Commons Sitting of 15 March 1932

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Margate and Yeovil) Bill.
Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  TORONTO SUBURBAN RAILWAY COMPANY (DEBENTURE INTEREST).
  Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the losses inflicted on British shareholders due to the fact that the Toronto Suburban Railway Company is unable to pay interest on its 4½ per cent. first mortgage debenture stock; and whether, in view of the relationship of this company to the Canadian National Railway Company, which is under the control of the Canadian Government, he is prepared to make representations on the matter to His Majesty's Government in the Dominion of Canada?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I have no information on the matter to which the hon. Member refers.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries?
  Mr. THOMAS: I am not quite sure whether it would be my duty to do so.
  160
  It is not for His Majesty's Government to interfere in any way in this matter. To make inquiries would be to presuppose some intervention, and I do not propose to intervene.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: But surely it is the duty of His Majesty's Government to safeguard the interests of any of His Majesty's subjects in this country which are prejudiced in another part of His Majesty's Dominions in a matter where His Majesty's Government in that part of the Empire have an influence over the matter under consideration?
  Mr. THOMAS: I think the facts in this case are that certain people invested their money in a particular concern, and it has not turned out satisfactorily. That might happen in this country, as well as in many other places, and, if the Government are to be held responsible to intervene, a very serious state of affairs might arise.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that the failure of a concern in Canada under the control of the Canadian Government to make certain payments is the cause of the failure of the railway company in question to pay?
  Mr. THOMAS: I do not know that it is, but in any case it is an investment by a private individual or individuals, and the Government must be very wary about interfering with the affairs of another Dominion.

  NAVIGABLE WATERS (OIL POLLUTION).
  Captain ERSKINE-BOLSTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now make any statement as to further steps which are being taken to prevent oil contamination of birds and fish round the British coast?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): It has not been found possible to obtain international agreement on measures for the prevention of oil pollution, but the position within the territorial waters around the United Kingdom is regulated by the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1922, and the available evidence goes to show that the pollution is decreasing.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    PORTUGAL (IMPORT DITTIES).
    Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the recent decree of the Portuguese Government which imposes an increase of tariffs by 20 per cent. on all imports into Portugal and its colonies; and if he will make representations to the Portuguese Government on this matter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The decree in question, which does not extend to the Portuguese Colonies, increases duties by 20 per cent. on most descriptions of goods. The question of making representations to the Portuguese Government is being considered.
    Mr. HANNON: Would the right hon. Gentleman point out to the Portuguese Government that gratitude between nations is as much a virtue as it is between private individuals; and have not the Government of this country saved the Portuguese Republic in recent times?

    IMPORT DUTIES, FRANCE (BRITISH GOODS).
    Mr. PETHERICKasked the President of the Board of Trade if His Majesty's Government will make representations to the Government of the French Republic with a, view to obtaining; the removal of the 15 per cent. duty on imports into France of English china clay, in view of the recent removal of the 15 per cent, duty on British coal?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: As I explained in the reply I returned on 1st March to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Captain North) we have made it clear to the French Government that we take exception in principle to the imposition of the surtax on any British goods. I am not at present contemplating special representations in regard to any particular class of goods.
    Mr. THORNE: Is it not the case that this Government and all other Governments are puzzling their wits to find the best ways and means of providing work for the millions of people who are out of employment, and does the right hon. Gentleman think that tariffs will remedy that state of affairs?

    ABNORMAL IMPORT DUTIES (TEA).
    Mr. HAMILTON KERRasked the President of the Board of Trade whether,
    162
    in view of the exceptional increase in the imports of tea from Java during the first two months of the current year, he will consider the possibility of dealing with such tea importations under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The increase in the imports of tea during the first two months of this year has been almost wholly in imports from India and Ceylon. I have no power to apply the provisions of the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act to imports of tea, as this is not an article comprised in Class III of the Import and Export List.

    GERMANY (BRITISH COAL QUOTA).
    Mr. ALEXANDER RAMSAYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that recent restrictions placed by the German Government on the importation of British coal constitute discrimination against this country; and if His Majesty's Government are prepared to adopt measures of retaliation under the powers conferred on them by the Import Duties Act, 1932?
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has drawn the attention of the German Government to the fact that the recent additional restrictions on the importation of British coal into Germany are inconsistent with the obligations that arise out of the AngloGerman commercial treaty; and, if so, what reply has been received?
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now state the result of the negotiations with the German Government on the question of imported coal?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I can only refer hon. Members to the answer which I gave on this subject yesterday to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson).
    Mr. RAMSAY: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that if we are to accept this unfair discrimination without retaliation it will seriously prejudice certain important provisions of the Import Duties Act?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Communications are passing between His Majesty's Government and the German Government on this subject.
    Captain P. MACDONALD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects to have the reply, the decision?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot say.
    Mr. THORNE: Is it not a fact that the Treaty made with Germany in 1924 was made when we were a Free Trade country, and is not that one of our difficulties?

    EXPORT TRADING ACCOUNTS.
    Mr. A. RAMSAYasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if his attention has been drawn to a proposed Franco-Hungarian agreement to provide clearing-house arrangements for the mutual liquidation of export trading accounts; and if His Majesty's Government is taking steps to effect similar clearing-house arrangements in the interests of British exporters;
    (2) if he is aware that the embargo on the purchase of foreign exchange in certain European countries puts difficulties in the way of exports from Great Britain; and if, in consequence, His Majesty's Government will take steps to set up clearing houses through which the sums due in respect of British exports would be paid out of the sums due in respect of imports to this country?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers given by the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department on 8th February, and on 10th March, to my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley (Captain Watt) and Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) respectively, of which I am sending him copies. To these I have nothing to add.
    Mr. RAMSAY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while His Majesty's Government appear to be doing nothing in this matter, the Governments of Continental countries are, in fact, making clearinghouse arrangements to the great advantage of their nationals?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: We made very full inquiries into the working of the clearing-house system, and we came to the conclusion that no clearing-house system at present devised would be to the advantage of British traders.
    Mr. RAMSAY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these exchange restrictions on
    164
    the Continent are creating a virtual embargo on British export trade, and is there nothing within the province of His Majesty's Government that can be done in the matter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: We are very well aware that exchange restrictions are a severe handicap on our trade, but we are not of the opinion that the clearinghouse system would get over that difficulty.

    IMPORT DUTIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
    Colonel BALDWIN-WEBBasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will assure the House that when additional members are appointed to the Advisory Tariff Committee they will be men of established experience in the practice of industry and commerce and agriculture?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the statements I made on this subject during the Debates on the Import Duties Bill. I believe those statements were generally approved by the House.
    Mr. HANNON: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate making any addition to the personnel of the Advisory Committee in the near future?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Not at present.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recommendations or suggestions have been made by the Government to the Import Duties Advisory Committee in amplification of, or in addition to, the terms of the Act appointing it?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: None, Sir.
    Mr. MANDER: Are we to understand that no guidance has been given to the committee with reference to the question of efficiency and other things that were dealt with in the course of the Debate?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is strictly according to the terms of the Act.
    Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman call in the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) to help him?

  BLAKENEY POINT, NORFOLK (ANCHORING RESTRICTIONS).
  Mr. THOMAS COOKasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the National Trust have forbidden the anchoring of boats at Blakeney Point, Norfolk; that until the Board of Trade conveyed the foreshore to the Trust anchoring was permitted; and will he make representations to the Trust with a view to allowing this practice to continue?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that the boats referred to are house-boats moored to the property of the National Trust, and that they cannot be regarded as craft used in the ordinary course of navigation. I am advised that, in the circumstances, the Trust are entitled to require the removal of these boats, since they are not covered by the reservation, in the conveyance of the foreshore, of the public right of navigation, and that I have no power to intervene.

  COMPANIES ACT.
  Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUELasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider an agreed suggestion from the three English and Scottish bodies of accountants for a clause to be incorporated in the Companies Act Amendment Bill, which will ensure that every auditor's report on audited balance sheets, lodged with the Registrar of Companies under Section 110 of the 1929 Act, shall contain ale report by the auditors on the accounts and balance sheets certified by them which include a profit-and-loss account issued to the shareholders as required by Section 134 (1) of the Companies Act, 1929?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Any suggestion on the lines indicated by my hon. Friend will be noted for investigation when the question of amending the Companies Act is under consideration.

  MERCANTILE MARINE (EXAMINATION CENTRES).
  Miss HORSBRUGHasked the President of the Board of Trade if the projected closing of centres for the examination for masters', mates', and second mates' certificates at Dundee, Leith, and Aberdeen is solely for reasons
  166
  of economy; and will he state on what items of expenditure he anticipates that savings will be made?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The decision to close the examination centres mentioned in the question is part of a general scheme for concentrating examinations at the larger ports, in the interest of efficiency as well as economy. There will be savings on salaries, travelling and premises.
  Miss HORSBRUGH: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is an undue hardship that all candidates from the North and East of Scotland should have to spend three or four days in Glasgow over these examinations?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not a citizen of Glasgow, and I do not feel that I am qualified to express an opinion about it.
  Miss HORSBRUGH: But does it not involve candidates from the North and East of Scotland in undue expense if they have to spend three or four days in Glasgow in connection with the oral examination, when suitable centres in Dundee, Aberdeen and Leith would he provided for the Board free of charge?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid that if we were to retain all those places as examination centres we should be throwing a charge upon the taxpayers which would not he justified at the present time. There will be a considerable saving by concentrating this examination.
  Mr. DINGLE FOOT: Would it not be possible to keep at least one centre on the East of Scotland?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not know which would be the centre to select. Perhaps my hon. Friends would prefer Dundee. I am quite prepared to consider the merits of Dundee, but my prejudice at present is in favour of Glasgow.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    ROYAL ARMY CLOTHING FACTORY, PIMLICO.
    Mr. DENVILLEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he can state the amount of money saved per week by the closing of the Pimlico clothing factory?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 9th February to my hon.

    167
    Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers).

    NEW BARRACKS, ABERDEEN.
    Mr. BURNETTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can give any information as to how soon a commencement is to be made with the building of the new barracks at Aberdeen?
    Mr. COOPER: It is hoped that the building will be started by September next.

  SCOTLAND.

    SECONDARY EDUCATION.
    Mrs. SHAWasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the cost per pupil of secondary education in Scotland; and the number of pupils who completed the full secondary course in 1929, 1930, and 1931?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Sir Archibald Sinclair): On account of the intimate association existing in Scotland between primary and secondary education, it is not possible to state separately the cost of education of the latter type. The numbers of pupils who left recognised secondary departments of grant-aided schools after completing five or more years in such departments were, in 1928–29, 4,220; in 1929–30, 4,047; and in 1930–31, 4,056.

    FARM FIRES, CARNOUSTIE.
    Lord SCONEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if his attention has been drawn to the fact that 19 farm fires have occurred in the vicinity of Carnoustie since October, 1931; and if he will consider the advisability of appointing a special committee to inquire into the origin of these fires?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am informed that 12 farm fires have occurred in the vicinity of Carnoustie since October, 1931. Careful inquiries made by the police have definitely established the cause of the fire in four of the cases, and in the majority of the other cases there is strong ground for ascribing the fires to the careless throwing down of cigarette ends and matches. I am not satisfied that investigation by a committee would be as effective as the investigation by the police which takes place in all such cases.
    Lord SCONE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a very widespread belief that these fires were not of accidental origin, and will he not reconsider his decision to make no further inquiry into this important matter?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: I think it is more convenient for the police to make the inquiries. If they are not of accidental origin it would be a matter for the police to deal with.

    AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES (GRANTS).
    Lord SCONEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that a large proportion of the income of the three Scottish agricultural colleges is derived from annual grants made voluntarily by the education committees of the Scottish county councils, and that any reduction on a large scale of these grants would impair the efficiency and restrict the activities of the colleges; and will he therefore consider circularising the county councils urging them to make no reduction in these grants?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Substantial grants are made to the three agricultural colleges by the Education Authorities. I am glad to be able to inform my Noble Friend that on 30th January last the Scottish Education Department sent a circular letter to these authorities informing them of proposals to continue the additional grants from the Education (Scotland) Fund in aid of the colleges, and at the same time emphasising the need for maintaining the direct contributions voluntarily made by the local authorities. I am sending my Noble Friend a copy of this circular.
    Lord SCONE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of these authorities have shown any intention to reduce their contributions during the coming year?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: I have no information to that effect.

    LEGAL PROCEDURE.
    Mr. GUYasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the time which has elapsed since the Report of the Royal Commission on the Court of Session in 1927, he will consider the introduction at an early date of legislation to effect improvements in legal procedure in Scotland?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: The question of the action to be taken on the Report of the Royal Commission on the Court of Session has been receiving my consideration; but I am not in a position at present to give any undertaking as to legislation.

    AGRICULTURAL CREDITS.
    Mr. MACPHERSONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to agricultural credits in Scotland?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am glad to be able to inform the House that I have reason to believe the outstanding questions on which negotiations have been proceeding with the four participating banks will shortly be settled, and that the further steps necessary for setting up the Scottish Agricultural Securities Corporation will then proceed.

  COAL INDUSTRY,

    SELLING AGENCIES.
    Mr. JOELasked the Secretary for Mines if he will state the policy of his Department with regard to the establishment of central selling agencies for coal; and whether it proposes to assist in their formation?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Isaac Foot): I think I must await the views of the coalowners with regard to amendments of Part I of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, before I express any opinion upon central selling agencies for coal.
    Mr. BATEY: Is the Minister not doing anything in regard to the question of selling agencies?
    Mr. FOOT: No steps are being taken in relation to selling agencies.
    Mr. BATEY: Has all the previous work done on that matter been abandoned?
    Mr. FOOT: It has not been abandoned, but it must be considered generally in relation to Part I of the Act.
    Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: When does the hon. Gentleman expect to reach a decision?
    Mr. FOOT: Several replies have been received and fully considered, but there is one reply outstanding.

    STATISTICS
    Mr. DAGGARasked the Secretary for Mines (1) if he will provide a tabular statement showing the financial results of colliery working for the years 1920 to 1931, comparable with Table 9, page 40, of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Coal Industry, 1925, Volume 3;
    (2) what was the average realised pithead price of coal for each month from January, 1920, to the latest date for which figures are available?
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: As the replies involve very long statistical statements, I will send copies to the hon. Member.

    TIMBER AND STEEL SUPPORTS.
    Lord SCONEasked the Minister of Mines if he will state what percentage of the timber used in the mines of this country was of British, Empire, and foreign origin, respectively, during each of the last three years?
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I regret that precise information on this subject is not available, but the quantity of homegrown timber is comparatively small, while Empire-grown timber represents less than ½per cent. of the whole quantity used.
    Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE: Is the hon. Member aware that the woodlands of the United Kingdom can provide 1,000,000 tons of pit timber per annum?
    Mr. FOOT: I understand that the matter is under the consideration of the Forestry Commissioners, and they are more concerned with this question than we are.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Secretary for Mines if he will give the cost per ton of coal raised for timber used in the mines; and will he say if this includes the use of steel supports or can he give a separate figure for both?
    Mr. FOOT: Particulars of the cost of timber and steel supports used in mines are not collected by my Department, but I am informed that during the September quarter, 1931, the total cost was about 8½d. per ton of coal disposable commercially. I am unable to give separate Figures in respect of steel supports.
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Has the Mines Department expressed any opinion as to the desirability of extending the use of steel supports?
    Mr. FOOT: As far as I can gather, the opinion of the Department is strongly in favour of steel supports.
    Mr. GRENFELL: Is that opinion based mainly on the question of safety?
    Mr. FOOT: Yes.
    Mr. TINKER: Is the Department considering the question of making inquiries to see if the use of steel supports is growing in comparison with timber supports?
    Mr. FOOT: I do not know that we have that information, but I will inquire.

    COAL MINES ACT.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Secretary for Mines if he will state whether it is his intention to call together the three organisations he has written to for their views on the working of Part I of the Mines Act of 1930 when he has considered their replies?
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I would remind the hon. Member that I consulted five organisations on this matter. Detailed replies have now been received from four of these organisations, and the Mining Association have sent me a copy of a resolution adopted on 10th March appointing a committee to formulate for submission to the Central Council proposals for the amendment of the existing provisions of Part I of the Act. Apart from these replies, other representations have been laid before me by bodies interested in the working of the Act. I do not think it will be necessary to call the several organisations together as suggested in the question.
    Mr. BATEY: Can the Secretary for Mines tell us the names of the other three organisations who have been consulted independently of the Mining Association and the Miners' Federation?
    Mr. FOOT: The British Coal Exporters' Federation, the Coal Merchants' Federation, and the National Council of Coal Traders.
    Mr. JENNINGSasked the Secretary of Mines whether he can give the total tonnage of orders for export coal during 1931 which has had to be refused by North-east Coast collieries, owing to their having exhausted their quota under the Coal Mines Act, 1930?
    Mr. FOOT: I am unable to give the information asked for, but my hon. Friend may like to know that during 1931, the total output of Northumberland and Durham was 7½ per cent. less than the permitted output.
    Mr. JENNINGS: Is not information such as this absolutely essential to prove whether the Act has been detrimental or beneficial to the coal industry?
    Mr. FOOT: That information would be at the disposal of the coal industry organisations who are working the Act, and it is for them to make a report upon this subject. We have not the information available relating to the particular figures.
    Mr. JENNINGS: I have taken the trouble myself to ascertain the tonnage of orders lost, orders amounting to thousands of tons for Northumberland and Durham, and why cannot the Secretary for Mines ascertain the figures?
    Mr. FOOT: The information I have is directly contrary to the statement made by the hon. Member.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is it not a fact that we are really losing orders because of the tariff policy of the Government?
    Mr. JENNINGSasked the Secretary for Mines whether he has yet received the views of the coal exporters in relation to their prospects of booking export orders under the existing provisions of the Coal Mines Act, 1930; and what hope of improvement in the coal trade is suggested by them?
    Mr. FOOT: I have received the views of the British Coal Exporters' Federation with regard to the future of Part I of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, but that reply does not attempt to forecast the future course of the coal export trade.
    Mr. G. NICHOLSON: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the view implied in this question and the previous question?
    Mr. FOOT: I am, not able to accept any view as yet. I have received representations in favour of Part I and against it. Those representations have to be weighed before any decision is come to, and I cannot commit myself to any decision in advance.
    Mr. JENNINGS: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when he is likely to finish weighing those representations?
    Mr. FOOT: I have not yet received all the replies. I assume that it will not be the wish of the House that a decision should be come to before all the representations have been received.
    Mr. PIKE: Will the Secretary for Mines consider the district position rather than the national one?
    Mr. FOOT: All these positions will be taken into consideration, and we shall have representations from the Central Council about the position in the districts.

    WORKING HOURS.
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Secretary for Mines whether it is intended to continue the seven and a-half hours day for workers in coal mines after the temporary legislation in this connection expires at the end of June; and whether he will make a statement on this matter?
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The Government regard this matter as primarily one for settlement by the industry itself, and they do not propose to come to any decision as to legislation until after the position has been discussed between the two sides in the industry. They have accordingly urged upon the representatives of the coal owners the desirability of their meeting representatives of the workmen at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. LAWSON: Have the Government any policy in this matter?
    Mr. FOOT: Obviously, on a question of hours, it is better that the two sides should first meet without the Government having come to a decision before they have had an opportunity of discussing the matter among themselves.

  AFFORESTATION GRANTS
  Mr. WEDDERBURNasked the hon. Member for Rye, as representing the
  174
  Forestry Commissioners, whether he anticipates that the Forestry Commission will be able to continue next season grants for private planting at the same rates as last season; and, if not, how great a reduction is likely to be made?
  Sir G. COURTHOPE (Forestry Commissioner): It is anticipated that afforestation grants next season will be at the same rates as the current season.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    MEDICAL AND DENTAL OFFICERS.
    Mr. PRICEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether the number of medical and dental officers is up to the establishment, as no provision is made for examinations for entry in the Estimates for 1932?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lord Stanley): The establishment of Naval medical officers is not complete, there being a deficiency of approximately 60. The entrance examination is at present in abeyance, and entries are being made for short service by selection after interview. The number of dental officers is one short of establishment. When the number of vacancies does not justify the holding of a competitive examination, entries are made by selection after interview in the same manner as for the entry of medical Lacers for short service.

    BROADCAST TIME SIGNAL.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will consult with the President of the Board of Trade on the desirability of making arrangements with the British Broadcasting Corporation for the time signal from the Rugby wireless transmission station to be circulated free of charge to the State in lieu of the provision of £520 in the Naval Estimates and a similar sum on the Board of Trade Vote?
    Lord STANLEY: Time signals issued from the British Broadcasting Corporation are only of value to ships in home waters, whereas the Rugby wireless transmission station has a world-wide range. As the Rugby station is controlled by the General Post Office, the expense of broadcasting the time signal must be borne by the State, whether it is charged either to the Post Office or Navy and Board of Trade Votes.

  EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS).
  Mr. JOELasked the President of the Board of Education whether the estimate for special services in connection with elementary education outlay shows any increase in the provision of meals for children; and whether he is satisfied that this requirement is adequately met?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): In the Board's Estimates for 1932, allowance is made for increased expenditure by local education authorities on the provision of meals to the extent of £20,000, as shown on page 12 of the Estimates Memorandum [Cmd. 4031]. It is not possible to forecast the actual expenditure to be incurred on this service, but my right hon. Friend is satisfied that, so far as can at present be ascertained, the estimate is adequate for any probable requirements.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    CLAIMS AND RECORD OFFICE, KEW.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Minister of Labour the reason for the delay in furnishing an answer to the points raised by the deputation from the Association of Ex-service Civil Servants on the 23rd July last concerning work returns and system of averages at the Claims and Record Office, Kew; and whether he will forward a reply to the points put forward by this association without further delay?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): The points raised by this association have been receiving detailed examination along with other questions affecting the Claims and Record Office. There has inevitably been some delay, which I regret, in replying to the association, but I hope it may be possible shortly to do so.
    Mr. PIKE: Will the Minister consider the advisability of making a public reply, in order to save Members of this House considerable trouble and inconvenience?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: Yes, Sir, certainly. If the question is repeated before the House rises, I shall hope to be able to give a detailed answer.

    MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY).
    Mr. LOGANasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the diminution of work in the Ministry of Pensions, he will, in the interest of economy, revert to the practice of the years 1929 and 1930 and dispense with a Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I would refer my hon. Friend to what I said on this subject in reply to questions by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) on the 16th November, and the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) on the 17th November last, copies of which I am sending him.

  GRAND OPERA (GOVERNMENT GRANT)
  Mr. LEONARDasked the Postmaster-General the terms of the agreement between the Covent Garden Opera Syndicate (1930), Limited, and the British Broadcasting Corporation; and, in view of the subsidy paid by the Government to the British Broadcasting Corporation, whether the agreement was submitted to him for ratification?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): The agreement of the 27th November, 1930, between the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Covent Garden Opera Syndicate (1930), provides that the corporation shall pay the syndicate £25,000 a year from the 1st January, 1931, and, in addition, £5,000 for the last quarter of 1930. The agreement runs to the end of 1935 unless determined by either party at the end of 1932. The syndicate undertakes to give a number of opera performances at the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, and at other theatres, which shall be available for broadcasting. The agreement was submitted in draft to the Treasury and the Post Office before it was executed.
  Mr. HOPKIN MORRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an answer to the question that is on the Paper, that is to say, the agreement between the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Covent Garden Opera Company?
  Sir K. WOOD: I have given the agreement asked for, between the Covent Garden Opera Syndicate (1930) and the British Broadcasting Corporation.
  Mr. MORRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that the payment by the Postmaster-General of a subsidy to the British Broadcasting Corporation is dependent upon the fact, under the agreement, that a similar payment has to be made by the British Broadcasting Corporation for the purpose of subsidising opera in the country?
  Sir K. WOOD: That is another matter. Perhaps the hon. Member had better put that question to me.
  Mr. LEONARDasked the Postmaster-General the total sum paid to date to the British Broadcasting Corporation by his Department for the purpose of subsidising grand opera?
  Sir K. WOOD: The total amount paid up to the present is £26,875.
  Mr. LEONARD: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the respective amounts paid for performances in London and in the provinces?
  Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir; I have not that information.
  Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is not this a waste of money?

  HONG KONG.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government will be prepared to reconsider the treaty under which this country undertook not to fortify Hong Kong in the event, of the other treaties signed at Washington in February, 1922, and the Pact of Paris being broken?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): I am not prepared to say what policy His Majesty's Government would adopt in the circumstances contemplated by the hon. Member.
  Mr. MANDER: In view of the statement made by Mr. Stimson with reference to the fortification of Guam in similar circumstances, is it not very important that His Majesty's Government should make up their mind rapidly on the matter?
  Mr. EDEN: It is not a question of the Government making up their mind. Since we are members of the League, this matter is now, for us, sub judice.
  Mr. HANNON: Has not this House full confidence in the present Foreign Secretary in regard to dealing with this matter?

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS COUNCIL (PROCEDURE).
  Mr. HAMMERSLEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that during the re cent session of the Council of the League of Nations certain reports on minority questions were only presented to the members of the Council at the commencement of the session at which those matters were to be discussed; that at least one member of the Council corn plained of this procedure; and whether the British Government will propose modifications in the procedure in order that the minorities section of the secretariat of the League may arrange that in future there will be sufficient time between the presentation of reports and their subsequent discussion in session to allow for a more careful examination?
  Mr. EDEN: I understand that one complaint of the nature suggested in the first part of the question was made. I feel sure that the rapporteurs and the Secretariat make every effort to arrange that reports are presented in time to allow full opportunity for their consideration, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that it is sometimes inevitable that such reports should not be ready until nearly the close of the session, especially in cases of difficulty and importance. If this occurs, any member of the Council can always propose that the discussion may be postponed in order to allow time for further consideration.
  Mr. HAMMERSLEY: In view of the fact that these circumstances have taken place, would it not be desirable for His Majesty's Government to make some representations to prevent this procedure from taking place in future?
  Mr. EDEN: I do not think so. There has only been one such complaint that I know of.

  DANUBIAN COUNTRIES (ECONOMIC RESTORATION).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any statement to make with reference to the French proposals for a trade convention in Central Europe?
  Mr. EDEN: I have at present nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) on Thursday last.
  Mr. MANDER: Have the terms of the proposals been made public? Are they available?
  Mr. EDEN: The terms of the French proposals?
  Mr. MANDER: Yes.
  Mr. EDEN: A summary of them has, I think, already appeared in the Press.

  HOUSING.
  Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health the present estimated number of houses in England and Wales per 1,000 of the population and, for comparison, the corresponding figures at the time of the Censuses of 1911 and 1921?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Ernest Brown): Precisely comparable figures are not available, but the proportions based upon the 1911 and 1921 Census returns were 215 and 212 per 1,000 population respectively, and the corresponding proportion based on the pro visional 1931 Census figures is 244.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Gentleman say why it is that, while we now have about 15 per cent. more houses in relation to the population than we had 20 years ago, there is still a shortage?
  Mr. BROWN: One of the elements in the case is the question of the larger number of families. I cannot give the figures for the whole country, but, if my hon. Friend will look at the report of the London County Council Housing Committee, he will find that in Greater London, while the increase in population was 9.7 per cent., the increase in the number of families was 18.8 per cent. That additional increase of 9.1 per cent. in the number of families has to be taken into consideration.

  POOR LAW (CASUALS).
  Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health whether it is his intention to enforce two days' detention for all casuals on and from 1st April?
  Mr. E. BROWN: After careful consideration, my right hon. Friend has decided to postpone for a further period the enforcement of this recommendation of the Vagrancy Committee.
  Mr. McENTEEasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the proposed reorganisation of casual wards in Devon will compel a casual to walk 20 miles to the next ward; and whether in view of the recommendation of 15 miles by the Departmental Committee of Inquiry, he will look into the matter?
  Mr. E. BROWN: My right hon. Friend will bear the point raised by the hon. Member in mind when considering the proposals which have been made by the Devonshire County Council for the reorganisation of their arrangements for the relief of casuals.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (SUMMER ADJOURNMENT).
  Mr. LAWSONasked the Prime Minister the approximate probable date when it is intended that this House should adjourn for the summer; and what new Bills are to be introduced by the Government prior to that date?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is unusual to ask this question at this stage, and it is impossible for me to make any statement upon it.

  IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.
  Mr. D. GRENFELLasked the Prime Minister the number and names of the Members of the Cabinet who will attend the Ottawa Conference; and whether he proposes to head the British delegation?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Almost immediately after the formation of the present Government, a Committee of the Cabinet was appointed to supervise the preparations for the Ottawa Conference, so far as His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is concerned. This Committee has been continuously at work

  181
  since then. The composition of the United Kingdom delegation has not yet been considered by the Cabinet.
  Mr. HANNON: When will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to announce the names of the Members of the Cabinet who will go to Ottawa?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Very shortly, I hope. A little depends upon the work that is being done now.
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the composition has not been considered, or that it has not been decided?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The question of the composition of the delegation has not even been mentioned in the Cabinet.

  CASE LAW (CODIFICATION).
  Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of setting up a commission for the purpose of codifying the whole range of English case law?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have consulted my Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, and I am satisfied that to set up a commission to codify the whole range of English case law would not produce any useful result.
  Captain MACDONALD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that grave dissatisfaction has been expressed on this point by certain learned Judges?

  TRUSTEE SECURITIES (NEW SOUTH WALES LOANS).
  Sir CHARLES CAYZERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make representations to those Governments represented at the Ottawa Conference as to the desirability of setting lip a guarantee pool or fund for the purpose of meeting or preventing the hardship imposed upon small holders of securities on the Treasury trustee list by default in one payment of interest, such as was the case arising from the default by the New South Wales Government upon their loans on the Treasury trustee list?
  Mr. WEST RUSSELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he wil1 bring before the Ottawa Conference
  182
  the question of Dominion loans included in the Treasury list of trustee stocks in the light of changed circumstances affecting the Colonial Stock Act, 1900, as brought about by the default a few weeks ago of the New South Wales Government on their loans?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that legislation has now been passed by the Commonwealth Parliament, providing for the assumption by the Commonwealth Government of direct liability to bondholders in respect of the debts of a State Government. In the circumstances I see no necessity for any such action as is suggested.

  BRITISH TREASURY CREDITS (REPAYMENT).
  Mr. HAMMERSLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will explain the arrangements by which the increased sterling value of gold in the Bank of England can be used as a set-off against the loss incurred by the Treasury in repaying the £80,000,000 borrowed to support the exchange?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would ask my hon. Friend to await the completion of the transaction when I will make a full statement.
  Mr. HAMMERSLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the Bank of England are to be reimbursed for the loss made in repaying the £50,000,000 borrowed from France and the United States of America to support the exchange; and in what financial statement will this payment appear?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) on 11th February last.
  Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Are we to take it from that reply that we shall have some financial statement made showing clearly how the Bank of England is to be reimbursed for its loss?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not yet admitted that there will be a loss.

  WEST INDIES (COMMISSION).
  Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) what was the reply given by the Governors of the Leeward Islands, the Windward Islands, and Trinidad to the inquiries addressed to them as to the desirability of a commission to investigate the question of constitutional changes in that group of islands; whether he has to report any further developments as regards the constitutional position of these islands; and whether he intends to take any further steps;
  (2) when he intends to appoint the proposed commission to inquire into the federation of the West Indies; what will be the probable date of its departure from this country; and what will be its terms of reference?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The Governors of the Leeward Islands, the Windward Islands and Trinidad are in general agreement as to the desirability of a commission being appointed to inquire into the question of closer union between these islands, and I have under consideration the appointment of such a commission.
  Mr. DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make a more detailed statement?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not quite sure. I propose to have such a commission, but I should not be prepared to state its personnel for some time. It will be as small as possible in order to combine economy with efficiency.
  Mr. DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make a statement soon after Easter?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not quite sure. I am pretty sure that the commission could not usefully do its work until the autumn, and I should like to have plenty of time to consider it.

  NORTHERN RHODESIA (CAPITAL).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the proposal to transfer the capital of Northern Rhodesia to a more central and healthier site is progressing;
  184
  and whether any steps are being taken to retain for the community the land value of the new capital?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: With regard to the first part of the question, I would refer the right hon. and gallant Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Mile End (Dr. O'Donovan) on the 2nd of this month, of which I am sending him a copy. With regard to the second part, by far the greater part of the site is on Crown land, and it is not anticipated that private property will be materially affected for many years.

  COLONIES AND PROTECTORATES (ENGLISH).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he will give a list of those colonies or mandated territories in which English is the medium of instruction in schools other than elementary;
  (2) whether there are any and, if so, what colonies in which instruction in elementary schools supported by public funds and under public control is given in English?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: English is used as a medium of instruction in the schools above the elementary grade in all the Colonies, Protectorates and Mandated Territories, with the exception of Cyprus and Palestine. In few instances, however, is English the sole medium of instruction. English is taught in the majority of the primary schools in all the Colonies, except Somaliland and Cyprus, though the stage at which the teaching of English is started varies considerably according to the circumstances obtaining in the different Colones.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: When will Cyprus and Palestine he brought up to date?

  PUBLIC HEALTH (CLEANSING OF SHELL-FISH) BILL,
  "to enable local authorities to provide or contribute towards the provision of means for cleansing shell-fish," presented by Mr. Rosbotham; supported by Major Lloyd George, Mr. Cape, Mr. Charles Williams, Mr. Wilson Ramsay, Mr. Cook, Viscount Elmley, Mrs. Ward, Mr. David

  185
  Grenfell, and Dr. Worthington; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 43.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That, notwithstanding anything in Standing in Order No. 15, the Report of the
Civil Estimates Supplementary Estimate, 1931, and Business other than Business of Supply may be considered this day before Eleven of the clock, and that the Proceedings on the Reports of Supply of 10th, 7th and 8th March may be taken after Eleven of the clock, and shall be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 289; Noes, 29.

Division No. 104.]

AYES.

[3.26 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

Jennings, Roland

Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Denville, Alfred

Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Albery, Irving James

Dickie, John P.

Ker, J. Campbell

Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)

Donner, P. W.

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

Doran, Edward

Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

Dower, Captain A. V. G.

Knebworth, Viscount

Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

Knight, Holford

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Duggan, Hubert John

Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)

Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

Leckie, J. A.

Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

Eden, Robert Anthony

Lees-Jones, John

Balniel, Lord

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

Lewis, Oswald

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

Liddall, Walter S.

Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)

Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

Lindsay, Noel Ker

Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe

Bernays, Robert

Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Everard, W. Lindsay

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn.G.(Wd.Gr'n)

Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Locker-Lampson, Com.O. (H'ndsw'th)

Blaker, Sir Reginald

Fermoy, Lord

Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

Boothby, Robert John Graham

Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

Borodale, Viscount

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Bossom, A. C.

Fox, Sir Gifford

Mabane, William

Boulton, W. W.

Fuller, Captain A. G.

MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Ganzoni, Sir John

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

McConnell, Sir Joseph

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

McCorquodale, M. S.

Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)

Broadbent, Colonel John

Giedhlll, Gilbert

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

McKie, John Hamilton

Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)

Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

Browne, Captain A. C.

Goff, Sir Park

McLean, Major Alan

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Goldie, Noel B.

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Bullock, Captain Malcolm

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

Magnay, Thomas

Burghley, Lord

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Maitland, Adam

Burnett, John George

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.)

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Campbell, Rear-Admiral G. (Burnley)

Grimston, R. V.

Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Marjoribanks, Edward

Carver, Major William H.

Guy, J. C. Morrison

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Martin, Thomas B.

Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

Hales, Harold K.

Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)

Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Millar, Sir James Duncan

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)

Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

Chotzner, Alfred James

Hammersley, Samuel S.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Christle, James Archibald

Hanley, Dennis A.

Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

Clarke, Frank

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Clarry, Reginald George

Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

Mitcheson, G. G.

Clydesdale, Marquess of

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

Conant. R. J. E.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)

Cook, Thomas A.

Holdsworth, Herbert

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

Cooke, Douglas

Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)

Muirhead, Major A. J.

Cooper, A. Duff

Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

Nation, Brigadler-General J. J. H.

Cowan, D. M.

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Craven-Ellis, William

Hornby, Frank

Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

Crooke, J. Smedley

Horsbrugh, Florence

Normand, Wilfrid Guild

Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

North, Captain Edward T.

Cross, R. H.

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)

Nunn, William

Crossley, A. C.

Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

Patrick, Colin M.

Curry, A. C.

Hurd, Percy A.

Pearson, William G.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)

Penny, Sir George

Perkins, Walter R. D.

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

Potherick, M.

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Touche, Gordon Cosmo

Peto, Sir Basil E. {Devon, Barnstaple)

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

Train, John

Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)

Savery, Samuel Servington

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Pickering, Ernest H.

Scone, Lord

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Pike, Cecil F.

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Pybus, Percy John

Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn.Sir A. (C'thness)

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

Ramsden, E.

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Wells, Sydney Richard

Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

Somerset, Thomas

Weymouth, Viscount

Held, David D. (County Down)

Somervell, Donald Bradley

White, Henry Graham

Reid, William Allan (Derby)

Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)

Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

Remer, John R.

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Robinson, John Roland

Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Rosbotham, S. T.

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

Womersley, Walter James

Ross, Ronald D.

Storey, Samuel

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

Rothschild, James A. de

Stourton, Hon. John J.

Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Strauss, Edward A.

Worthington, Dr. John V.

Runge, Norah Cecil

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Young, Rt. Hon.Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)

Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Salmon, Major Isidore

Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

Salt, Edward W.

Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

Thompson, Luke

Sir Frederick Thomson and Mr. Walter Rea.

NOES.

Attlee, Clement Richard

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Thorne, William James

Batey, Joseph

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Tinker, John Joseph

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Lawson, John James

Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

Daggar, George

Leonard, William

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Logan, David Gilbert

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Lunn, William

Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

Groves, Thomas E.

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Grundy, Thomas W.

McEntee, Valentine L.

Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

Parkinson, John Allen

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Price, Gabriel

Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. John.

Hirst, George Henry

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Question put, end agreed to.

GOODS MADE BY FORCED LABOUR.
Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the importation of goods made by foreign forced labour."
It is the fate of hon. Members who have been for some time in this House to find how difficult it is to catch those two most elusive elements—the eye of the Speaker and the ear of the House. I have suffered as a victim in this pursuit for many years, and I therefore welcome the opportunity of the Ten Minutes Rule under which a Member may ask leave to bring in a Private Bill and speak for a matter of 10 minutes only after Question time. The Bill which I wish to ask leave to bring in is to prohibit the importation of goods made by foreign forced labour. I do not wish to approach the issue in a controversial spirit. It seems to be a question, not merely of politics nor of state craft, but of ethics, as well as of economics, and also a question of honour as well as of trade. I
188
should like to bring in the Bill and see it carried and voted for by every Member of the House. Briefly the position is that at the moment goods are being imported from Russia at debauched prices for four major reasons. First of all, the Russian State itself is the trader unlike any other State in the world, secondly, the Russian State has expropriated property in Russia and is therefore free of any capital commitments, thirdly, the laws against sweating in Russia are very indifferent and lastly the Russian State is allowed to use political prisoners in order to make its goods and to carry them. Therefore you have four exclusive causes operating for cheapness in goods coming from Russia which do not operate in any way in England or in any country under the Union Jack. I may be told at the outset that I am not correct when I say that goods are made by forced labour in Russia. On the last occasion upon which this issue was discussed in this House Mr. Taylor, who was then a Member of the House, got up and categorically denied that fact. I am not required to-day to prove

189
it, for in an admirable book since produced by the Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl), on page 173, will be found Mr. Stalin's own speech at the Economic Conference, delivered in June of last year, in which he says that:
"He could offer very little hope of relief for the worker, and admits that the peasant can no longer be recruited voluntarily for industry."
Therefore, I am not required to prove my case in that respect. I would, however, point out that none of the causes referred to operate in England. We have not in this country expropriated property. [Interruption.] The hon. Member must wait until he has a chance of doing so. We have not any form of convict labour except in our prisons, and we look upon convict labour so badly there, that we do not allow the goods made by convicts in our prisons to come into competition with goods made outside. Lastly, we have in this country laws against sweating. It may be that our laws against sweating are insufficient and that a lot may have to be done in that respect. I would say to the hon. Member who laughed when I mentioned sweating, that he and those who sit with him on the Labour benches are the chief champions, according to themselves, of anti-sweating laws, and are always telling us that trade unions will have nothing to do with sweating. Moreover, they are always claiming for themselves the privilege of caring most for the worker and desiring to make conditions better than they are. I would ask them, therefore, to remember those professions and put them into operation to-day by voting against the sweating of Russian labourers.
Why are the Government treating Russia better than England? Why should British traders be penalised in order to allow in goods which are not only stolen but sweated out of the life's blood of poor prisoners and convicts? Our fight for freedom is a great and traditional one. We entered the Great War mainly to win what we all believed was a fight for liberty. For generations we have fought slavery. It was voices in this House of Commons that sounded the death knell of slavery years before the United States of America put a stop to it. It was our citizens, 300,000 of
190
them, over 100 years ago, who went without sugar three years rather than buy sugar grown under slave conditions in the West Indies. Who were those people who refused to buy sugar grown under slave conditions? We would call them Socialists to-day.
I would invite the Socialists to remember that fact, and I would ask every Socialist whether he can accommodate his conscience to not voting for this Bill. It is an odd fact that there is, so far as I know, no Socialist voice raised at any time against the introduction of these tainted goods into this country, and yet the Labour party is loudest in its professions of great international ideals. Moreover, Socialists are always preaching the solidarity of the workers of the world. I would like them to remember that fact to-day and to ask themselves whether they like Russian peasants to go starving in order that Englishmen may be full. I would like them to look into their own hearts and see whether or not they can go on pepetuating conditions which are a traffic in human flesh and blood.
I shall be expected before I sit down to offer a remedy. I may be told that it is impossible for our Government to place an embargo upon these Russian goods. I am aware that it is very difficult for the present Government to withdraw recognition from Russia, but there are two ways in which His Majesty's Government could act. They are faced with a Government, the Soviet Government, which preaches the brotherhood of man with bombs, bullets and imprisonments. I would suggest two courses. I would invite His Majesty's Government to ask the League of Nations to take action in Russia. I ask them to invite the League of Nations, which likes to interfere in the affairs of other countries, to interfere in Russia. They interfered in the case of Liberia, where there is slavery. Liberia is a member of the League of Nations, it is true, whereas Russia is not, but I would point out that America, which the League of Nations first approached, is not a member of the League of Nations. If the League of Nations could take action in respect of a small country like Liberia, why should they not take action in respect of Russia? Why should they not send a commission to investigate on the spot? If there is

191
nothing wrong in labour conditions in Russia, why should the Soviet Government object to a commission of investigation? Lastly, I would suggest that the House should carry this Bill and refuse any longer to sell our birthright as freemen for a mess of Bolshevist pottage.
Mr. LANSBURY: I am not quite sure whether I ought to trespass on the time of the House, but the hon. and gallant Member has made so many statements about a friendly Power— —
Mr. SPEAKER: The rule is that one speech should be in favour of the introduction of the Bill and one against it. We cannot have a Debate on the subject.
Mr. LANSBURY: The difficulty is that the speech that has just been made is one—
Mr. HANNON: On a point of Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman opposing the Bill or not?
Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.
Mr. LANSBURY: I wanted, if you, Mr. Speaker, and the House would allow me, to say—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Then I shall take another opportunity.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Commander Locker-Lampson.

GOODS MADE BY FORCED LABOUR BILL,
"to prohibit the importation of goods made by foreign forced labour," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 44.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to abolish proceedings in ecclesiastical courts for enforcing liability to repair certain chancels and to substitute other proceedings in lieu thereof; and otherwise to amend the law relating to such liability." [Chancel Repairs Bill [Lords].]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Rhyl Urban District Council to construct new waterworks; to confer upon the council further powers
192
in regard to their water undertaking; and for other purposes." [Rhyl Urban District Council Bill [Lords].]

RHYL URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bilk (added in respect of the Hire Purchase (Scotland) Bill): Captain Erskine-Bolst; and had appointed in substitution: Captain Strickland.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].
Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Universities (Scotland) Bill [Lords] with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.
  [3RD ALLOTTED DAY.]
  SUPPLY.
    REPORT (10TH MARCH).
    Resolutions reported,
    REPORT (10TH MARCH).

      AIR ESTIMATES, 1932.
      1. "That a number of Air Forces, not exceeding 32,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at Home and abroad, exclusive of those serving in India (other than Aden), during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933."
      2. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,930,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of the Royal Air Force at Home and abroad, exclusive of those serving in India (other than Aden), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933."
      3. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,650,000, he granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Works, Buildings, Repairs, and Lands, including Civilian Staff and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933."
      4. "That a sum, not exceeding £7,350,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Technical and Warlike Stores (including Experimental and Research Services), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933."
      5. "That a sum, not exceeding £473,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Aviation, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933."
      Mr. HANNON: On a question of Order. As the Eleven o'Clock Rule has been suspended, item No. 8 on the Orders of the Day—Dangerous Drugs Bill—may come up for discussion. I would like to ask whether your attention has been called, Mr. Speaker, to the two Amendments to that Bill which are on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) and which are as follows:
      "In Clause 1, page 3, line 14, to leave out the word 'dihydrohydroxycodeinone,' and in line 15, to leave out the word 'acetyldihydrocodeinone.'"
      Can anything be done to illuminate the House as to the precise pronunciation of the two words which appear in those Amendments? It will be extremely difficult to approach them without some explanation.
      Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.
      First Resolution read a Second Time.
      Mr. MORGAN JONES: I beg to move, to leave out "32,000" and to insert instead thereof "31,000."
      The House devoted a considerable amount of attention to the Air Estimates last Thursday, on which occasion I ventured, on behalf of my hon. Friends, to raise certain general proposition that seemed to us to merit discussion. To-day, in moving to reduce the number of men from 32,000 to 31,000, I should like to direct the attention of the House to one or two details that I think will be of interest to it. We have been told quite frequently that the Government are prosecuting a policy of limitation of the armed forces in so far as conditions, in their judgment, will allow. Last week the Under-Secretary of State for Air took credit to the Government that, in respect of one of the Votes, there was a substantial reduction in the amount of money to be expended. When we consider Vote A which is now before us, and its particular reference to the personnel of the Air Force, we find that there is no provision for the reduction of that personnel by one single individual upon the 1931 standard. In point of fact, the figures were exactly the same in 1931 as they are in 1932. Whatever economy may have been effected in other sections of the Estimates, it is clear that the Ministry do not propose to reduce the personnel.
      A closer examination of the figures discloses the interesting fact that, while there is a reduction in regard to certain categories of men, there is no change whatsoever in regard to the officer class. The number of officers last year was 3,238, including air officers with other commissioned officers. The number this year is also 3,238. If my calculation has not greatly misled me, the Air Force is officered in the proportion of one officer to nine men. Taking a similar estimate of the Navy Vote, the proportion, so far as I can make out, is about 1 to 14. I wonder what is the explanation for the extraordinary disparity in the proportion of officers of the Air Force, as compared with the proportion of officers of the Naval Arm of the Service. I notice, in support of my proposition that there is no effective reduction on this side of

      199
      the Service, and that in the White Paper, which was published by the Ministry for Lair guidance and information, there is the specific claim that, so far from there being a reduction, there is an actual increase in the strength of the Force. The second paragraph on page 2 of that document reads as follows:
      "The increases in the strength of the Royal Air Force foreshadowed in last year's Memorandum, namely, three new regular Squadrons for home defence and one additional Flight for the Fleet Air Arm, have been duly implemented."
      That sentiment meets with the approbation of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. On behalf of my hon. Friends I want to say clearly and specifically that it has our disapprobation. [Interruption.] An hon. Gentleman opposite asks me if I will tell him why. I propose to give him the reason why we express our disapproval. The reason is not far to seek. Whatever argument there may have been last year in favour of a force of 32,000 men, conditions have undergone a certain measure of alteration.
      4.0 p.m.
      In our judgment, the conditions under which this Vote is being presented to the House have very largely, if not fundamentally, changed from those under which the Vote was presented a twelvemonth ago. We have at this moment a highly important international discussion going on at Geneva at which our country, and most of the leading nations of the world are represented, and the very fact that that conference is now in being and is subjecting the whole question of the arms of the respective nations to a minute examination is, in our judgment, adequate reason for expecting that the approach to this problem must necessarily he different from that which we employed 12 months ago. This discussion which is now proceeding is not something which is suddenly sprung upon the nations of the world. It is something which has taken place almost, one might say, as a direct consequence of certain promises which were given by our own country, among other countries, as long as 11 or 12 years ago when the late War was brought officially to an end through the medium of the Treaty of Versailles—and I repeat this to remind the House, if it is necessary to do so, of the fact which we have no right to forget—that when the
      200
      great instrument of peace was signed, the leaders of the Allied forces, speaking in our name as well as in the name of other countries, gave a distinct pledge that the victorious Powers regarded disarmament in Germany as a preliminary to similar action on our part. Since then we know that to implement that, various conferences have been held for the discussion of the matter, and, in particular, a special Commission representative of all the nations concerned has been sitting, namely, the Preparatory Commission, examining proposals whereby these Votes with which we in this country are now directly concerned shall be reduced, if not entirely eliminated. The Preparatory Commission is over, and the actual full Disarmament Conference is now in being at Geneva, and I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the actual existence of this Disarmament Conerence at Geneva is, in our judgment, an adequate reason for demanding a different psychological approach to this problem from that which must necessarily have been the case some 12 months ago.
      I have given some careful and sustained study to the various proposals which have been made by other countries. Of course, I have no right to criticise them, because it would not be appropriate to do so on this occasion, but we are concerned, after all, with whatever contribution was made on our behalf by our own country through its representatives there, and I repeat the point, which I made very summarily last Thursday, as to my very intense regret that the Foreign Secretary, speaking on behalf of our own Government, did not adumbrate at Geneva, a week or a fortnight ago, definite proposals on behalf of our own country, with a view to the elimination of aerial forces in this country as our country's contribution to the discussion at Geneva. I want to make this point in passing. The significance would be sufficiently great of itself that a great nation like ours made no reference to it, but its significance is vastly intensified when we recall the fact that a large number of other nations, big and small, did, in point of fact, in their proposals submitted to the Disarmament Conference, indicate their willingness to make a contribution by way of eliminating or reducing the strength of their aerial forces. I know what a vicious circle we can get into in connection with these armed forces, be they army, navy or air

      201
      forces. If one of my hon. Friends later to-day demands a reduction in the Naval forces, we shall be told that we require all those forces for our defence, because, after all, we are the leading Naval Power of the world, and we must maintain our prestige. That will be the argument, but the right hon. Gentleman opposite cannot say that with regard to the aerial force, because he said last Thursday that we are not in the first place, but only in the fifth place in regard to aerial forces, so that we give away no prestige in that sense, anyhow, if we make such a contribution.
      My hon. Friends and I take the view that, if there is any place whatsoever where we ought to be able to afford to make a generous gesture in the direction of immediate disarmament, it is in association with this newest arm of our Forces. It is a young service. It has not had time to develop shall I say—I do not want to use the word offensively, and I hope that it will not be so taken—a prestige of such a long duration as that attaching to the Army and Navy. I think it will be agreed by everyone that it is a comparatively new service, and, not only so, but it is a service which is least able to give us a guarantee of that curious, indefinable thing which people call security. Let me remind the House of a passage in a most interesting speech we had last week from the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour). I will not quote the whole of the passage, but only that part which bears upon the particular point I am now trying to make. He was endeavouring to show how vastly more efficient modern air machines had become, and how, with the application of more up-to-date machinery and devices, it was now possible for men to overcome physical difficulties which were almost insuperable in the days of the late War, and that the presence of fog, wind or rain, or any of those physical obstacles was no longer of any account. This is what he said, visualising the leader of a group of men signalling to his colleagues who were flying, say, over London:
      "He will wireless 'Conditions are good,' which will mean fog, rain, cloud—typical English weather. He will go on to the centre of London, followed by his successors at 10-minute intervals, they will drop their bombs, and they will fly back without ever having been seen by any of the anti-aircraft
      202
      batteries or any of the fighter squadrons. They will be enveloped in the cloud, and will drop their bombs on their objective. I grant that they may miss it, may, indeed, miss it by a quarter of a mile, but they will have plastered their bombs over some residential or industrial area and annihilated civilisation in that particular area. If you get that possibility, I submit that it alters the whole scheme of the relation of the strength of our Air Force to that of foreign countries."
      I would alter that last sentence, and submit that it alters the whole question, not of the relation of the strength of our Air Force merely to that of foreign countries, but the relation to its actual necessity at all, because, after all, if it cannot give us a guarantee that a great city like London can be protected, then what in the world is the use of expending your resources and your energy upon developing a service of this sort which cannot give you, even in the sense in which hon. Members opposite use it, that thing which they call security? In my judgment—I speak, of course, merely as a layman in these matters—granting, for the sake of the argument, the necessity—I do not admit it—of instruments of this sort, these instruments are least defensible from the standpoint of defence, because they simply cannot guarantee security, for to guarantee that would mean almost keeping, one might almost say, the whole of our coast-line guarded by myriads of these things, and even then your opponent might be able to fly up in what a very eminent professor would call the stratosphere, and your outlay of energy and expenditure would become entirely useless and superfluous.
      There is another observation which we want to make in regard to this young service. It not only is a young service in itself, but it is a service which cannot be maintained except by engaging the young. Older people will be of little use to this service. You will require for it the flower of youth, the very youngest, the most active, the most adventurous, the strongest, the most virile. It is those whom you desire and will require for this service, and it seems to me, and I think to my hon. Friends, that to organise a service of this sort, mobilising the young in an endeavour to which, no doubt, they will bring every possible element of adventurousness and zeal, is to concentrate on a service which in our judgment, in the ultimate resort cannot guarantee security not alone for those who

      203
      are belligerents, but for the non-combatants involved in a great international struggle.
      Therefore, I submit the point with same confidence—I know that it will not be a popular thing to submit in this House—that there is no-one on any side of this House who can get up in his place this afternoon and say that he can give this House an assurance that this instrument is an effective or a finally reliable instrument for the defence of these shores. As a matter of fact, there is no way out, except we seek some sort of security that is not merely individual in the sense of attaching to our own nation alone. It seems to me that we must inevitably and increasingly as the years roll by seek not individual or national security, but collective security. We are emboldened in putting forward the idea of collective security this afternoon through the medium of some sort of international organisation as opposed to this form, because, in our judgment; it is the only safe way along which the world must move in the future. I would like very much, therefore, to hear from the right hon. Gentleman who speaks on behalf of the Air Ministry some reason, if you like some defence, of the line taken up by the Government in respect of its attitude of negation at Geneva in relation to air forces generally.
      In my judgment here is an arm in which demonstrably, according to the proposals put before the representatives of the various nations at Geneva in the last month or so, there is a chance of arriving at some sort of common accord, if not for the absolute elimination, at least for the very substantial limiting of this force. I express no sort of apologies or shame for saying that I think the time has come when the nations of the world should consider deliberately and boldly whether they should not abandon entirely this implement of warfare, which inevitably must create great panic amongst the belligerent forces, and must, alas, lead to terrible destruction among those who are in no wise associated 'with the combatants in the struggle. For these reasons I move my Amendment.
      Brigadier-General NATION: I had not intended to take any part in this Debate. I would have preferred to have left matters to those who are more intimately
      204
      concerned with the Air Service. But the speech to which we have just listened impels me to rise and make a few remarks. I am astounded that an hon. Member who professes to know nothing about this particular Service should have made such a speech. Another Member of the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) made a similar speech. He said he had been a miner and knew nothing about the Air. To make such speeches requires a courage that does not exist either in the Air Force or the Army or the Navy.
      Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: Does the hon. and gallant Member suggest that no one except Army men and Navy men and Air men are to speak on these subjects?
      Brigadier-General NATION: I leave the House to judge as to the quality of courage. I would like to state again my own experience in connection with the Air Force of a foreign nation. Four years ago a certain Air Force sent, a flight of 50 to 60 aeroplanes round the Mediterranean. It was commanded by its own Air Minister, who holds the rank of Lieutenant-General. That Air Force made a complete tour and returned to its own capital without accident. A year after a similar flight of 50 to 60 aeroplanes, commanded by the same Minister, went to the Black Sea, landed at Odessa and returned to its capital. Only 18 months ago that country sent a flight of from 12 to 15 aeroplanes across the Atlantic to South America, where the machines landed and were sold. That particular Air Force stands fourth among the nations of the world. It is second in Europe, and it is within a few hours' flying distance of the island of Malta. I think we have a right to be concerned about the defences of Malta and about our communications with the East. I am concerned about our Fleet there and about the troops that are there as a stepping stone to the East. I believe that that island is in danger unless it is supported by a considerably larger Air Force than we have at present.
      I would not say this unless I had studied the subject carefully and devoted a good deal of time to it, from the enemy's point of view as well as from our own. I repeat that I think that island is in danger at the present time, and I would like the Government to consider

      205
      whether it should remain as headquarters of the Mediterranean Fleet, or whether it should be handed over to the Air Force, to defend it and the communications to the East. I believe that the time is coming, if it has not come already, when we shall have to rely more and more on the Air Force and less on the senior Services. It hurts me to say this. I would not say it in this House for anything in the world, unless I had given the matter a great deal of study and thought. I am convinced absolutely that our future, the future of our communications, and indeed the future of this island, will rest more and more with the junior Service than with the two senior Services on which we have relied up to now. Only yesterday in the Press I saw that we had made overtures or proposals at Geneva for the reduction of the budgetary strength of the fighting forces, and that that proposal had been turned down by the foreign nations. We have cut down our Services, the Air, Army and Navy, to the bone. Our example has not been followed by any other nation. I submit that we have shown an example which deserves to be followed, but it has not been followed. If I may I would like to thank the Secretary of State for Air for restoring the grants to the Light Aeroplane Clubs— —
      Mr. SPEAKER: That must be discussed on a separate Vote.
      Brigadier-General NATION: I mentioned the matter only because I wanted to show that our military side, the fighting side of the Air Force, is as low as it possibly can be. I do not know what are the proposals of hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench for protecting these islands, but I think that we have given an example to the world that should receive thought and consideration before we do anything more.
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The hon. Gentleman who opened this discussion raised certain points with which it is now my duty to attempt to deal. I must say that I think both the points with which he dealt are very difficult to answer, and for this reason: They are for the most part the results of decisions taken by the Government of the day when the Estimates were introduced last year. The hon. Member deplored the
      206
      fact that the new squadrons for home defence and the further flight for the Fleet Air Arm were formed last year. But I might say that the late Labour Government were in office until the late summer, that all the plans had already been arranged for the Conference at Geneva, and that there would have been ample time for the late Government to have altered their decision, instead of now signifying disapproval of the action that they themselves have taken. But the hon. Member went on to say that if any one of the Services were to make contributions to disarmament it should certainly be the youngest of the Services, because it had not the prestige which the two older services had. If prestige is to be achieved only over a long period of years, I venture to say that that is an argument which I would not expect from hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is obviously an argument, and a very good argument, for abolishing the Labour party.
      The hon. Gentleman went on to say that the Air Service is unable to give us a guarantee of security. That is quite true. But I should be very doubtful whether the Navy or the Army could give a guarantee of absolute security. The police cannot give a guarantee of absolute security against burglary, but they do their best to protect us, and, with all the crimes that are committed, it would be a very peculiar argument to say that as the police cannot give an absolute guarantee we should abolish the police force. No, Sir. I think and I know that the arguments about disarmament which have been advanced to-day and in a previous Debate by the hon. Member, are arguments which must find a great deal of sympathy among Members of this House. We are all mindful of the horrors of the last war. We are all aware that they were as nothing compared with the horrors of the next war, and we are determined to do what we can, so far as human wisdom may contrive it, to see that there shall not be another war. The difference between us and hon. Members opposite is not one of aim, but rather one of method. How are we to ensure that there shall be no more war? Which is the better method, that of the strong man armed, or turning the other cheek? Perhaps

      207
      there is a great deal to be said on both sides, but I think that the wiser and surer course is a combination of both methods, pursuing both in reason but neither to destruction.
      We have seen the race in armaments culminate in war. That is the first method, but I think that adoption of the view put forward for unilateral disarmament would represent the other extreme, and this method, if carried out, would result in the complete break-up of the British Empire, and the sweeping away of the greatest instrument for peace that we have in the world to-day. There must be a change of heart before there can be safety in such a complete change in method. I do not believe that any Government in this country could remain in office for a week if they committed themselves to the proposals of unilateral disarmament. The hon. Gentleman asked us what our proposals were at Geneva. What are the chances of disarmament, partial or complete? Hon. Members must realise that this is a very difficult moment at which to discuss the question. The Disarmament Conference is in full session and all these matters are sub judice. It is difficult to think that anything which is said here will not have some reaction on the discussions there. It is impossible to know whether those reactions will be for good or for ill. Therefore my view is that the less said here the better.
      4.30 p.m.
      But the matter has been raised, and in courtesy to hon. Members opposite I must say briefly and on broad lines what the views of the Air Ministry and of the Government are on this matter. I say at once that the objective which the Conference has in view has our sympathy and our full support, as indeed it must have the sympathy and support of all men of good will. But we cannot afford, in this imperfect world, to neglect or fail to see what are really great difficulties. There are two lines of approach favoured by some hon. Members. The first is the endowment of the League of Nations with sufficient armed forces to enable them to over-awe indivdiual states. The second method advocated by my hon. Friends opposite is that of practically abolishing all military air forces and internationalising all civil air trans-
      208
      port. I think no one will deny that there are many and great difficulties in the way of both proposals. Have we sufficient confidence in any international body that we can conceive of, to put in the hands of that body the fate of the British Empire and the safety of the 8,000,000 inhabitants of London? Frankly, I have not. The proposal to abolish all military air forces also raises difficulties of a, different but no less forcible character. We have to-day a host of highly specialised military machines which are vastly superior for their special purposes to the various types of civil machines. Sweep away all these military machines, if you can do so honestly and completely, and what is the result? The result is to shift the balance of air power from the country which has the largest military air force to the country which has the most numerous fleet of civil machines. These are only some of the difficulties.
      I cannot go into the question of internationalising civil aviation because it would not be in order to do so on this Vote. I have mentioned some, but by no means all of the difficulties, which would confront hon. Members opposite if it were sought to carry out their proposals. I do not say that those difficulties are insuperable. I do not want to prejudice the discussion. I know that our delegation at Geneva will give sympathetic consideration to all practical suggestions. But I think they will consider that the most hopeful line of approach is along the most simple and straightforward road and Great Britain has already given clear and unmistakable indication of what that road is. At the end of the War, our Air Force was second to none. As far as any nation could be, we were predominant in the air. We had trained and available a larger number of pilots and flying personnel and, on charge, a larger number of machines and engines than any other nation. In the productive capacity of our aircraft manufacturing firms we were ahead of all the belligerents. What we had accomplished it was in our power to maintain. What did we do? We ruthlessly scrapped seven-eighths of that magnificent air power. We deliberately allowed ourselves to sink to fifth place in front line strength among the nations of the world. While other nations have been increasing their air expenditure, some of them

      209
      2½ times, we have four times in nine years retarded our modest home defence scheme and we are now 10 squadrons short even of the figure which was indicated as requisite in 1923.
      We have taken and are taking great risks and I think that a grave responsibility rests on the shoulders of hon. Members who would recommend us to take still further risks. I repeat, that by voluntarily abandoning our supreme position we have shown our devotion to the cause of peace and set an example to the world. That is what our delegation is in a position to say at Geneva and I cannot imagine stronger ground than that. We have, as a matter of fact, in the view of many hon. Members carried this policy too far, but we have not yet
      pursued it to its disastrous extremes. Our Air Force, although it is small, compared with the air forces of other nations, is incomparable for its size. Our Air Force does not in any way offer any threat to any other nation. One has only to look at the map of the world and study the nature of our Empire, in order to see that to no other nation is the cause of disarmament so vital as it is to our nation. I maintain that no other nation has shown greater proof of sincerity than we have in this matter of air disarmament.
      Question put, "That '32,000' stand part of the Resolution."
      The House divided: Ayes, 283; Noes, 31.

      Division No. 105.]

      AYES.

      [4.36 p.m.

      Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

      Cooke, Douglas

      Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

      Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

      Cooper, A. Duff

      Gunston, Captain D. W.

      Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

      Cowan, D. M.

      Guy, J. C. Morrison

      Albery, Irving James

      Craven-Ellis, William

      Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

      Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)

      Crooke, J. Smedley

      Hales, Harold K.

      Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

      Crookshank, Col. C.de Windt (Bootle)

      Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

      Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

      Cross, R. H.

      Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)

      Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

      Crossley, A. C.

      Hammersley, Samuel S.

      Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolle

      Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

      Hanbury, Cecil

      Atkinson, Cyril

      Curry, A. C.

      Hanley, Dennis A.

      Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Hartington, Marquess of

      Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

      Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

      Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

      Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

      Davison, Sir William Henry

      Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

      Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

      Dawson, Sir Philip

      Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

      Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

      Bateman, A. L.

      Denville, Alfred

      Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

      Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)

      Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

      Holdsworth, Herbert

      Bernays, Robert

      Dickie, John P.

      Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)

      Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

      Donner, P. W.

      Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

      Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

      Doran, Edward

      Hopkinson, Austin

      Blaker, Sir Reginald

      Dower, Captain A. V. G.

      Hornby, Frank

      Borodale, Viscount

      Duggan, Hubert John

      Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

      Bossom, A. C.

      Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

      Horsbrugh, Florence

      Boulton, W. W.

      Eden, Robert Anthony

      Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

      Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

      Edge, Sir William

      Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

      Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

      Edmondson, Major A. J.

      Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

      Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

      Ednam, Viscount

      Hurd, Percy A.

      Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

      Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

      Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

      Broadbent, Colonel John

      Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

      Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)

      Brocklebank, C. E. R.

      Emrys-Evans, P. V.

      Jennings, Roland

      Brown, Ernest (Leith)

      Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

      Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

      Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)

      Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

      Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

      Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

      Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

      Ker, J. Campbell

      Burghley, Lord

      Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

      Kerr, Hamilton W.

      Burnett, John George

      Everard, W. Lindsay

      Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

      Cadogan, Hon. Edward

      Falle, Sir Bertram G.

      Knebworth, Viscount

      Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

      Fermoy, Lord

      Knox, Sir Alfred

      Campbell, Rear-Admiral G. (Burnley)

      Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

      Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

      Caporn, Arthur Cecil

      Fox, Sir Gifford

      Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

      Carver, Major William H.

      Fuller, Captain A. G.

      Law, Sir Alfred

      Castle Stewart, Earl

      Ganzoni, Sir John

      Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

      Cautley, Sir Henry S.

      Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

      Leckie, J. A.

      Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J.A. (Birm.,W)

      George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

      Leech, Dr. J. W.

      Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)

      Gillett, Sir George Masterman

      Lees-Jones, John

      Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

      Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

      Leighton, Major B. E. P.

      Chotzner, Alfred James

      Gledhill, Gilbert

      Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

      Christle, James Archibald

      Gluckstein, Louis Halle

      Liddall, Walter S.

      Clarke, Frank

      Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

      Lindsay, Noel Ker

      Clarry, Reginald George

      Goldie, Noel B.

      Llewellin, Major John J.

      Clydesdale, Marquess of

      Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

      Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

      Colfox, Major William Philip

      Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

      Lloyd, Geoffrey

      Colville, John

      Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

      Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn.G. (Wd.Gr'n)

      Conant, R. J. E.

      Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

      Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

      Cook, Thomas A.

      Grimston, R. V.

      Loder, Captain J. de Vere

      Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

      penny, Sir George

      Smith-Carington, Neville W.

      Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

      Perkins, Walter R. D.

      Somerset, Thomas

      Lymington, Viscount

      Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

      Somervell, Donald Bradley

      Mabane, William

      Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bilst'n)

      Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)

      MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

      Pickering, Ernest H.

      Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

      McConnell, Sir Joseph

      Pike, Cecil F.

      Southby, Commander Archibald R. J

      MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)

      Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

      Spencer, Captain Richard A.

      McKie, John Hamilton

      Pybus, Percy John

      Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

      Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

      Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

      Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

      McLean, Major Alan

      Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

      Stones, James

      Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)

      Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

      Storey, Samuel

      Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

      Ramsden, E.

      Stourton, Hon. John J.

      Magnay, Thomas

      Rea, Walter Russell

      Strickland, Captain W. F.

      Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

      Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

      Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

      Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

      Reid, David D. (County Down)

      Tate, Mavis Constance

      Mander, Geoffrey le M.

      Reid, William Allan (Derby)

      Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.)

      Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

      Remer, John R.

      Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

      Marsden, Commander Arthur

      Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

      Thompson, Luke

      Martin, Thomas B.

      Robinson, John Roland

      Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

      Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

      Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

      Train, John

      Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

      Rosbotham, S. T.

      Turton, Robert Hugh

      Millar, Sir James Duncan

      Ross, Ronald D.

      Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

      Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

      Rothschild, James A. de

      Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

      Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

      Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

      Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

      Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Waterhouse, Captain Charles

      Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

      Runge, Norah Cecil

      Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

      Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

      Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

      Wells, Sydney Richard

      Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)

      Salmon, Major Isidore

      Weymouth, Viscount

      Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

      Salt, Edward W.

      Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

      Muirhead, Major A. J.

      Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

      Wills, Wilfrid D.

      Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

      Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

      Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

      Newton, Sir Douglas George C.

      Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

      Womersley, Walter James

      Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

      Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

      Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

      Nicholson, At. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

      Savery, Samuel Servington

      Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

      Normand, Wilfrid Guild

      Scone, Lord

      Worthington, Dr. John V.

      North, Captain Edward T.

      Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

      Wragg, Herbert

      Nunn, William

      Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

      Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

      Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

      Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

      Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

      Patrick, Colin M.

      Skelton, Archibald Noel

      Pearson, William G.

      Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

      Peat, Charles U.

      Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

      Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert

      Ward and Lord Erskine.

      NOES.

      Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

      Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Price, Gabriel

      Attlee, Clement Richard

      Hirst, George Henry

      Salter, Dr. Alfred

      Batey, Joseph

      Jenkins, Sir William

      Thome, William James

      Cape, Thomas

      John, William

      Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

      Cocks, Frederick Seymour

      Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

      Williams, David (Swansea, East)

      Daggar, George

      Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

      Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

      Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

      Lawson, John James

      Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

      Edwards, Charles

      Leonard, William

      Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

      Logan, David Gilbert

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

      Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

      Lunn, William

      Mr. Gordon Macdonald and Mr. Groves.

      Grundy, Thomas W.

      McEntee, Valentine L.

      Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

      Parkinson, John Allen

      Question put, and agreed to.

      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I do not think the Committee ought to allow this item to pass without a word or two of criticism upon the sum to be expended, but I would like first to clear up a doubt, which was in the mind of an hon. Member below the Gangway, when he said
      212
      that my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones) and myself had declared that we knew very little about this subject. He thought we were not entitled to speak on the air because we did not know much about it. Strangely enough, during my 10 years in this House, the most eloquent speeches I have ever heard in this Assembly have been from those who knew very little about their subject. Consequently, I am emboldened to say a word or two on a subject of which I know but little. I have heard agriculturists in this House speaking very glibly about coal, and fishermen talking eloquently about cotton, silk and boots, and surely we are entitled, as Members of this House, because we are taxpayers,

      213
      to contribute what we can to the discussion on any conceivable subject. If I may say so without being too conceited, I think we, on this side of the House, can do that as well as hon. Members on any other side, and I desire to carry out the traditions of my party by saying something on this particular subject.
      I think we are entitled to some information from the Under-Secretary of State for Air on two or three points, and I may be pardoned for asking again a question which I put to him last week. I believe the Minister for Air as a rule has told us in his annual statement whether the number of accidents per 1,000 of those engaged in the Air Force is declining or increasing. I think I am right in saying that happily the number now is declining, but it would be interesting if the right hon. Baronet could give us information on that score, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly has so well said, this is a very dangerous occupation. It attracts in the main young men to the force. We are dealing now with civil aviation, and I think I can see on a bench opposite -the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Everard) who is well versed in this problem, and perhaps we shall hear from hint later some of the details connected with civil flying.
      Here we have the only item in which there is an actual increase in the expenditure of the Ministry, and if the right hon. Baronet will turn to page 127 of the Estimates he will be able to follow me. He has claimed in the White Paper that there is no increase this year consequent upon the financial stringencies of the State, but for civil aviation there is an increase, from £470,000 to £473,000, a sum of £3,000. We are entitled to ask, therefore, on civil aviation, as having connection with the work of the State in providing security for the people of this country in the event of war, seeing that we decided not to increase our Air Force itself by a single man, how it comes about that we are increasing the subsidy to private firms in this connection. I could understand it if these firms were in a bad way financially, but they are not, and the right hon. Gentleman knows very well the financial status of these firms.
      As a matter of fact, there was a speech delivered the other day by the hon. and gallant Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour), and I pressed the right hon.
      214
      Baronet to be good enough to cause an inquiry to be made into the allegations made by that hon. and gallant Member against Imperial Airways. He called them Messrs. Imperial Airways, Limited, and it apparently offended the right hon. Baronet very much because he used the word "Messrs." I do not know whether he pronounced it properly, but if any Member of this Committee cares to read the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the allegations that he made against Imperial Airways, Limited, I venture to say that if the Labour party in this House had been the Government—and we shall be some day—and such allegations had been made, the first thing we should have done would have been to ask him to table his facts and figures and to prove his case. I think the right hon. Baronet, in fairness to the community, to his own Ministry, and to Imperial Airways, ought to cause an inquiry to be made into those allegations. I do not think I have ever heard anything so violent since the Marconi scandals, and that is going a long way back.
      Let me now come to the point that I desire to make. The State is giving money away, and unless we are careful, the granting of subsidies to these firms will grow to such an extent that they will be so much abused as to reach almost to the extent of the beet sugar subsidy. I made the statement last week, which I -should like to repeat, that in the main the State in every country in the world, if it grants a subsidy, does so for the deliberate purpose of helping an infant industry along, but as soon as that industry is able to find its feet financially, then the State withdraws the subsidy. Let me go over some of the firms which may be concerned. I am almost sure that I have the correct information as to some of the firms that are being subsidised. This House ought to know, in documents, in the report of the Ministry itself, what these firms are, and I have looked rather carefully, but I cannot find any word about any firm except Imperial Airways. After the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Thanet, I ought perhaps to say Messrs. Imperial Airways, Limited, but I would like to put the words to grand opera; they would sound better that way.

      215
      Let me mention some airship firms, in order to prove that they at any rate do not require a subsidy. I think the Fairey Aviation Company, Limited, is perhaps the most important manufacturing firm in this country making aeroplanes at the present time, and in addition to supplying orders to the Australian, Irish, Argentinian, Chilean, Dutch, Portuguese, Japanese, and Greek Governments, this company has just obtained a very large order from Belgium. We claim that if a firm can draw orders to itself from all over the world, and probably make profits out of other Governments as well, it is not fair to ask the taxpayer in this country to subsidise that firm. Then I believe I am right in saying that the de Havilland Aircraft Company, Limited, could be subsidised in some way by this Vote, and I am informed on good authority that this firm as well is doing remarkably well financially.
      Some of these firms are paying 10 per cent. profit. In fact, if the figures were analysed properly, I should not be surprised if 5 per cent. out of the 10 per cent. profit would come from the State, and those of us who are on these benches object to that system of finance. Here is another firm, Handley Page, Limited. According to a speech delivered by the chief of that firm the other day, they feel themselves well-to-do. Surely the time has arrived when the Minister should take into account the financial condition of all these firms that we may be subsidising and say at any rate that if he is in power next year—I am not sure whether he will be, but if he is lucky enough to be at the Air Ministry in 12 months' time—he will scrutinise further these subsidies and find out whether the time has not arrived to stop them entirely. Although, as I have said, I know very little about this problem, I know sufficient to say that aviation, at any rate as a whole, has found its feet at last in the air. That might be regarded as an Irish bull, but that is the only way I can put it. It has found its wings, as it were, and there is no reason for this subsidy being continued to civil aviation.
      Then there is another point. In this Vote a great deal of money is given to private clubs. I do not know who runs them, and I think the House is entitled
      216
      to have a list of these clubs and the amounts granted to them, as well as a list of the firms, with the amounts paid to each one of them, because I feel sure that all subsidies in the past have been so tabled in reports to this House. Let me deal with these clubs. I imagine that no individual person can form a club for civil aviation unless he is in the first instance very well to do. That must be the case, because I cannot conceive of a farm labourer starting a civil aviation club, and I am sure a coal miner would not do it; he has not the means.
      Mr. EVERARD: What about the London omnibus drivers? They started a club.
      5.0 p.m.
      Mr. DAVIES: They are obviously better off than the farm labourers or the coal miners, and in any case they will have done it collectively, in a co-operative way. I do not mind the co-operative principle being applied to even this sort of thing. It seems to me, however, that we ought to have all these clubs and all civil aviation under the control of the State. In the end, we come back to the very serious point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly, that we, on these benches, feel that the time is fast approaching—and I dare say the question will some day be taken up by a Government of some political colour in this country—when there ought to be international control of all this sort of aviation. Within this small country aviation does not mean very much. But our aircraft travel all over the world, almost to every country, although I do not remember many foreign aircraft coming here, except during the War. We had a grand picture the other day of the right hon. Baronet travelling to Arabia and Persia; he avoided Wales, I think; but I understand that he went very far afield. Let me sum up my two main points. We ought to have a list of the amounts granted to civil aviation and to clubs and firms, not in bulk, but separately, showing how much money is paid to each firm and club. The House is entitled to that. The right hon. Gentleman ought to explain his ideas a little more with regard to internationalism in the realm of control of civil aviation. I imagine that it would be better for every Government in the world if there were international control. There should be a sort of centre

      217
      from which all flying machines were controlled in such a way as to benefit all countries. We on these benches are not against aviation. I rather admire the courage of the young fellow who can drive one of these machines through the air, though it requires just as much courage for a miner to go underground. I press the right hon. Gentleman to remember the points that I have made, and I ask hire to be good enough to answer the question which I put the other day and which I have repeated to-day. I feel sure that the community, if it be the case, will be glad to know that the number of accidents per thousand miles flown is declining in the Air Force and in civil aviation.
      Mr. EVERARD: I am sure that the House has listened with great interest to the words of wisdom which have fallen from my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies). I feel sure, however, that he spoke with insufficient knowledge with regard to subsidies, for the only subsidies which are given by the Government are those given to Imperial Airways, light aeroplane clubs, and National Flying Services. No subsidy has been given to any aircraft manufacturer as a manufacturer. Therefore, I am unable to understand why my hon. Friend should try and decry the aircraft industry, which is one of the few industries in this country which is expanding and increasing employment. The export of aeroplanes and aeroplane parts from this country is larger than from any other country in the world, and the hon. Gentleman ought to be pleased that there are such firms as Faireys, De Havillands and others who are able to show a profit, not only out of the Air Ministry, but out of foreign Air Ministries. He also ought to be pleased to know that foreign countries recognise that they have to come to this country if they require the best aeroplanes and aeroplane engines. With regard to clubs, the hon. Gentleman is a little amiss. If he examines the Questions, he will see that we obtained only on 9th February last a long and complete list of all the light aeroplane clubs of the country, giving details of how much each received this year and last year in subsidies. If the hon. Gentleman had examined that list, he would have found that there was a great diminution in the
      218
      subsidies in the current year as compared with the year before.
      I wish to ask my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary one or two questions with regard to the light aeroplane club movement. After the excellent maiden speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ashford (Captain Knatchbull), who put forward very well the case on behalf of the light aeroplane clubs, and received the support, of a large number of speakers in the Debate, the right hon. Gentleman said:
      "I might broadly say that a revised scheme will be introduced under which payments for new licences will be on a more generous scale than at present. Our object, naturally, is to enable as many clubs as possible to earn larger sums than they are doing now, but as a condition of these more generous terms, it will be necessary to effect a considerable reduction in the permissible annual maximum, which up to the present has been £2,000 for any one club."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1932; col. 2111, Vol. 262.]
      As I understand the Estimates, it seems that we are exactly halving the amount of subsidy that light aeroplane clubs are to receive. Last year the amount was £15,000 maximum far the clubs, and £5,000 for National Flying Services. It seems that these Estimates have been worked out on the figures which the right hon. Gentleman gave me in answer to a question, in which I asked him how much of the £15,000 and £5,000 respectively had been gained by the clubs and by National Flying Services this year. He told me that in a full year the figures would be approximately £8,500 for the clubs, and £1,500 for the National Flying Services. This exactly corresponds with the figures in the present Estimates. I should, therefore, like to ask him how the position of the light aeroplane clubs is to be improved if the amount of subsidy is the same. There may be, of course, some small alteration in the method of administration, but it seems to me that we are not going to be on so generous a basis even as last year. I was hoping that the figures of last year would be allowed to stand, and that the scheme recently put forward to the Air Ministry by the Associated Committee of Light Aeroplane Clubs would be adopted to enable the clubs to earn a sum nearer to the amount of the subsidy.
      I am sure that my right hon. Friend will realise from his knowledge of these

      219
      clubs that no organisation has received such world-wide respect. Practically all foreign countries and the majority of the British Dominions have followed our example. The undying gratitude of this country is due to the late Sir Sefton Brancker who helped so much in the initiation of this great scheme. If the amount of the subsidy is to come down to a maximum of £400 per club per year, I can say definitely, with a considerable knowledge of these clubs, that in a year's time only about half the number of clubs will be in existence. That will be a very serious thing, not only for the aeroplane manufacturers and to the instructors, but to the whole of the air organisation of this country, because it will mean far fewer A and B licence pilots trained. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give us a little more information as to how the new scheme will be put into operation, and whether he will enable the clubs to get a larger amount of subsidy than they were able to do last year. It really puts a premium on efficiency to reduce the maximum to, say, £1,000 and to make it easy to obtain that £1,000. It enables the small club with only one or two machines to obtain the same subsidy as a large club which has to maintain seven or eight machines. The club with the largest amount of upkeep and overhead charges clearly deserves the larger subsidy.
      Coming to another side of this question, I should like to ask my right hon. Friend what the position of National Flying Services is in this matter. My right hon. Friend will remember that an agreement was come to with National Flying Services in 1929, whereby, for the first three years, they were to receive £10 per pilot trained, and for the next seven years they were to receive £5. That agreement comes to an end as to the first three years in August this year. Will National Flying Services have a new agreement or will the Government carry out the terms of the agreement made at that time? How far are National Flying Services proceeding under the agreement in the laying out of the 20 new aerodromes and 80 new landing grounds which the agreement calls for in the first three years? I understand that they have six or seven aerodromes, but no landing grounds, so that they have until
      220
      the 1st August to provide 80 new landing grounds and 13 or 14 aerodromes.
      I should like to say a word about municipal aerodromes. We heard with great satisfaction the remarks of my right hon. Friend on that question. Clearly we are not able at the present time to extend as far as we would wish, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will use every means to induce local authorities to make these aerodromes in order that we may see civil aviation improved. Now that we are a Protectionist country, there will be a considerable amount of transport of dutiable goods to and from this country and the Continent, in which case it will be necessary to have certain customs aerodromes in various parts of the country. There is now, outside London, one at Manchester, one at Bristol and one at Lympne. Have the Air Ministry formulated any scheme whereby certain districts will be served by particular customs aerodromes, or are these customs facilities to be allowed to spring up haphazardly all over the country? Are definite centres to be established for the clearing of customs and goods and passengers from overseas? With regard to the meteorological station which is being put up in Manchester, the Memorandum says that it is to be equipped with wireless and to be used for sending out weather reports to serve the north of England. Am I to understand that that is an experimental station, and are there to be similar stations in other parts of the country so that wherever a station is it may be possible to receive the same report that will be sent out from Manchester? I know that the Automobile Association have a station at one of the aerodromes in London, but that is not connected with Government enterprise at all. Is it intended to extend the system throughout the country?
      Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to do anything further to extend the system of aerial signs? I know that there is great difficulty and difference of opinion on this point, but I think that I can give him sufficient evidence, after working at the problem for years, to show him that, certainly as far as one district is concerned, we have been able quite satisfactorily and with a minimum amount of expense, thanks to the cooperation and help of the gas undertakings in that area, to mark with white

      221
      letters the names of places on the tops of gasometers with no expense to the Government or to the ratepayers. I believe that if the National Gas Council, which I understand is not adverse to this scheme, were approached by the Air Ministry, it would be possible to make a great extension of the scheme without any great outlay of money. In putting these points to the right hon. Gentleman, I realise, of course, the present financial difficulties. I am sorry that they have prevented our extending the great air route to Australia. I hope that at the Ottawa Conference we may be able to discuss with the Government of Australia whether it is possible in the near future to proceed again with this vital link in our Imperial air communications.
      Mr. McENTEE: It is with some trepidation that I rise to speak on the Air Estimates, because I have never been higher in the air than the clock tower of Big Ben. I have had many invitations to go into the air, but I am not sure whether I would like to get so far up that I should have both feet off the ground at the same time. But I have a real interest in flying. In the county of which I represent one of the Divisions there is one of the light aeroplane clubs, the Essex and Herts Club, and I have follc.wed the progress of that club with interest and have a general interest also in the light aeroplane club movement. I still feel that the support given by the Government to light aeroplane clubs is not such as they have a right to expect. My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies), appeared to criticise these clubs under the impression, apparently, that they are not the kind of clubs that miners would join. In the present state of the mining industry that may be true, but it is equally true that some of the better-paid artisans and better-paid workers, such as busmen, have a flying club, and I would like to see these co-operative flying clubs extended. Flying has now reached such a stage that it has become of general interest not only to those who take part in it but to the people generally, who recognise its future possibilities. People are showing a sufficient amount of interest in flying to enable them to have some judgment about its possibilities, and there is a general feeling, I believe, that flying, and par-
      222
      ticularly civil flying, ought to be encouraged.
      One of the greatest encouragements to flying has been the setting up of these light aeroplane clubs. They were first started in 1925, when five were established; by 1931 the number had grown to 23. They are entitled, under certain conditions, to a grant of £2,000, but I think it is true to say that none of them has ever earned anything like that sum, probably as a result of the conditions attached to the grant. There is considerable feeling amongst the members of all these clubs that the present basis on which the grant is paid is unsatisfactory, both from the point of view of the clubs and of the development of aviation generally, and I think the Minister should closely examine the method of making the grants. It cannot make very much difference to the Ministry under what conditions the grants are made so long as the clubs satisfy the object for which they were formed, which was to encourage flying, and to increase the number of pilots who would become available.
      I understand that it costs a minimum of £2 10s. per flying hour to use the machines, whereas the charge which is generally made—it is certainly the charge in the club of which I have knowledge, the Essex and Herts Club—is £2. I am told by the members of that club that if they attempted to raise the charge practically all their members, who number about 160, would be compelled to give up flying altogether. They are anxious to fly, but they are not the aristocrats the hon. Member for Westhoughton appears to think they are, many of them being ordinary working men who make a very considerable sacrifice to indulge their love of flying. They would like to take a flight once a week, but because they are not sufficiently well endowed with this world's goods they cannot do so; they can afford a flight only once in three or four weeks, and have to save up for that. If the main object is to encourage flying I submit that the policy of the Ministry as disclosed in the Estimates is not very much encouragement to these clubs. It was said by the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Everard) that the vote has been reduced from £15,000 last year to £8,500, this year's figure being based, apparently, on the amount actually expended last

      223
      year. In my opinion the whole £15,000 was not spent last year on account of the conditions attached to the grants, which make it almost impossible for clubs to get anything like the full sum, and therefore I ask the Ministry to reconsider the conditions with a view to enabling clubs to take fuller advantage of the offer of the Ministry. Even if the full amount were not spent last year the grant of £15,000 might have been continued in this year's Estimates.
      The other matter on which I would like to say a word has also been touched on by the hon. Member fox Melton. Great minds run in similar grooves, I expect; at any rate, the two principal points which he raised were the only two on which I desire to say a word. The second point concerns municipal aerodromes. I am particularly interested in municipal aerodromes, although not professing to have very much knowledge of them. With the development of the aeroplane industry and the extension of flying which, it seems to me, must take place in the near future, there is a growing necessity for better landing and taking off places, particularly around London. In my own constituency there is a site which, it appears to me, might be developed as a municipal aerodrome; but it is a matter for future consideration. The Air Ministry ought to encourage municipalities to keep the question of sites for aerodromes in mind when their areas are being developed. From communications I have had with some of them, I know that private companies are experimenting in this direction, perhaps with some encouragement, if not with financial assistance, from the Government. If they were getting such financial assistance I should not object to it, so long as the money were applied to a national object such as the development of flying generally. The Government should also make some kind of survey, particularly round London, where building is going on very rapidly, and where sites which are at present available may easily be lost in the next year or two. The Government should encourage municipalities to retain sites for aerodromes.
      Mr. PERKINS: As one of the few owner-pilots in the House, I would like to ask the Under-Secretary one or two questions and to make one or two
      224
      criticisms and suggestions. During the Debate last week and this afternoon hon. Members of all political parties have advocated the continuation of the subsidy for flying clubs, and others have openly advocated not only its continuation but its extension. They said that these flying clubs are turning out in large numbers pilots who in time of war would form a kind of reserve of pilots, a pool on which the Air Force could draw. We have been told that in the last four or five years these clubs have turned out nearly 6,000 pilots. I cannot agree that more than 600 of this 6,000 would be of the least use to this country in the event of our finding ourselves at war, and I propose shortly to describe the four or five types we find among this 6,000. First of all, there is the pilot who joins a flying club and, after 100 or 150 hours flying, gets his "B" licence. That type is very limited, and I put it out as a suggestion that perhaps not more than 10 per cent. of those 6,000 pilots have taken the "B" licence. Of course, any pilot with a "B" licence would be of the greatest service.
      5.30 p.m.
      I will go through the other kinds. We find that there is a very large number of women pilots, and that a large number of women are being taught to fly, largely at the expense of the State. It is common knowledge among pilots in this country that, with certain exceptions, women in the air are notoriously inefficient, and notoriously dangerous. Personally, I would rather find myself flying in formation with a winged dragon than flying in formation with a woman pilot. Women pilots would be absolutely useless if we found ourselves involved in war, because we could not make use of them in any way, the reason being that we are tied hand and foot by a national convention. Therefore, the money given by the nation to these women to subsidise them is a pure waste.
      I would like to mention another type, and that is the old gentleman pilot. Last Sunday I visited four or five light aeroplane clubs, and I found men of 50, 60 or even 70 years of age going up in the air, and they were getting their licences. I think that it is indefensible to spend large sums of money in order to give these old gentlemen cheap or free flying in the hope that they might be of some use in future wars. It is a great mistake

      225
      to pour out public money for a lot of purposes that would be useless in case of war. The most important group of all consists of those men who cannot afford to fly. If you go to any large flying club in the country you will find continuously every hour or two hours new members joining the club who want to learn to fly. They come full of enthusiasm. They meet the club secretary, who is equally full of enthusiasm, because he sees in them a chance of getting a subsidy from the Government. These men do eight or nine hours' flying. Then they do their first solo flight, and after 10 or 15 hours' flying they obtain their pilot's licence. From that moment the club has no more interest in that pilot, because there is no chance for 12 months of obtaining any further subsidy from the State. An investigation of this type of flyers will show that a very large proportion of them give up after they have flown for 20 or 30 hours, because the club will not help them, and they cannot afford to continue flying without financial aid from the Government.
      I submit that a very large proportion of the money given to these 10,000 clubs is utter waste, and if it is to be continued, I hope the Air Minister will consider whether it is not possible to alter the type of the subsidy and refuse it in respect of any pilot over the age of 40 years, because those men would be absolutely of no use in time of war. Would it not also he possible to refuse the subsidy to any man unless he does 30 or 40 hours in the air every year? Would it not be possible to refuse a subsidy to all women pilots? I would like to see civil aviation standing on its own legs, without any doles or subsidies from the State. I hope that the Government will stop subsidising inefficiency, and provide better facilities for flying. By that I mean that they should provide more aerodromes and aerial lighthouses and ground markings. In the early days of motoring, we had exceptionally bad roads in this country, and from the very moment that the local authorities and the State started paying out large sums of money to improve the roads, the motor industry began to develop very rapidly. The more the roads were improved, the better were the services provided on those roads, and the motor industry generally improved. I submit that exactly the same will happen in regard to aviation. The more aero-
      226
      dromes and the more lighthouses we provide, the more rapidly will be the development of civil aviation. If some proportion of this money can be handed over to municipalities to encourage them to ear-mark a certain amount for the erection of aerodromes, I believe that my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air will find a very big increase in private flying in that particular locality.
      I will now refer to the question of providing more ground marks for airmen. Sometime ago I put down a question relating to the desirability of marking the tops of gasometers and the roofs of railway stations, and the answer was that it was not considered necessary because they had drawn up a scheme of ground marking of their own. I flew for about, five hours last Sunday and I went round looking for these ground marks, but I could not find one of them. I wish the Under-Secretary would tell me where are those ground markings. I hope the Air Minister will consider the various suggestions that have been made with regard to ground marking. Surely it would be possible to mark with white paint the roofs of railway stations and the tops of gasometers. That would not cost the State anything because the gas corn-panics and the railway companies have to paint the gasometers and the roofs of the railway stations, and it would cost no more to paint them white than it would to paint them red. If this suggestion could be carried out, flying across country would be greatly simplified. As soon as we start improving the facilities for private flying, I feel sure there will be a large increase in private owners of aeroplanes, and a great increase in the number of really efficient pilots in this country.
      Mr. SIMMONDS: The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) has taken, I think, rather a narrow view in regard to the light aeroplane clubs. Those interested in these clubs never regarded them as a definite source for service pilots. I think these clubs are primarily means of promoting airmindedness in this country. Why do we want to promote airmindedness? Simply because in the past this country has been a carrier by sea of the world's goods and passengers, and if we are to maintain our mercantile supremacy, it roust be established in the air as well as on the sea. To this end an airminded

      227
      nation is essential, therefore it does not matter much whether we teach members of these clubs to fly at 60 or even at a later age. I was sorry to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Stroud about women flying, because they are playing their part in promoting air-mindedness in this country. I feel sure that the Air Ministry is taking the right course by not interfering as to which sex should benefit by their subsidies.
      As one who has to exist in the land of aviation I was immensely interested to hear from the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) that this is a land flowing with milk, honey and subsidies. It has been pointed out already that these subsidies are not offered to aeroplane manufacturing companies. This attack on these slender subsidies shows once again how the enthusiasm for Socialism on the Labour benches beguiles hon. Members opposite into suggesting changes which can only inflict additional hardship on the British workman. At the present moment there is a great deal of unemployment in the aircraft industry, and if the Air Ministry reduces the little help they are giving to these light aeroplane clubs, unemployment must be increased.
      I welcome the exceedingly hopeful promises which my right hon. Friend gave as to the new subsidy scheme. I suggest that possibly the larger clubs will be prevented from doing all they might do in their localities if the subsidy is definitely reduced below the £2,000 mark. The Minister may suggest that there is little likelihood of the £2,000 mark being reached, but I ask him to offer a further stimulus in that direction. I welcome the delightful speech which we heard from the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee). I had almost commenced to think that flying was a subject in which Socialists had no interest whatsoever, so I was delighted to find that there is, at any rate, one hon. Member belonging to the party opposite who has an intimate knowledge of civil aviation, and I am sure that all those who sit on this side of the House will join me in wishing that his enthusiasm will soon leaven the whole lump.
      Mr. ATTLEE: I hesitate to take part in this Debate, because I realise that I
      228
      come in that category which has been described by an hon. Member as old gentleman, and I can only claim to have flown once. The point to which I want to draw attention is in regard to civil aviation. The hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) has emphasised one side of this subject, and that is the civil side. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) emphasised all the time that the chief point of civil aviation was to provide a background for war, and he regarded flying clubs and so forth as merely for the purpose of finding reserve pilots in case of war. I think we ought to look at this matter of civil aviation from two points of view. First of all, we want to consider very carefully what is our policy with regard to it. I am one deeply interested in flying, and I believe that we are going to develop enormously flying of every kind.
      In regard to aviation, I believe we are in the same stage as motoring was at the end of the 19th century. It seems to me that in aviation we have an instrument that may be a potential menace to the human race, or it may be used with great advantage to the human race, according to the way in which we view aviation. The hon. Member for Duddeston took a more modern view than the hon. Member for Stroud, who dealt with civil aviation as an aid to air power in this country. I think that that is a mistake. The great point about civil aviation is that it links the world more closely than ever before. It annihilates distance, and it ought to lead more towards internationalism than towards combative nationalism. We are subsidising private enterprise on our main air routes, and we are subsidising private flying, particularly with regard to the air transport services. One might describe these services, as I think the Under-Secretary did, as a thin red line drawn across the map linking up the British Empire; but I would rather regard them as lines of no particular country, destined to link up the whole world. We should try to get out of our minds the idea of air power, of air supremacy. We may take pride in our people's achievements in the air, but we should try to get away from the idea that the air is merely a new element in which human beings can kill one another.

      229
      I am inclined to think that discussions on disarmament tend to range too much on a negative aspect, and not enough on a positive aspect. If you constantly discuss fighting, even from a disarmament point of view, you tend to think too much about fighting. A constructive policy of peace would be a great deal more effective. I should like to see in this country a policy of trying to internationalise the main air routes all over the world. The suggestion has been made, I think by the Under-Secretary, that at the present time we are subsidising private enterprise services on our main air lines with a view to seeing them in a comparatively short time flying on their own account without subsidy, but I think that we should take a different view—that the main air line services should form one great international service, and that, so far from wishing to see civil aviation developed merely as a support for a fighting air service, we should aim at developing it as a great support for world peace. I see no reason why this should not be done.
      I was reading this morning a number of past Debates on Air Estimates, including a remarkable speech by the present Foreign Secretary, delivered in 1924, in which he stressed the terrible potentialities of the air as a weapon of destruction, and pointed out that air power practically annihilated international war as it used to be laid down. He did not go on to develop the other side, and that is that to-day we are trying to get some kind of international government into the world through the League of Nations. One difficulty that has kept the countries of the world apart hitherto has been the difficulty caused by long distances and the time required to overcome them. International airways should lead to the elimination of those causes of international friction which are due to time and distance. I should like to see a positive proposal put forward by the Foreign Secretary, who has himself been in the Air Force, who knows the danger of unrestricted air development, who, in the speech to which I have referred, laid it down clearly that there was no possibility of getting definite air supremacy over some potential enemy, and who at that time, when Air Estimates were being kept down, pointed out that merely to
      230
      say that it was continuation was not enough.
      I should like to see the Foreign Secretary propose that the main air routes of the world should be international. A proposal was put forward by the French Government with regard to internationalising part of the fighting air services, and, whatever its merits or demerits may be, it was a proposal that was well worth consideration. I believe, however, that the best way of tackling this subject would be to start from the civil aviation aide. There is great difficulty in uniting the armaments of different nations, but I do not see why there should not be, on the civil side, an international personnel. During the War, there was probably greater camaraderie among the airmen of the different nations at war than in any of the other Forces. I do not see why that should not be developed, and why the airmen should not become truly international—trained together, working together, developing an international esprit de corps. If we could cut off a large amount of potential support for war by the development, not only of air-mindedness, but of internationalmindedness, we might go on to an international Air Force for policing the world, and do away with separate fighting air forces altogether. It may be said that this is a proposal which is "in the air," that it is only a flight of fancy; but I do not think we have sufficient imagination to realise what any future war is going to be like.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): I have been listening very closely to the hon. Gentleman for some time, and I must say he is getting very near to the line which he must not cross.
      Mr. ATTLEE: I am aware of that limiting line, and I admit that I got close to it, but I was not going to elaborate that point. The point that I was making was with regard to civil aviation, and I was going to conclude my sentence by saying that, if we wish to avoid these dangers, we ought to have a definite policy with regard to civil aviation. The policy expressed in the Air Estimates seems to me to be a nationalist policy, a policy which regards our civil aviation from the point of view of war, from the point of view of national rivalry; whereas I believe that this nation could take the lead in a great step forward in civilisa-

      231
      tion by advocating the internationalisation of all the main air routes of the world.
      Mr. MANDER: I join in the protests that have been made against the suggestion of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) that the object of subsidising these light aeroplane clubs was the training of pilots for the purposes of war. If that were the considered view of the Air Ministry, many people who strongly support these clubs at present would take a different view. On every occasion on which this matter has been brought forward, we have been assured that this was purely civil aviation, and that the object was, perfectly rightly, to encourage people in this country to be air-minded, to make them realise that flying is one of the finest sports in the world, and to make Englishmen and Englishwomen as much at home in the air as on the sea or in a motor car. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to say that that is still the policy of the Government, and that this is not simply a secret method of war preparation. If it were, it ought not to appear on this Vote.
      I should like to ask the Under-Secretary if he can say something about the staff for civil aerodromes. I notice that there is quite a considerable staff, and I should like to hear what they are doing. Are they beginning to encourage municipalities to go in for aerodromes of their own? If so, they are serving a useful purpose, even though the times are difficult at present. I would also urge the right hon. Gentleman to give sympathetic consideration to what has been said from several quarters about giving indications, on the roofs or platforms of railway stations, as to the name of the locality. That is of great value, as anyone knows who has flown about the country. The Minister may not have compulsory powers, but he has great powers of persuasion, not only in this House, but in the country, and, if he would try to encourage railway companies and others to assist in this way, he would be doing a very good thing for civil aviation. The advertising value of ground signs that can be read from the air has hardly been realised. On one occasion, when flying over my constituency, I was very much impressed
      232
      by the signs that I saw concerning a local brewery and its products, and, the more people take to flying about the country, the more will be the value of signs or advertisements on the ground.
      With regard to the internationalisation of civil aviation, I referred in my speech last Thursday to the proposals which are being laid before the Disarmament Conference. A number of countries have proposed something of this kind, and it figures in what is known as the Budapest policy of the Federation of League of Nations Societies all over the world. I quite understand that the Under-Secretary will not be able to say anything definite on this point, but I hope he will be able to say that the Government are open to consider this among other proposals, and see whether, as the result of a general bargain on other matters, something on these lines could not be made to fit in. If he is willing to indicate the open-mindedness of the Government on this question, and their willingness to negotiate, I think we shall have cause to be well satisfied.
      6.0 p.m.
      Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I want to get the House down from the air to earth on the question of civil aviation. In connection with this subject, the one desire is to get people to travel by air. The whole world is divided into two sets of people—those who do not care a bit about the air, and the others who are over-enthusiastic. My position is between the two. I want to travel by air, but no one looks after me. The appalling noise, and the way that I am subject to seasickness, make travel by air really a most unpleasant thing. It is quite true that many more people would travel by air if they were not seasick and if it were not so noisy. An eloquent plea was made to the Under-Secretary the other day on the subject of noise, and I hope he will be able to say something about it. We have a very expensive and very efficient research department. Could they not turn their attention to the subjugation of noise, and also to the really difficult question of motion in the air, which, after all, from the point of view of seasickness, is infinitely worse than that of any boat. That is a very serious thing, and I believe it can be overcome. I am glad to see that after 14 years we have come to the con-

      233
      clusion that aviation is not altogether military, but has some worth on the civil and pacific side, but if you go to the Continent by aeroplane and arrive, having been seasick for three hours and subjected to a tremendous noise, the net result of your labour in that country might be the reverse of pacific.
      Sir P. SASSOON: My hon. and gallant Friend is well known as one of the foremost pioneers of aviation, and it is with considerable regret that I hear from him what his sufferings must have been in the air during all these years. I have always looked upon him as a hero. Now I look upon him as something even superior to that. But I agree with him entirely that travel by air can be very unpleasant, both from the point of view of noise and the other causes which he so graphically described. As far as noise is concerned, we have made considerable strides and, in the matter of seasickness, we are doing what we can, but perhaps the aeroplane is more at the mercy of the elements than any other form of transport. I hope during the course of future years air travel will be more comfortable than it has been in the past. The hon. Member for Wolverhamption (Mr. Mander) and the hon. Member for Lime-house (Mr. Attlee) made extremely interesting speeches and suggestions on the subject of internationalising civil aviation all over the world. I cannot say anything about that to-day because the whole matter is under discussion at Geneva at present, but the British delegation is certainly open to consider any scheme sympathetically. It is unnecessary for me to say that there are very great difficulties in the way before any scheme of that kind can be brought to a successful issue.
      The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) surprised me very much, because he started off by complaining that there is an increase in the civil aviation Vote, and no increase in the military Vote. I was delighted to hear him take a line of that kind. I think on the whole it has given pleasure to hon. Members that there should have been a small increase in the Vote for civil aviation. It is principally due to the fact that we have been uncertain for some months past whether it would be possible to continue the link down the
      234
      Persian Gulf and along the Persian coast to India. The agreement with the Persian Government was due to terminate on 31st March. We have an extension of two months, and I hope that may lead to a further extension, and perhaps greater security of tenure. As we did not know that it would be possible to continue the arrangement, we had to make provision for the possibility of using the Southern coast of the Persian Gulf and not being compelled to sever this very important link in the chain of our service from Great Britain to India. The hon. Member also complained about the subsidy that was given to Imperial Airways and said that in other countries infant industries were always helped until they found their feet. That is exactly why we are giving the subsidy to Imperial Airways. I think the hon. Member has been able to answer his question himself. He was in rather a muddle about what he called the subsidy given to other firms. What he calls subsidies to other firms are really contracts given by the Air Ministry to aircraft manufacturers. They give employment, and one would not have thought they would be the subject of attack.
      Several hon. Members have discussed the question of aeroplane clubs from different angles. May I say what great pleasure it gave me to listen to the charming speech of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee). He tells me he has never yet been up into the air. I think it is extremely remiss of him, and I should be only too glad on any available opportunity to see that in future he is unable to make a remark of that kind. He has been able to prove conclusively what excellent work these clubs do. They are in a sense co-operative. The people who join them co-operate and are thus able to fly. Many of them are people who would not be able to afford to do it otherwise. With regard to the new arrangement about which I was asked by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Everard) I am afraid I cannot say anything more on this occasion than I said last week. It was only at the last moment that I was able to make any announcement at all. The arrangements are still under review and under consideration and, if my hon. Friend will allow me to refrain from giving any

      235
      further details at the moment, I shall be only too pleased as soon as possible to give him any information he likes, but he can rest assured that the light aeroplane clubs are going to be treated more generously. I do not think there are any other points that I need touch upon. Perhaps the House will allow us to have the Vote and bring this interesting Debate to a conclusion.

    REPORT [7TH MARCH].
    Resolutions reported:
    REPORT [7TH MARCH].

      NAVY ESTIMATES, 1932.
      1. "That 91,410 Officers, Seamen, Boys, and Royal Marines be employed for the Sea Service, together with 865 for the Royal Marine Police, borne on the books of His Majesty's Ships, at the Royal Marine Divisions, and at Royal Air Force Establishments, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933."
      2. "That a sum, not exceeding £12,627,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Wages, etc., of Officers and Men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, and Civilians employed on Fleet Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933."
      3. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,245,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and abroad, including the cost of Superintendence, Purchase of Sites, Grants, and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933."
      4. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,074,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Victualling and Clothing for the Navy, including the cost of Victualling Establishments at Home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933."
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: I desire on this Vote to ask the First Lord whether he will make as full a statement as possible with regard to the progress of the works that are being carried out in connection with the all-important Naval strategic base at Singapore. Neither in the White Paper nor in the speech that the First Lord made in bringing in the
      236
      Estimates was this important base mentioned at all. I do not think the importance of the construction of the base is fully realised by the House or the country. I do not think it can be stressed too often why this base is necessary. I do not think any foreign Power considers its construction as a menace. They fully realise that it is necessary for this country to be able to maintain the security of its vast interests in Far Eastern waters. Singapore is the greatest port in those Far Eastern waters. In 1926, some 25,000,000 tons of shipping used it, 11,000,000 tons of which was British shipping.
      That shows the vast importance of our trade interests in the Far East. Geographically, Singapore is situated midway between India and China, and on that account it obtains a very great strategic value for the defence of our vast interests, not only from the trade point of view but from the point of view of our Dominions and possessions in that part of the world. I do not think there can be any difference of opinion amongst Members as to the immense importance it is for this country to continue the construction of that base, and have it brought to completion as soon as possible. In the mind of those who are on the spot, there is not the slightest doubt on this important point. The Federated Malay States, Hong Kong and New Zealand have up to date contributed no less than £2,022,000 towards the construction of the base. That sum was provided in order that the work might be accelerated, but I am sorry to say that has not been done.
      At the Imperial Conference of 1930, it was agreed that the ultimate establishment of the base should be maintained, and that the work should be proceeded with in connection with the Jackson contract, and also with the air base. I should like the First Lord to tell us how far the work in connection with the Jackson contract has gone. I put a question yesterday as to the construction of the graving dock, and received the reply that the entrance to the graving dock was about one-half completed and the excavation for the body of the dock, had been commenced. After all these years one would imagine that the progress of the work should have been far greater than that. There is nothing being done with regard to the construction of the air

      237
      base. I should like to ask when this work of the Jackson contract is likely to be completed, and when it is completed, whether it will then be possible for a fleet of heavy ships to be sent out to operate in those waters should the occasion arise. At present, it is impossible for a fleet of heavy ships to be sent out to the Far East to defend our immense interests, because they would have to rely upon Malta as a base, which is 5,000 miles away. I understand that the Jackson contract consists only of work to be carried out on the graving dock. The graving dock by itself is quite useless, unless there is also carried out the construction of the dockyard workshops to enable the fleet to be refitted and repaired as necessary. I would ask the First Lord to give some information on that very important point.
      There was also at the 1930 Conference a recommendation that the expenditure for the equipment of the docks and for defence work should be postponed for five years, when the matter would again be reviewed in the light of the relevant conditions then prevailing. That means to say that, so far as the construction of the base is concerned, nothing whatever is to be carried out except the construction of the graving dock. That is a very serious condition of affairs. It means that only in 1935 the question is to be reviewed as to what is to be done with regard to the construction of dockyard workshops and of the air base and land defences of Singapore. It may mean that four, five or more years may then pass before the base can possibly be completed. The country is, therefore, in this position that for about another 10 years, if this policy is pursued, there will be no base in the Far Eastern waters where a fleet of heavy ships can be sent in order to safeguard our immense interests in that part of the world. I hope that the First Lord will be able to give some assurance to the House that this policy will be brought up for review and will be reversed, and that we shall go ahead with the construction of this most important base, in order to be in a position to send out a fleet of heavy ships to defend our interests in that part of the world.
      The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Captain Euan Wallace): I am very glad
      238
      to take this opportunity of telling my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) in particular, and the House of Commons in general—because I think it is a matter of great interest—something about the Singapore Base. I regret that my right hon. Friend the First Lord is unavoidably prevented through an important public engagement from being here to answer for himself. I am very glad that the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington prefaced his remarks by saying that no foreign Power considered the Singapore Base a menace, and, indeed, there is no reason why it should. After all, it has never been suggested in any quarter of this House that our friends the citizens of the United States regard Plymouth as a menace to their security, and actually Plymouth is just as near to New York as Singapore is to certain other great Powers in the Far East.
      If hon. Members will turn to item 64 in this Vote in the Navy Estimates they will see that the total cost of the scheme is £7,750,000. That is what is provided for in the Estimates. If the scheme is completed as provided for in the Estimates, we shall be left with an adequately equipped base at Singapore. We should have a graving dock capable of taking the largest ships, a wharf over 2,000 feet long for berthing, a store wharf, fuelling wharf, electrical generating station, dockyard workshops, storehouses, houses and quarters, hospital for natives, and, a little distance away, an armament depot. Therefore, my hon. and gallant Friend will realise that the scheme as set out in the Estimates provides for an adequate and satisfactory naval base.
      Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Is this money going to be used for the construction of dockyard workshops as well as for the construction of a dockyard?
      Captain WALLACE: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will wait until I have finished. As he has told the House, the Imperial Conference of 1930 considered this question and, owing, I think, to financial stringency, decided to complete only those works comprised in the Jackson contract, that is, the main contract for work at Singapore, and those departmental works and ancillary services vitally necessary to its completion. Therefore, although the

      239
      figure of £7,750,000 appears in the Estimates, our actual commitments at the present moment are the estimated payments to Messrs. Jackson of £4,036,000, the departmental expenses under this Vote, dredging for the floating dock, railway, road, water supply, staff houses and that kind of thing, £1,043,516 and some contingent expenditure under Vote 8 for machinery, making a total of a little over £5,000,000. Of course, if we only proceed with the work in the Jackson contract and the services definitely ancillary to it, the House must realise that we shall not be left with a satisfactory or a workable naval base. We should not have the graving dock complete nor the generating station nor the workshops. As far as the provisions in this year's Estimates are concerned, we have a payment of £690,000 on the Estimates, £670,000 'of which is to be earned by Messrs. Jackson and £20,000 is departmental expenditure. We get £72,000 from the New Zealand Government this year which is separately accounted for under Subhead N of this Vote, and that leaves a net expenditure on Navy Votes of £618,000 for this year.
      Here, again, I think that I ought to be perfectly frank with the House, and to enter a caveat. As I attempted to explain last week until I was ruled out of order by the Chairman, we have altered the form in which the Navy Estimates are presented this year. We have abolished by order of the Treasury in consultation with the Public Accounts Committee what is known as a shadow cut to allow for possible under-spending and there is no shadow cut this year. We have been obliged, therefore, to estimate as best we can the possible amount of under-spending on each of the Navy Votes, and we have allowed on this purticular item the sum of £90,000. Messrs. Jackson may earn as much as £760,000. They are working very well up to schedule at the present moment, and if they do so they will of course have to be paid. If this results in an excess upon Navy Votes, it will be necessary for us to come to the House of Commons for a Supplementary Estimate.
      My hon. and gallant Friend asked me exactly how far the contract had progressed. I will try to tell him without going into too much detail. As far as
      240
      the graving dock is concerned, the concrete work across the dock entrance and for the foundations of the underground pumping station has been constructed up to till level. The excavation for the barrel of the dock has begun. We have completed the excavation of what is called the new cut—diverting Sembawang River to give space for wireless telegraph station—and we have constructed about half of the dockyard wharf, about one-third of the stores wharf, and the site of the armament depot has been almost reclaimed. A great deal of excavation and reclamation of the future dockyard area has been carried out. I would like the House to realise that the actual construction of the work on this site is not by any means the only thing that has to be done. When we took over tht Singapore Base, half was scrub and half rubber plantation, and an immense amount of reclamation work, as my hon. Friend opposite will know, has had to be done. The hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington can rest assured that Messrs. Jackson are making good progress. There is up to the present no reason whatever to suppose that their contract work will not be finished when due, in 1935.
      Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: I have still to ask for an answer to the question with regard to the construction of the dockyard workshops which are necessary in order that the Fleet may be repaired and equipped at that base, and without which a fleet cannot operate in those waters. I ask whether this is being carried out now, and, if not, when will it be carried out?
      Captain WALLACE: I had hoped that I had made it perfectly clear to the hon. and gallant Member that although a complete dockyard with workshops is allowed for in the sum of £7,750,000 which appears in the Estimates, the Jackson contract and the ancillary services upon which we are engaged at present as a result of the decision of the Imperial Conference of 1930 does not provide for workshops. The hon. and gallant Gentleman went on to ask about the Air base and the land defences. I do not think that I should be in order in discussing either of these matters at present, but no doubt he will have seen the answer given to him yesterday by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office in regard to

      241
      the land defences. My right hon. Friend the First Lord realises, of course, as everybody in the House must realise, that the financial stringency which embarassed the Imperial Conference in 1930 has placed us in the position at the present moment that we have not plans in hand—and I think it right to be perfectly frank with the House—for the construction of a full and completely up-to-date base at Singapore. I wish to say to my hon. and gallant Friend that the situation is fully realised by the Board of Admiralty, and that it is at the present moment engaging the earnest attention of my right hon. Friend the First Lord. I hope, therefore, that the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington and the House in general will realise that I have been absolutely frank with them upon the subject of Singapore, and will accept my assurance that the position, the anomalies of which must be apparent to anyone who has studied it, is really receiving our close and earnest consideration.

    REPORT [8TH MARCH].
    Resolutions reported;
    REPORT [8TH MARCH].

      ARMY ESTIMATES, 1932.
      1. "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 148,700, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at Home and abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions (other than Aden), during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933."
      2. "That a sum, not exceeding £9,039,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of His Majesty's Army at Home and abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions (other than Aden), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933."
      3. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,421,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings and Lands, including military and civilian staff, and other charges in connection therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933."
      4. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,528,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Rewards, Half-Pay, Retired Pay, Widows' Pensions and other Non-effective Charges for Officers, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933."
      5. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,518,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, and Kilmainham Hospital; of Out-Pensions, Rewards for Distinguished Service, Widows' Pensions, and other Non-Effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers Men, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933."
      6. "That a sum not exceeding £260,000 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Superannuation, Compensation, and Additional Allowances, Gratuities, injury Grants, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933."

    CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1931.

      CLASS II.
      7. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,500, be granted to His Majesty, 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 Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      6.30 p.m.
      Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: I should like to draw attention to Vote A on page 16, which refers to two Armoured Car Cavalry Regiments, one at home and one in Egypt. We were told originally when mechanisation was introduced that there were two reasons for the change, one that it would give greater fire power and the other that it would be an economy. I have no wish to make any criticism as regards fire power, but I am glad to notice a change in the organisation of cavalry regiments so that there are now three sabre squadrons, equipped with machine guns, attached to the headquarter squadron. That used to be done, and I am glad to see it.
      As regards the armoured car regiments I have asked for some time what is the cost compared with the cost of a mounted cavalry regiment, and I have pointed out that if it could be shown that there was an economy, there would be much more reason for making the change than if no economy resulted. I received an answer on the 1st December, which stated that:

      243
      "The annual cost of a cavalry armoured-car regiment exceeds that of a horsed cavalry regiment by between 5 and 10 per cent., the figure depending on the life of the cars, as to which sufficient experience is not yet available to give a firm estimate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1931; col. 940, Vol. 260.]
      In view of that answer, would it not be wise from the point of view of economy for the War Office to make this a mounted cavalry regiment again We have fewer mounted cavalry regiments than any Army in the world, and we have fewer horses and many more places than other countries where mounted troops are necessary. The co-ordination of the Ordnance Stores for these armoured cars is not very well arranged, and it seems to me that further economy could be effected on that score.
      Several questions have been asked lately by an hon. Friend of mine opposite as to armoured car detachments in Palestine. I have asked whether they are maintained and equipped from the Array Ordnance Stores, or whether they draw on Air Force stores, and I was told that they dealt usually at the Army Ordnance Stores, but that they have separate stores of their own. I should like to know whether any attention has been paid to the report of the Commission four or five years ago, to which I am always referred when I ask for better co-ordination in regard to the Ordnance Stores. I should be glad if the Minister would look into this point and see if some economy could not be made.
      Mr. TINKER: I do not know whether I should be in order in asking a question on Vote 2. I brought forward this matter when the Estimates were before the Committee, but the Minister could not answer me then; he had not time. May I ask a question in regard to Vote 11, Miscellaneous?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must wait until Vote 2 is reached.
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): In reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown), I may say that I shall be only too glad to look into the points which he has raised and see if any further economies can be effected. I cannot, however, hold out any hope of a reversal of the decision in
      244
      regard to the two armoured-car regiments, and that we shall remount them, although, as he pointed out, it does appear that at the present time they are costing more than mounted cavalry regiments. It is very natural, however, when you are beginning an experiment and a new departure in the equipment of troops by mechanisation means, that the costs should be slightly higher than they will be when the experiment has been further proceeded with. All the ifnormation at our disposal is that the armoured-car regiments have been a very great success and a very great advance. Although, as I have said to my hon. and gallant Friend before, we have no intention in the future, so far as I am aware, of reducing the number of the cavalry, because we still realise that the cavalry have a part to play in warfare, I cannot hold out any hope that we shall remount these regiments.
      Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide, during Twelve Months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army and Air Force; and that Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell, Sir Philip Sassoon and Mr. Duff Cooper do prepare and bring it in.

      ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL,
      "to provide, during Twelve Months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army and the Air Force," presented accordingly, and read the First Time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 45.]
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      Brigadier-General BROWN: I should like to raise a point about the Cavalry Records Office. I know that there are hon. Members opposite who would like to abolish the Cavalry, but they must agree with me that while we have an Army and a Cavalry section, it should be fairly and justly treated. It was brought to my mind at our Cavalry Association meeting that a gunner officer had been appointed to command the Cavalry Re-

      245
      cords Office. We have to verify many records and we find they are very helpful, and we like to feel that our Cavalry Records Office is run by cavalry soldiers who understand the feelings and esprit de corps of their old regiments. In this case, however, a commanding officer from another branch of the Service has been put in charge of the Records Office. Is it the intention to change the non-commissioned officers in the office and to staff it from other branches of the Service?
      We should like to know if it is intended in the event of another vacancy arising, say, in the Infantry Records Office, that it should be commanded by a cavalry officer? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. So far as I know this is the first time that such an appointment has been made. I asked a question on the subject. I asked why an artillery officer was appointed in charge of the Cavalry Records Office, and the reply I received was that this office is normally filled by a cavalry officer, but that in. February, 1931, when the present holder of the appointment was selected, there were no colonels, late of the Cavalry, available. That answer is not very convincing, because, when I made further inquiry, I found that although it was true that in February, 1931, there were no Cavalry colonels available, yet in June, 1931, when the appointment was vacant, there were two Cavalry colonels available. For one of these officers a position was found, and there might have been an appointment for the other officer in the Records Office. One would have expected that even if a Cavalry colonel was not available, the second in command might have carried on until a Cavalry colonel was available.
      So far as I know it has never happened before that an officer from another branch of the Service has been put in charge of a Record office. It was not a fair answer to say that when the present holder was selected and appointed there were no cavalry colonels available, because they must have known perfectly well that there would be cavalry colonels available later. I shall be glad if the Financial Sercretary will look into this matter. It may be that some of the remarks I have heard are not true, but one does not like to hear distinguished officers referring to this
      246
      matter as a contemptible job. I should like to know whether it is a precedent which is to be followed. I understand that at the time an undertaking was given that it was only a temporary appointment. By this time there are several cavalry colonels available. Therefore, if the appointment was only temporary it ought to be altered. This is not the first time that the War Office has been suspected and called in this House an Augean stable. A friend of mine, the commander of an artillery regiment, who distinguished himself during the War, and who afterwards had a post at the War Office, told me, and I believe it to be true, that regimental soldiering is the finest and most unselfish life, but that when you go to the War Office you find that they can wangle jobs better than any politician. That is the kind of feeling that was expressed by officers at that time. I would ask the Financial Secretary to look into this matter and let me know if this appointment is to be permanent or temporary.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask the representative of the War Office to reconsider the question of the pay of reservists. The reservists were the only set of men who were subjected to a reduction of pay of more than 10 per cent. They suffered a reduction of 25 per cent. in their rate of pay. Their rates were reduced from 1s. to 9d. a day. It was bad enough to be the only class singled out for the 25 per cent. reduction, and there was certainly a breach of contract. I would, therefore, ask the Financial Secretary, in view of the fact that this section of men were the only Ones—
      Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that this particular subject comes under Vote 2, the Pay of Reservists. Therefore, it would not be in order on this Vote.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: Shall I be in order in raising the general question of the pay of ordinary soldiers and reservists?
      Mr. SPEAKER: On the Vote which relates to pay the hon. Member will be entitled to raise the question of the pay of soldiers now serving.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: On the former occasion the Financial Secretary made a statement which had the implication that

      247
      the pay of soldiers in the past had been, relatively speaking, too high. In view of the reconsiderations that are to take place in some quarters, may I ask the Financial Secretary if it is not time to consider putting back the soldiers' rates of pay to what they were before? Those reductions were unduly harsh on the men. I have never believed in their calling, but as long as we are keeping soldiers we should pay them decently and treat them well. I think the members of the average troop regiment are shockingly badly paid. There are rumours that people are to get back their emoluments, or portions of them, and I would therefore ask the Financial Secretary if he will use his influence with the War Office or with his Chief to see that the ordinary serving soldier is returned to his full standard wage. The present Army is not anything like well enough paid. I would ask the Financial Secretary to use his influence to get the cut restored to these men.
      Mr. COOPER: When I listened to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown), speaking on behalf of the cavalry, I could not help feeling what a trade union leader he would have made. So far as the question that he raised this afternoon is concerned, my reply is to quote the reply which I gave to the questions which he put to me some time ago. I am sorry that he suggested that there has been any unpleasant job in connection with this appointment. I informed him that when this appointment was made no cavalry officer was available for it. He asks whether, when the vacancy fell due some months earlier, one cavalry officer was available who had not got a job. I am not prepared to answer that question either in the affirmative or the negative, the worst that has occurred is that for once in its history the cavalry record office is to be commanded by an artillery officer. I can assure him, and I have already assured him, when he asked a supplementary question a short time ago, that there was no intention of making this a permanent appointment for artillery officers.
      In regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), I thought that in my speech in introducing the Estimates last week I had made the position plain that the
      248
      cuts in the pay of the Army this year were only reducing the whole Army to the same rate of pay that everybody who entered the Army from October, 1925, has been receiving. That rate of pay was decided upon by a Committee that was set up in 1924 and 1925, and it was considered then a perfectly fair rate of pay. There have been no complaints from people who have come into the Army since that date, and recruiting has improved instead of becoming worse. From that I think we can assume, as we have assumed, that the troops are not paid too low. I cannot hold out any hope to the hon. Member that this rate of pay is likely to be reconsidered in the near future.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House cloth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      Mr. BUCHANAN: I do not know whether I am in order in raising a question in which I am interested on this Vote, which concerns what are called the Chelsea Commissioners, who administer pensions, etc. May I ask the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote if the time has not come to make some modification of the procedure in connection with the pensions given to men who have served in the Army? All of us know that men who served during the War had certain rights of appeal granted to them in connection with tribunals. I do not know whether other hon. Members find, as I find, that a number of men who have served in the Army have been discharged either now or during the past few years suffering from some form of alleged unfitness, and cannot continue in the Army, owing to some disease or disability, or some other organic trouble. These men very often claim that the Army service is the cause of their breakdown in health, when making an appeal to the Chelsea Commissioners for a pension to be considered. They get sometimes a grant of a pension, but far more often, they get a refusal, on the grounds that the man had the trouble, or at least part of the trouble, when he originally joined the

      249
      Army. That may be true. It may be that the Chelsea Commissioners are sound in their view, but I believe that the man ought to have a right of appeal to some other body more neutral in character than are the Chelsea Commissioners.
      The man has no right to raise evidence before the Board, and is not given a hearing similar to that given before the Pensions Tribunals, which are bodies consisting of representatives of ex-service men, medical men and neutral folk. All that happens before the Chelsea Commissioners is that they review the case, and the man is not allowed to plead evidence. No representatives are allowed to appear for the man, and he has no right of appeal to any neutral body. I would ask the Financial Secretary if the War Office cannot give these men some right of appeal from the decision of the Chelsea Commissioners.
      I have a case in mind of a man who served in the Army for some time. He was dismissed, as his health was ruined, but the Chelsea Commissioners say that it was not the fault of the Army and that the man had the trouble before he joined, although he was accepted for the Army. While that may be true, the man feels a deep sense of injustice that he has no right of appeal to another and neutral body. In view of the fact that such cases arise, is it not possible for the Financial Secretary to set up some body to give the serving soldier, dismissed in the way I have described, a right of appeal, in order that the War Office people should not in the main be the judges of whether a pension should be granted. In common fairness to the man, a neutral body ought to be the judges of whether a pension should be granted.
      Mr. COOPER: I do not think, so far as I am aware, that very many cases of the kind to which the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) refers, actually occur. The Commissioners of the Royal Chelsea Hospital are a very representative body. There are not only soldiers and doctors, but there are representatives of many different interests. They look into each case very carefully. It is always possible for any hon. Member who is aware of a case in which he thinks a man was wrongly turned down, to bring it up and communicate it to the War Office, to me or to anybody in
      250
      charge there. I am a member of the Commission of the Chelsea Hospital, and I know that cases are always gone into very thoroughly. I am sorry to hear that the hon. Member has one case in mind in which he thinks there was a failure to do justice. If he brings it to my notice I shall be only too glad to look into it again. On the whole, the system works very well. There is not much to be gained by a multiplication of tribunals and boards of appeal. I am sure that in the past the Commission have done their very best for the soldiers, and I am sure that they will do so in the future. If the hon. Member will bring me any case of the kind, I promise that it shall receive my full consideration.

  WAYS AND MEANS.

    REPORT [10TH MARCH].
    Resolutions reported,

    1. "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1931, the sum of £22,982 4s. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."

    2. "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, the sum of £490,865 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."

    3. "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, the sum of £201,608,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."

    Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Major Elliot.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
    "to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-one, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-two, and one thousand nine hundred and thirty-three"; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time to-morrow, and to be printed.—[Bill 46.]
  TANGANYIKA AND BRITISH HONDURAS LOANS [GUARANTEE].

    REPORT [14TH MARCH].
    Resolution reported,
    "That it is expedient—

    (a) to authorise the Treasury to guarantee the payment of the principal of, and the interest on, a loan to be raised by the Government of Tanganyika not exceeding an amount sufficient to raise seven hundred and fifty thousand pounds, and to charge on the Consolidated Fund any moneys required to fulfil any such guarantee;

    (b) to authorise the Treasury to advance by way of loan to the Government of British Honduras sums not exceeding in the whole three hundred and twenty-five thousand pounds, the advances to be local loans within the meaning of the National Debt and Local Loans Act, 1887;

    (c) to authorise advances out of moneys provided by Parliament for the payment of such part, if any, of the annual or half-yearly charges in respect of the loans aforesaid for any of the first five years of the currency thereof as, in the opinion of the Treasury and the Secretary of State, the Government concerned are not in a position to meet as and when those charges fall due."

    Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, Sir Robert Hamilton, and Major Elliot.

    TANGANYIKA AND BRITISH HONDURAS LOANS BILL.
    "to authorise the Treasury to guarantee a loan to be raised by the Government of Tanganyika, to authorise a loan to the Government of British Honduras, and to authorise the making of advances out of moneys provided by Parliament for the payment of the annual or half-yearly charges in respect of the said loans for a limited period," presented accordingly, and read the First time to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 47.]
    The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Sir F. Thomson.]
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: This Motion illustrates again the way in which the Government are treating with disrespect the rights of private Members. I should not criticise the Government unless I felt that there was good ground for doing so. Here we are rising at 7 o'clock with ample opportunity of proceeding with Bills which are very much desired by persons outside the House. I protest against the Government calling upon this House to adjourn when there is a reasonable opportunity of proceeding with other Orders on the Paper. The very next Order, which is in my charge, is a Bill which has been passed by this House seven times in the last 25 years, and, during the last meek-end, resolutions in support of this Bill have been passed by large representative conferences in the country. I do not press the matter further now, but I ask the representative of the Government to communicate to the right quarter the view that, when there is reasonable time in this House not required for urgent public business, reasonable facilities might he given to pass Measures which do not interfere with public business, and which are in response to urgent public demands outside.
  Mr. MANDER: I desire to associate myself with what my hon. Friend has just said. This is not the first time that this has occurred, because on three successive Fridays we have had three or four hours left, and now we have four hours left. Yet the Government are not only not giving time for private Members' Bills, but they are not putting forward their own Bills. There are quite a number of Bills which might have been proceeded with, but which have been put off until to-morrow. If the Government do not wish to occupy all the time of the House, they might give an opportunity to private Bills. To show that I am not personally interested in the matter, although I have two Bills down, which I agree are somewhat controversial. I would be perfectly willing to pass them over and not to raise them if the Government would give an opportunity to pass the Rights of Way Bill, which is non-controversial. I would urge the Whips to make an exception tonight, and to grant facilities for the passage of that Bill.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I support the hon. Member on the general principle that private Members should have some of their rights restored. I do not object to the hon. Member's Bill, although I object to both Bills of his colleague behind him.
  Mr. MANDER: They are both progressive Bills.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: They may be, and I am glad to find somebody more advanced than I am. I am not concerned whether they are progressive or not, but I oppose them. Nevertheless, I think that the discussion on these Bills might be taken. The Government ought to consider seriously, if they will not give back our rights for Bills, at least to give us back some of our rights for Motions. It may be too much to ask the Government, with the programme they have in hand, to give time for private Members' Bills, but time ought surely to be granted for Motions. The Government have done a lot of work to-day, and perhaps the people to blame are the Opposition for not opposing enough. There seems to be a coalition to allow this bad, rotten Government to do what they like. The Government seem able to do very much what they like. They put down a fairly full programme of business to-day, and actually took the precaution of suspending the Eleven o'Clock Rule, although it is the Seven o'Clock Rule that they ought to have suspended. Is it not possible for them to restore time for Motions? One of the Whips has already said that, as far as Bills are concerned, the Government have already got enough to keep the Committee going, and that to allow Bills to go ahead would be wasting time. Assuming that there is something in that argument, it does not apply to Motions. If the Government would restore that right, then the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight) could bring in a Motion about rights of way, and the Government could take it as the unanimous desire of the House to proceed, not with the actual Bill itself, but with the principle of the Bill.
  It would be as well if we could have some discussion on a number of important matters. There is rent restriction, on which we have been promised a Bill. Private Members who have no other way of raising this issue ought to be able
  254
  by Motion to give the Government some definite idea of what is in the mind of the average back bencher. If private Members do not have time to raise these issues, then the caucus becomes more powerful because the caucus takes no notice of what the back bencher desires. Back benchers, particularly Ministerial back benchers, should bring pressure to bear upon the Government so that private Members' Motions can be restored. Besides rent restriction, there are the questions of rent and rent payment, which is the great burning question in Scotland at the moment, and of unemployment allowance. That is a question of almost starvation in many districts, and we should like to raise the question of unemployment benefit and its administration.
  These questions ought to be forced upon the Government, and the best way would be if some back benchers could put down a direct Motion calling upon the Government to abolish the means test and restore unemployment benefit to the normal position. If private Members' time were restored, the Opposition would be able to put down a Motion to this effect. This is the gravest human problem of our cities at the moment. The suffering in Glasgow at the moment is appalling. One of the things that makes me almost ashamed of politics is the quarrel going on at Dumbarton as to who is right and who is wrong about the means test. Behind all this playing with words is the human suffering arising from the administration of this test at the moment. It is shocking that private Members should be deprived of the right of raising these grave issues of human suffering among our people. It is true that we have had time to debate tariffs and currency and the stabilisation of the pound, but we cannot debate these human issues which involve the lives of our own people. It is more important that we should have this time when the Government have such a large majority than it is when the Government have only a small majority.
  I see the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) on the Government Front Bench. When he occupied a seat on the back benches no one fought for private Members' rights more than he did. He was always keen about the rights of the people of Grimsby, and the reason he held his seat in good times and bad was not

  255
  because he was a Conservative, but because he was constantly watching and fighting for Grimsby's interests and using private Members' time to raise these interests. Yet, now that he is occupying the Front Bench, he is taking part in this conspiracy, or at least he is allowing the Government to take time which would otherwise have been better devoted. I ask the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot). who is the nearest to Cabinet rank on the Front Bench at the moment—he is the only one who might be said to he approaching it, and that is no discourtesy to the other occupants of the Front Bench—I ask him to use his influence with the Cabinet in order to get private Members' privileges restored. We want a restoration of the ballot for private Members' Motions. The right hon. and gallant Member may be diametrically opposed to my views, but he knows the human issues that are at stake.
  Sir FREDERICK THOMSON (Treasurer of the Household): The hon. Member has shown great Parliamentary skill in raising a good many questions in which he is interested on this Motion for the Adjournment of the House. He has spoken with great eloquence. Let me say, in the first place, that the business put down for to-day was a heavy
  256
  programme of work. It included the Report stages of the Air, Navy and Army Estimates. Clearly one would have expected a full day's work, but it has happened that the business has gone through more quickly than was anticipated. At the beginning of the day one might have thought that the Government had put down rather more business than could be completed in the day. It has not been the custom in the past to put down the Report stage of the Votes for the three Services on the one day. Such business has generally occupied two days. To-day's programme was, therefore, heavier than normal. As to private Members' time, the House decided by a large majority that it was necessary in the national interest for the Government to take the time of private Members in order to complete a great programme of business of national importance. Private Member's Bills could not possibly get through their later stages, because all the time of the House is already mortgaged. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) knows quite well that the Government have much important work to do, and that it was necessary to take all the time of the House.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes after Seven o'Clock.