traffic Act, to which reference has been made by the Parliamentary Secretary. Again, I would like to put a question to the Minister, and to ask whether he is in a position to give the House a general survey as to the working of that Act. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication, for

        1719
        example, as to whether it is doing, or is likely to do, anything to reduce the appalling number of accidents and casualties that take place on the roads of this country every day in the year, and particularly at week-ends. Has there been any increase of accidents since the Act came into force? I understand that that is not the case, and that the figures are rather the reverse. At all events, it is clear already that the gloomy forebodings and dismal prophecies which were uttered during the Committee stages of that Measure, as to the results which would ensue if the speed limit were abolished, have been falsified. There are no grounds for supposing that the abolition of the speed limit has made people drive more recklessly, or has led to any definite increase of accidents So far as one who drives about the country a good deal is able to express an opinion, I suggest that the reverse has been the case, and that there is, for some reason or other and I do not know why, a distinct improvement in the general manners of motorists on the road, and an increase of care. It may be that the abolition of the speed limit has had some psychological effect which we may not be quite able fully to appreciate even yet.
        No doubt the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to a scathing comment made by one of the stipendiary magistrates in London regarding the apparently more drastic enforcement of the speed limit in the parks. I do not know what is the policy underlying the matter, but certainly it is impossible to drive through the parks, down Constitution Hill particularly, any day of the week without finding some unfortunate motorist being held up at the bottom of the hill, having fallen into a police trap. As the stipendiary magistrate pointed out, it does seem somewhat inconsistent, when you abolish the speed limit throughout the country, that you are enforcing it far more drastically than before in the parks.
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The parks come under another Department.
        Sir G. RENTOUL: If that question does not come within the Department of the Minister of Transport, my only other remark on the point is to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to make some representations to the
        1720
        Department concerned in order to bring about greater consistency in this matter. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the mobile police, and he made the statement that the creation of that force was very much appreciated, although he did not tell the Committee by whom it was appreciated, or what evidence there is for expressing such an opinion. I do not say that the experiment may not be fully justified, but the Committee would be interested in having a little more information with regard to the exact nature of the activities that are being carried on by this mobile force.
        The Parliamentary Secretary said that the object of this force was to be able to deal with wrongdoers, but is that object being carried out? Does the Minister think that the instrument, the vehicle—the motor bicycle and those little two-seater cars with which this mobile force is provided—is adequate for the purpose in view? I doubt very much whether if they would be in a position to overtake a wrongdoer driving a much more powerful ear. In America the speed "cops" are mounted on very much more powerful machines than seems to be the case in this country. Perhaps the Minister will express his views on that matter, bearing in mind that one of their chief functions is to overtake a man who is driving too fast or dangerously cutting in. This very often means that the mobile policeman probably has to turn his machine round in order to go in the opposite direction, thus losing time in giving chase to a much more powerful car than he himself is driving. I doubt very much whether many of their two-seater cars and tri-cars would be capable of overtaking those powerful cars, the drivers of which are often the worst offenders.
        I wish to take this opportunity of saying one or two words with regard to a new and interesting experiment which is being tried in Oxford Street in the way of traffic signals. So far as one can judge, there are reasons to believe that that experiment, on the whole, may be successful. One can only express an opinion as to how the system strikes one, but I think it has resulted in a certain speeding up and a more even flow of traffic. There are one or two minor points which occur to me. First of all, I think something in the way of warning signs ought to be erected to warn people

        1721
        who are approaching the area where the lights are situated. That is done in some provincial towns where there is an automatic sign warning people when they are approaching such a spot. There is nothing of that kind in connection with the Oxford Street lights, and I would suggest that such signs might be erected at Baker Street where there is a big flow of traffic approaching Oxford Street. It has been pointed out many times in the Press that those lights, owing to the shade over them, are difficult to see if a vehicle draws up alongside, and I would like to know if it would not be possible to have some kind of signal instead of the lights, or in combination possibly, something on the analogy of the moving arm signals on the railway, which work automatically up and down, and which are more easily seen, not merely by vehicles which are alongside, but also by vehicles which are some distance away. Another point is the obvious need for educating pedestrians as well as motorists. Very often, when the lights suddenly turn from green to red the traffic is held up by a stream of pedestrians not paying any attention to the lights, and there is a block of traffic in consequence. These are just a few points that occur to one in connection with what, as I have said, I think is on the whole a very successful experiment, and one which might well be extended to other areas. I hope, therefore, that, when the Minister comes to reply, he may be able to find time to deal with these few specific points, all of which, small and large, are of general interest and importance, not only to the Members of this Committee, but also to the far larger public outside this House.
        Mr. WEST: In the first place, I should like to congratulate the Minister on his, as I believe, very successful two years of office. I hope that the next three years will be even more successful. I understand that, among his multifarious duties, he has some power to make orders with regard to maximum prices to be charged by electrical undertakings, and there are one or two points that I should like to make in that connection. That revisionary power is often very useful from the consumer's point of view. Some months ago, the Chiswick Electric Lighting Company were buying current from the Hammersmith Borough Council at 1d. per unit and selling it at 8d. There
        1722
        were numerous complaints, and eventually an inquiry was held by the Minister, as a result of which the maximum price that could be charged by the company was reduced from 8d. to 5d. per unit. That was a great satisfaction to the people in that neighbourhood. Unfortunately, however, there are many other undertakings to-day which are still charging exorbitant prices, almost as bad as in the case of Chiswick. I think it is true to, say that prices generally have come down a good deal within the last two or three years, and also that many electrical undertakings have reduced their charges correspondingly, but that is not universally the ease; there are some undertakings which still charge very high prices, especially, strange to say, in the London area. Let me give a specific case.
        Colonel ASHLEY: Surely, in the localities where these high prices are charged, the local authorities can ask for an inquiry, and, if the complaint is justified, the prices can be brought down. It seems to be an easy remedy.
        Mr. WEST: I am coming to that question. If I may give a case in point which has arisen in my own constituency, the Netting Hill Electric Company have a maximum charge of 8d. per unit, and they are charging in that neighbourhood—a very compact area with a very large population—8d. per unit for lighting purposes alone, and are necessarily making very heavy dividends. In passing, I may say that the answer given to a question on my behalf a short time ago showed that, on a certain type of shares, 1,600 per cent. was being paid by this company, and that on the overall capital of the company a dividend of 17 per cent. had been declared in the last year—a year of depression from a general business point of view. It seems to me that that is a case in which the Minister might be able to encourage the local authority to ask for an inquiry. Unfortunately, local authorities frequently will not lake the necessary action by getting an inquiry to protest against the high charges of these undertakings. I may say that, in the next constituency to my own, the price for lighting is only 3d. per unit, as against 5d. in Kennington.
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not know in what respect the Minister is responsible for that. If local authorities

        1723
        take no action, I am given to understand that the matter does not come within the purview of the Minister.
        Mr. WEST: My point is that the question of maximum prices does come within the purview of the Minister, and the maximum prices, generally speaking, in the London area, were fixed eight or 10 years ago, when prices were very high. They are still at the old level, although the prices of most commodities have gone down tremendously.
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I quite understand that, but, if I understand aright, there is machinery whereby the local authorities can approach the Minister and ask for an inquiry. If the local authorities do not take the necessary action, it does not seem to me to come within the purview of the Minister's administrative powers.
        Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted; and, 40 Members being present—
        Mr. WEST: When I was interrupted, I was asking the Minister to urge local authorities to take this action and demand inquiries. If that is not quite in order, I will proceed to my second point. I understand that some time ago the Electricity Commissioners were considering the question of the very many methods of charging for electricity in the London area, and, on the 1st July, I put a question to the Minister as to the number of different types of tariffs for lighting and domestic purposes in the London area. The Minister replied that there were at least 20 types or methods of charging, and within each of these methods there were many variations. Some of these different methods of charging are based upon floor space, some upon rateable value, some upon the maximum demand, and some upon the number of kilowatts installed, and the variety and multiplicity of the types of charge make it very difficult to arrive at any fair comparison from year to year. I would press the Minister to recommend to the Commissioners, if it be in his power to do so, the adoption of some more uniform basis of charge, and to ask the Commissioners to urge upon the undertakers the advisability of adopting some simpler arrangement.
        1724
        I understand that the Minister has power to confirm orders, when application is made to him, with regard to the amalgamation and transfer of undertakings in different areas. When one looks at the electricity map of London, one is struck by the patchwork type of arrangement, and by the scores—I might almost say hundreds—of different types of areas and undertakings, each with its own petty system of supply, its own small area, its petty overhead charges, each purchasing its own coal and so on, and each one of them unable to effect those economies which large-scale undertakings can effect at the present time. If the Minister, by granting orders, and encouraging applications for orders, for these amalgamations, helped to bring them about, the many economies that would be possible would be of great benefit to the consumers.
        There is also a point that I want to make with regard to the orders themselves. I do not want to suggest that the commissioners have any bias as between private undertakings and public authorities, and I am certain that the Minister at any rate has no bias towards private companies. In fact, I hope that, if he is biased at all, his bias is towards the public undertakings. It does seem to some of us, however, that an order applied for by a private company has a much more easy passage than orders applied for by public undertakings. For some obscure reason, which may be quite simple if one knows the facts, when a public authority applies for an order there generally seems to be a large number of obstacles in the way which make it very difficult for the order to be obtained, and, when a group of local authorities, having a legal right to acquire the undertakings in their areas, can put forward sound economic and financial schemes in support of such a transfer, it seems to me that, whether the joint undertaking is going to be controlled by a number of local authorities or by a joint electricity authority, the Ministry might in every possible way encourage that amalgamation because of the benefits which would come to the consumers. I do not think I need try to prove to the Minister that such an amalgamation of areas by order would be beneficial; I am sure he is aware that that is so; and I do not think he need be

        1725
        afraid, nor do I think he is afraid, of encouraging by these orders such a policy of public ownership. The history of electrical development in the last 10 years furnishes conclusive proof that, where public ownership of electrical undertakings is in operation, there are always greater advantages to the consumer as compared with ownership by private companies.
        Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: I have been rather active of late in asking the Minister questions, and I should like to ask him a few more on this occasion. I think he will admit that the questions which I have asked him have been of a constructive character, and not merely questions in criticism of his administration. As Minister of Transport he has to make many regulations, and his task must be a very trying and difficult one. I think that the country as a whole has welcomed the Road Traffic Act which was recently passed, and I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Sir G. Rentoul) that the Act has worked quite successfully up to the present, and that there is no indication of any increase in dangerous driving as a result of the abolition of the speed limit. In fact, as we have heard recently, the number of accidents on our roads has actually decreased since the passing of the Act. We do not know how or why that has happened, but possibly it may be that drivers are getting more experienced, and pedestrians possibly a little less thoughtless, than they were in the past.
        I think that a considerable number of the accidents which occur in London are due to the congestion of traffic. A lot of people try to get across the road quickly just before the traffic starts, and in that way get knocked down. About a year ago I asked the Minister a question about the number of motor omnibuses licensed in the London area. His answer was that the number of omnibuses in 1913 was 2,908, that by 1920 the total had gone up to 3,299, and that in 1930 it was 4,877. So that we have nearly doubled the total since 1913. Can the Minister tell us anything about the longdistance motor omnibuses, and whether he is going to make any regulations as to the number of omnibuses that are to be allowed to circulate in the main
        1726
        streets of the Metropolis? I remember asking a question on the subject a little while ago, and the answer was that apparently there was no limit to the number of long-distance omnibuses which could come into the centre of the Metropolitan area.
        My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lowestoft mentioned the experiment which the Minister has started in Oxford Street. I would like to say a few words on that subject. One of my complaints, as far as the Ministry are concerned, is that they are too slow in taking action. My right hon. Friend the Member for the New Forest (Colonel Ashley) says "No," but he is to blame just as mach as the present Minister of Transport.
        Colonel ASHLEY: Hasten slowly.
        Sir W. BRASS: About 18 mouths ago, before the circular traffic system was started in Parliament Square, I put a question about it in this House and suggested that the system should be tried. It took a year and a half for that proposal to be put into operation in London. I also asked a question about parking cars, single parking on one side of the road. The Minister answered that it was being considered. Here I would like to make a suggestion. To my way of thinking the traffic in Paris is very much better organised than it is in London. I suggest to the Minister that he should spend a week-end in Paris and study some of the traffic regulations there. What we have to try to do is to make our streets as safe for the public as possible, both motorists and pedestrians.
        I would again put in a plea for another suggestion which I made to the Minister, and that is that we should have what I describe as pedestrians' paths across the main thoroughfares in London. These pedestrians' paths are laid out in all the big streets in Paris by means of metal studs. All pedestrians are expected to cross by these paths and not to cross the roads anywhere else. At one time there was a penalty for crossing at other places, but that is no longer in force. It is not really necessary to have a penalty. The system quite definitely encourages the pedestrian to take a certain route, across the main streets, and it is an advantage to the driver when he knows where to expect the pedestrians to cross. I urge

        1727
        this method from the point of view of the pedestrian more than from the point of view of the motorist.
        In the Road Traffic Act the Minister took powers to prevent what might be described as dangerous parking, that is on corners, over bridges and on the top of undulations on roads, just over the brow of a hill. Has the Minister any report to make to the Committee on the subject, or has he made any regulations to deal with this sort of parking? I have travelled about the country quite a lot recently and I have found that people still park their cars on dangerous corners or on the brows of hills and over bridges and so on. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to do something to prevent this practice if he can. I would like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for something which he did for me a little while ago. I mentioned to him that I had found a case where a motor omnibus was stopping at a very dangerous corner. I wish to say how much I appreciate what he did in having that stopping place removed to a straight piece of road away from the corner.
        There are other powers which the Minister took in the Road Traffic Act. One related to the size of vehicles which were to be allowed to travel over certain roads. Recently I have come across a large number of cases where very large motor omnibuses travel along very narrow roads, with the result that there is hardly room to pass. The right hon. Gentleman did take powers to regulate the size of such vehicles on certain roads, and I hope that with his traffic commissioners he will take particular notice of this point and see that these very broad motor omnibuses, which travel about the country, shall travel only on roads that are suited to them, and that they shall not be allowed to travel on very narrow roads as they do at present. I suggest that he might ask his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to provide him with some report on the mobile police. I do not know whether it would be in order to discuss the activities of the mobile police on this Vote, but I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should take into consideration a proposal which I made in a question not long ago, namely, that the mobile police should be equipped with cameras, so that they can
        1728
        take photographs of dangerous parking. Possibly they might be supplied with cinematograph cameras, so as to be able to take pictures of dangerous driving.
        The Minister has recently issued some draft regulations with regard to dazzling headlights. I am very interested in them but I am afraid that I do not agree with some of them. In the regulations the Minister has relied on a system of dip ping headlights to prevent the dazzling which is very dangerous. In my opinion the French system is better. The right hon. Gentleman might go outside Paris some week-end and see the lighting regulations at work there. It is a positive system. Whenever a motor car with a bright headlight approaches another car with its lights on, both cars have to turn off the bright lights and put on what are called code lamps, that is lamps which are not as bright and not as dazzling but sufficiently bright for a driver to see any cyclists or pedestrians who happen to be in his path. I suggest that that is the better method, better than the dipping headlight. I know there might be the objection that as a car comes along with an anti-dazzling light, the bumps in the road might throw the light up a little way and cause a certain amount of dazzle. I agree that that is so in the distance.
        I have travelled a great deal in France and I have seen this system actually in operation. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that in the distance there is a certain amount of dazzle from the bumping of the road, as the anti-dazzle lights come towards one, but when the vehicles get near each other they are going very much more slowly than they were at a distance, and the range of the bump, if I may so describe it, is such that the drivers of the vehicles, who are sitting considerably above the lamps, are never dazzled when one vehicle is sufficiently near the other vehicle to be dangerous at all. The advantage over dipping is that a positive thing is, done. You switch off one light and put on another. If reliance is placed on dipping some person may dip a certain amount, another person may dip a little more and a third may dip a little more than that, but the result of it is that you have to rely on the good behaviour of the driver to dip sufficiently far down to be able to prevent the blinding of the oncoming driver.

        1729
        That scheme is really better than the dipping scheme suggested in the Minister's regulations, and if the right hon. Gentleman tries it I think he will find that it will be successful.
        5.0 p.m.
        One thing which is very important is that when these regualtions are issued prosecutions should take place if the regulations are not complied with. The regulations must be absolutely compulsory. A pious hope that someone approaching someone else will dip his headlights is no good at all. What we want is a definite law which will say that when one vehicle with headlights is approaching another vehicle the driver shall be compelled either to dip or to turn out the headlights and put on the code lamps. In regard to the code lamps I suggest that no lamp and no dipping headlights should be allowed to be fitted in future except particular types of lamps which have been passed by the Minister of Transport. That is the case in France. There is one thing about which I do not agree with the Minister, and that is the limitation of the amount of the light. If he makes an experiment on a very dark night, with a wet road, he will probably find that the strength of the lamps suggested, namely, 36 watts, is not enough, and I would urge him, before making any orders under this Act in regard to headlights, to make experiments, as no doubt he will make or has made, on open wet roads, with a large amount of traffic on them, to see whether the strength of the lamps which he has suggested is sufficient.
        The right hon. Gentleman spends a large amount of money annually on the construction of roads, and I would like to ask whether he has ever considered, in making these big trunk roads, making a double roadway. It is done in various parts of the world. I mean making a one-way road going in one direction, and another road going in the opposite direction, with a piece of grass or something of that sort in the middle, so as to divide the two. I feel certain that if he did that, quite a large number of accidents would be prevented, and it would save a lot of cutting-in. It would also save accidents on corners, because quite a large number of inexperienced people who drive try to pass other vehicles at corners, and if they had a single-direc-
        1730
        tion road, it would not matter so much if they did pass at corners, because they would not meet anybody coming the other way. If the right hon. Gentleman considered that for the big main roads, it would be an advantage and would help the safety of the public.
        Another point which I think might be mentioned here is that on these big roads which he is making he should consider banking the corners. I am not suggesting that all the big main roads should be made like Brooklands, but the Spanish and French roads are banked, and I suggest that when a road becomes slippery with rain, a road banked on the corner is much safer than a road which cambers away, like our big main roads do at corners. I think he might consider that suggestion, because it is being done in a large number of European countries. I am not suggesting it with the idea that people should go faster, but merely with the idea that it is safer to go round a banked corner than it is to go round a corner that is cambered the wrong way. Not only so, but it saves the road itself, because a vehicle skids out on a corner if the road is cambered the wrong way, and the road surface is saved, because that skidding does not take place.
        I would like to make one remark about the film which the right hon. Gentleman has had made. Some little time ago I asked a question about it, which I did not mean to be impertinent, because I think it was a good idea, but I would go further and suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should actually have some films taken to show the public the dangers of the road—instructional films, taken from inside a vehicle. If he could do that and have them published, I think it would be a great advantage. Some little while ago I asked a question about lights on the back of public service vehicles, and suggested that when the brake is put on all public service vehicles should have a red light on the back which would come on automatically. The answer was that the right hon. Gentleman thought I was rather bureaucratic and wanted to make too many regulations, but I would like to point out to him that, as a matter of fact, most of the public vehicles on our streets have these red lights on the back, and most cars now are fitted with them, and I

        1731
        suggest that for the safety of the public they should be insisted upon for all public service vehicles before they are licensed.
        I also made the suggestion the other day, which I think was misinterpreted, that all public service vehicles should have speedometers fitted to them, so that the public would be able to know how fast they were travelling. I received a letter, among many, in answer to my suggestion, which incidentally was turned down, and this is what the letter said:
        "You will deserve the gratitude of every careful person in the country for your suggestion about speedometers in these vehicles. A short time ago I came a few miles in one of these public omnibuses and was really frightened at the pace the man drove. I was heartily glad to reach my journey's end."
        I think that if the right hon. Gentleman would insist in his regulations that all public service vehicles should have speedometers fitted, so that the public as well as the driver should know how fast they were going, he would in fact prevent them going at the excessive speeds at which they go to-day. He would prevent them, I think, for this reason, not possibly from the protests of the friend who wrote to me, but because it would be so easy for a couple of police officers to get into a motor omnibus, see the speed at which it was travelling, and then prosecute the driver if he exceeded the 30 miles an hour. That was one of the things that I had in the back of my mind when I made the suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman, and I think he might even now consider the advisability, not necessarily on the London motor omnibuses, but on the long-distance coaches, which travel so fast, of requiring these speedometers to be fitted inside.
        Then there is a point about road signs. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is setting up a committee to inquire into this matter. I hope he is. I think that road signs ought to be standardised all over the country and that they should be made sufficiently large so that people should recognise danger points on the roads. I would make the suggestion also that the right hon. Gentleman should tabulate the main roads, as against the by-roads, at cross-roads,
        1732
        so that when anybody approached a main road from a by-road, he would see a sign on which was written "Main Road Crossing—Stop," so that a person coming into a main road from a by-road should know that if he by any chance had an accident at that crossing he was responsible and not the person on the main road. I think that should be done wherever possible on the main roads, that all the bigger roads should be tabulated "Main road," and all the smaller road crossings also tabulated, so that there should be no mistake about it at all and anybody approaching a cross-road should know whether he was on the by-road or the main road. I think that would add considerably to safety at cross-roads. I would like to ask the Minister to consider the suggestions which I have made. I can assure him that they are all made purely from a constructive point of view, with the idea of trying to make the roads safer for the public and of helping him as much as I can.
        Mr. DENMAN: I am sure the Committee will be grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) for his protective care of us in our dangerous passages on the roadways, and I am also sure that the Minister will delight in the thought of the week-end in France which is to teach him so much. Personally, I am afraid that I can offer the Minister no such alluring task, because I want to take him off the roads and to invite his attention to the railways.
        It was no doubt inevitable that in a society moving towards Socialism the socialised services should receive an excess of publicity and public favour, but our roadways have received public support since the War in a very remarkable degree. I see that it is stated that in the last 10 years we have spent £500,000,000 and more on the roadways of this country, and if you compare that with the fate of the railways, you will realise, I think, that the roads are rather the spoiled darlings of our transport system.
        I want the Minister of Transport to turn his attention to the railways. After all, the plight of the railways is a serious matter for the country, and how grave that plight is I need not elaborate. Two slight illustrations

        1733
        will show what I mean. I see that in the first half of this year the traffic receipts of the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway are down by £3,000,000. I note also that the price of their ordinary stock is now below 16, while eight years ago it reached its highest point of 118. That is a serious matter, and, as I say, I want the Minister to turn his attention to the railways. By way of prelude, I must remind the Committee that in 1844 Mr. Gladstone passed a Railway Act. He did many things in it, such as providing third-class passengers with shelter—with covered carriages—but there were also Sections in that Act the effect of which is described in Halsbury's "Laws of England" in the following words:
        "The Crown has power at any time on certain conditions to purchase any railway made or authorised since 1843."
        To this passage there is a note that this power does not appear ever to have been exercised. I mention that Act not because it has had any practical effect, except to keep the question of nationalisation alive by being on the Statute Book, but because it enables me to raise this matter on the Vote for the Minister's salary. Mr. Gladstone's Act made the first processes of nationalisation an administrative matter, and I am therefore able to raise that question. It is not that I expect the Minister to adopt in its entirety the Gladstonian scheme of nationalisation. He would no doubt find that circumstances have changed, and that both in matters of finance and indeed—
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the Minister proceeded to discuss any form of nationalisation he would be going beyond administration.
        Mr. DENMAN: I am not permitted to discuss those points, but I am permitted to discuss the reasons that would lead him to proceed to exercise his administrative power in the direction of the nationalisation of the railways.
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Any item of nationalisation, apart from the Gladstonian scheme form mentioned, would necessitate legislation. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman could not make proposals for bringing about nationalisation which would involve legislation.
        Mr. DENMAN: That is exactly my point. I shall confine myself absolutely and rigidly to the proposals of the Gladstonian scheme, but I am entitled on that to suggest some reasons why the Minister should adopt the scheme.
        The Weir Report has produced a new situation. I should like to express the thanks that all Members must feel to the authors of that report. In this House I suppose we are rather experts in reports of committees and Commissions. It is a dreary and a sombre form of literature which diagnoses social diseases and prescribes doubtful remedies. The Weir Report was distinguished in that class of literature by its lucidity and convincingness and practicality, which I am sure made other Members beside myself grateful to its authors. It bases itself upon two assumptions. To quote its words:
        "An efficient and progressive railway system is, and will continue to be, a matter of vital importance to the nation. In view of the competition of road transport and. the existing industrial and agricultural depression, it is essential that the railways should examine new methods of reducing the cost of railway transportation."
        On those two hypotheses, with which we should all agree, and on a very careful and lengthy examination of the facts they came to the conclusion that electrification was the solution. Since then there has been correspondence with the railway companies about the report and the Minister proposes to negotiate with them. The Press has given summaries of the correspondence, but we need not trouble ourselves as to their accuracy, because it has been clear from the beginning what must be the attitude of the railways on the most favourable assumption that they desire to put the Weir Report into effect. On that most favourable assumption it has been clear that they could not find that money in existing financial conditions unless the State gave them some definite financial support—some guarantee of interest, whatever it may be. Now it is perfectly obvious that, if the State pays the piper, there is only one tune that it could call, and that is the Gladstonian tune of public ownership. I hope, when the Minister engages in conversations with the railways, he does not attempt any third course. The dilemma before him is complete and unescapable. Either the

        1735
        railways go on by themselves and there is no electrification, because they cannot do it, or there is nationalisation and electrification.
        Reverting to the Weir Report, the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Sir G. Rentoul) seemed rather dismal about it. I did not quite gather what his quarrel with it was. He threw doubt upon its estimates. No one whose fate it has been to compare the estimates of experts in prospectuses with ultimate results, will be tempted to attach undue weight to them, but these estimates impress one favourably for one very special reason, that they very deliberately exclude favourable factors for which no precise figures can be given. For example, no allowance is made for increased traffic resulting from the improved facilities and greater amenities. As to the figures of profit, the 7 per cent. that they reckon this £260,000,000 will earn is the result purely of economies. No account is taken of possible increased traffic. Does anyone really believe that electrified railways—a faster, better pleasanter service—will not attract larger traffic than they otherwise would? There can be only one answer to that. On the estimate of costs, apart from the estimate of revenue, copper was taken at a cost of £70 a ton, whereas it is now about half that figure. A saving of anything like the difference between those two figures would run into millions. Another saving that they point out is that in their calculation of costs of construction they have made no allowance for bulk purchase of standardised units. Clearly, if you are engaged in a great scheme of electrification, you will be buying large quantities. So that these estimates impress one favourably as estimates which made great allowance for possible errors on the wrong side.
        Who will benefit by this scheme of electrification? I want to mention three categories of people who will benefit. In the first place industry. The hon. Member for Lowestoft seems to have doubts about the electrical industry. On that, the letter from the Central Electricity Board which is given in this report is surely conclusive. It has no reason to exaggerate the merits of the electrification of railways. It makes certain statements which carry conviction with them. Firstly the consumers of electricity everywhere will tend to benefit. They say the
        1736
        average cost of production would be more rapidly reduced by reason of the new and increased number of producing stations. Secondly the Board's charge to authorised undertakers would be lowered both on primary and on secondary transmission systems. It is not only the railways that will benefit but the industrial community throughout the Kingdom. Finally, they say "the development of rural electrification will be greatly accelerated." That is equally obvious. If the electrification of railways produces only those benefits, it will be justified, because the electrification of our rural areas and the increased use of electricity in our industrial areas would make a big difference to our civilisation. There is this further point, that it will be of great benefit to the electrical manufacturing industry. The report says "it is clear that any programme of this nature would greatly increase the power of British electrical manufacturers to compete in the world markets due to the steady nucleus of work over which they would spread their standing charges."
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Member, but I cannot directly associate the Minister with the development of this argument. If the proposals the hon. Member is putting forward were to be adopted, they would involve legislation. I cannot connect the Minister's responsibility.
        Colonel ASHLEY: I do not think it necessitates legislation. It may be argued that the railway companies could not raise this large sum of money, but it is perfectly within their legal power to raise the money if they can get the investing public to provide it. As far as the Minister in concerned, he is in active negotiation with the railway companies on this important point. I have no doubt he will recommend that credits should be given them, which will not involve legislation.
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understand that, but my point is that it is not within the purely administrative powers of the Minister to raise capital for private companies. I quite understand that, if the Government did this, naturally it would require legislation; but, if it is to be done by private companies, by capital

        1737
        raised privately, in what way is the Minister responsible administratively for it?
        Colonel ASHLEY: In this way. Under the Electricity Supply Acts and other Acts the Minister is responsible to the House of Commons, as far as any Government is responsible for electricity in this connection, for the development of the industry. Lord Weir's report was made to him. He is in negotiation with the railway companies, and will in due course announce the Government decision. Therefore, I submit that we are entitled to raise the Weir Report.
        The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Perhaps I can help. It is true that the electrification of the railways could be done in such a way as to involve legislation. On the other hand it is arguable that it could be done without legislation at all as the result of Government co-operation with the railways, the Government financially assisting them, or even by the Minister squeezing and urging the railways to do it. I would point that out in order to make the matter clear, though it is true that, if it were done in another way, in a way that the hon. Member has not yet indicated, it might involve legislation.
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not want to restrict the Committee's discussion upon what is within the administrative power of the Minister, and, if he assures me that he is so responsible, I must, of course, rule the matter in order.
        Mr. DENMAN: I can pass at once from that particular aspect of the Weir Report to talk of the other classes who would be benefited by this electrification. Is it not clear that both the railways and the railway users and even the railway stockholders would be benefited? The stockholders are not having too happy a time, I understand, and the Weir Report gives them a ray of hope. I will not put it higher than that. As to the users, I do not want to occupy time, so I will only refer briefly to benefits well known to anyone who has travelled on electrified systems.
        On the matter of speed, the report has a good deal to say. It gives specific examples of how a train between London and Peterborough with 15 stops is speeded up. It is speeded up from 2 hours 32
        1738
        minutes to 2 hours 8 minutes, about 10 minutes an hour. Will not that kind of amenity make all the difference to railway travel and will not railway users indeed be grateful I refer also to cleanliness, because cleanliness in travel is a very real amenity, and cleanliness in our cities with lessened smoke and steam and dirt would be a real asset. I have been told that in New York a train is not allowed to enter under steam, and that engines are changed some distance out and the train brought in electrically. If they value pure air there, why should not we also value it here? I think that the general public would value it very much indeed. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Lowestoft (Sir G. Rentoul) made a great point—I do not know why—of the effect upon the railway staff. The Weir Report went into that very carefully, and they point out what is obvious, that the grades of drivers, firemen, and cleaners must ultimately suffer. They will ultimately, in that form, be extinguished. They point out, what is equally true, that the problem to which this gives rise must be specially examined. They make this remark:
        "Such consideration as we have given, however, leads us to the view that there will be no serious adverse effects on the men now occupying these grades, particularly having regard to the fact that any schema of electrification will include a considerable intensification of suburban services"—
        and so on.
        Apart from this, they add that the physical conditions in which motormen and other locomotive staffs will be called upon to work under electrification will be substantially more favourable than the present conditions. From a pure staff point of view, I believe that on balance, if the scheme takes a series of years, it will cause no immediate hardship and will simply mean a transfer of forces from certain grades to certain other grades, and that undoubtedly it will improve the amenities of the services as a whole.
        Look at it as an unemployment scheme. Parties in this House have vied with each other in producing grandiose unemployment schemes. There is nothing before the country which is a rival to this as an unemployment scheme. Let me again quote the words of the report:
        "The estimated employment in this to British labour would represent over 60,000 men per annum for a period of 20 years."

        1739
        That in itself, surely, is a reason that should make the scheme desirable to the present Government. The hon. and learned Member for Lowestoft raised one further objection, the objection that less coal would be consumed. The Weir Report dealt with that matter. The amount of reduction they estimate is 3.8 per cent. of the national output, by reason merely of the transfer from steam to electricity. But it is the universal experience of all electrical undertakings that the provision of electric current enormously increases the demand for electric current. Does anyone for a moment suppose that if you have an increase of electricity due to electrification of the railways, an increase industrial and universal throughout the country, that that would not mean an increased consumption of coal which would very much more than set off the decreased consumption on the railways themselves?
        My final point is the political consideration which should impel a Minister to pursue the Gladstonian scheme. I think that perhaps one of the chief defects of the present time is the lack of enterprise and of energy and vision both in politics and, even more so, in industry. This Parliament, through no fault of its own, has almost necessarily had to pass its time in tinkering with domestic affairs, and it has not been possible to engage in large-scale schemes. But here Mr. Gladstone has shown the way to the present Minister of Transport.
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that this subject must not be pursued too far. It is questionable whether such a scheme would not involve a substantial Money Resolution, and I am quite sure that a Money Resolution of that kind would require to be incorporated in a Bill, and that would certainly be legislation.
        Mr. DENMAN: Surely it is in order upon the salary of the Minister to discuss administrative affairs which come on the Vote which he controls. However, I do not really want to pursue the point, because I have sympathy with anyone who is conscious of the difficulty in which we are all placed, partly by Mr. Gladstone, partly by myself, and partly by the Rules of Order.
        1740
        The report says that here is a scheme the magnitude of which would be unique in the history of world industry. That is, in itself, a recommendation. I ask specially for the assistance of the Liberal party, because they too have historic interests in this subject. Ever since Gladstone's day the subject has been on the horizon of politics. Sometimes it has come right up into the sky, as when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) declared in 1918 that it was Government policy. I believe that here the Liberal and the Labour parties can follow a policy in unison and attain in 1932, if the Government will only promote it, an achievement which will make this Parliament memorable in our annals.
        Lord ERSKINE: The hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) has done a service to the Committee in bringing forward the case of the railways. I do not say that I agree with all the arguments he has brought forward or with that which he obviously desires to do. It would be out of order if we were to attempt to discuss it. Nevertheless, I think that for many years this House has not paid sufficient attention to the railways. They are, as the hon. Member said, in a very bad way, both from the point of view of making profits and also from the point of view of the employment they are giving. Therefore, the hon. Member has done us a service in telling the Committee, or at any rate bringing the question forward as to whether something cannot be done for the railways as well. When he says that over £500,000,000 has been spent upon the roads in the last. 10 years, it is obvious that the spending of that money must have had a very detrimental effect upon the railways. It has enabled the motor coach trade to capture a large amount of the traffic which was once carried by the railways, and to that extent these private motor coaches have been subsidised by the State in order to take the traffic which once belonged to the railway companies.
        The hon. Member went on to talk about the Weir Report and to advocate the complete electrification of the railways. I understand that there are two very definite views and that there are

        1741
        high experts on both sides, one side holding that electrification would be a good thing and the other side holding that it would be detrimental to the railways themselves. In this time of very high unemployment the figures which were given by the hon. and learned Member for Lowestoft (Sir G. Bentoul) were rather striking. If by this electrification you put at once, or very nearly at once, 60,000 coal miners out of work, and also add to that number a very large number of people who are now employed by the railways, you will find that in this so-called rationalisation you have merely added another 100,000 or so unfortunate people to the unemployment list.
        I did not rise for the purpose of making any remarks about the railways, but really to deal more with the Road Traffic Act. I do not think that the Minister can complain this afternoon that he has had to face a very fierce attack. In fact, on the whole, most hon. Members who have spoken have either congratulated him on his administration, or have merely put forward suggestions which they hope he may adopt. I do not think that anybody so far has made an attack upon his administration of the Ministry of Transport, nor do I intend to do so. I want to ask him one or two questions. The Road Traffic Act has been in operation for some time, and I think it would be appropriate for the Minister, when he comes to reply, to give us some survey of it, particularly as it has affected accidents on the road and the question of speed. He will remember that when the Measure was going through this House not very long ago, all sorts of lugubrious prophecies were made as to what would happen when the speed limit was abolished. It was said that every road would become a racing track, that there would be many more accidents and that the number of people killed would even be doubled. I understand from the facts which have been elicited that, as a matter of fact, none of these calamities has come to pass, and that there are actually fewer accidents to-day than there were when the 20 miles an hour speed limit was in operation. Can the Minister tell us—he probably will not be able to do so off-hand—whether
        1742
        there have been a great many more prosecutions for dangerous and careless driving than there were before the Act came into operation? There used to be a great many prosecutions for exceeding the speed limit which would now, I suppose, come into the section dealing with careless and dangerous driving. It would be interesting to the Committee if they could discover whether there has been any very large increase in the total number of prosecutions under these particular Sections of the Act.
        I wish to say a word or two about third-party insurance, because that is a subject which has not yet been mentioned in the Debate. When the Bill was before the Committee, there were a certain number of doubts as to this particular Section, and even the Minister himself warned the Committee at the time that it was not really watertight. As far as I can understand, the Section has worked fairly well, with the exception of the small alteration which had to be made when the driving licence period did not coincide with the insurance certificate period. I would ask the Minister in relation to that particular matter whether he has made a regulation on the subject, or whether it is merely an agreement between him and the insurance companies. Is that particular part of the agreement between the insurer and the insurance company, that he shall not be insured if his driving licence happens to have run out, merely an agreement, or has it actually the force of a regulation behind it?
        There is another matter to which I wish to draw the attention of the Minister. I have received a certain number of complaints from my division—and I have no doubt that every Member in whatever quarter of the Committee he may sit has also received complaints—that after the road traffic commissioners in their various areas have sat and adjudicated upon cases they have cut off a large number of motor omnibus services which the population of various villages think ought to be retained. I imagine that in a great many cases there will be appeals to the Minister on this subject. I wrote to the Ministry of Transport with regard to one case. The answer that I received was: that the Minister was in the position of a judge in these matters and that, there-

        1743
        fore, he could not take into account anything except when he was actually sitting on the case. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will make the position absolutely clear as to how these cases will come up and, when they do come up on appeal, what particular evidence he will consider to be good if it is put before him. I know of one case in my division where the only service between the village and Weston-super-Mare has been cut off. There is no other means of conveyance, and the people of that particular village, Kewstoke, feel that it is rather hard that the operation of the Road Traffic Act should have cut them off from a means of transport which they had enjoyed.
        I received a letter this morning from the scout-master of some scouts who are going away to camp in August. They have been informed by the gentleman who was to take them there in motor lorries that he can take their kits but he cannot take them. I understand that a Bill was before the House this year to regulate that matter. Perhaps the Minister can say what is the present position of that Bill. Has it yet received the Royal Assent, or will it receive the Royal Assent before the end of the Session? If so, am I to understand that I can write to the individual in question and tell him that that Act has become law, and that the scouts and their kit will be able to go to camp in the same lorry?
        Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: That Act will be law before Parliament rises.
        Lord ERSKINE: The Road Traffic Act has, on the whole, acted very well and very fairly. I believe that of all the Bills that "we have discussed in this House during the past two years, this is the only one that is really going to promote the welfare of the country.
        Colonel ASHLEY: This afternoon we have had a pleasant change from the normal procedure in Supply, in that we have not put down any Motion for a reduction of the Minister's salary. The Minister must not, however, think, because we have not moved a reduction of his salary, that we have no desire for information. The whole Debate is on a note of interrogation, because the activities of the Minister of Transport are so much in evidence at the
        1744
        present time and are so apt to increase that they touch many aspects of our private and public life. I am, therefore, taking the opportunity of this Supply Day to put a good many questions to the Minister, seeking information. In the first place, may I compliment the Parliamentary Secretary on the statement in which he described the routine work of the Department. He touched on two points to which I will draw attention. First, as to Ramsgate Harbour. Will the Minister never get rid of Ramsgate Harbour? Will that most unfortunate enterprise—Heaven knows why it was put into the hands of the Minister of Transport—never be got rid of. Could not the Minister make a gift of it to the corporation of Ramsgate? If he gave it away for nothing, he might save money by not having to find money for repairs and to make up the deficit in the working of the harbour.
        The by-pass road at Colnbrook is a form of activity which is very commendable. I started it; therefore it must be good. I hope that the Minister and his advisers will see that not only is the information gained from that by-pass road available to the Ministry, but is also freely given to the local authorities. The local authorities are primarily responsible for the construction of roads and the repairing of roads; therefore, the experiments on that by-pass should be as widely known as possible. If the Minister would invite the highway engineers of the local bodies to go there occasionally and see what is going on, it would be a very good thing and would help them in their work.
        With regard to the Road Traffic Act and the publication of the Highway Code, does the Minister think, or is he sure, that good results have flown from the Act? There can be no doubt, not only from what hon. Members have said but from the general experience of people who use the roads, that for the last year there has been an improvement in road manners. There has been a more universal desire to drive in a safe way and, generally, the situation on the roads today is better than it was a year ago. I do not want in the least to take away from the Minister any credit which may be his in regard to the Road Traffic Act, 1930. Whether the improvement has been post hoc or propter hoc, the right hon. Gentleman can say: "It is my Act and

        1745
        my Highway Code, and it has effected an improvement," whether the actual improvement has come from his Act or not. I would like some confirmation from the right hon. Gentleman that things are, as we imagine, better on the roads and that accidents are decreasing, although they are lamentably numerous. When we contrast our position with what goes on in France, our accidents are favourable compared with theirs. On the whole, we may consider that our highway dangers are diminishing, although they ought to diminish still more.
        Another form of activity instituted by the Road Traffic Act is that of the mobile police. By Clause 54 of the Act the Minister was empowered to give grants to local authorities who applied to enable them to set up a body of mobile police, to be conveyed in appropriate vehicles, in order to try to prevent people committing illegalities, warning them if they were going too fast and if they seemed to be cutting in where they ought not to do, and also catching them and taking their names and addresses so as to enable a prosecution to take place if they committed an offence against the law of the road. Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many local authorities have taken advantage of that Clause and how many mobile police are being used? Is he generally satisfied with the conduct of the police? It is not an easy duty that these mobile police have to undertake. They must be courteous, yet firm. They must not try to ride roughshod over the public, because that will do more harm than good, but they must not allow the road-hog to flout their authority. Therefore I hope, as I am sure is the case, that the chief constables in choosing their men from their existing forces took every step to see that only thoroughly reliable men were choosen. If they have done that, I feel that good results will ensue.
        Several hon. Members mentioned the signal lights in Oxford Street. On the whole the comments have been favourable, and I join in them. The only warning that I would utter to the Minister is this: Do not, in your natural desire to facilitate traffic, adopt any scheme which is too complicated and difficult to follow. There are limits to the amount of direction which the driver of a motor car can take in. If you bother him too much by
        1746
        saying: "You may not go here and you must go there," he is inclined to give up in despair, and confusion results. When first we started the system of roundabouts, it was very simple and anybody could understand. It was understandable also that if you stopped at right angles at a crossing, you were not to go until the policeman waved his hand. When you have too many complicated directions and signals, it may be that you reach a point where you are doing more harm than good and slowing traffic instead of accelerating it. I welcome this experiment. I am not sure that we ought not to have done it before. Some of the cities in the provinces have anticipated London in this respect, with excellent results. I hope that the Minister will go on with the plan, but I would say to him, "Do not make your plan too complicated, or you will defeat the object you have in view."
        Under Part IV of the Road Traffic Act, traffic commissioners were appointed for the 13 areas in Great Britain. Will the right hon. Gentleman say what progress has been made in this new form of control of omnibus and motor coach services? Have there been many appeals from the decisions of the commissioners to the Minister? If so, what steps has the Minister taken to deal with them? I hope that there have not been many appeals, and I do not imagine that there have been many, because the commissioners appointed by the right hon. Gentleman were gentlemen in whom the public should have trust. I would not wish to encourage appeals to the Minister, although there must be that technical right of appeal. If a man insists on appeal, then he must be allowed to appeal, but if I were the Minister I should not encourage these appeals, because the commissioners are men of great experience and ought to be trusted to give wise decisions.
        6.0 p.m.
        I will deal with another form of activity under the Act of last year, namely, compulsory insurance. A good deal of apprehension was expressed—I expressed it myself—when the Bill was in Committee and on Report, that we were doing an unheard of thing in handing over to certain private companies in the insurance business the decision as to whether a man should or should not be allowed to drive a motor car on the

        1747
        road. Parliament deliberately laid it down that the decision should be arrived at not by any advisory body or by any official body, but calmly enacted that no persons should be allowed to drive motor cars on the road unless they were insured. As Parliament did not face up to the formation of a national scheme of insurance, the only person who can insure you now is a private company or a corporation and, therefore, we have the very extraordinary position at the present moment, Mr. Dunnico, that neither you nor I can drive a motor car unless we can get an insurance company to insure our car. The Committee adopted that course because they knew of no other way of getting round the difficulty in the absence of a national scheme, but I think you can trust the big insurance companies, in their own interests, not to be unduly harsh in the matter of insurance. I should like to know, however, whether the right hon. Gentleman has heard of many cases in which individuals have been refused insurance. I should imagine that if they have they well deserve it. Probably they are quite unfit to be on the road. I should like to ask him a question on behalf of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury) who is unable to be present. My hon. and gallant Friend a short time ago drew the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that, owing to the form of the insurance policy that the insured person must be the holder of a driving licence, any person who accidentally fails to renew his driving licence will be guilty of a much more serious offence in the absence of an insurance policy. He desires to have some information on this point.
        A situation has arisen from compulsory insurance to which I should like to draw attention. A friend of mine was talking with an official of one of the biggest insurance companies, and if the experience of other insurance companies is similar the situation is indeed remarkable. It is obvious that as everyone must now be insured, there are probably five or six times more motor cyclists insured this year than there were last, because very few were insured last year. It is obvious, also, that the number of motor cars insured this year is substantially
        1748
        more than in 1930. But this distinguished official of this large insurance company said that during the first six months of this year they had, actually and not relatively, paid out less in insurance than they did in the first six months of 1930. Therefore, there have been less costly accidents this year. I make a present of that to the right hon. Gentleman. It is a feather in his cap, because he can say that owing to the Act of 1930—
        Mr. HALL-CAINE: The insurance company said that in order to raise premiums.
        Colonel ASHLEY: Oh, no. The premiums now being charged for this year have been found sufficient to meet their claims, and my impression is that insurance companies will not have to raise their premiums. There has been a diminution in the number of accidents, and, whatever may be the cause, it is a most satisfactory state of affairs. The right hon. Gentleman as the author of the Act, may justly claim that it is the result of the Act of last year, though whether that is the case I do not know. Let me put another question to him. I apologise for all these questions, and the right hon. Gentleman can answer what he can and forget those that he cannot answer. I want to know how much the hospitals have got from their share of the insurance money. I have not seen any mention of this, and if the Minister of Transport has any information we shall be glad to hear it.
        May I leave the everyday activities of the Ministry, and come to matters of perhaps larger moment. I should like some information as to the position of the Government towards the Charing Cross Bridge. The Committee will recollect that three or four years ago a promise was made that if the Charing Cross Bridge materialised the Road Fund would contribute 75 per cent. of the net cost. It is not necessary to go into the whole question at this moment, although, personally, I am an enthusiastic supporter of the transference of Charing Cross Station to the south side of the river and doing away with Hungerford Bridge. The Bill promoted by the London County Council was turned down. The London County Council, with great good temper and long suffering, because they have been kept waiting by successive Governments for years, have investigates

        1749
        the matter still further. They got Sir Leslie Scott to be their chairman, and with a very reliable committee they went into the whole matter again. They have recommended to the council, and the council has approved, a scheme which, after all, is very little different from the scheme turned down by Parliament a year ago. They propose to go on with the scheme, and I should like to know from the Minister, supposing all goes well and scheme No. 6 is adopted by Parliament, whether the offer of 75 per cent. still holds good? It would allay the apprehensions of the London County Council if they knew that that grant still holds good, or at any rate is under consideration. Could the Minister also tell us whether the 75 per cent. offer of the net cost includes the cost of about £1,000,000 to reconditioning Waterloo Bridge? The new bridge was to cost £12,500,000, and the reconditioning of Waterloo Bridge £900,000. I should like to know whether it is 75 per cent. of £12,500,000 or of £13,500,000.
        From the discussion this afternoon hon. Members will realise that the activities of the Ministry of Transport are very widespread and very up-to-date. So far there has been no mention of the activities of the Central Electricity Board or the Electricity Commissioners, two bodies which in themselves are almost of sufficient importance to justify a department. The development of electricity in this country during the last few years, in spite of the abnormal trade depression, has been really remarkable. I have no figures with me, but I am not wrong in saying that the amount of electricity consumed by people who take their supply from public bodies, as compared with private stations, is from 5 to 7 per cent. more each year. That is really remarkable. It is not so much remarkable that the private consumer should use more electricity, but the consumption of the private consumer is very small compared with the amount of electricity consumed in industry, and the fact that our staple industries, which are so terribly depressed and when the outlook is so bad, should use more and more of this form of energy, although I am afraid the increase is slowing down, is a very helpful sign for the ultimate recovery of our more modern industries. If you take the amount of commercial electricity con
        1750
        sumed in the Thames Valley you will find an extraordinary increase, which more than counterbalances the less electricity used in Lancashire and Yorkshire and other industrial centres.
        I should like to know, so far as the Central Electricity Board is concerned, how finance is developing. I was responsible for the Act of 1926 and, of course, I gave figures which my technical advisers said were the most reliable that could be given. I want to know whether those figures have been justified. I can hardly think they have; not because of any fault on the part of my technical advisers in being too optimistic, but because no technical advisers, or anybody eke, could possibly have foreseen the trade slump of the last two years, and, therefore, if the figures do show that the return for the money spent on the grid and standardisation has been more than anticipated or, alternatively, has not brought in the revenue anticipated, I hope that those who made those estimates will not think that I am criticising them. I am criticising that providence which has sent us two or three years of bad trade, which has hampered the development of this Very necessary work. I am glad to see that the Central Electricity Board, of which Sir Andrew Duncan is chairman, says:
        "All contracts have been placed with British firms."
        That is very satisfactory. I know that they have not excluded tenders from foreign firms. They have not said that they will only allow British firms to tender; if they did that they might open the door to rings which might mean forcing up prices. They have said that it should be open to all comers, and, either because the British tenders were lower or for some other reason, they have been able to keep all this work in the hands of British people. I expect that the reason has been because the British contractors have quoted lower prices than the foreigners. The Committee may not be aware of the fact that before the War this country was a bad third to the United States and Germany in the manufacture; of electrical apparatus, both heavy and light, and, above all, in the electrical apparatus which we exported. I have not the benefit of the official figures, but my recollection is that, taking the years 1926 to 1929, we were

        1751
        in two of those years first in the export of electrical apparatus, and we were second in the other two years. Therefore, not only are we gratified to find from this report that the contracts have been given to British firms in all cases, but we are also happy to think that that is probably owing to the fact that our British manufacturers and workmen are able to produce the goods as cheaply as, if not cheaper than Germany and the United States.
        The last point which I would raise concerns the report of the Weir Committee. I cannot conceive a more important report than that which has been issued by the committee, consisting of Lord Weir, Sir Ralph Wedgwood and Sir William McLintock, and I congratulate the Minister on having brought together these three gentlemen who obviously command respect, not only for their ability but for their integrity and foresight. Any recommendations which they put forward on the subject of railway electrification must carry great weight, especially as Sir Ralph Wedgwood is manager of the North-Eastern Railway. I wish to ask the Committee's attention to some passages in their conclusions because, whether we approach the subject from the angle that something should be done to help an industry which is in the hands of private enterprise, or from the angle that something should be done to assist an industry which is having a bad time with a, view to its ultimate nationalisation—whatever view we take, we must all realise that it is vital to the future of this country and to our daily lives that the railways should function. We obviously cannot allow the railway companies to fade out of the picture. You cannot move coal, iron and steel and heavy goods by road. You must have the railways, not only for goods purposes, but for passenger purposes, for suburban services, and for long-distance travelling. To my mind no motor-car or flying machine can ever take the place of the all-night trains from London to Glasgow or Edinburgh. They will always be necessary if for no other reason than that it is much more comfortable to sleep in a first-class or a third-class sleeping car, than in an airship or a motor vehicle. What are the conclusions at which this
        1752
        very important committee arrived? Their recommendations are unanimous, and I propose to read some of their conclusions in order to give a connected picture of the problem which the Minister and Parliament and the nation will have to meet. They say:
        "The existence of the national scheme of generation of electrical energy, and the consequent low price and availability of such energy constitute a new and favourable factor in the economics of further railway electrification in Great Britain."
        I have always said that we could not expect the railway companies to give serious consideration to the question of main line electrification until they knew with certainty two things—first, that they could get abundant electricity, and, secondly, that they could get cheap electricity. In the old days before the grid they had to provide their own supplies but now, in a very short time, as a result of the 1926 Act the railway companies will know that they can get an unlimited supply of electricity, and very shortly they will be able to know from the Central Electricity Board what will be the price. If you know that you can get any amount, and if you know the price at which you can get it, then you can come down to hard facts, and consider whether electricity or coal is the cheaper means of moving main line traffic. The Weir Committee deal with the point which I have already emphasised when they say:
        "An efficient and progressive railway system is and will continue to be a matter of vital importance to the nation …. British railway electrification up to now has been confined to suburban lines and the results, economic and otherwise, have been favourable."
        That is quite true, but, of course, one cannot generalise as to main line traction from the results of suburban electrification. It is a very different thing running a shuttle service to Woking or Three Bridges, and using electricity to bring your main line trains to Scotland. Therefore, it is necessary to turn to other sources of information and not to deal exclusively with the precedent of suburban traffic. The Committee point out:
        "The increased load on the national system which electrification of the railways would contribute, together with its high load factor, would react most favourably on the cost of electrical energy produced for all

        1753
        purposes while the additional transmission network required for railway electrification would do much to accelerate rural electrification throughout the country."
        Obviously, if a certain railway load is added to the ordinary commercial and lighting load in this country, it would help the Central Electricity Board in the production of a cheap supply, because the more they produce the cheaper the price. It would help not only as regards the electrification of the main lines, but, in my opinion, it would help industry generally by creating a better load factor, and as the committee point out it would also make the development of rural electrification easier. They go on to say:
        "Apart from the direct financial economies of electrification as disclosed in comparative costs of operation electrification offers important indirect advantages associated with speed, comfort, amenity, improved service, and increase of capacity."
        That electrification means amenity, and the other points mentioned in that paragraph, goes without saying. It would do away with smoky tunnels; there would be a lack of vibration, and these are advantages to be considered not so much from the personal as from the amenity point of view. The committee say further:
        "Assuming that such a scheme "—
        that is a scheme of main line electrification—
        "is carried out on a comprehensive programme over a period of 15 to 20 years, on a conservative basis and on the assumption of existing traffic, the new capital involved on the part of the railways would be approximately £261,000,000 and the return on this through the various economies would represent about 7 per cent.…Apart from the direct returns due to these economies other substantial advantages could be realised, the most important being increased revenue from suburban and inter-urban traffic. On a broad estimate, we anticipate that schemes of intensifying suburban working would yield an additional revenue of £5,850,000 representing a return of 13 per cent. on the additional capital expenditure of £45,000,000 involved.…In addition to the expenditure under this programme there would be a further expenditure by the Central Electricity Board and authorised undertakers of approximately £80,000,000 in excess of existing programmes, on which these bodies would earn their normal revenue."
        Therefore, the sum involved, as outlined by the Weir Committee, would be £261,000,000 on main line electrification—which money would normally be found by the railway companies—and on suburban
        1754
        traffic they would have to find an extra £45,000,000. The £261,000,000 on their estimate would bring in 7 per cent. and the £45,000,000 would bring in 13 per cent. In addition, the Central Electricity Board and the authorised undertakers would have to find another £80,000,000 which would bring in 7 per cent. To sum up, it means that a sum of £400,000,000 would have to be found. The amounts I have mentioned come to £386,000,000 and I am allowing a margin for unforeseen contingencies. That sum would have to be found by the railway companies and the Central Electricity Board and the authorised undertakers and spread over 20 years it represents roughly £20,000,000 a year. But, as has been pointed out, and, as the committee state in this report, in the maintenance of roads in the last 10 years we have spent round about £500,000,000 and that expenditure is now proceeding at a rate of over £60,000,000 a year.
        I hope that from the point of view of the national interest there will be no tendency to turn down this scheme merely on the ground of cost. It may well be that the Minister may advocate schemes of work to relieve unemployment and he may say with regard to that work that he does not mind the cost. I would say that I want to be quite sure that the £400,000,000 is really going to bring in a return of so much per cent. and, if incidentally, it finds work for the unemployed so much the better but I hope that the Minister and the Committee and the country will not) turn down this suggestion simply and solely because it is going to involve a sum of £400,000,000 spread over 20 years. If the Minister and representatives of the other interests concerned can come together and check these schemes and if they come to the conclusion that this is the amount of money which would be required, then they can go more closely into the question of the probable return, and they can sit down and consider the question of how the money is to be raised. There, no doubt, we shall come to the dividing line as between nationalisation and private enterprise, and perhaps some hybrid measure between the two may be considered, But I hope that the right hon. Gentleman to-night will give a sympathetic answer to my note of interrogation by assuring us that the proposal will

        1755
        not be turned down merely because of the amount involved. If the Government can be assured that there will be a decent return on the money, I am sure that it would be to the advantage of this country in every way to have the railways electrified, because it would make them up-to-date, cleanly, quick and easy to run. After all, electricity is the power of the present age, and, as far as we can see, it will for many years to come hold its own in this form of transport.
        Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: May I thank various hon. Members on behalf of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for the kindly welcome which he was given in his first speech in that office? May I join in the congratulations to him on the clear and lucid way in which he presented the Estimates of the Department to the Committee? I have to thank hon. Members in various parts of the Committee for the kind way in which they have treated the Estimates of the Ministry of Transport. We are a dangerous Department in many respects, and a danger to ourselves in many ways, because everything that we touch could be made the subject of the most acute political embarrassment to the Government of the day. We have to be careful, and we feel, when we are making the various regulations that the Minister can make, that we live on the edge of a volcano, and that one of these days we shall go too far and we shall all be blown up, and that will be the end of the Ministry of Transport. So far we seem to be safe. Nobody has tried to lop £100 off my salary; so far the full money is there, I am going to get it, and in that respect all is well with the world. The Committee may be sure that I shall not assume thereby that we are always safe. We shall always be conscious of potential criticism and shall try to be careful to forestall it, and to meet it before troubles arise.
        The right hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest (Colonel Ashley) and other hon. Members have asked me a number of questions. With regard to Ramsgate Harbour, the right hon. and gallant Member wondered why we ever got hold of it. I think that I explained
        1756
        before that we are the owners of Rams-gate Harbour, Crinan Canal and the Caledonian Canal, and my theory is that the reason the State owns them is the operation by some Conservative Government of the doctrine that if an undertaking pays, keep it in private hands, but if money is being lost, socialise it as quickly as you can, and adopt the principle of "Socialism in our time." I find that most of the undertakings that we own lose money, but I am not going to say that we will give them away. When I buy tramways that lose money, I have to pay for them, so, if anybody wants to buy Ramsgate Harbour, they must pay for it. The sands go with it, and when the lease for the sands runs out, we shall get a higher rent. The Ramsgate Corporation were unwilling to buy, and we are in negotiation with the Dover Harbour Board. Discussions are proceeding, and we may be able to come to an arrangement, but I am not sure. Otherwise, we hope to do well out of the sands in future, and to ease the financial situation. The deficit this year is less than it was last year. In regard to the research station, it was a very wise action of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to initiate that. The first annual report is about to be issued, and it will be given that publicity which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested. Recently the County Surveyors' Society visited the institution, and we shall make similar facilities available to municipal engineers and so on.
        With regard to the administration of the Road Traffic Act, I am much obliged to hon. Members who have indicated that they think that the Act, for which I was responsible, is working reasonably well. I think that we ought to pause and pay our tribute to the work which has been done for many years by the National Safety First Association in propaganda and education, which has undoubtedly been beneficial in respect of accidents. The Metropolitan Police have just published figures which indicate that in the first quarter of this year, there was, roughly, a 10 per cent. reduction of fatal and non-fatal accidents as compared with the previous period in the Metropolitan Police Area. It would be unwise to assume that that restricted Metropolitan experience is necessarily typical of the whole country, but the

        1757
        general opinion seems to be that the Act and the publication of the Highway Code, together with the work of the mobile police, the policy of heavier penalties for more serious offences combined with the policy of trying to handle motorists, not in the spirit of assuming that they are criminals and scoundrels, but that they are decent men and women who want to do the right thing on the road because it is right—that all this is producing results. The Royal Automobile Club, who instructed their guides to maintain a careful observation on road traffic in order that the club might ascertain what effect, if any, the new Act is having, have come to the conclusion that, despite the short period during which the new conditions established by the Act have obtained, there is a gratifying tendency on the part of all road users to render roads safer by the exercise of greater caution, judgment and consideration. The Automobile Association, which has a wide experience with its road scouts throughout the country, has also expressed its appreciation of the provisions of the Act, particularly with regard to the institution of the mobile police and the issue of the Highway Code. The chairman of the association has expressed the view that the roads are undoubtedly already safer.
        The Highway Code has been issued with the approval of Parliament. We circulated it to about 40 organisations before we brought it to the House. I have always found it an advantage when making regulations, and I found it when making the Highway Code, to have the maximum consultation with the motoring people, the pedestrian people, the trade unions and the employers' organisations. They are of the greatest help to the Ministry in framing these regulations so that they will work in the most smooth and effective way. Therefore, I think that it may be taken that that part of the Act is working quite well, and that the dismal prophecies of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) and others, that the abolition of the speed limit for light cars would turn the roads into regular institutions of slaughter and murder, have not been fulfilled.
        1758
        I believe that if we can get the motorists to feel a sense of responsibility—to avoid doing dangerous and careless things, rather than be obsessed by the one consideration of how fast they go—although that must be made a consideration—the method of handling the problem as laid down in this Act is better than the old and somewhat narrow method under which we used to act. The mobile police are being organised. My responsibility is to supply the funds for their motor vehicles. The Committee may be interested to know that we have approved a provisional programme of grants in respect of 1,000 vehicles for England and Wales and 122 for Scotland. Grants from the Road Fund have already been made in respect of 684 vehicles operated by 120 local authorities in England and Wales, and 60 vehicles operated by 20 authorities in Scotland. So that, although the Act only came into force at the beginning of the year, it will be seen that considerable progress has been made in this direction.
        With regard to Oxford Street, which, of course, is one of those danger points in the administration of the Ministry to which I have made reference; this is the biggest and probably the most complex, so far, of the schemes for traffic control which we have operated. I knew perfectly well that during the first two or three days, or even, perhaps, weeks, during which it was in operation there might be a mess up, there might even be chaos, but you have to go sometimes through chaos to order, and the best thing is to be as cheerful as you can. We tried at first with the aid of the police alone, and we found the regulations greatly improved matters. I am convinced that with the operation of the light signals, the system will work, particularly if we have the co-operation of the motoring community in running at a fair average speed.
        Colonel ASHLEY: Does the signalling system enable you to have fewer police?
        Mr. MORRISON: Undoubtedly, the local authorities who complain of the cost of traffic police will be assisted by the development of the signalling system, towards which they get a grant from the Ministry. It will economise the use of the police force and check the ten

        1759
        dency for the force to be swollen largely for traffic purposes. I think that the Oxford Street scheme is working reasonably well. I have driven through it two or three times to see how it is working. It is not perfect yet. We shall let it run a little while before the final adjustments are made in the signalling apparatus, and we shall improve it as we go along. Fundamentally, it has succeeded, and the travelling public will get accustomed to it and will find that it will work all right. Criticism has been made that the shields over the lights are rather long. We will watch that, but they are necessary in order to get the proper effect from the lights, and to keep the sun from them. My own observations indicated that the lights could be observed by the average driver, and that there was no difficulty.
        We have adopted on that thoroughfare the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass), and provided pedestrian lanes in order to indicate where pedestrians should cross. There are two necessities on that point: one is that the vehicle should stop at the first line, and the other is that the pedestrian should use these places for crossing and themselves observe the automatic light signals, and not attempt to go over when a, change is being made in the colour of the light. It is not only necssary at all times that we should lecture motorists on how they should behave themselves, but we should not be afraid, to lecture pedestrians, although they do not like it we should give them some polite indications that they have a responsibility upon the highway for the safety of the highway, and that it can only be made safe as long as we get the co-operation of everybody. I think that it can be said that the Oxford Street experiment shows every indication of being a success. We shall learn as we go along. The last word has not yet been said, but I believe that substantially we shall find it successful, and that London, where we have been behind in the provision of this method of traffic control, will go forward and catch up with the provinces. Discussions are now proceeding between the Ministry and the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee on the question of establishing further signals in London.
        1760
        The right hon. and gallant Gentleman inquired as to the working of Part IV of the Road Traffic Act. The Traffic Commissioners, of course, have been faced with a very heavy task. Many people expected that they would dish out licences for public service vehicles straight away. The Commissioners on the whole have taken another course, which, I think, is right, of not issuing licences as applications are made, but of getting all the applications before them and surveying the territory with which they have to deal, and then deciding what vehicles are necessary. If licences were issued or refused straight away, applicants who came after might be prejudiced. In June as many licences were dealt with by the Commissioners as in April and May. In the early stages there has been need for argument, and people have been represented by counsel, and I am sure that the learned profession is grateful to the Act. In many ways, that was bound to happen in the first year, but, as time goes on, we shall jump to principles more quickly as they become established, and the indications are that the work of licensing will go along more quickly in time.
        Already about 150 appeals against decisions of the Commissioners have been lodged with the Minister. I am afraid we are going to have a lot of appeals. I am not too happy to have these appeals. I am bound to say that when the Act was going through I looked forward with some interest, and perhaps some eagerness, to the exercise of this Ministerial authority—settling these things on appeal; but I am equally bound to say that the nearer I get to the job the more I realise that I am going to be in great trouble, whatever I do. They are intricate, difficult decisions, that land you into criticism whichever way you go; but my own experience in administration at the Ministry is that the best thing to do is to make sure you have all the facts, be fair and impartial, do the right thing, and stand by it. On the whole I find that the House of Commons stands by you as long as it is convinced that you are acting fairly and sincerely in the discharge of those responsibilities. That is the spirit in which we shall go on.
        The function of a Member of Parliament in all these matters is one of some difficulty. I am getting letters from

        1761
        Members of Parliament, who have had letter" from their constituents, about individual omnibus applications, and even hefty petitions which somebody has organised—sometimes, I suspect, the operators themselves—with large numbers of signatures, demanding a licence. It is my duty always to consider the letters of Members of Parliament with the greatest respect and courtesy. On the other hand, it would be equally wrong, I am sure the House will agree, for me to be influenced improperly by ex parte statements from Members of Parliament when I have to act on evidence received and arguments heard before an impartial inquiry in a judicial spirit. So on the whole, at the end of the day, I shall consider the arguments that are addressed to me and the facts of the case and do what I think is right, and chance my arm; and I believe that if I do that Parliament will understand. While I cannot refuse to receive letters from Members of Parliament, Members of Parliament will nevertheless understand the difficulties of the situation, and will not embarrass me more than is necessary.
        The compulsory insurance part of the Act is, so far as we can tell, working all right. There was a quite natural apprehension that the insurance companies might pick and choose among applicants for policies, refuse some people policies and so automatically deprive them of the right to drive on the roads. We have had a few complaints, but not so many as I should have expected. Sometimes a complaint comes from a man who has been refused but who has applied only to one company. We tell him to "have a go" at some others, and he gets through. Again, a man who applies is found to have such a record on the road that it is perfectly obvious that companies are entitled to refuse him a licence, and on the whole it is in the interests of the community that he should be refused. But, really, this part of the Act has worked more smoothly than one could have anticipated, and the fears we had of it have proved more or less groundless. I am always grateful for the suggestions put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury) and the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe both in questions and letters. Let them never think that I resent their questions or letters. The
        1762
        more Members of Parliament are interested in the Ministry of Transport the more I like it. It shows we are worth taking an interest in; it is part of our goodwill that they should be interested in us. The hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford raised the point of a person being out of order for driving because he did not possess a licence. He had got his five days' grace, but at that time his insurance was not effective because he did not possess a licence. The insurance companies have agreed that in all future policies failure to renew a licence will not prevent a policy holder from being covered, so that there will be no difficulty; and they have gone further and have assured me that in respect of all existing policies they will in practice not enforce the conditions with regard to drivers' licences.
        Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Before these consultations took place a certain number of people were convicted and had their licences taken away for a year or more. Now it is no longer a serious offence, could not the Minister see whether in those eases their licences could not be given back to them?
        Mr. MORRISON: The point shall be noted, but that is a question of the administration of the law, for which I am not responsible, and should properly be raised with the Home Office. The point will be noted, and I will see that it is brought to my notice in the Department, in order that we may see whether it is possible to communicate with the Home Office. I imagine it is a matter of the greatest difficulty, once a conviction is recorded, to get it annulled. However, without prejudice, as the saying is, I will have the point looked into. I am interested to hear that the companies are paying out less. If that should prove to be the case, it may be, as a result of this Act, that instead of premiums being increased they may be reduced, because I am quite sure that the companies, being generous and charitable bodies, will be ready to reduce the premiums if they can. I am sorry I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman any information as to how much hospitals have got out of Part II of the Act as a result of the rather dangerous and difficult controversy we experienced during the Committee stage of that part of the Bill. We have not the information.

        1763
        The right hon. Gentleman wanted to know what was the position with regard to Charing Cross bridge. The position is, of course, that a Select Committee of the House last year rejected the Bill after it had been carried on Second Reading by 230 votes to 62. Thereafter I intimated to the London County Council that if they were disposed to move for the recommittal of the Bill the Government would support them. The county council, no doubt for good reasons, did not adopt that course, but appointed an advisory committee, which largely consisted of critics of the scheme and others, with instructions to produce an agreed scheme. I am afraid they have not produced an agreed scheme, and there is some controversy going on, but undoubtedly the council are under a debt of gratitude to the advisory committee, and particularly to Sir Leslie Scott and to Mr. Pick, the vice-chairman, for the great and conscientious work they have done. I know that Sir Leslie Scott has taken up the matter with great seriousness and given great attention to it, and he has rendered a considerable public service by the work he has done. When the council decided to appoint an advisory committee, we were asked to be represented upon the advisory committee. On the whole I thought that was not wise for us, but our officers were available for consultation with the committee. I had to point out to the council that when the committee reported and the council were ready to go forward with the scheme I could not say what the position of the Road Fund would be, or what the condition of the national finances would be at that time. Therefore, the Government are perfectly free as regards any promise to make a grant towards the construction of Charing Cross bridge. A letter which I wrote to the council made that perfectly clear—that we would have to consider the situation in the light of the merits of the scheme and the condition of the Road Fund at the time.
        Colonel ASHLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he wrote to the council?
        Mr. MORRISON: If my memory serves me aright, when the advisory committee were appointed, about a year ago—a substantial time ago. That has been perfectly
        1764
        clear to the county council all the way through. The position now is that we have just received a letter from the clerk to the council, following the council's meeting on Tuesday, intimating to us officially the decision of the council on Charing Cross bridge, and asking whether the Government approve of the scheme and whether it will implement the promise of a 75 per cent. grant. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. The promise which the Conservative Government made and which we accepted in connection with last year's scheme was both in respect of Charing Cross bridge and the Waterloo Bridge, assuming that they went on together and were part and parcel of the same scheme. The present position is that that letter has been received—it has only just reached me—and will be immediately considered and replied to.
        I will not disguise from the House, although I am not in a position to inform the House of any decision of the Government, that we must seriously consider such a very large expenditure on this matter at this time of very great difficulty in the national finances. An expenditure of £12,500,000 on this purpose is an expenditure which has to be considered with the greatest responsibility at a time when the national finances are in the condition in which they are at the present moment, and obviously the new situation as regards international relationships, in their financial reactions, has made additional difficulties for the Chancellor of the Exchequer in some ways. It is perfectly obvious that the Government must consider the matter with a sense of responsibility from the point of view of the national resources. But I hope we shall come to a decision quite soon, and if the right hon. Gentleman cares to put down a question for next Wednesday, while I cannot promise it may be that I shall be able to give him an answer as to the decision of the Government on the communication from the London County Council.
        Colonel ASHLEY: May I just remind the right hon. Gentleman that the money will not have to be found in one year? The building of the new bridge will take seven or eight years at least, and so the expenditure would be spread over a long time.
        Mr. MORRISON: That is perfectly true, and that is one aspect to be considered. But, on the other hand, it is a little bit dangerous, when considering the national finances, to forget the sum you are spending and only to remember that you are going to spread it over a number of years. But it is a consideration which it is legitimate to take into account.
        I was asked a question about electrical development. Consumption of electricity in Britain is increasing year by year; despite the slump it went up last year by about 6 per cent., whereas consumption decreased in Germany and America. With regard to the estimates of the Central Electricity Board, the programme of transmission construction is going forward as arranged, and I think it can be said, although things are not yet final—the slump is making things difficult—that the right hon. Gentleman can take it that nothing has happened so far which indicates that his estimates made in 1926 were gravely wrong. I think that, substantially, his estimates have stood the test, and he need not in any way hang his head in shame about the Act of 1926. It was an Act which was technically sound and for which he is entitled to take credit. From a technical aspect—I will not say anything about questions of more fundamental policy and of a more controversial character that may be involved—I think the Act of 1926 was of substantial advantage to the industry, was well founded and is going to be useful.
        My hon. Friend the Member for North Kensington (Mr. West) asked me about electricity prices, but I must not go very far, because he did not get very far before Mr. Dunnico pulled him up. I would only say that it is open to local authorities, or 20 consumers, to make application to the Minister and the Minister may make an inquiry and fix maximum prices. I will not pretend that the present arrangements or the present law are satisfactory. Having said that, I will say no more. We are doing the best we can under existing conditions.
        Mr. WEST: Do I understand that 20 consumers can apply directly to the Minister for an inquiry?
        7.0 p.m.
        Mr. MORRISON: Yes. I do not think it is a statutory right, but, in practice, if 20 consumers make a proper application, prima facie the Ministry are disposed to take the application seriously and to institute an inquiry, and to fix a limit. I am surprised that the people and the local authorities in districts where electricity prices are notoriously high have not exercised their rights in this respect. It is their duty to do it, they ought to do it, because it is not in the interests of the industry or anybody else that electricity charges should be unduly high. [Interruption.] I am now informed that 20 consumers have a statutory right in the matter. The only other subject of substance was the matter introduced by the hon. and learned Member for Lowestoft (Sir G. Rentoul), with which my right hon. Friend (Colonel Ashley) dealt, namely, the question of the Weir report. The House and the country as a whole is under a debt of gratitude to Lord Weir, to Sir William McLintock, whose name appears now as prominently as that of Sir Bernard Spilsbury himself as a person who gets called in on certain subjects, and to Sir Ralph Wedgwood. We are all very much indebted to them for the admirable work which they have done. I have never apologised for appointing that committee or for making Lord Weir chairman. I am a great admirer of the other Weir report which led up to the Electricity Act. That is still one of the finest simple statements of the problem of electrical generation which one can read, and I was glad to ask him to follow it up with a report on the question of railway electrification.
        The problem of railway electrification is a problem of the greatest importance, and it raises important issues of industrial policy. The Committee need not think for a moment that I am going to sneeze at the recommendations of the Weir report. That report has to be taken into careful consideration by the Government in dealing with the future of the railways, with how far they can be re-equipped, and with other similar matters. It is perfectly true that the committee indicates that coal consumption will, as a result, be reduced by over 3 per cent., or by 10,000,000 tons a year. That is a great consideration which must

        1767
        be taken into account. It is perfectly true that part of the economies which will be secured will be the result of reorganisation of the locomotive side of the industry. One must not be afraid of carrying through a big scheme of industrial re-equipment because of those two facts. In the end, the problem of making our industry efficient is bound to be solved in the same way in which the old problem was solved. The Committee may take it that the Government will consider the report very seriously and with every sense of responsibility. It is a report which, although it deals with big figures, must not frighten us merely because the figures are big.
        The present position is that the report has been sent to the railway companies for their observations. They have had their technical people busily examining the report, and I believe they are still, probably in some subsidiary respects, examining the report. Although, of course, it is signed by the General Manager of the London and North Eastern Railway, that does not necessarily commit the railway companies to it in every respect. The railway companies have communicated to the Government, not their detailed views on the report or on the problem, but a letter which indicates certain broad considerations. The question has been raised by the hon. and learned Member as to the publication of the letter. I thought it right that the question of publication should not be considered until I had had an opportunity of consulting with the railway companies and given them an opportunity of further elaborating their point of view. I want a considerable amount of information from them as to their attitude, and they can no doubt advise me as to the technical and operating side of the problem. I have now arranged to meet them on Friday next week when the whole problem will be discussed between myself and the railway companies, and I think the letter had best not be published in the meantime. The Committee will forgive me if I do not go any further into detail as I do not want to prejudge the meeting with the railway companies. The Committee may, however, be fully assured that we shall take the report submitted to us into the fullest consideration.
        1768
        With regard to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe, he need not assume that the question of speedometers on public service vehicles is finally decided. He has still hope for I have not turned it down, and I shall take it into consideration. I am surprised to hear him advising me to appoint another committee. I notice that the suggestion was not received with hostility by the Opposition, but I am not going to appoint a committee on road signs; I am going to call certain people into consultation. I shall not appoint a committee, because if anything we have been accused of being a little generous in appointing committees. I have taken the matter to heart myself. In conclusion, I would thank the Committee for the way in which they have received the Estimates of the Department, and I would express the hope that, having been pronounced not guilty of any grave crime or rather a verdict "not proven," the verdict of the hon. and learned Gentlemen, having been returned, they will now give us the money.
        Mr. ALPASS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any information as to the policy which the commissioners have adopted with regard to making licences in larger industrial centres, such as the one I represent, conditional on adequate provision being made for the needs of working-class people who are travellers. Since the commissioners have been appointed, there has been no alteration in the fares of omnibuses in my city, no workmen's fares, and no penny fares. We were hoping that the commissioners would take that into consideration and make these fares a condition.
        Mr. WEST: Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the question of diversity of charges in the London area?
        Mr. MORRISON: With regard to the latter question, I am afraid there is difficulty about enforcing uniformity of charge. The only way it can be dealt with is by an amendment of the law, which I cannot discuss now. The existing law is very weak on the subject, and that is the only way it can be done. With regard to the point raised in the previous question, local authorities can appear before the Commissioners—as can also certain other people—and can argue

        1769
        that the fares are too high. The Commissioners can fix both maximum fares and minimum fares in order to prevent uneconomic working. It is perfectly competent for the Commissioners to do it. It is probable that they will not be desirous of doing it in the earlier months. The thing to do will be for the local authorities to appear before the Commissioners and ask them that such a step should be taken.
        Mr. SMITH-CARINGTON: The Debate to-day has shown what a wide range of subjects the Ministry of Transport covers, but there is one aspect of it which has not been mentioned to-day, the question of horse traffic on the roads. I would like to say a word or two with regard to the views of the Shire Horse Society and of the National Horse Association, on behalf of whom I speak, about the restrictions in Oxford Street; and I would like to add a consideration or two with regard to horse traffic in general. There are really two aspects of this subject, including the agricultural, which it would not be proper to discuss to-night, but which is one of very great importance. I need only remind the Committee that two or three days ago we were lamenting the fact that agriculture was in such a parlous condition. If I might give one illustration only by way of making clear the importance of horse transport to agriculture, I would quote the report of the United States Department of Agriculture for a year ago, which says that they estimate that the horse and mule population there has been reduced by no less than 6,250,000 in the last 10 years and that the effect of that was that 18,000,000 acres—it would, of course, be a smaller amount here—had been taken out of cultivation, for that purpose and had been thrown into the cultivation of products in a market which was already glutted. I mention that just in passing, to show the effect which the motor, in superseding horses, has upon the agricultural community. That sort of thing which has happened in the United States is happening the world over. It is rather wide of the point we have under discussion to-day.
        I would say that horse transport quite rightly can only survive on its merits, and therefore I would like the House for a few moments to consider what its merits
        1770
        are. I would like to remind the Committee that a question was asked of the Minister of Transport with regard to this matter, and his reply was as follows:
        "There can be no question that, as a matter of sheer transport economics, for short distances and frequent stoppages the horse is still the more economic."
        I can assure the Committee that the Shire Horse Society have for many years taken out a comparison of costs between motor and horse transport. Quite recently the National Horse Association have made a very full inquiry. I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee with a number of examples, but I shall quote one, which is typical of a large number. It relates to a large transport firm in London, who operate both horses and motors, and they have been kind enough to supply us with the following figures of their actual costings of the two different forms of transport. Their figures are really rather striking and show about a 25 per cent. advantage in favour of horse transport for, of course, the class of work for which it is suitable. Their figures show that the cost for a single horse vehicle is 17s. 9d. a day and that for a 2S-cwt. motor, which would be a moderately close comparison, is 24s. 2d. If we come to a larger-sized form of transport, their figures show that a pair-horse van costs 25s. 7d., while the 4-ton lorry runs out at 36s. 6d. Whether you take the single horse or the pair of horses, you find a very large advantage in favour of horse transport on the ground of cheapness as against the motor.
        I come to the Oxford Street restrictions. These societies feel a sense of gratitude to the Minister of Transport for the very careful consideration he has given to the point of view they have put before him, and they feel grateful, too, for the concession which has been made, the requirements being of such a kind that, in point of fact, the Oxford Street position is really of little consequence. But I must say that, although that particular experiment has not caused us damage, it has caused us a fright. Of course, we feel that, although it may be quite unintentional, it may, nevertheless, actually happen that repetitions of such experiments would, in the ordinary way, bring a sort of pressure on mechanical transport to supersede horse-drawn vehicles. I do not wish to make any prophecy as to how well the Oxford Street

        1771
        experiment will answer, but I ask the Minister of Transport, before he repeats or extends that experiment, very fully to weigh up the effect of such a changeover. I admit that it is a great advantage to get a more rapid transport, but as against that you have to weigh up and take a national view of the question, the damage it would do to our agricultural industry, and above all the extra cost that it would imply in regard to transport. If transport is going to be put up in price, that extra cost must be inevitably passed on to the goods that are transported, and that is a very serious item which must be taken into account.
        There is one other matter of quite a different kind to which I wish to refer. The Minister of Transport, in his concluding remarks, referred to the financial position of the country and the urgent need for wise economies wherever they could be carried out. The other day I came across an example in the country which needs to be investigated. It is the case of a country road 12 feet wide, which is in a very bad condition. It was obvious that something would have to be done with it, and the local authority, probably quite wisely, decided that while they were about it they would increase the width of the road and make it 14 feet wide. They approached the Ministry of Transport on the question of grants, and discovered that, instead of making it a 14-feet road, if they made it 16 feet wide, they would get a very much larger grant, so much more in fact that it would be cheaper for them to have the 16-feet road than the 14 feet. That may be very wise economy from the point of view of the local authority, but we must remember that it is public money, whether it comes from the local authority or the Treasury, and I submit that it would be much better for us to secure economy in cases of that kind. This road is a couple of miles long and probably it is not the only one which has been dealt with in that way.
        Mr. HALL-CAINE: The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Smith-Carington) appealed to the Minister of Transport to repeat the Oxford Street experiment in other parts of London, but I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman
        1772
        practically to exclude the horse-drawn vehicle from the streets of London altogether, and I do so for this reason. The Minister of Transport has no doubt read of the agitation in a number of London papers in which they state that you cannot alter the streets of London, and therefore something has to be done to speed up the traffic. The obvious thing to do is to remove the slowest moving traffic off the streets, and that happens to be the horse-drawn vehicle. It is a well-known fact that a horse-drawn vehicle in a stream of traffic at Charing Cross affects that stream as far back as Ludgate Circus. That being so, if we do not remove the horse-drawn vehicle entirely, we should restrict it to certain hours of the day. Two years ago I suggested to the Minister of Transport that this should be done, and I pointed out that it was done in Paris. The right hon. Gentleman replied that he was not Minister of Transport for Paris, but I am glad to see that he has now taken some action along the very lines which I suggested two years ago. I now suggest that he should extend that practice, and bring the same rules and regulations into operation in other streets.
        The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford has pointed out that a horse-drawn vehicle is very much more economical. I dare say that is so for the particular people who are using the horse-drawn vehicle, but it is not so for the ordinary person who is trying to get from one part of London to another in the shortest space of time, either on an omnibus, walking, or in a taxi-cab, because the horse-drawn vehicle holds up the traffic. Another argument which has been used is that a horse-drawn vehicle can turn round in a very much smaller space than a motor vehicle. I was waiting for the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford to make that point, but I would like to remind him that the new six-wheeled motor vehicle which is now in operation can turn round in exactly the same space as a horse drawn vehicle.
        Mr. TINKER: Is the hon. Member's argument that all vehicles, other than motor-driven vehicles, such as hand carts, and things of that kind, should be removed?
        Mr. HALL-CAINE: I was arguing that they should be restricted to certain hours

        1773
        of the day. I am speaking more of the centre of London than districts like the East End, where the streets are wider than in the West End. Therefore, that objection to the motor vehicle has been disposed of in regard to the turning circle. The hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) said that the Minister of Transport moved too slowly for his liking, but I really cannot agree that the Minister of Transport moves anything like as slowly as his predecessor the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Christchurch (Colonel Ashley). The whole tone of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech was in favour of caution and not moving too fast. I think the present Minister of Transport has actually done more in the two years during which he has been in office than his predecessors did in 10 years. I do not say that I agree that all that the Minister has done is good, but I think a great deal of it is good. Surely it is better to do something, even if you make occasional mistakes, and get on with the job. I congratulate the Minister of Transport and his Department most heartily on the work that they have done. The hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe referred to the regulation of traffic and he said that traffic was regulated better in Paris than in London. There seems to be a prevalent opinion among some hon. Members that that is not so, but I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe on that point. I believe that the traffic in Paris is better regulated than it is in London. The reason for that may be hard to find, but one of the reasons is that the police in Paris are very definite when they give their instructions for the traffic to stop, and they use their white batons. You think that they are going to hit you on the head. I think some regulation of that kind might be adopted in regard to our own traffic.
        I hope the Minister of Transport will not alter his regulations in regard to the use of motor headlights. It has been suggested that we should adopt the French method. I think the French method is not as good as the English method, but the dipping headlight ought also to swivel to the left. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not adopt the French method. I would like to refer to the banking of roads at corners. In
        1774
        Scotland quite a number of corners have been banked. This policy has been adopted in countries like Spain, and I think it might more largely be carried out in this country. With regard to insurance premiums, I interrupted by saying that I understood that the insurance companies were going to raise their premiums. I have read a statement to that efiect in motor papers and in the daily papers, and I was very glad to hear the Minister of Transport say that accidents had decreased and not increased. If there is any attempt on the part of insurance companies to raise premiums, I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will take some action to prevent it. With a decrease of accidents, premiums ought to come down and not rise. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to do something in regard to the point I have raised with regard to horse traffic.
        As to the Oxford Street signalling experiment, I congratulate the Minister of Transport upon having brought those signals into operation, and I hope he will bring the same system into operation in other streets, possibly the Strand. I know it is difficult to apply those signals in some parts of London, because London is not like New York where the traffic goes north, south, east and west, and where the whole place is constructed in blocks. London is badly planned from an architectural point of view so far as its streets are concerned, and therefore it is very awkward to have these light signals in some parts, but, where-ever it is possible to use them, I hope they will be used. I have discovered that it is possible now to drive down Oxford Street at a reasonable speed in half the time that it took 12 months ago, and that, shows how this system has speeded up the traffic. For these reasons, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will adopt that system in other parts of London.
        Captain AUSTIN HUDSON: The first point that I want to address to the Minister is one that concerns my own constituency of North Hackney. I need not excuse myself to the Minister on the ground of not having given him notice of this point, as his own constituency is next door to mine, and he will know about what I am going to say. For some years past we in the north and north-

        1775
        east of London have complained of our lack of facilities for travelling, and it was in order to try to do something in that respect that the prolongation of the tube north from Finsbury Park was undertaken. I want, however, to impress upon the Minister that that prolongation of the tube, which is now under construction, will not affect either my constituency or his, and that the work, for which we pleaded for some time, of electrification of the London and North Eastern Railway, or the making of some tube through that district, is just as urgent now as it was then. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will not be content with the extension of the tube, but will see whether this electrification of the London and North Eastern Railway cannot be put in hand soon. It has been talked about, anyhow, for the eight or nine years that I have been in the House, and it is still very urgent. I am sure that there is a number of jobs of work which could be done, both in connection with the electrification itself and in connection with the alteration and modernisation of stations on the line. The facilities are not good in Hackney and the neighbouring districts. We have only the trams and omnibuses in a very congested thoroughfare, and this very antique steam railway, which urgently needs electrification. I hope, therefore, that the Parliamentary Secretary will ask the Minister to see whether anything can be done in that respect.
        I am sure we were all delighted to hear that accidents in London have gone down by about 10 per cent. That is very good news indeed. The Minister mentioned that in Oxford Street and other places he has tried the experiment of fixed crossing places for pedestrians, and I want to urge him to see whether he cannot, in conjunction with the Home Office, come to an arrangement by which pedestrians are made to cross these important thoroughfares at fixed crossing places. That has been done elsewhere, without a great deal of friction and with success. Certainly, in some cities in America, if you cross the road carelessly, you are had up by the police for causing accidents and traffic congestion, just as you would be if you crossed a main road in a motor car carelessly and thereby caused accidents. A very unfortunate
        1776
        example occurred only yesterday, when certain Members of the House were travelling in a motor coach in order I see one of the Government institutions Unfortunately, a woman jumped from behind a tram, not at one of these fixed crossings, and she was knocked down and ultimately died. If that woman had crossed just a little further up the road where there was a proper crossing place this unfortunate accident would not have happened. Hundreds of these accident happen because people are so terribly careless in crossing the roads, and I hope that the Minister will look into that point, and see if he cannot do some thing to force pedestrians, on these appallingly congested roads, to cross at fixed crossing points.
        The Minister, in reply to a question which I put to him, said that he would look into the question of slow-moving traffic—I do not necessarily mean heavy traffic—being forced more to keep to the left-hand side of the road. Any Member of this Committee who has done any motoring knows what a lot of congestion is caused, particularly on our broad arterial roads, by small and slow cars which will stay in the middle of the road and will not keep to their own side. As a result, anything faster which has to pass such a car must either cut in on the left, which is breaking the Code, or must swing right out and risk hitting something coming the other way. Without any desire to see racing on the roads, I feel sure that every Member of the Committee will agree that that continually happens. I have asked the Minister whether he could not, in conjunction with the Home Office, use some of the present mobile police in order that on these roads they may warn traffic which follows this practice. The Englishman seems to have what no other nation possesses—a desire to keep as far from his own side of the road as he possibly can. Members who travel abroad in cars may have noticed the tendency, particularly in France, for the French driver, when another car is passing, to get as far in on his own side of the road as he can; but in England, for some extraordinary reason, when two cars are passing, they seem always to pass as close to the middle of the road as they possibly can. It would relieve congestion, and do away with a very fruitful source of accidents, if the mobile police could give an eye to

        1777
        this type of driving, which is really only due to carelessness and could easily be put right if the police would take it in hand.
        For years past I have advocated that heavy goods and merchandise should be sent by rail, to the benefit of the railways, and successive Governments have adopted that policy by putting very heavy taxes on the heavier type of road transport. I hope that the present Minister is not going to reverse that policy in his endeavour to get passengers back to the railways, but that he will realise that the railways would do better by concentrating on the heavier type of transport; and he himself can do a great deal of good, both to the railways and to the roads, by seeing that this heavy stuff is not carried on the roads, but is diverted once more to the railways.
        Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: I desire to direct attention to the subject of noise. I think it can be truthfully said that the Road Traffic Act, so far, has not resulted in a reduction of the noise of motor traffic. Those of us who study the correspondence columns of the "Times" must have seen that an immense amount of discomfort is caused throughout the country by noise. We have it all around us. We have aeroplanes above, we have motor cars on the earth, we have speed boats on the water, even on the Thames outside this House, and we have wireless everywhere. We live in an age of noise, and I want to appeal to the Minister to try to do something to deal with what is undoubtedly a very serious evil. The worst offenders are, of course, the motor cyclists. They create noise in the most wanton and unnecessary fashion. I am satisfied that it is not the machine that makes the noise, but the man who is on the machine. I am strengthened in that view by a letter which appeared the other day in the "Times" from Mr. H. R. Watney, the Director of the British Cycle and Motor Cycle Manufacturers' and Traders' Union, Limited. He wrote:
        "It is the driver of the machine who is responsible for the noise, and not the motor cycle itself. British manufacturers are all producing machines of such excellence that it is possible to use them in sufficient silence."
        I appeal to the Ministry to take steps to compel motor cyclists to use their cycles in such a way as not to cause the widespread annoyance and discomfort to
        1778
        which they lead at the present time. The dirt tracks, also, are responsible for an appalling amount of noise. Is it not possible to reduce the noise that they cause? I live in South Kensington, and at no great distance away there is a dirt track in the Fulham Road, The noise is perfectly inhuman on Wednesday and Saturday nights—
        The CHAIRMAN (Sir Robert Young): I am not sure that the Minister of Transport has any control over dirt tracks.
        Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: I am glad to have that pointed out. There is no doubt that an immense amount of harm is done to health by noise. I was very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Freeman) asked a question in the House of the Minister of Health on the 22nd July:
        "Whether he will consider the desirability of setting up an inquiry, on the lines of the Commission of Health of New York upon City Noise, into the injury done to public health by constant loud noises, such as riveting, pneumatic drills, motor horns and steam whistles? "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1931; col. 1507, Vol. 255.]
        Noise is undoubtedly injurious to health. People say that you get accustomed to it, and so you do, but it is only by the coarsening of the nerves. Although you may not be conscious of it, a certain amount of vitality is withdrawn and wasted in resisting the physical effects of noise, and in people who are subjected to constant noise the auditory nerves become dull, they lose the capacity for appreciating music, and undoubtedly they suffer in many ways. I appeal to the Minister to consider this question of noise. It is constantly referred to in public gatherings and in the Press, and I hope that something will be done, especially, to deal with motor cyclists.
        Colonel HOWARD-BURY: I fully agree and sympathise with the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Lovat-Fraser). Day by day noise is increasing in the cities, and, in spite of the efforts of the Home Office, very little seems to be done nowadays to stop the noise or the vibrations which also are transmitted through the air and the earth on all sides of us. I would join with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Hackney (Captain A. Hudson) in asking the Ministry to adopt the attitude of co-ordination as far as possible with regard to all means of transport

        1779
        that are under his control. I do not think that we use our means of transport in the best possible fashion. We have excellent railways, we have a very good road system, and we have canals. Why should we not combine them, and use that particular form of transport which is most suited to the circumstances of the case? I hope that the tendency of the Ministry will be as far as possible to drive off the roads all heavy traffic which ought to be carried on the railways. Although, I believe, £500,000,000 has been spent on our roads, many of them even to-day are not nearly sufficient to carry the 10, 20 and even 50-ton loads which they are sometimes called upon to bear. It is not right that they should carry those loads, which ought to be carried on the railways. The railways are not paying today because so much traffic is going on the roads. The roads do not pay rates, and, therefore, the traffic on them can be carried far more cheaply than on the railways, which have to pay very heavy rates and taxes.
        We have heard about the Weir Report and the expenditure of £400,000,000. An hon. Member suggested that we should not be afraid of that amount, and said that he hoped for the support of the Liberal party in spending this vast sum. The Weir Report aims at the electrification of all the railways. I ask the Minister very seriously whether he has considered other methods. Has he noticed that in the Irish Free State they have adopted the Drumm battery, which may revolutionise the method of transport on the railways. The battery is carried in a carriage; each carriage is self-contained, and there is no need for overhead standards. It may be that the electrification of railways can be carried out at far less cost than by the method suggested in the Weir report. Again there is the question of the Diesel electric engine of which very little is known, but with which experiments are taking place. Before we commit ourselves to the vast expenditure of the Weir Report, we ought to examine all possible alternatives. Certainly we want to see the electrification of the railways to the suburbs around London and all the big towns, but on the main lines it will not pay to electrify. It would involve an enormous expense, and before it is undertaken we should
        1780
        make sure whether the work can be done at a far cheaper rate.
        I want to raise one or two points with regard to traffic in London and the big cities. We have a great deal to learn from the Continent. Before we adopted the roundabout system, it had been in force in France for a considerable time, and it was only adopted here under pressure. Now in Oxford Street, London, we are adopting methods that have already been adopted in the great boulevards of Paris. In Paris, too, they have a system of studs across the roads to guide foot passengers, and woe betide any driver who runs down any pedestrian between those lines of studs. The Minister might well consider whether it is not worth while to make such crossings in London, with white lines or studs, and to inflict far heavier penalties upon any driver who knocks anyone down between those lines. Pedestrians ought to be able to cross a road in safety. The French police prevent people crossing at unauthorised places. I have been pulled back by a gendarme and have been asked why I was crossing at a particular place. I was told that it was dangerous and that I was risking my life. The French have a system of fines which they can impose on the spot on anyone who crosses a road in the wrong place. I was not fined, but warned and treated with great politeness. The Minister should have zones of safety where passengers can cross the street, and penalties should be inflicted on any driver who endangers a foot passenger.
        One question that I would emphasise is that relating to major and minor roads. The Minister said that he proposed to have consultations with people. He would not call it a committee. But surely the Minister already has power to deal with this matter. He is making regulations every day. He might say that such and such a road is a main road, and the notices put up on the smaller roads leading to the main road should warn people that they are approaching the main road and that caution is necessary. The Minister should do that as soon as possible. More and more accidents take place at cross roads because people are not aware which is the major and which the minor road. The right hon. Gentleman has issued instructions and regulations of all sorts and kinds, many of them

        1781
        extremely good and useful, but he is rather apt to consider that the public are in the wrong if they do not always know new regulations that have been issued. The regulations are so multitudinous that it is impossible for anyone to keep up to date with them. I do not know how many thousands of paragraphs there are in the new regulations issued. The right hon. Gentleman told me that he has swept away a certain number to make room for new ones, but they are so numerous that people do not know what is in them.
        For instance, an omnibus is allowed to carry only so many people. If it carries one person more than that total it becomes an uninsured vehicle, and if anyone is travelling in it and there is an accident, he is not insured. The Home Office then comes along and says, "During the peak hours of the day so many more people can be carried." But that makes the vehicle an uninsured vehicle. The Minister of Transport then says, "Oh, yes, you ought to amend your insurance policy." But how on earth are people to keep up to date with all this constant change that has taken place? I suggest that a little more latitude should sometimes be given to the public. Apart from these points, I must congratulate the Ministry of Transport on their very go-ahead attitude during the last few years. I think they have done much to promote the safety of the streets in London. I think that the Road Traffic Act has done a great deal of good in that way, and if the Minister would only follow it with a few of the suggestions I have put forward, I think he would still further help pedestrians.
        Mr. TINKER: I shall not detain the Committee for long. We seem to be in a hurry to get through the business, but why, I do not know. We have the whole night before us, and I do not see why we should curtail speeches. The hon. Member who spoke last suggested that there were too many Regulations. Probably he looks at the matter from a motorist's point of view. From the pedestrian's point of view, I do not think the Regulations are enough. Another hon. Member spoke about noise. Everyone knows that the Regulations on that point might very well be strengthened. It is most difficult for a bench of magistrates to determine
        1782
        what is a noisy vehicle. I have sat to deal with cases and have asked whether there is any standard. I am told that there is not, that it is a question of the opinion of the person who brings a prosecution. That makes it difficult to say whether it is a nuisance or not.
        There is the question of the exhaust devices on motor bicycles and motor cars. Often they let out smoke and fumes to such an extent as to be almost unbearable. I suggest that the Minister should pay attention to strengthening of the Regulations. Motor cars have come to stay, and we do not want them to be a nuisance to those people who, for the moment, do not believe in the use of motor cars. There is something to be said for the person who has taken to walking and does not want the nuisance created by too many motors. The hon. Member for Everton (Mr. Hall-Caine) has evidently got the craze of a keen motorist. He would sweep off the roads everything, judging by what ho said. Horses—they are not to be allowed anywhere. I interrupted him by asking whether he meant that all kinds of vehicles should be removed, for instance, hand-carts. To-day, in coming down Kingsway, I noticed a hand-cart amongst the other vehicles. A woman was pulling at a rope and a man was in the shafts. They seemed to me to be people working hard to get a living. Does the hon. and gallant Member mean that such people should be removed from the highways, if the horses are removed? When we deal with this matter we have to consider where we are being led. Once we restrict the liberty of anyone going on the road, there is no telling where the restriction will stop. I hope that the Committee will not listen to any suggestions for removing that kind of thing from the highway.
        The Minister of Transport in surveying the effects of the Road Traffic Act, said that the number of accidents had been reduced owing to the speed limit having been removed. He added that the fears of those who had spoken against the abolition of the speed limit, such as the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) and others, had proved to be unfounded. I, too, was against the removal of the speed limit. I hope that I am like other men, who, when it is proved that what they have contended at

        1783
        a particular time is wrong, are willing to admit it. I now willingly agree that the Minister's proposal was the better one, and I hope that the good results will continue. I take my share of the odium for having dared to say that the speed limit ought not to be removed. The Minister also referred to third party insurance risk. I believed that that was a good thing at the time. The same principal might be applied to another industry. I refer to the miners. I think there ought to be compulsory insurance for the miners. If insurance is compulsory for one great service, it ought to be compulsory for the mines also. I know that the subject is outside the scope of this Vote, but I cannot miss the opportunity of mentioning what ought to take place.
        8.0 p.m.
        Mr. CARTER: I want to put one question to the Minister, and that is with regard to the regulations for drivers-five hours driving, five hours off, and then five hours driving again. I want to call attention to the fact that employers are engaging men to do work, either by loading or in the sheds, during the five hours when they should be resting. It is not just to the drivers, nor to those good employers who have the eight hours day, that these men should be allowed to work practically 15 hours a day. It is also a danger to the public for a man to be driving on the public roads after he has worked for 10 hours and then to have to do five hours more. Therefore, I would like to ask whether it is a violation of the regulation. There is another question that has been brought to my notice, and that is in regard to the rear lights on heavy, slow-moving vehicles. The complaint is made that they are too small, and the motorists say that there should be better lights placed upon the rear of these heavy vehicles. I draw the Minister's attention to these points.
        Mr. GROVES: I should like to ask whether the Minister is prepared to change the regulation with regard to the licensing of vehicles now on the roads. He is concerned with the safety of the roads, and I am concerned with the safety of the vehicles. I feel that the vehicles plying for public hire should be licensed, after inspection, by people
        1784
        who have served their apprenticeship in the particular trades concerned, whereas at present they are licensed by policemen. I make no great charge against them, but I say that people who have served their apprenticeship in these trades ought to license these vehicles in future. I speak as a coach-body builder, and I urge the Minister to pay attention to this regulation and to change it in future, if he can.
        Question put, and agreed to.

      CLASS II.

        COLONIAL AND MIDDLE EASTERN SERVICES.
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        "That a sum, not exceeding £1,115,716 (including a Supplementary Sum of £105,000), be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for sundry Colonial and Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain Non-effective Services and Grants-in-Aid."—[NOTE: £600,000 has been voted on account.]
        Sir SAMUEL HOARE: I make no apology for raising again certain questions that I discussed almost exactly 12 months ago. I then drew the attention of the Committee to certain points of great importance in the treaty which the British Government were making with the Iraq Government, and it is to those points that I wish now to return. I cannot help saying, at the beginning of my speech, that I think it is a great pity that the House of Commons has not been given the opportunity of saying whether or not they wish the treaty between Great Britain and Iraq ratified. My own view is that it is a treaty that should be ratified, and at the same time I think that in a matter of this kind, particularly with the Government's record and all that they have said in the past about the ratification of treaties by the House o£ Commons, an opportunity should have been given to this House during the past 12 months. The treaty is now ratified, and all that we can do this evening is to draw attention to certain points that arise out of it.
        There are two points in particular that arise out of it. There is, first of all, the very important question connected with the treatment of minorities in Iraq, and, secondly, there is the very important question as to what will be the position

        1785
        of the Imperial forces that are still to remain in Iraq after we have laid down the Mandate and Iraq becomes, to all intents and purposes, a sovereign Power. I begin with the question of minorities, and I should like, in a sentence or two, to emphasise, first of all, the great importance of the question and, secondly, the very interesting character of the minorities with which we are dealing when we come to discuss the future of Iraq. Twelve months ago we were all agreed that in the East the question of minorities is one of the most difficult and complicated questions with which any country or any Government is faced. Since that time, the question has become much more difficult, complicated, and urgent than it was then.
        I need not do more than draw attention to the importance that the question, during these 12 months, has reached in almost every part of the East. There, as we Members of the Round Table Conference know only too well, the minorities question is at the centre of almost all the questions that we are discussing in connection with a new constitution for India. Again, as we know only too well, the minority question has led to a very serious outbreak during the last 12 months in Palestine between the Arab majority and the Jew minority. Again, if we look further afield, we have seen how, during the last 12 months, the minority question of the Indians in Kenya has become more and more urgent and more and more important.
        In the case of Iraq, speaking generally, there are three minority communities, each of them a very interesting community. There are, first of all, the Kurds, who inhabit the hilly country in the north-east of Iraq. The Kurds, a community now numbering about 1,500,000, at present inhabit three different countries. A portion of them live under the Turks in Turkey, a second portion live in Persia, and a third portion live in Iraq; and the fact that they are divided between three separate countries makes the Kurdish problem obviously all the more difficult and dangerous with which to deal. The Kurds claim to be the survivors of the Medes of the Old Testament, and they are a very interesting community. They have many of the characteristics for which the Highlanders of Scotland were some
        1786
        what notorious in earlier centuries. They are adepts at guerilla warfare, and they are a very difficult community to dominate.
        I come to the next of these minority communities, a community that, for different reasons, is just as interesting as the Kurdish community. I come to the Assyrians, a small Christian minority that at present inhabits the neighbourhood of Mosul, in the north of Iraq. Just as the Kurds claim to be survivors of the Empire of the Medes, so the Assyrians claim to be the representatives of the Assyrian Empire of the Old Testament. They are a very interesting community on historical grounds, and they are also very interesting upon religious grounds. They represent one of the oldest and purest forms of Christianity, and during many centuries, in the face of almost continuous persecution, they have maintained their Christian faith, their Christian practices and their Christian ritual. To-day, owing to many persecutions and vicissitudes, they are reduced to the very small number of quite a few thousands. I hope I have said enough to show how interesting a community they are and how disastrous it would be, from every point of view, if in the future their peculiar national, religious and racial characteristics were blotted out and eliminated.
        I now come to the last of these three minorities, and again it is a minority for other reasons just as interesting as the two that I have already mentioned. I come to the Yezidis, or devil-worshippers. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) and I a few years ago, in a flying tour that we made of these districts, visited all these communities, and we had the great privilege of being presented to the chief of the devil-worshippers. Let hon. Members make no mistake. Let them not think, because this small community has as its chief doctrine the worship of the devil, that it compares badly, either for morals or for ethical practices, with any similar community in the world. On the whole, they are a very wise people. They take this view of the world—a view that I am afraid is very often borne out by what actually happens—that the power for evil is a very serious power, and that therefore you had better conciliate it. Accordingly, the whole of their religious practices are based upon a series of attempts

        1787
        to propitiate this power of evil, and one of the ways in which they do this is never to mention the power of evil by his real name. They think that it might hurt his susceptibilities if they call him by his real name of Satan. Accordingly, they always describe him as the "Peacock Angel," thinking, no doubt, that a picturesque title of that kind will please him. Upon the whole they live a very reputable life, inhabiting a mountain country upon which they claim that Noah's Ark ran aground. They are described, in the best work of its kind on their tribal customs, in this sentence. I ask hon. Members to take it to heart, because we might well follow their example.
        "Their demeanour and conversation are tranquil, and even dignified, and a lost temper and bad language are against the tenets of their religion."
        It would be a great loss, not only to Iraq but to the world at large, if this very interesting little community were in any way blotted out.
        What is the Iraq Government and what is the British Government doing to ensure that in the future, when we have laid down our mandate, there will be no unfair discrimination against any of these communities? Last year I asked the Under-Secretary what the Government were going to do, and I cannot say I received a very satisfactory answer. He told me, first of all, that it would never do to interfere with the discretion of a sovereign Government in dealing with minorities of this kind and that there never was any interference of that kind. That is not correct. Time after time in recent years—I would quote one or two of the Treaties that emerged at the end of the War—steps have been taken, where territory has been transferred from one Power to another, to insert Clauses under which a very definite protection is given to minorities, and it is actually guaranteed by the League of Nations. I do not suggest, now that the Treaty is ratified, that he can insist upon a Clause of that kind being added to it. But, when the admission of Iraq into the League comes up for discussion and possible confirmation at the Assembly next September, the British Government on its part, and the Iraq Government on its part also, ought to make categorical statements that, under the future system
        1788
        of government in Iraq, there is going to be no unfair discrimination of any kind against any of these three communities.
        I believe a declaration of that kind made categorically before the Assembly of the League would not only make it much easier for the Assembly to accept the admission of Iraq but would provide some assurance to these three communities, each of which I know from my own personal knowledge is extremely anxious about the future. Further, I would ask the hon. Gentleman to tell us what the Government has actually done upon the subject in the Mandates Commission. What line has it taken? I have seen that there have been meetings of the Commission recently. Have they made it quite clear that as between themselves and Iraq there is a tacit understanding, even though it is not included in its Treaty, that there is to be no discrimination against any of these minorities. I hope the Under-Secretary will be able to give a categorical answer to each of these questions.
        I now come to the no less important question in my view of the use of Imperial troops in Iraq when that country ceases to be a mandated power and becomes a sovereign Government. At present there is a garrison of Imperial troops, consisting for the most part of squadrons of the Air Force, acting under the orders of the High Commissioner, representing the mandatory Power. Under the Treaty which has now been ratified this situation will be materially changed. In the first place, we shall cease to be the mandatory Power and we shall no longer have a High Commissioner. His place will be taken by a diplomatic representative, but for five years the Imperial Garrison is, none the less, to be allowed to remain in the country with the two main bases which at present exist, namely, Hinaidi, near Bagdad, and Mosul, in the north, as the principal Imperial cantonments. After five years there will be another period of 20 years in which we shall evacuate those two bases. We shall then have a right to have two other bases for the Imperial garrison, one on the west of the Euphrates and one in the neighbourhood of Basra. It is contemplated that in this 20 years period a permanent treaty should be made between the

        1789
        British Government and Iraq under which the lines of Imperial communication, that is to say for the most part the air line that now passes over Iraq to the east, would be permanently guaranteed.
        I wish to ask in what conditions are the Imperial troops to be used when we have ceased to be a mandatory Power. I imagine he will at once accept my two first answers to that question. I imagine he will at once accept the answer that British troops can nowhere be ordered about by any but a British Government. That is the very basis of our defence policy overseas and, if we once admitted the possibility of British troops being ordered about by any Government but a British Government, we should land ourselves in endless complication. We might in the future—I take the case of India as a case in point—make the position of the Imperial forces almost impossible. I cannot, therefore, stress too strongly the necessity of insisting that British troops, wherever they may be, are solely and exclusively under the orders of the British Government. Secondly, I suggest that British troops cannot be used for maintaining internal order in the country for whose government we are not responsible, unless under the specific orders of the British Government. There was a case in the last century, in the years before the Indian Mutiny, when we were drawn into using British troops for supporting the Government of the Nawab of Oudh. I am not suggesting that the Government of Iraq will go the way of the Government of the Nawab of Oudh, but it is worth quoting the case, because in the case of Oudh we were not responsible for the government when we were drawn into supporting it by British troops. The result of it was that a great measure of odium descended, not only upon the British Army, but upon the British Raj generally in India on the ground that we were supporting an unpopular and incompetent Government. The result of the events which then took place was that we were driven, whether we willed it or not, into annexing Oudh as part of the Indian Empire. I am very anxious that in this new chapter
        1790
        of Iraq history there should be no risk whatever of a similar state of affairs taking place there in the future.
        When I raised the question last year, the Under-Secretary of State gave me to understand—I have his speech here—that British troops would never under any conditions be used for the maintenance of internal order in Iraq. He quoted to mo Arteile 5 of the Treaty, the article in which it is specifically stated that the Iraqi forces are to be responsible for internal order and that the King of Iraq has no right to call upon British forces for the purpose. As a matter of fact, the Under-Secretary of State went even further than I went myself, and certainly implied that British troops would not even be used for dealing with the kind of nomadic invasions that have frequently taken place in the south west deserts of Iraq where hordes of Bedouin Wahabis have from time to time drifted over the Iraq frontier. Since then the hon. Gentleman has been questioned upon the subject in the House of Commons. The other day when my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Captain Eden) asked a question on the subject, the Under-Secretary of State gave this answer:
        "If the hon. and gallant Member will refer to Article 5 of the Treaty, he will find that the assumption that Iraq will have the right to call upon British forces to maintain internal order is without foundation. The second part of the question therefore does not arise. It is not contemplated that British forces retained in Iraq shall be at the disposal of any but British authority who will be fully able to judge whether their use is justified in any particular emergency."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1931; col. 14, Vol. 255.]
        That answer sounds satisfactory as far as it goes, but there is one point upon which it leaves me still in considerable doubt. The Under-Secretary of State says that the British representative will be fully able to judge whether the use of the Imperial forces is justified or not in any particular emergency. The question about which I am concerned is whether the British representative really will be able fully to judge, when he ceases to be High Commissioner and the representative of the Mandatory Power, whether such a situation has or has not arisen. At present, the British High Commissioner has under him a number of extremely efficient British officials scattered over every part of the country.

        1791
        He has in his hands an intelligence service which keeps him informed as to what is happening in every part of the country. When he ceases to be High Commissioner and becomes merely the diplomatic representative of this country, even though he is the senior diplomatic representative and has the rank of ambassador, I am doubtful whether he will still have at his command the intelligence and information without which it will be impossible for him to arrive at a wise and quick decision as to whether such a situation has or has not arisen.
        Let me put to the hon. Gentleman the kind of situation that might arise. I know something of this country, and I know the kind of way in which trouble begins. Trouble does not begin with a formal declaration of war or with some great and easily definable movement. It begins with some small affair, it may be a quarrel in a bazaar, it may be a fight between the two sections of Islam in one of the Holy Cities, and it may, again, be a dispute—and this very often happens in the East—between the taxgatherer and the taxpayer. I do not suggest that the taxgatherer need always be in the right. When small trouble begins, a demand is almost invariably made for an air demonstration at once over the district in which the trouble takes place, and as things are at present the High Commissioner, with his Intelligence Service, knows whether it is the kind of situation in which he ought to intervene and in which he ought to send British aeroplanes to make a demonstration. The trouble will be when he no longer has these officials to report to him. He will have none of that kind of information left at his disposal unless it is made quite clear at the very start that the British High Commissioner, or as I should say, the British Ambassador is in a position quite different from any other diplomatic representative, I will go so far as to say in almost any part of the world, and that he is given, by one means or another, full information from day to day, without which it will be quite impossible or him to decide whether Imperial troops ought or ought not to intervene.
        I cannot emphasise too much the importance of this question and the importance of getting it clear from the very
        1792
        start. The last thing in the world that we wish to see is that the British Air Force should be implicated in what are really internal disputes. It would be unfair upon the British Air Force, and it would be unjust to the British Empire as a whole. The Under-Secretary of State, I hope, therefore, will be able to make it clear to the Committee that the Iraq Government have admitted the difficulty of this position and accept the fact that the British Ambassador will be in a position totally different from any other diplomatic representative, and that he will have at his disposal from start to finish the information, without which it will be impossible for him to judge whether Imperial forces should intervene or not.
        There is one further subject upon which I will touch. It may be thought from what I have said that I am suspicious of the Iraq Government and that I am hostile to the Treaty. I am neither one nor the other. I have many friends in and out of the Iraq Government, and I am glad to think that in so short a space of time they have been able so far to develop and stabilise their country as to make their acceptance likely when they demand admission to the League of Nations. Their progress has been really remarkable in the few years that have elapsed since the War. I am particularly glad to pay a tribute to the progress that has been made with the Iraq army. This bears directly upon the point which I have been emphasising. It stands to reason that if the Iraq army is capable of maintaining internal order for itself, there will be no possible justification for calling in Imperial troops.
        It is satisfactory to note that, during the last few years, great progress has been made with the Iraq Army. Let me take a single instance. When I was responsible for the defence of Iraq, some years ago, and we had trouble with the Kurdish tribes in the north east, it was necessary to operate almost entirely with the British Air Force. In the last few months similar operations have been necessary against the same tribal leader who made trouble years ago, but the difference between the operations in recent months and the operations of five or six years ago is, is that whereas the operations of five or six years ago had to be undertaken by the British Air Force, the operations of the last few

        1793
        months have been undertaken almost entirety by the Iraq Army, and I understand that they have been carried through most satisfactorily.
        There is another matter on which we can congratulate the Iraq Government as showing the progress that has been made with its defence force. I have been delighted to see that in the last few weeks the first flight of Iraq pilots in Iraq aeroplanes from Cranwell, the Air Force training College, where the Iraq cadets have been in training, out to Iraq, has taken place, and that a start has already been made with the Iraq Air Force. I wish every success to that Air Force, and I am glad to think that it was when I was in office that we welcomed the first Iraq cadets to Cranwell. I hope that that Force will be developed and will become efficient, because the more efficient it becomes, the less likely will it be in future that the British Air Force will be called upon to intervene.
        My last point deals with the British officials now serving in Iraq. My right hon. Friends on these benches will support me when I say that no British officials have done better work during the last few years than the small company of British officials in Iraq have done in creating and stabilising this new State. I should like the Under-Secretary to give the Committee a categorical assurance that the interests of these officials will be safeguarded, both in the letter and in the spirit, when Iraq becomes a Sovereign State. I am aware that correspondence has passed between the British Government and the Iraq Government on the subject. I should like the Under-Secretary to tell the Committee that definite arrangements have already been made under which the rights of the British officials are safeguarded in the letter and in the spirit. I am afraid that I have taken up a considerable amount of time, but I think that the questions to which I have drawn attention are well worthy of consideration.
        Sir HILTON YOUNG: There is nothing that has been said by my right hon. Friend on the subject of the Iraq Government with which I in any measure disagree. He has dwelt upon the need for the protection of minorities, viewing the matter from the angle of the minorities. I would dwell upon the same need but rather from the angle of the
        1794
        Government of Iraq and the need that there is for sympathy and comprehension of the general situation in Iraq, in order to understand the true interests of minorities there as well as of majorities. By a combination of those two angles of vision, the angle of vision of my right hon. Friend and the other angle of vision, consideration of the difficulties of the Iraq Government, we can arrive at a just attitude towards the future of Iraq. It is important that we should do that at this particular moment because of the impending event when Iraq will cease to be in any respect dependant upon the British Empire and will become in all senses a sovereign and independent State. When one begins a relation well, it is easy to continue it well, but when the relations are begun in a mistaken manner, the position is very difficult to put right.
        I would ask the Committee to consider the very difficult task which the Government of Iraq has before it, as the inheritor of a fragment of a broken-up Empire—the Turkish Empire; as the inheritor of a fragment only, provided with none of the complete apparatus of a State, compelled to provide the whole of that apparatus for itself, compelled to provide the whole of the headquarter and district organisation, and without the capital plant of a civilised State. It is a formidable task. How formidable the task must be in the safe establishment of civil order in this turbulent and difficult part of the world, the Committee would do well to appreciate. The Government of Iraq is confronted with these two hard tasks, and it has no complete capital plant. Its whole railway system is imperfect; it is foreign-owned by the British Government. For the completion of the very minimum of plant to establish government, it has not yet been able to acquire that firmly based credit which must be the basis for the obtaining of the capital which is essential.
        Accumulated upon these natural difficulties in the position of the Iraq Government there comes this period of phenomenal depression, a period which afflicts all the world but which afflicts the infant state of Iraq far more severely than any other. The economic position of Iraq is based solely upon the agricultural produce of its peasantry. That produce is necessarily of a very backward sort—

        1795
        it consists of the cheapest form of grain. The revenue of Iraq is based on the revenue from grain. That market has been reduced to a state of absolute paralysis by the sudden flood of cheap surplus barley and cheap wheat from Russia. In these conditions the economic situation is full of difficulties; and it is particularly pertinent to our discussion this evening to note that this economic setback to the State, falling revenue and a budgetary deficit instead of a surplus, has necessarily involved the abandonment of many legitimate expectations for the improvement of the apparatus of government, of social services, and other functions of civilised government in Iraq. They have had to be postponed on account of this economic setback.
        I would like to draw the moral, if I may, which is relevant to the question of minorities. I have heard, and no doubt many of those interested in the treatment of minorities have heard, complaints of, what shall I call it, discrimination in the treatment by the Iraq Government of these minorities? We have heard from the Kurds that there has been discrimination against their interests in the measures of the Iraq Government. On investigating these complaints, I have often found that the discrimination complained of as against the Kurds was in trying to impose some measure of limitation on Government outlay which has been necessitated by bad times as a general measure for all. Last year I had the honour of advising the Government of Iraq in its Budget proposals, and I am sorry to say that I know that some of the matters complained of by the Kurds as a discrimination against them were nothing whatever but a general restriction on Government outlay, which the Government accepted on my advice.
        I should like to mention one other circumstance which I think illustrates how very careful one has to be before one concludes under strange conditions and with strange communities in remote places, that there has been any unfair treatment or discriminations. My hon. Friend referred to the interesting community of the Yezidis. May I add my testimony to his as to the false impression that is given of these worthy folk by the common description that they are devil worshippers.
        1796
        Their religion is philosophical with ethical and moral aspects, and is by no means one of degradation or mere savagery. This community, which has about the same status in civilisation otherwise, is subject to one slight disadvantage. The great complaint made at times by the Yezidis is that they are not allowed to take their full share in local government by their own officials. But it is contrary to the principles of the Yezidis religion that any Yezidis should ever have any education. Under modern conditions, that imposes a certain limitation on the utility of the finer type of Yezidi in taking part in the machinery of modern government.
        There is a real necessity for us to take the greatest possible care in avoiding the imputation of the old proverb, "Give a dog a bad name and hang him." When one is contemplating the future as between the Arab Government and minorities it would be the biggest mistake to presume any intention to do a wrong or unfair action on the part of the Arab Government. Surely the Arab Government is entitled by its past record that no presumption should be made which is hostile to it. I should say that the whole Arab race were entitled by their place and position in history to the strong presumption that any government they might form would act with tolerance. It is a race which by its great tolerance of civilisation in the early days did much to keep alive the flower of culture in the Bagdad Caliphate when it had almost ceased to bloom in other parts of the civilised world.
        The history of the Arabs, except for a few fanatical sects in Arabia, which do not come into contact with civilising influences, is a history of tolerance as regards minorities; very contrary to the history of the Turks. Much confusion and danger will result if we confound Turkish history and Arab history in that respect. As a matter of fact, there is a great safeguard for the future of minorities in Iraq. The principal minority, the Kurd minority, is much too numerous and vigorous ever to be oppressed by any other section in the territory. Indeed, one's sympathy should be extended towards the majority rather than towards the minority, because the relation is the same as that which exists between the Highlander and the Lowlander, familiar

        1797
        to us in other parts of the world. There is one other consideration if we are to consider the right attitude towards this very important question. I claim that we have a special obligation towards the protection of minorities in Iraq based upon our association as comrades in arms during the War, if for no other reason. We must maintain the interests of these communities in the most steadfast manner. But is there not this consideration always to be borne in mind? The Arab, the Kurd, the Assyrian Christian, the Yezidis, in Iraq have to live together. They have to shake down together and make out their own ways of life.
        I believe that no great difficulty is presented by the future. I believe that the intentions are those of perfect good will; that the Arabs recognise the necessity to them and to their economic interests of the mountaineers, and the mountaineers realise the necessity of the Arabs of the delta. There is nothing in the modern Arab mind which is jealous, antagonistic, oppressive, or tyrannical, towards other communities in the country. But, however that may be, the fact remains that they have to live together, and I am sure it will be agreed that nothing could be more dangerous to the interests of minorities than to teach them to try to rest their fortunes upon external interference. Surely in this community, as in all others, the minorities have to recognise that it is their Government as much as the Government of the majority and that they must bring their influence and knowledge into the common 'Stock, to exert their influence on their own Government, to work out their own salvation by common efforts in a joint state. The State in Iraq must be a joint State, and we must surely beware of any action, any attitude, any propaganda, which would have the effect of teaching the minorities in Iraq hostility towards the majority, or teaching them that it is better for them to get their ends by agitation abroad than by taking a healthy normal part in their own local government.
        To that extent, we can all cordially support the contention that there should be some definite pronouncement, at the outset of the Iraqi Government, of the conviction on the part of the majority of an obligation to "play the game" by the minorities. It would be a great
        1798
        error, in view of the admirable re-cord of the Arab Government, to expect any exceptional declaration from the Arab Government as regards its minorities—to impose upon the Arab Government any declaration of pronouncement unlike that expected from any other Government. That Government is entitled not to have such a claim or demand made upon it. On the other hand, in the interests of the future State, in the interest of the discharge of those obligations to which I have referred, and which are so strong, there is certainly nothing unnatural, nothing that should be wounding to the susceptibilities of the Arab Government, if, on the occasion of its admission into the League, there is accorded to it the privilege—because it is a privilege rather than an exaction—of making a declaration, such as has been made by other nations, recognising its special obligations to the minorities included in its territory.
        Precedents can be found and one would venture to urge that very careful search should be made, and that the precedents for a declaration of this sort in the original Mandates and Treaties, in the cases, for instance, of Poland, Rumania, Hungary and Czechoslovakia should be examined. There should be a careful reference to those precedents, in formulating any statement or any declaration which it is proposed that the Arab Government should make on its entry into the League. On such a basis as this it would appear that we can face in a spirit of cordial co-operation and good will our future relations with the State which has been for some years under our tutelage, and is now to embark upon the fuller and freer life to which it is entitled.
        9.0 p.m.
        Mr. HORRABIN: I am sure I shall express the feelings of many Members on this side if I say that we are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) for his very lucid exposition of the Iraq minorities' problem. I may be permitted to add that the right hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for the Yezidis almost made one wonder how far he himself had become a convert, because he mentioned that their general demeanour was "tranquil and dignified," and I can think of no words which more accurately

        1799
        describe the right hon. Gentleman himself. I do not rise, however, to continue the discussion on this problem, but to raise a general point which I think comes under the heading of this Vote and to make an appeal to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary upon it. It is a matter which affects vitally territories in various parts of the Empire, including some of those listed under this Vote. It is the general subject of indirect rule, and I wish to direct attention to one or two of its implications. I need hardly remind hon. Members of what is meant by the general method and principle of indirect rule, but I may be allowed to quote a couple of sentences from an authoritative work on the subject. The system of indirect rule in the British Colonies is described in these words:
        "Under this system the British administrator endeavours to govern the people committed to his charge not directly but through the medium of their own tribal or local institutions."
        The second sentence which I would quote is:
        "Every effort is made to train the native authority in executive responsibility and in sound principles of Government, and pro-pressively to extend its sphere."
        It is on those two definitions of indirect rule that I wish to make some remarks, and the particular point on which I appeal to my hon. Friend is that due care should Be exercised to see that indirect rule in all British territories fulfils those definitions, and is not any sort of camouflage for other and different ends. I refer, from memory, to a letter which I received recently from a missionary. I do so from memory because my hon. Friend has the letter in his possession at the moment, but be will correct me if I give a wrong impression of it. That missionary describes a meeting of a local native council at which no fewer than five European officials were present. The missionary makes a point that any freedom in the expression of views was obviously impossible at that council, in the presence of such an overpowering number of official representatives. In face of the definition which I have just read, it appears almost comic that a representative meeting of natives should be attended by five of the rulers and governors. The presence of so many
        1800
        at a single local native council indicates to the ordinary observer something very much more like direct rule than indirect rule.
        I take this opportunity of pleading with my hon. Friend that greater care should be exercised in this matter, and greater opportunities given for the growth and development of native institutions, even in new directions, than are sometimes accorded at present under the assumed name of indirect rule. I wish to ask him if it is possible to guarantee that this will be done in certain territories like Nyasaland and some other territories which are, I suppose, at the lower end of the scale of constitutional Government since by their constitutions their native councils have official chairmen. In those territories greater opportunities should be given to the natives to become articulate, to express themselves, and to develop even new and fresh institutions. There is an obvious danger otherwise that indirect rule, so far from being used as means of encouraging native growth and progress, will in actual practice be a means of definitely stabilising reaction by encouraging only the more conservative elements in native life, and will definitely be used as a means of checking the growth of any sort of new institutions and of new points of view among native people. We know that these dangers exist, because dissatisfaction with indirect rule in actual practice has reached these shores. I want to take this opportunity of urging on my hon. Friend that every encouragement should be given to realising in practice the declared and nominal aims of indirect rule, and that the sort of danger to which I have alluded should as far as possible, and to a greater extent than hitherto, be avoided.
        Captain WALLACE: Even the most bitter enemies of His Majesty's present advisers will hardly deny that the Government have had their fair share of troubles, both external and domestic, and it must be some satisfaction to them to feel to-night that we are discussing a subject into which large party controversy does not enter. The question of our relations with Iraq has involved us in the past in a certain amount of domestic agitation. Indeed, the difficulties which we encountered and the expenditure

        1801
        which we incurred in implementing the promises made to the Arabs during the War, were seized upon not many years ago by certain newspapers as a convenient stick with which to belabour Parliament in general, and the Conservative party in particular. Fortunately for us and for Iraq, that stick has some time since been discarded for other weapons, presumably more effective and up-to-date. I am sure therefore that the Under-Secretary for the Colonies will not be surprised to hear that the observations which I intend to address to him to-night are made in no captious or critical spirit, but simply because I and many of my hon. Friends would like to have some light and leading from him on certain aspects of the problem, which, if they are not faced in plenty of time, may contain the germs of future difficulties and embarrassments.
        We recognise in every quarter of the House the very remarkable progress which has been made by Iraq of recent years, and I should like to join my tribute to the many which have been paid to-night and on previous occasions to those British officers and officials whose ability, tact, and devotion to duty have made this progress possible. The very fact that Great Britain is about to sponsor the application of Iraq to enter the League of Nations is in itself a striking testimony to the capacity of those administrators, and no less indeed to the Arab statesmen who have shown themselves capable of assuming the responsibility for governing their own country so soon after it has become a nation. The Treaty concluded between Great Britain and Iraq, which is to come into force as soon as the latter is admitted a member of the League of Nations, contains a number of general provisions clearly to the advantage of both countries, with which nobody on any side of the Committee will desire to quarrel.
        The most important clause appears to me to deal with the future of our Air Force in Iraq. This is the first occasion upon which any mandatory Power has completed its task and is to lay down the mandate entrusted to it by the League of Nations. Such a relinquishment must therefore create an entirely novel situation, and we cannot expect to find well-established precedents for
        1802
        the measures which have to be taken to give effect to what is really a handing over of our stewardship. The Committee has been reminded by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir 8. Hoare) that we have the right to maintain forces in Iraq at Hinaidi and Mosul for five years from the entry into force of the Treaty, and subsequently for a further period of 20 years we can keep an air force at or about Basra and at some base to be selected by mutual agreement west of the Euphrates. It appears that the functions of this air force will be twofold. Firstly, they will be there to enable us to implement our obligations under Article 4 of the Treaty to come to the aid of Iraq in the capacity of an ally in the event of that country becoming engaged in war. Secondly, this force will be there to secure, in the words of the annexure to the Treaty:
        "the permanent maintenance and protection in all circumstances of the essential communications of His Britannic Majesty."
        Although it is clearly laid down in Article 5 that the responsibility for the maintenance of internal order rests upon the shoulders of the King of Iraq and his Government, it must not be forgotten that the British Air Force has played an absolutely vital part in the defence of Iraq, both against external aggression and internal unrest, and that air action has been proved to be not only much the most effective, but the most humane method of dealing with disturbances in certain localities which are only accessible to military forces, after long and vexatious delays, at a very considerably increased expenditure. Therefore, we must recognise that every member of any future Iraq Government will be perfectly well aware of the immense value of the British Air Force units which are to be stationed in their country. It may be that occasions will arise upon which the temptation to seek their very powerful aid will prove to be almost irresistible. It will be difficult to define precisely, in a country like Iraq, the line which separates external aggression from internal disorder. Certainly up in the frontiers, in the Mosul vilayet, this definition will be a matter of great uncertainty.
        Although Article 5 of the Treaty undoubtedly lays the responsility for the

        1803
        defence of the country from external aggression as well as internal disorder upon the shoulders of the King of Iraq, except in the event of a formal declaration of war, when we are bound to come to his assistance, it still appears to me as if there might well arise occasions upon which the aid of our Air Force units might be sought at very short notice. I think precisely the same situation was in the mind of my right hon. Friend who opened this Debate. Up to the present the responsibility for the use of these forces has always rested, and I think in. the view of everybody in the House very properly rested, not upon the Air Officer Commanding, but upon the shoulders of the British High Commissioner. The Air Officer Commanding has been absolved from the very fateful decision as to whether his forces are to be used, and been left only with the decision, perfectly proper to a senior service officer, as to how and when.
        After the Treaty comes into force the High Commissioner is to be replaced by an ordinary diplomatic representative, and although it is expressly laid down that the precedence which our High Commissioner in Bagdad enjoys over the representatives of other nations is to descend to his successor, it still leaves him vis-à-vis our military or air forces in a totally different position from the High Commissioner. I do not for one moment suppose that this vitally important question of the responsibility for ordering into action our air forces which are to be stationed in Iraq after the conclusion of this Treaty has been overlooked either in the Colonial Office or the Air Ministry. I have been lucky enough to have had a little experience of both those Departments, and I am perfectly certain that full consideration has been given to this point; but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he can do so without detriment to the public interest, to give us something rather more precise than is available to us in the Treaty as to the exact responsibility which will rest in future upon the Senior Air Officer in Iraq. In my view it is only fair that this responsibility should be more closely defined than it is at present, and I would like to
        1804
        associate myself with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea in saying that I think that the specific consent of His Majesty's Ambassador in Bagdad should be an essential condition precedent to the employment of any single one of our air units.
        The other matter upon which I wish to touch very briefly is one which has already been dealt with in so very adequate and interesting a fashion by my right hon. Friend who opened this Debate, and that is the question of minorities. Their numbers in relation to the population of Iraq are by no means negligible, and their services to the British cause in the War were by no means unimportant. In point of fact, they form the greater part of the population of the northern province of Iraq, the Mosul vilayet, that part which is most remote from the capital both in a geographical and in an ethnological sense. There is no doubt that we have very special responsibilities in regard to these minorities, the Kurds, the Assyrian Christians, the Chaldeans, and the Yezidis. We assumed these responsibilities when we accepted the mandate for Iraq, and even though it might be argued that the handing back of this mandate to the League of Nations absolves us from any further legal liability towards these minorities, most Members of the House will agree that a considerable moral obligation must remain.
        I would like to remind the Committee of the precise circumstances under which the Mosul vilayet came to be incorporated into Iraq at all. This province, in many respects the most valuable in the whole of Iraq, was claimed by Turkey. The British Government, as a good member of the League of Nations, referred the question to the League, and a commission was sent out by the League in 1925 to decide whether the Mosul vilayet should be handed over to Turkey or incorporated in the mandatory territory of Iraq. After a very careful survey of the whole situation the commission decided to give Mosul to Iraq, but on the distinct understanding that Great Britain was to hold the mandate for 25 years; and, therefore, if we are going to give up the mandate when only a quarter of that period has expired, I

        1805
        think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we have a peculiar and a special responsibility.
        Nothing whatever is said in the Treaty about minorities, and I fully appreciate the point which was made by the right hon. Gentleman in the Debate a year ago about doing nothing to offend the susceptibilities of the Iraq Government, but I am sure he will understand that those of us who have seen these minorities, and who take an interest in them, would like, if possible, some further information, and, indeed, if we could have it, some further assurances, as to the precise methods by which it is proposed to safeguard their interests in the future. Of course it is perfectly open to the hon. Gentleman to reply that the mandate is being handed back to the League of Nations, and that the League will look after the minorities in Iraq exactly as they have looked after minorities in other parts of the world, but I am certain he will agree with me that the history of minorities is by no means the happiest part of the history of the League of Nations. If the League have found it difficult to discharge these peculiar responsibilities in Eastern Europe, so much more difficult will they find it to discharge them properly in a remote part of Asia.
        Here, again, we come up against precisely the same difficulty in regard to the altered status of the senior British repre-presentative in Iraq. The High Commissioner, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, has at his disposal a number of very efficient subordinates, and, indeed, the whole paraphernalia of a proper intelligence service. I have a vivid recollection of Mr. Lloyd, the Civil Commissioner in Mosul in 1925. There was a man, a compatriot of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and I believe a constituent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea, who had an intimate knowledge of these minorities from constant personal contact. That knowledge was invariably at the disposal of the High Commissioner, and it was the sort of knowledge that even Sir Henry Dobbs, wonderful man that he was, could not possibly have, because he did not live entirely in Mosul. It is this point which seems to us to be very important—that our future Ambassador is
        1806
        going to be deprived of his intelligence service, and, indeed, to be deprived of the sort of eyes and feelers which are at present such a very essential part of the High Commissioner's equipment. I am, perfectly certain this point also has not escaped the notice of the Department, and I am only asking that the hon. Gentleman will on this question give us such assurance as he can.
        I hope, in conclusion, that nothing which I have said will be taken as any reflection either upon the bona fides or upon the capacity of those Arab statesmen who are soon to guide the destinies of Iraq as an independent nation. I should like to associate myself with the very fine appreciation of their difficulties which has been expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Seven-oaks (Sir H. Young). It is the sort of appreciation which could only be given by somebody who knows their difficulties and understands their aspirations from A to Z. I have attempted to raise these points to-night because they are the kind of difficulties which will disappear if we face up to them now but which, if we ignore them, may later on grow to alarming proportions. What I am really attempting to do is to ask the Under-Secretary to grasp the nettle—not, I assure him, in the hope that he will be stung, but because I believe that the nettle will behave as it is always supposed to do in the proverb.
        Mr. MANDER: In the interesting Debate we have had to-night, we are dealing with, perhaps, one of the most valuable things which arose out of the settlement at the close of the War, namely, the mandate system, when we got the new ideal admitted into the law of the world, that nations shall act as trustees for the inhabitants of countries of a low state of development, politically, with whom they may be associated. I am glad to think that in actual practice the British Empire has not had to alter to any very considerable extent, or perhaps not at all, the long practice which we have adopted, but that certainly has not been the fact as regards certain other nations who have set up a very much higher standard of administration than existed before. I agree with the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare), when he said it might have been better if the Treaty

        1807
        had been brought before this House before ratification, because, after all, that is the declared policy of the present Government. I can only think that there is one rule for the Foreign Office and another for the Colonial Office. I must say, from the experience of the last few years, I have taken the view that the Foreign Office way of dealing with matters is a very much more happy one, on the whole, than that adopted by the Colonial Office. I hope that if any treaties of this kind are signed in future they will be brought to this House for ratification in accordance with the declared policy of the Government. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able to say why that practice has not been followed in this case.
        We are dealing with an entirely new situation which has not arisen before, because there has been no case of a mandatory country surrendering the mandate back to the League. Whatever is done now will set a precedent for the future, and I think the situation from every point of view requires very close consideration and investigation, particularly as regards the minorities. I quite agree with the idea that it is not for this country to make statements, promulgate policies and carry on a great agitation for the protection of minorities in Iraq. That is the duty of the Council of the League. We should leave that to them in the main, exercising on the Council such influence as we have. I can see that the Iraq Government is naturally very sensitive on matters of this kind, and it would be better to leave the question entirely to the Council, advised, as they are sure to be by the Mandates Commission which has recently been considering the very problems that will arise when a mandatory State surrenders its charge. Some very definite proposal ought to be put forward by the Council before Iraq is admitted to the League, because however good the record of the Arabs may be—and I have no doubt it is all that we have been told to-night—they are being asked to shoulder a task of enormous difficulty in the proper care and satisfaction of the minorities within their borders.
        There are States with a very much higher degree of political development and with very much longer experience than Iraq, and very close to the shores
        1808
        of this country, who have not succeeded in dealing with their minorities in a way that has given satisfaction either to the minorities or to the public opinion of the world. In fact, it may be said that there are only two countries that have really succeeded—the British Empire and Switzerland. I do not think Iraq need feel that any undue safeguarding measures are being taken if such steps are adopted as are possible for seeing that proper protection is given to the minorities there. When it is suggested that the Arabs have such a very good record—which I do not challenge for a moment—one cannot help asking, would it really be suggested that the Arabs should be entrusted with looking after minorities, let us say, in Palestine at present? The consideration of that problem only snows the very great difficulties that will be presented to Iraq in their new task. We have been told that the Treaty having been ratified, nothing further can be done as regards that. I must say I do not think the Treaty is in all respects a very happy one, because, in the first place, I do not think the idea of having an alliance between one country and another, between this country and Iraq, is really consistent with the purest League doctrine.
        We objected strongly to the policy that has been adopted by France and other countries in Europe in having alliances with Little Entente countries, with Poland and countries of that kind. I think exactly the same objection on an entirely different range applies in this case, because any country that is a member of the League of Nations, as Iraq in due course will be, is entitled to look not simply to Great Britain, but for the fullest support of every one of the 55 members of the League, as the number will then be. I cannot help thinking it would have been very much sounder international law, and in accordance with the practice of the present day, if exactly the same duties that we shall be carrying out in future in accordance with the Treaty were carried out by us as an agent acting on behalf of the League of Nations. If, under Article IV of the Treaty, we were called upon to resist outside aggression, we should do it not in virtue of the Treaty, but in virtue of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

        1809
        If any possibility arises in future, I hope the Government will consider if it is not possible to incorporate something on those lines. I agree with the doubts and anxieties expressed here to-night regarding the future use of the Royal Air Force in Iraq. It is difficult to see how the responsible authorities are to find out what is going on in the remote parts of the country, and how far any demand that may be put up to them may be justified. Sir Henry Dobbs, the very distinguished late High Commissioner, has expressed that view, and has expressed disapproval of the position in which the Air Force will be placed. I hope the Under-Secretary, when he replies, will be able to satisfy the views that have been expressed by every Member who has spoken on that most difficult point.
        The main point that I want to put before the Committee is one which has not been expressed so far in the Debate, and that is the actual steps that might be taken to deal with minorities for their protection at the end of the Mandate when Iraq comes into the League. I am not asking the Government to push this policy. I am asking them to support it in so far as we are represented on the League, and to accede to it in so far as we have any influence with Iraq. I think it would be a wise course for the Council of the League to arrange, by agreement, that there should be in Iraq in future a representative of the League of Nations to act as a sort of conciliation officer to whom the minorities could bring their difficulties and their troubles. I believe that this would have the effect of allaying a great deal of unrest and anxiety in that country and the minorities would feel that they were not dealing with some remote body situated at Geneva. They would feel that they would be able to deal with someone on the spot, a friendly person who would be able to use his influence as representing the League to allay any trouble that might arise.
        It has always been found, in practice, that where this policy has been adopted far better results have been obtained for the protection of minorities. When the appeal is only to the League direct very little satisfaction is obtained. In Upper Silesia arrangements were made for a permanent representative, and a great many petitions were attended to and it
        1810
        was not found necessary to send them to Geneva at all. I suggest that some proposal of that kind might be adopted, not in order to watch the Iraq Government, or to spy upon them, but to support them in the extremely difficult task which has been imposed upon them. It is rather interesting and important to note that this very proposal was one put forward by the League Commission of Inquiry which reported in 1925 and I would like to quote one paragraph which is relevant to the situation which we are now discussing. It is as follows:
        "The status of minorities would necessarily have to be adapted to the special conditions of the country; we think, however, that the arrangements made for the benefit of minorities might remain a dead letter if no effective supervision were exercised locally. A League of Nations representative on the spot might be entrusted with this supervision."
        When the League Council came to deal with that matter they did not think it necessary to adopt a proposal of that kind. The situation is different now and much more difficult, but I think there is still a very strong case for a proposal of that sort. I understand that already the pressure is relaxing, and the mere suggestion that Great Britain is going to withdraw is having an unhappy effect on the position of minorities in certain parts of Iraq. I understand that such a proposal was recently submitted and then withdrawn by the League of Nations Union. This matter has become well known through correspondence in "The Times," and what has been suggested is very much on the lines of the proposal which I have quoted from the Commission of Inquiry in 1925. I hope that before Iraq or any other country is admitted to the high privilege and responsibility of membership of the League of Nations it will be laid down that there shall be put into force guarantees for fair play in regard to the minorities, and I hope those guarantees will be carried out in the daily lives of the minorities resident within the borders of Iraq.
        Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: I hope the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when he replies will give us unreservedly an assurance that the British forces to be retained in Iraq will remain under British control. The position of the minorities may depend very largely upon the British Air Force. I was struck by the speech of the right

        1811
        hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) when he was dealing with the control of our force in Iraq, and I hope the Under-Secretary when he speaks will give us an assurance that that force will remain under British control. That is a point of the greatest importance at the present time, especially in reference to India. We have had recently published the report of this country to the League of Nations at Geneva on the progress of Iraq during the last decade, and we have no reason to be ashamed of that report. The only doubt is whether it is not a little too optimistic in its conclusion. The work of Sir Percy Cox in that country is a very important object lesson at the present time, because he is a man who sees clearly and governs firmly the Eastern races. I think one must pay tribute to Sir Percy Cox for the good work which he has done in Iraq. There is no doubt that there is considerable apprehension among the minorities in Iraq with regard to our withdrawal, and I should be glad if the Under-Secretary will give us some assurances on those points.
        I hope that the assurances given to the Kurds with regard to the use of their language and to teaching in schools and with regard to the appointment of officials of Kurd nationality will be carried out. I should also like a statement that the assurances which have been given to the Assyrians are being carried out. With reference to other small minorities, I should like a similar assurance. They are not particularly small minorities, because the total population of 3,000,000 includes 75,000 Christians and 89,000 Jews. In this connection, I would like to quote Article 13 of the Iraq Constitution, which reads as follows:
        "Islam is the official religion of the State. Freedom to practise the rights of the different sects of that religion, as observed in Iraq, is guaranteed. Complete freedom of conscience and freedom to practise the various forms of warship, in conformity with accepted customs, is guaranteed to all inhabitants of the country, provided that such forms of worship do not conflict with the maintenance of order and discipline or public morality."
        One would be glad to have an assurance from the Under-Secretary with regard to the control of the British forces in Iraq
        1812
        and that the terms of the agreement with the Kurds and Assyrians and other minorities are being carried out.
        Dr. BURGIN: The expression "East of Suez' used to convey the Orient proper, far away; but the growth of aircraft of recent years now means that Iraq can be reached in a very few days from London. I think that, if anything, the discussion that we have had to-night has underestimated the importance of the whole problem of Iraq. I can conceive of few countries in the East which are destined, in my humble judgment, to play so important a role as the country we are now discussing. When you consider the way in which Iraq stretches to the North, almost to the region of the Caspian Sea; when you consider its proximity to India on the East; and when you consider what lies between Iraq and Suez on the West, you have a situation which, from all points of view connected with the League of Nations—such as international transit, communications with countries far beyond, aircraft, minorities—in regard to all these points Iraq is really an international centre of international law in the making such as can rarely be found on the surface of the globe.
        That makes this whole subject one of very great importance. When we are discussing minorities in Iraq—and we are all very grateful for the picturesque details of the minorities that were given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) in his opening speech—we must focus our attention on a rather wider horizon. As has been said already, we have very much the same problems with the Kurds in Persia and in Turkey proper, and, broadly speaking, in all those countries east of the Suez Canal, right up to the frontier of Afghanistan, we have substantially the same problem. In Iraq, which is now about to be linked by various great public works of enormous importance with the Mediterranean Sea, in Transjordania, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria and Arabia, we have this same problem of an enormous number of different races, with different languages and different customs, all in some geographical unit under some more or less recognised majority rule. I am pleading, not in any way for diminishing the importance of the minority problem in Iraq, but for seeing that, when it is

        1813
        brought before the League of Nations at the moment of the entry of Iraq into the League, which we hope will occur, some opportunity may be afforded for a review of these native problems on a rather larger scale, because it will be a pity if a great deal of attention is focused on the Kurds, Assyrians and Yezidis on the Iraq border, when portions of these same tribes and races flow over into other territorial areas.
        I think we might well, as the Mandatory Power, with a peculiar knowledge of the hopes of these peoples, take the opportunity, when the matter comes up at Geneva, of trying to set something in motion on rather a broader scale. The fight hon. Gentleman the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Hilton Young) mentioned some of the difficulties that British officials in Iraq have experienced, and some of the difficulties which the infant Iraq State will also experience. He mentioned that it was a fragment of the old Empire of Turkey, and, that of course, is profoundly true, but we must push the argument still further. It is a fragment of the old Turkish Empire, And the greater part of the Turkish Empire, since the fragment split off from it, has undergone a complete change. Modern Turkey and old Turkey are not recognisable.
        That brings me to the point that one of the difficulties of all our British civil servants working in Iraq at the present time is the complete uncertainty as to the legal system in Iraq. There is hardly any code of law to which any definite reference can be made, because there is no longer the old Turkish law, which admittedly has passed;, and no new Constitution or new law has been introduced. I can assure the Under-Secretary that the position of a British servant in Iraq at the present time, in the event of any conflict with his Department or of any conflict with higher authority, is one of extreme difficulty, because of the utter uncertainty of the extent of the law.
        I merely wish to plead that, in the attitude of Great Britain towards Iraq, the greatest consideration will be given to the enormous possibilities of this State in the future. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sevenoaks said that the whole of the revenue of Iraq appeared to him to come from rather cheap grain, but there is another commodity from
        1814
        which a great deal of revenue is likely to come. I refer, of course, to oil, and that subject has hardly been touched upon in this Debate. I do not wish to introduce any controversial note. I think that the importance of Iraq cannot be over-estimated, and I ask Great Britain, in the remaining short period of her mandatory powers, to be wise and generous in helping this coming country, and, when she applies for membership of the League of Nations, to try to put the whole thing on a very broad scale—to think of the possibility, not only of one Suez Canal, but of some international transit entry from the Mediterranean to Mosul in the North and Bagdad in the South being possibly a matter in which many States may wish to have a hand.
        Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I should not have intervened had not the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) said one or two things upon which I think it behoves someone else to say something from this bench before the Under-Secretary replies on behalf of the Government. The hon. Member prefaced his speech by praise of the mandatory system. I am entirely in agreement with him in so far as it affects Africa, but from the very beginning the mandatory system in Iraq has been resented by the Iraqis, as putting them, they say, in somewhat the same category as the African peoples, and they have sought from the very first to minimise the mandatory system and all the consequences of the system in so far as they are concerned. Consequently, Great Britain induced the League to accept a direct treaty between Iraq and ourselves in lieu of a Mandate, and we have acted upon that and there never has been a Mandate for Iraq. I think that that ought to be made perfectly clear before we approach this question of minorities at the moment when Iraq is applying for membership of the League as an independent State member.
        I am sure that nothing will be gained in Iraq, either for the minorities or for the smooth working of the Constitution, if too much emphasis is laid upon what the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton later in his speech called the purest League doctrine. The truth is that the purest League doctrine does not go down in Iraq. I always had the greatest difficulty in persuading ail the delegations

        1815
        that I ever met of statesmen from Iraq of all creeds, to pay any attention whatever to the League of Nations. They said that they wanted to deal with the British Government; that they wanted an alliance and nothing else; that they did not want League of Nations Commissions or international bodies of that kind, but that they wanted a perfectly straight arrangement with the British Government; and that has always been the attitude that they have taken. I think it is only fair to all concerned that that should be made clear in dealing with these matters.
        The specific suggestion of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton was that the right way to secure the protection of minorities is that the British Government should wash its hands of the question, that we should not look to any declaration by the Iraq Government in regard to these minorities, but that we should trust to the Council of the League of Nations, and that the Council of the League of Nations, acting, apparently, directly, should be responsible for the minorities in Iraq; and he further recommended that the League should appoint its own agent, as it were, in Iraq, to look after the interests of the minorities. May I say at once that, in my personal view, that idea is, quite frankly, a bad one. I do not think that that is the best method by which the League of Nations could assist the minorities in Iraq. I fear that if you had a League representative permanently in an Oriental country like that, he would merely become the focus for complaints against the Government of that country. Anyone who has followed the work of the League of Nations for long knows what a difficulty the whole question of minorities has proved in Eastern Europe and in all countries where that idea is augmented or encouraged. Minorities have their rights, but so have majorities. The great thing is to minimise the causes of complaint. After all, it is a question of autonomy and protection and the give and take of government, which the intervention of a third party at every stage really prevents being settled. I hope that the British Government, in response to the representation of the Liberal party, will not here and now commit themselves to this particular form of machinery for protecting minorities.
        1816
        Now as to what I personally regard as all-important. I believe that the Iraq Government will not only long have a sense of gratitude to the British Government for all that has been done during the 12 or more past years, but that if the Treaty is accepted and worked with good will on both sides, that will be probably the best means of ensuring that the British representative in Bagdad will be welcomed by the Iraq Government as the best person with whom the difficulties that might arise in connection with the minorities can be discussed frankly and freely, and that the minorities, who have in the last few years looked to us and to British officers there, will still feel, though the formal situation may be changed, that the presence of a British force there, and the like, is some moral security for them. I agree that it is no use leaving it too vague, from the point of view of how the actual voting may go at the Assembly of the League. When Iraq comes to be considered for membership of the League we shall support Iraq and have declared our intention to do so. But we cannot guarantee Iraq's entry. That requires the vote of two-thirds of the members of the Assembly. These things will have to be cleared up, and I am sure that the British Government when it sponsors and supports Iraq's application, has everything to gain by complete frankness, and by explicit faith in what the British Government is or is not prepared to do in future, both in regard to the use of this force, as to the diplomatic powers which will be used, and as to how far Great Britain will do what she can to secure the position of those minorities, particularly the minorities who have a right, in view of past services from the British Government, to look to us for future interest and support.
        10.0 p.m.
        There was another point raised by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton. It is, of course, incorrect to suggest that this House should ratify the Treaty. I do not think that has ever been done. The Crown ratifies a Treaty. It is the increasing practice, not only of the Foreign Office but of the Colonial Office— it certainly was the practice of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery)—that when a new Treaty is negotiated and signed, ratification by the Crown shall not take place until there

        1817
        has been a discussion in Parliament, and until the representative of the Colonial Office or the Foreign Office here has informed Parliament that that discussion will be taken by the Government as expressing the approval of the House. That is the true doctrine of ratification, and I should not like to go by default the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton that there is any distinction in practice between successive Governments or between different Departments as to the proper constitutional doctrine, which has now been carried out by all parties and by successive Governments and all Departments.
        Mr. MANDER: Not in this case.
        Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Not in this case. I ask the Under-Secretary of State to tell us quite specifically something of what has been going on at the recent meeting of the Permanent Mandates Commission in regard to Iraq. One gathers from the newspapers that the Permanent Mandates Commission have been invited to advise the Council of the League of Nations on certain matters in connection with Iraq, with an eye to the future. The Committee ought to be informed what representations have been made by the accredited representatives of the Government of the United Kingdom to the Permanent Mandates Commission in that connection. In fact a little more light should be thrown upon the doings of the Colonial Office at this moment, in regard to the action and the discussions before the Permanent Mandates Commission at Geneva on this Iraq question. I hope that the hon. Gentleman in his reply will allude to that, as well as to the two major points which the Opposition desire to raise, namely, precisely what His Majesty's Government are doing in regard to the minorities, and particularly the Christian minorities; and secondly, what representations they are making to the Iraq Government; and would the hon. Gentleman make abundantly clear what will be the future position under the new Treaty of the British Air Force, and what will be its use?
        The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): I am sure that the Committee has listened with interest and appreciation to the various speeches which have
        1818
        been made on this subject of the Iraq minorities and other cognate matters. I appreciate very much the spirit of the speeches and the obvious desire in all quarters to be helpful. Just about a year ago the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) brought this matter before us, and it is only natural and proper that he and other right hon. and hon. Members should wish to afford the House another opportunity of learning something of the matter as it stands now. Some complaint was made by the right hon. Gentleman, and also by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), in regard to discussion before ratification, but the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken gave a very proper account of the normal procedure in these matters, and I think it will be found that that has been observed in this case.
        Sir S. HOARE: We have not had a Debate.
        Dr. SHIELS: The Treaty was signed in June last year and soon afterwards presented to the House. We had a discussion in July, which the right Hon. Gentleman himself initiated, and the treaty was not ratified until January of this year. Had there been in that interval any obvious desire for another discussion, I am sure it would have been given. But I am glad, at any rate, that as in the discussion last year satisfaction has been expressed that development in Iraq has proceeded to such an extent as to justify His Majesty's Government in proposing that a date should now be fixed for the termination of the mandatory relations between them and Iraq. It is a result which should be, and is, a matter of pride and satisfaction to us, and I was glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea paid a tribute to our civil and military administrators, who have been so successful, not only as regards their own achievements, but also in their ability to win the co-operation of the Iraq Government and people.
        The main subject of discussion to-night has been the question of minorities in Iraq and the probable position after the mandatory connection has terminated, and I agree that the subject is a very important one. Its importance has been realised by His Majesty's Government

        1819
        and by the Iraq Government, and the position taken up by His Majesty's Government, in concluding the Treaty and in recommending Iraq for admission to the League of Nations, was taken after a full and careful consideration of the possibilities and the apprehensions, some of which have been expressed here to-night. I would like to say a word or two to supplement the references to minorities which have been made by the various speakers.
        The Kurds are the largest of the minorities in Iraq, and, as has been pointed out, as a race they are split up between Turkey, Persia, Iraq, and Syria, and out of a total of about 3,000,000, about 500,000 are in Iraq. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea made a comparison between the Kurds and the Scottish Highlanders. I was not quite clear whether he was complimenting the Kurds or the Highlanders, but I hope it was a compliment to both. At any rate, he was quite true in suggesting that they have certain characteristics of our Scottish forefathers which make them a little difficult at times. The Iraq Government and the British High Commissioner have taken a considerable interest in the position and conditions of this important minority, and the Permanent Mandates Commission, to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred, has also interested itself and has taken note from year to year of the reports as to the various measures taken for their advantage and to satisfy their natural and proper aspirations.
        The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) asked something about what had been done to carry out the proposals which had been suggested for the benefit of the Kurds. The most important of these, I think, was one to which he referred, namely, the local language law, and the position in regard to that is that it has been applied in a number of districts, and a further application is likely to take place in a comparatively short time. The real, practical difficulty there was the surprising number of different dialects. It was very difficult to decide which of these dialects was the proper Kurdish language, and, after discussion and consultation with the
        1820
        heads of the Kurdish community, the difficulty was eventually solved by providing that the form of Kurdish to be employed should be that at present in use in the majority of the districts, and that in certain others the inhabitants should choose, within the period of one year, the form of Kurdish they desired. So they have an interesting problem in front of them. This decision has, I understand, given considerable satisfaction to the Kurds, as it is now laid down by an Act of the Iraq Parliament that the Kurdish language shall be used in the law courts and in the schools and will indeed practically become the official language of Kurdestan.
        Then the hon. Member also referred to the question of the officials. The idea is that as many as possible of the officials should be Kurds and that those who are not actually Kurds should at any rate be able to speak the Kurdish language. Somebody has referred to the fact that educationally the Kurds are not very far advanced, and that certainly makes a difficulty in finding sufficient qualified people to fill these official posts. Steps are now being taken to find as many Kurdish officials as possible and to see that the others are familiar with the language. I would like to say that during the months of April and May of this year the British High Commissioner, Sir Francis Humphrys, paid five separate visits to a large number of towns and villages in the Kurdish districts and interviewed in private nearly all the leading Kurds. He was able to confer with them in regard to the future and to hear what they regarded as their reasonable demands, and he found a unanimous desire among all responsible Kurds for more educational facilities. They are clearly awakening to the fact that unless they can speed up their own educational development, they will in a few years, in spite of any statutory safeguards which may be provided, drop into the position of a backward and ignorant minority.
        The High Commissioner was satisfied that the Kurds have few specific grievances to urge against the Iraq Government, but he thought that a better understanding was required between the two peoples. Efforts to bring this about have been made by the recent tour of Ministers and notably by King Feisal in the

        1821
        northern districts, and there is every reason to believe that the Kurds have been increasingly realising the good will of the Iraq Government and people and their desire to have the Kurds as a contented constituent of the Iraq nation.
        I was very glad indeed to hear the remarks of the right hon. Memebr for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young), and I entirely agree with what he suggested as the best way of dealing with minorities, if it is possible. But it is not always possible. The beet way is not to isolate and segregate them in the midst of the community, but to try to make them part of the community, preserving their customs and language, but enabling them to give their contribution to the commonweal, which is better for the whole country and better for them. I hope that is a position which the Kurds will increasingly find themselves willing to take in Iraq, and I think the signs are promising in that direction.
        The Assyrians are the other large minority in Iraq. I am not sure whether all Members who have spoken have had a copy of the special ten years' report which has been issued on Iraq for the Council of the League of Nations. There are some very interesting chapters on the whole question of minorities, and especially interesting in regard to the Assyrians. It gives much more detail than I am able to give to-night. Many Members have pointed out the Assyrians are a very interesting people to whom we are under some special obligations. They number about 40,000, of whom only about 10,000 can be said to be natives of Iraq, the remainder having become refugees during and after the Great War. There are often associated with them, though they have not been much referred to tonight, the Chaldeans, another body of Christians about the same in number. They have lived mainly in and around Mosul and Bagdad for six or seven centuries. It is interesting to mention that for this reason. They are a Christian community in the midst of this great Moslem area. That in itself is one of the best answers to the apprehensions which some feel, because there is undoubtedly in this territory a toleration of different races and religions which is found in no other part of the East. Moslems, Christians and Jews have lived together there peaceably for centuries.
        1822
        [Interruption.] I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that the best authorities on this subject agree with what I have just said. I was glad indeed that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sevenoaks emphasised that the Arab community in these territories has been known for tolerance. It is a point which we would do well to keep in mind as it is one of great reassurance.
        I do not think it is necessary to deal with the history of the Assyrians since the War. One of the main difficulties was settlement. Many of them were not natives of Iraq. They came as refugees into Iraq. There was plenty of land available for them in the plains, but they were accustomed to living in the mountains and refused the plains, and the question of finding suitable areas for them has been one of great concern. They have now been settled in the Mosul district and at the end of 1930 it was said that about 1,500 individuals still remained to be settled, their present places of abode being unsuitable. The Iraq Government has gone to considerable trouble and has granted special exemption from taxation in consideration of their developing and tilling their lands. The Acting High Commissioner reported in 1930 that the Assyrians were a little difficult. With all our love for them for various reasons, we must admit that in many instances minorities are a little difficult at times. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I knew that that would be appreciated. At any rate, great efforts have been made to meet the claims of the Assyrians. The attitude of the Turkish Government—I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sevenoaks made some reference to this—towards the Assyrians has throughout greatly complicated the Assyrian problem. The Assyrians fought against the Turks in the War, and not only has the Turkish Government denied the Assyrians access to their former homes which are now in Turkish territory, but they have constantly resisted the establishment of Assyrian settlements near the Turkish frontier, and have demanded the disarmament of all Assyrians and their removal from the frontier zone. Here, again, I say that the Assyrians will best serve their own interest by resolving to become good citizens of Iraq, keeping their own religion and culture, but giving

        1823
        their special contribution to the welfare of the whole country.
        There is little doubt that certain influences have been at work to make trouble between the Assyrians and the Kurds. In regard to the whole problem of the grievances of the Assyrians, however, it must be emphasised how great the difficulty has been in acquiring land suitable for their needs. In the opinion of the High Commissioner of Iraq the Assyrians have, apart from the settlement question, little cause now for complaint. The Patriarch, who, in spite of his title, is only 22 years of age, has a hankering after some autonomous system for his community, but it is very doubtful if that wish is shared by any but a small section of his people. The Council of the League of Nations did not favour an autonomous arrangement for the Kurds, and I should think it was not likely that they would look with favour upon a similar suggestion for the Assyrians.
        The Jews are another minority community who have not been mentioned tonight, but there is rather an interesting point about them which I should like to mention to support the case I am putting to the Committee. They are a minority of about 88,000, and they are spread all over the country. They appear to be contented and happy, and are fully recognised by the Arabs and general population wherever they live. I think it is of some significance that, whereas in countries where the Jews are badly treated there is a great desire to go to Palestine, there has been no evidence at all of any desire among the Jews of Iraq to go from Iraq to Palestine. That is another illustration of the obvious tolerance of the Iraq people.
        The Yezidis are the other minority. They number 25,000 and are commonly described as devil worshippers. I was much interested to hear the right hon. Member for Chelsea refer to the fact that he and the right hon. Member for Spark-brook (Mr. Amery) had established actual contact with this community. I have not had that privilege, and I was interested to gather from the description given by the right hon. Gentleman that ho regarded them as good Conservatives. Up to the present they have not been a great source of trouble or of difficulty to the
        1824
        central government, though there has been a little trouble among them because of the behaviour of their spiritual head, whose conduct has been such as to cause dissentions among his followers. That appears to have been since the visit of the right hon. Gentlemen!
        The broad consideration which I understand is in the minds of hon. and right hon. Members is whether the relationship between the Iraq Government and the Iraq people and the minorities in the country have been such as to give reasonable assurance that when Iraq becomes an independent country the minorities will not suffer. I do not suggest that the minorities in Iraq are in all respects in a satisfactory condition, or that their lot could not be considerably improved. I have no doubt that the same could be said of the majority of the Arab inhabitants of the country. Iraq is supposed to be the site of the Garden of Eden, but there have been many changes since those early days and there are many natural, geographical and economic factors which make life difficult for many and which call out the full resources of the Government. I was very glad to hear that point well brought out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sevenoaks. There are many things which the Iraq Government will require to do for the benefit both of the majority and the minorities as the country advances along the lines on which it has so well begun. "We are advised, however, that the Iraq Government have their Arab people behind them in their desire to make a free and independent Iraq nation, where majority and minorities alike will contribute to the common weal and have equal rights of nationality and citizenship.
        What, then, is to be the position in future as regards the Treaty and the League of Nations? The late Government, in July, 1927, authorised the High Commissioner to tell the Iraq Government that His Majesty's Government would be prepared to propose Iraq for membership of the League of Nations in 1932, provided that the then rate of progress was maintained and that all went well in the interval. Our position simply is that, the condition having been fulfilled, we are now carrying out the bond of the late Government. The declaration emphasised the fact that Iraq is in

        1825
        a different position from other mandated territories, a point brought out by the right hon. Member for Stafford. It was always recognised that Iraq might soon be expected to be able to stand alone, and the relations with other countries have been regulated by successive Treaties with the Iraq Government, the first being signed in 1922. That Treaty anticipated the late Government's declaration, because it contained an Article under which His Majesty's Government undertook to use their good offices to secure the admission of Iraq to membership of the League of Nations as soon as possible. That policy was reaffirmed in 1926 and again in 1929, and has been implemented by the Treaty of 1930, under which His Majesty's Government are obliged to recommend Iraq for admission to the League in 1932, with the automatic involvement of the termination of the Mandate.
        It is true that there is nothing in the Treaty about minorities. It was considered that any such mention would be out of place in a Treaty between two independent States. In a previous Debate I stated that any assurances which Iraq would have to give with regard to the treatment of minorities would be formulated by and given to the League of Nations. This procedure has already been carried out in the case of other countries like Rumania and Albania. I had thought of quoting something from the guarantees given by Albania in this connection; they are very interesting, but in view of the lack of time I do not propose to read them now. The assurances given are as to the treatment of the various races and religions and the kind of commitments that one would expect in cases of this kind. While it is not my province to advise what the League of Nations should or should not do, I trust, at any rate, that the guarantees in one of the existing models will be found suitable for the case of Iraq. I have no reason to suppose that Iraq would hesitate to undertake such international obligations to safeguard the rights of minorities in her territory. The Permanent Mandates Commission of the League is familiar with the details of the whole position in Iraq, and I shall be surprised if ways and means are not found of dealing with this minorities question without suggesting
        1826
        doubt as to Iraq's good faith or as to her ability to carry out her sincere intentions. Father Walsh, Vice-President of the Georgetown University of the United States, who recently visited the minority districts of Iraq, has stated that he could discover no evidence tending to lessen his faith in the good intentions of the Iraq Government towards the Assyrian and other minorities.
        Statements are frequently made and it was partly suggested to-night that the Christian in a Moslem country is at a disadvantage in that the courts only apply Moslem law. This is not true in Iraq, and it is considered that the judicial system now established sufficiently safeguards all sections of the community. In the Iraq constitution provisions exist for complete freedom of conscience, the establishment of schools where the various communities can instruct pupils in their own language, for equality of status in every respect, and for the maintenance of the whole Ottoman regime of spiritual council to deal with matters as to personal status amongst Jews and Christians. The right hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) has already dealt with the suggestion of a Special Commissioner made by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton and I must say that I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said. Although it was well-meant it is not really in the true interests of minorities. It would only breed suspicion between the central Government and minorities and would tend to keep alive the minority question. That is a point of some consideration.
        Sometimes one has to adopt methods in dealing with minorities which one does not wish to take, but undoubtedly it is desirable, if possible, that minorities should become part of the general community, and should look towards the central Government itself for the protection and sympathy which they require. There will always be a tendency for disgruntled persons to retard minorities settling down as part of the general population. The Copts in Egypt who are Christians in a Moslem territory with nobody specially looking after them have equality of treatment.
        There is one reason which has not been mentioned to-night which has influenced

        1827
        me personally very much in regard to this question of minorities, and that is the expressed belief of our High Commissioner, Sir Francis Humphrys, that we could safely proceed with the step which has been proposed. Those who know our High Commissioner in Iraq will appreciate the fact that we attach weight to his view.
        There are other matters upon which I would like to have spoken but the time is growing short, and I wish to leave a few minutes for the next speaker. I think it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea who asked about the officials, and in that connection I would like to echo the tribute which has been paid to the officials, both civil and military, in Iraq who have produced the result which is the occasion of our Debate to-night. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that it was important that we should see that the interests of these officials did not suffer as a result of this change. I would like to say in regard to that matter, that these officials are employed on definite contracts approved by the Secretary of State for the Colonies and it is stated in Note III annexed to the treaty, that nothing in the treaty shall affect the validity of the contracts concluded and in existence between the Iraq Government and British officials. I share the right hon. Gentleman's hope that there will be no difficulty in the way of carrying out this agreement.
        I must now pass on to the question of the use of the British forces which was the other main point raised, although I do not propose to deal with it at length. It was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea, and also by the hon. and gallant Member for Hornsey (Captain Wallace) in a very interesting speech. It has been suggested that the effect of the treaty of 1930 will be to place the use of the British troops at the disposal of the Iraq Government for the purpose of putting down internal disturbances. That is not correct. Article 5 of the treaty, as has been pointed out, lays down that the responsibility for the maintenance of internal order rests with Iraq alone. British forces will be stationed in Iraq for the purpose of facilitating the discharge of obligations under the treaty of alliance
        1828
        and for the maintenance of communications, but there can be no question of their employment without the consent of His Majesty's Government through our own Ambassador at Bagdad.
        A situation where the British Ambassador will not be able to keep himself acquainted with current events has been suggested as likely to arise, as a result of the change and the loss of the intelligence staff and so on. But such a situation is one which I do not think we need contemplate. I can assure the Committee that the British Ambassador will not act without reliable information, and, I may say further, that the steps to be taken in various circumstances which may arise are now being carefully considered. We realise the necessity of clear knowledge of all that is involved.
        Sir S. HOARE: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how the British representative is going to obtain his information? It is upon that that the whole position depends.
        Dr. SHIELS: There will be a number of officials of different kinds. A long dispatch has recently been received from the High Commissioner on this subject going very comprehensively into it all. That is now being examined by the proper authorities, so I would like to assure the right hon. Gentleman and others that the matter has been before us, and. is by no means being lost sight of. Every point which has been made to-night will certainly be taken into account. There is no doubt, of course, that situations may arise of some delicacy and complexity in the future, as they have done in the past, but there is no reason to suppose that they will not be satisfactorily settled in the spirit of mutual goodwill and confidence which may be supposed to exist between friends and allies.
        I hope that I have been able to show a proper appreciation of all the points which have been raised, and to give satisfactory assurances on matters on which some Members may have had doubts. I am anxious that the Iraq Government which has its own special difficulties and problems, but whose numbers are eager for the opportunity to justify their country as a nation in the eyes of the world, should) feel that our cordial

        1829
        goodwill goes with them in their quest to the League of Nations. We have no intention of taking away with our left hand what we give with our right. We are prepared to trust the Iraq Government, and we look forward in the new relations to a strengthening of the already strong bonds of friendship which bind our peoples.
        Mr. AMERY: I have listened with the keenest interest, indeed with rather an intimate personal interest, to the course of the Debate, because I cannot help recalling other Debates on the Iraq question which took place five or six years ago. It was my privilege on those occasions to defend before this House the policy that I had already defended on behalf of the Government before the League of Nations—I mean the policy of vindicating for Iraq her rightful and subsequently admitted, claim to her territories, and to undertake, in order to secure the recognition of that claim from the League of Nations, the responsibilities involved in the Treaties of 1926, and in our declaration to the League that we were prepared to continue our quasi-mandatory responsibility for Iraq until Iraq was ready to enter the League of Nations, or, if necessary, for 25 years. In those days that policy was not viewed with great approval in many quarters of this House. It was not a Garden of Eden for which the hon. Gentleman's friends thought we were making ourselves responsible. On the contrary, the picture they drew of the responsibilities and risks which we were incurring was a very terrible one.
        I ventured to refresh my memory just before this Debate by looking at what was said by responsible Members of the Front Bench opposite of the risks we were running. The Prime Minister described that Treaty, the Treaty of 1926, as "the beginning of endless troubles for this country" and as an act of sheer folly. Another hen. Member who now adorns the Treasury Bench declared that we were "putting our heads into a most dangerous noose." The Postmaster-General said that our policy was "pregnant with the dangers of future war." The present Secretary of State for India asked what prospect could there be that we should be able to shake ourselves free from those obligations in 25 years' time. The criticism was not confined entirely to the
        1830
        then Opposition, I admit. There were not a few Members of my own party in the House, and still more in the Press outside, who had no little misgivings as to what they thought was the over-ambitious policy of an Imperialistically-minded Secretary of State. The view I took before the League of Nations and the view I took before this House was that the more definitely we undertook our responsibilities, the more ready we were to undertake them for as long as might be necessary, the sooner we should be able with honour and credit to divest ourselves of those responsibilities.
        If I may quote a phrase from the admirable speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hornsey (Captain Wallace), I believed that the policy of grasping the nettle was the right one. I claim that it has proved the right one. In a period far shorter than any one dreamed, though not much shorter than I hoped for myself, we have found Iraq advancing by really remarkable strides. The Iraq Army, then in its infancy, as my right hon. Friend told the House, advances in efficiency and capacity in every direction, and is now far more competent to maintain peace and security within that country than it was five years ago. Like Kim, I wish every success to the young Iraq Air Force, a weapon, naturally suited to the conditions of their country. Together with that development we have seen, not an immense growth of British military responsibilities or expenditure, but a steady restriction and reduction of that expenditure, till to-day it may fairly be said that we are not spending anything in Iraq that is really spent on Iraq, that is not spent for the general security of the Empire and the most efficient training of our Air Force.
        At the same time, in spite of very great difficulties, of the immense natural difficulties to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young) referred, Iraq has built up a stable and effectual system of administration and maintained its solvency, and, more than that, done no little in repaying its share of the Ottoman Debt. So far from being confronted with a vengeful and restless Turkey, from the moment the decision was clearly made, and our purpose behind it was evident, relations have improved,

        1831
        and only the other day His Majesty King Feisal was the honoured guest of the Government of Turkey at the capital at Angora. Similarly the relationship with the King of the Hejaz has been adjusted, and difficulties with Persia are well ill train towards a satisfactory settlement. The striking thing when I contrast this Debate to-night with the Debates of five years ago is that in not a single speech to-night is there a suggestion that Iraq has not advanced sufficiently to justify this country in recommending her with confidence to the League of Nations as a nation capable of maintaining a system of government which makes her worthy of admission to the company of free nations.
        Our whole discussion has turned round one or two points, important in themselves but yet very minor points compared with all the terrors that were conjured up in Debate when last we dealt with this problem. There is, of course, this very important question of minorities. I quite understand the reasons why the treaty which is to consecrate the post-mandatory relationship between this country and Iraq should not import into it conditions and stipulations of a mandatory or quasi-mandatory kind. I equally agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks that we ought not to expect Iraq to accept, or be pressed to accept, conditions from the League of Nations which would mark it as of inferior status or less capable of doing justice to these minorities than other countries who are members of the League.
        It is clear, I think, and I am glad to have it from the Under-Secretary of State, that our advice will be given to Iraq and, I hope, readily accepted, that Iraq should, on entry into the League, make clear its readiness to accept whatever declaration has been in fact accepted by other nations. He quoted Albania as a possible model. I think it is on those lines that, as far as any form of assurances is concerned, one would wish Iraq to place itself in the same position, at least as definitely obligated, as other members of the League, but not in any position which could convey any reflection on the character of its Government. In the main, however, I believe that the best safeguard for the minorities
        1832
        lies in an intelligent appreciation by the Government of Iraq of its own responsibility, and in the most intimate and frank consultation between the British representatives and the Iraq Government. Our whole relationship in future ought to be based on that mutual trust and good will which, I think, we have built up by the splendid co-operation which has existed during the past 12 years, in spite of occasional demonstrations of impatience—not unnatural impatience—on the part of Arab nationalist politicians, and by the genuine comradeship and co-operation between British officials and Iraq statesmen and officials in the tremendous task of building up a new nation out of nothing.
        I should like to pay tribute alike to the splendid work done by British officials—and I am glad to hear the assurance the Under-Secretary has given as to their future position—as well as to the statesmen and officials of Iraq, coming, some of them, with very little experience to an immensely difficult task. I am glad also to have from the Under-Secretary of State the assurance that there can be no question of any use of Imperial forces in Iraq, except with the definite permission of the Government, through the Ambassador, and I hope the Under-Secretary will also make certain that our Ambassador should have reasonable knowledge of the conditions before he is called upon to act. The Under-Secretary referred to an important dispatch which is on its way to the Colonial Office, and when he has had time to master that dispatch, and come to a conclusion upon it, I hope he will be able to give the House more precise information of the exact machinery by which it will be possible for the Ambassador in the future to have proper channels of information for his guidance.
        Here again I attach even more importance to securing a real spirit of cooperation between the two Governments than to this machinery. Ours should be an association not merely for the purpose of securing the defence or protection of minorities, but even more for general development, education, and health, and everything that will promote the future welfare of Iraq. I hope assistance of that kind will be given in no grudging spirit, and that the desire of Iraq to be linked by railway to the

        1833
        western world in order to find an easier market for many of her products will be met. We are in this matter embarking upon a new experiment and a new form of association in the history of this Empire. It has been my fortune in recent years to travel round the British Dominions and point out to them how the new freedom of association within the Empire constituted for them a form of independence at least as free and secure as the mere independence of an isolated individual nation with the world outside. There are nations outside the Empire who have come into close and, I believe, permanent relationship with ourselves which are gradually coming to realise that free and voluntary association and co-operation with the greatest
        1834
        commonwealth in the world is not an impairment of their freedom, but an enhancement of their status, their security and their prosperity.
        Question put, and agreed to.
        Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.
        The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]
    Adjourned accordingly at One minute after Eleven o'Clock.