Commons Sitting of 23 May 1939

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Bognor Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords].

Droitwich Canals (Abandonment) Bill [Lords].

Medway Conservancy Bill [Lords].

Merthyr Tydfil Corporation Bill [Lords].

Metropolitan Water Board Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
St. Helens Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill.
Southend-on-Sea Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill.
Bills to be read a Second time Tomorrow.
Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Reports from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case
2060
of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:
Falmouth Docks [Lords].
Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  COAL INDUSTRY.

    COLLIERIES (MINISTER'S VISITS).
    Mr. Tinkerasked the Secretary for Mines whether it is his intention to make a personal inspection of some of the mines in each county; and, if so, will he visit one or two of the deep and hot mines in Lancashire, so as to get an understanding of the conditions prevailing there?
    The Secretary for Mines (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): Yes, Sir. I hope in the near future to visit collieries in all the larger coalfields, and when visiting Lancashire it is my intention to do what the hon. Member suggests.
    Mr. Tinker: I am glad to hear that, and we will wish him well in his inspection, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that mine workers are of opinion that the colliery owners, when they receive a visit from an inspector or the Secretary for Mines, show only the very best conditions? We want him to be aware of that fact and to ask to see the normal, and even the worst, conditions, so that he will know what is happening?
    Mr. Lloyd: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider going with me.

    UNDERGROUND WORKERS (OVERTIME).
    Mr. Tinkerasked the Secretary for Mines whether he will instruct the mines inspectors to get returns on all overtime worked below ground in mines and to report to him the circumstances that causes such overtime to be worked?
    Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member will appreciate that the primary duty of the divisional inspectors is to secure the observance of the statutory requirements in regard to health and safety, and I fear that the issue of general instructions as

    2061
    suggested might interfere with the discharge of that primary duty. I would point out however that the divisional inspectors are always ready to investigate cases of overtime which are brought to their notice.
    Mr. Tinker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that overtime is causing great concern to the mine workers, and that at the annual conference this year there is a resolution in favour of doing away with it altogether; and, in the light of that fact, is it not well that the Secretary for Mines should be aware of what is taking place, so that when this matter comes before him he will know how to deal with it?
    Mr. Lloyd: I think that this is a problem that arises with a greater degree of acuteness in some areas, and if in any particular area there is sufficient evidence to warrant inquiry, I shall be ready to order a general inquiry in that area.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some years ago joint committees composed of employers and workpeople were set up to go into the question of overtime, and can he say whether these committees are functioning?
    Mr. Lloyd: I should require notice of that question.

    ANGLO-POLISH AGREEMENT.
    Mr. James Griffithsasked the Secretary for Mines whether he can make a statement on the recent discussions with representatives of Poland on the Anglo-Polish coal agreement?
    Mr. Lloyd: At the invitation of His Majesty's Government, Monsieur Rose, the Polish Vice-Minister of Commerce and Industry, visited London last week to discuss with me the position of the British and Polish coal industries in the export market. I am glad to be able to inform the House that during these conversations the two Governments found themselves in agreement that the collaboration of the two industries, the object of which has been to eliminate competition between them, should be maintained, and that the existing coal trade agreement between the two industries should be continued, subject to such modification as might be necessary in view of recent political changes in Central Europe. We, therefore, agreed to recommend that
    2062
    there should be further consultations between the representatives of both industries at an early date.

    CONTRACTS.
    Mr. A. Jenkinsasked the Secretary for Mines whether there is at present any delay in supplying coal in accordance with contracts entered into, both in the home and foreign markets; and, if so what steps does he propose to take to meet the requirements of the markets?
    Mr. Lloyd: I have made inquiry, and I am unable to find evidence of any general delay in supplying coal under contracts to our markets at home or abroad.

    SOUTH WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE.
    Mr. Daggarasked the Secretary for Mines the number of coal-cutting machines, and the number of conveyors in the mining industry in South Wales and Monmouthshire in 1938?
    Mr. Lloyd: During the year 1938, 535 coal-cutting machines and 1,306 conveyors were in use at mines under the Coal Mines Act, 1911, in South Wales and Monmouthshire.
    Mr. Daggarasked the Secretary for Mines the number of fatal accidents and non-fatal accidents to boys under 16 years of age in the mining industry in South Wales and Monmouthshire in 1938?
    Mr. Lloyd: During the year 1938, two boys under 16 years of age were killed by accidents at mines under the Coal Mines Act, 1911, in South Wales and Monmouthshire. The number injured and disabled for more than three days is not yet available.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Secretary for Mines, when he carries out his inspection referred to in his answer to the first question on the Paper, pay particular attention to the mechanisation that is going on in the mines, and see to it that the inspectorate is largely drawn from men who have engineering and workshop experience?
    Mr. Lloyd: I will consider that point.
    Mr. Daggarasked the Secretary for Mines the average output per person employed in the mining industry in South Wales and Monmouthshire from 1920 each year to 1938; and also the average wages paid per person for the same period?
    Mr. Lloyd: As the reply involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon.

    SOUTH WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE.

    Year.

    Average output of Saleable Coal per Wage-earner.

    Average Annual Wages per Wage-earner.

    Cash.

    Value of Allowances in Kind.

    Tons.

    £

    £

    s.

    d.

    1920

    …

    …

    …

    173

    252

    1922

    …

    …

    …

    221

    127

    1923

    …

    …

    …

    224

    136

    Not available.

    1924

    …

    …

    …

    213

    139

    1925

    …

    …

    …

    210

    139

    1927

    …

    …

    …

    240

    124

    3

    8

    1

    1928

    …

    …

    …

    267

    126

    3

    2

    9

    1929

    …

    …

    …

    278

    129

    2

    15

    3

    1930

    …

    …

    …

    247

    117

    2

    15

    7

    1931

    …

    …

    …

    250

    115

    2

    19

    0

    1932

    …

    …

    …

    245

    113

    2

    18

    8

    1933

    …

    …

    …

    249

    114

    2

    17

    4

    1934

    …

    …

    …

    261

    119

    2

    18

    0

    1935

    …

    …

    …

    269

    123

    2

    18

    0

    1936

    …

    …

    …

    271

    126

    2

    19

    4

    1937

    …

    …

    …

    283

    143

    3

    1

    7

    1938

    …

    …

    …

    264

    144

    3

    7

    1

    Notes.

    The particulars for the years 1927 to 1938, relate to the years ended 31st January, 1928, to 1939.

    The years 1921 and 1926 have been omitted, as the were affected by prolonged national disputes.

    UNDERGROUND GASIFICATION.
    Mr. Day (for Mr. David Adams)asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is giving consideration to the question of the underground gasification of coal in operation in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, with a view, if found desirable, of encouraging similar works in British coalfields?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am aware of the experiments which are being carried out in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in connection with the gasification of coal in the mine. The technical development of the process does not yet appear to have reached the stage when its commercial possibilities in this country can be assessed.
    Mr. Day: Are inquiries still proceeding with regard to this experiment?
    Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    INTERNATIONAL SUGAR COUNCIL.
    Captain Arthur Evansasked the President of the Board of Trade whether
    2064
    Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the information:
    he can now give the House a full report of the decisions arrived at by the International Sugar Council; and if His Majesty's Government are satisfied that in the absence of amendment the machinery of the International Sugar Agreement is designed adequately to safeguard the interests of the British Colonial producer and the consumers of sugar in this country?
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): As the House is no doubt already aware, the International Sugar Council decided last week upon the immediate addition of 239,000 tons to the sugar quotas of exporters to the free market, but objection was taken to voting by correspondence upon the recommendation of the Executive Committee that a further quantity of 153,000 tons should be released for British countries. I understand that a meeting of the council is being called for 13th June next to deal with this latter quantity. As regards the second part of the question, I should prefer to reserve my opinion pending the outcome of these discussions.

    GREECE AND BULGARIA.
    Mr. Arthur Hendersonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can make a statement on the recent trade negotiations with the Greek and Bulgarian Governments?
    Mr. Stanley: As regards the visit of Sir F. Leith-Ross to Athens, I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a copy of the communiqué published this morning, to which I have at present nothing to add. Certain trade matters have been under discussion with the Bulgarian Government, but I am not in a position to make any statement.
    Mr. Henderson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any loans will be given to the Bulgarian Government?
    Mr. Stanley: As I said, I am not in a position at the moment to add anything to the communiqué already issued.
    Following is the text of the communiqué:
    "During the past week Sir F. Leith-Ross has had a number of meetings with the President of the Council and the Minister of Finance and with the Governors of the Bank of Greece, at which financial and economic questions of common interest to Greece and the United Kingdom were reviewed in a frank and cordial atmosphere. It was agreed that he should return to London to report the results of his conversations to His Majesty's Government. Various proposals were examined for the grant of export credit guarantees for exports from the United Kingdom to Greece; and it was agreed that the Greek Government should send a representative to London to continue these discussions and to conclude detailed arrangements."

    SHIPBUILDING.
    Mr. Dayasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state, according to his records, the amount of tonnage that has been ordered by British enterprises from German shipbuilders not for their own individual use, but as a means of withdrawing credit balances from that country; and will he give particulars of any official statistics that are available?
    Mr. Stanley: There are no official statistics from which any such information could be obtained.
    Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is proposed to take any steps to protect either shipping interests or shipbuilding from the vessels so purchased abroad?
    Mr. Stanley: I am afraid that I do not quite understand the hon. Gentleman's question.

    EXPORTS.
    Sir Frank Sandersonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider setting up such machinery as may be necessary with a view to securing more comprehensive and accurate statistics of invisible exports than are at present available; and whether he will consider granting larger credits to foreign countries for the purpose of purchases of British goods?
    Mr. Stanley: The scope of the information obtained for the purpose of estimating the balance of payments has been extended in a number of directions during recent years, and the possibility of further extension is kept constantly under review. As regards the second part of the question, the Export Guarantees Act, 1939, enlarged the amount and widened the scope of the guarantees available for facilitating exports from the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Charles Williams: Does not my right hon. Friend think that we have rather too many figures at the present time, and that statistics are not really very useful on all these matters if carried to extremes?
    Mr. Stanley: It depends upon what is extreme, but I cannot entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Statistics to determine whether we have a favourable or unfavourable balance of trade at the end of the year are essential.
    Sir F. Sanderson: Is it not the fact that statistics of invisible exports are absolutely essential?
    Mr. Stanley: I agree, and I think my hon. Friend will agree that, difficult as it is to arrive at accurate figures, there have been considerable changes in the last few years which do give more accurate figures than before.
    Mr. C. Williams: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that statistics can be used almost anyhow as an argument by both sides?
    Mr. Stanley: I have less versatility, and perhaps more accuracy than my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Thorne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that figures cannot lie, but figurers can?
    Mr. J. Griffithsasked the President of the Board of Trade the main causes of the decline in our export trade in the first four months of this year; and what further measures are being taken to promote the increase of our overseas trade?
    Mr. Stanley: As regard the first part of the question, the main cause of the decline in value is a lower price level. For the first three months, the volume of exports was 3 per cent. higher than last year. As regards the second part, His Majesty's Government are constantly watching for opportunities to promote the increase of our overseas trade. In this connection, I may refer to the tour of my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department to certain Northern capitals and the trade mission to Rumania.
    Mr. Griffiths: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication whether the negotiations will be a success or not?
    Mr. Stanley: We are still in the middle of developments which resulted from them.

    CARPETS (EIRE DUTIES).
    Sir John Wardlaw-Milneasked the President of the Board of Trade what changes have been made by the Government of Eire in the duties on British carpets imported into that country; and what action has been taken by the Government in the matter?
    Mr. Stanley: The Eire duties on carpets were increased in the recent Budget from 30 per cent. ad valorem (full) and 20 per cent. (preferential), to 60 per cent. (full) and 40 per cent. (preferential). As regards the second part of the question, it is open to the industry in this country to make a request for a review of the new duties by the Prices Commission under the provisions of Article 8 of the United Kingdom—Eire Trade Agreement.
    Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the very sharp increase in these duties will have a serious effect on the carpet trade in this country, and if representations are made will he take the matter up with the Government of Eire?
    Mr. Stanley: Representations have to be made by the trade itself and I shall be glad to give assistance. I had hoped that, as the preference has been increased, although the duties have been increased, too, that might have mitigated the damage to the carpet trade.

  GERMAN NORTH ATLANTIC LINERS (OFFER FOR SALE).
  Mr. Thorneasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the two German North Atlantic liners of 16,000 tons, built in Belfast some years ago, which were offered for sale on the London shipping market on 16th May were offered to the Government; and whether the Board intend buying them?
  Mr. Stanley: No, Sir. It is not intended to buy foreign ships for the merchant ship reserve.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    TERRITORIAL ARMY (STRENGTH).
    Mr. Dayasked the Secretary of State for War the total strength of the Territorial Army as at the last convenient date and the number of men at the same date that were in the process of enlistment; and what increase this total represents on the corresponding date last year?
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hore-Belisha): On 30th April, 1939, which is the latest date for which complete figures are available, the strength of the Territorial Army was 310,419, including 52,035 in process of enlistment. This represents an increase of 135,360 on the figure for 30th April, 1938. Between 1st May and 13th May, 1939, a further considerable increase took place, and the total, including some 52,000 in process of enlistment, reached 368,584.
    Mr. Day: Can we be informed why so many men are in process of enlistment?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: It is because there has been such a large number of applicants.
    Mr. Day: What is the reason for the delay in the acceptance of applicants?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: There is no delay.
    Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Is it not a fact that the Military Training Bill has rather dislocated the arrangements for voluntary enlistment?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: No, Sir.
    Mr. C. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care to see that these figures are sufficiently advertised, because they reflect rather well on the Secretary of State for War?

    MILITIA (COMPLETION OF TRAINING).
    Lieut.-Colonel Macnamaraasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement on what are to be the special advantages, inducements, etc., for men who, on completing their Militia service, join the Territorials, in comparison with those who remain in the Reserve and who, therefore, will not have to put in military training throughout the year as do the Territorials?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: No special advantages or inducements will be offered, but it is expected that a number of militiamen, after the completion of their six months' training, will wish to join or rejoin the Territorial Army, and the Military Training Bill provides accordingly. The Reservists will do an extra period in camp to compensate for the absence of drills.
    Colonel Sandeman Allen: Will my right hon. Friend see that the militiamen are entitled to the Territorial efficiency medal, and will take that into account in their service?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: They will not lose their entitlement to the medal. I shall have pleasure in taking that into consideration.
    Lieut.-Colonel Macnamara: Is it a fact that Territorials and militiamen, after conscript service, will both receive exactly the same allowances?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: The bounty will be the same, but I think that if anything, the Reservist will do more work than the Territorial, because he will probably have to go to camp for three consecutive weeks as compared with the Territorial's two weeks. At any rate, the intention is that there should be no advantage given to the Reservist over the Territorial. In fact, the reverse would be the case.
    Lieut.-Colonel Macnamaraasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention to take away the rank of Territorial non-commissioned officers should the Territorial Army be embodied for war and should Territorial noncommissioned officers then have to take their places with Regulars; and, if not, why should their rank be removed from them during their temporary embodiment for six months Militia service?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: A Territorial noncommissioned officer on embodiment would remain a Territorial and would retain his rank as such. A Territorial who is called up for service with the Militia is not embodied.

    MILITIA SERVICE (INDUSTRIAL PENSION SCHEMES).
    Colonel Sandeman Allenasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that many pension schemes contain no provision enabling the manager of the scheme to provide for broken service and that termination of employment means termination of membership of the scheme; and will he take steps fully to protect the interests of members of such schemes whose employment is terminated by Militia service?
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given on 16th May to the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère).
    Mr. Shinwell: Did not the right hon. Gentleman give a general assurance that these matters would be considered by the Government when they framed the regulations?
    Mr. Brown: If the hon. Member looks at the answer, he will see that the point is covered.

    TERRITORIAL UNITS (ADJUTANTS' EMOLUMENTS).
    Mr. Levy (for Mr. Lewis)asked the Secretary of State for War the total remuneration per annum, including all allowances, which is at the present time payable, respectively, to a Territorial officer and to a Regular officer who holds the appointment of adjutant to a Territorial unit, assuming that in both cases the officer in question is a married man with the rank of captain?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: A Territorial Army officer holding the appointment of adjutant to a Territorial unit at present receives a consolidated yearly allowance of £317 if commissioned before 26th October, 1925. and £294 if commissioned on or after 26th October, 1925. A Regular officer holding the same appointment receives his regulated Army emoluments which depend on his length of service, namely, £631, £677 and £759 for a married captain of 8, 11 and 14 years' service respectively. The rate to be paid, in future, to a Territorial Army officer who gives full-time service as adjutant is under revision.

    RESERVISTS.
    Mr. Levy (for Mr. C. S. Taylor)asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give Reservists the opportunity of attending Territorial drill parades if they so desire to do without payment?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: The Territorial Army has already a very heavy task in training its own personnel. Some Reservists have already done training this year, and it is intended to call up a large number under the provisions of the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Bill.
    Mr. Levy (for Mr. C. S. Taylor)asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will permit Reservists the privilege of wearing a distinguishing badge similar to the badge worn by members of the Territorial Army?
    Mr Hore-Belisha: I have already directed an examination of this matter.

    TERRITORIAL AND AUXILIARY FORCES (ANNUAL TRAINING).
    Mr. Flemingasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Manchester and Salford Equitable Co-operative Society have given notice that members of their staff who wish to attend Territorial camps must arrange to do so during their normal annual holiday; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    Flight-Lieutenant Grant-Ferrisasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is prepared to take powers to compel employers to grant leave of absence to those of their employés who are members of the Territorial or Auxiliary forces to attend their full annual training?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I am informed that the Manchester and Salford Equitable Cooperative Society cannot see their way to grant extra leave for attendance at Territorial camps, and I regret their decision. But, for reasons which have previously been explained to the House, I do not think it would be in the interests of the Territorial Army to take compulsory powers to deal with cases of this kind.

    CLOTHING CONTRACTS.
    Mr. H. G. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention to transfer to the Ministry of Supply when constituted the War Office Department in Manchester recently opened by Sir Frederick Marquis; and whether contractors for Army clothing are in future to send their tenders to Sir Frederick Marquis or to the War Office in London?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir. Contractors for Army clothing should continue to send their tenders to the Contracts Department.
    Mr. Williams: Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been drawn to the fact that rather extensive publicity from Manchester has had the unfortunate effect of raising the prices of certain raw materials?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I should be sorry to believe that. All that has happened at Manchester is that an office has been opened and I do not see how that could achieve the result to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. Thorne: In view of the big demand for Army clothing, would it not be advisable for the War Office to set up a clothing factory of their own?

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. Bateyasked the Prime Minister whether, owing to the many late sittings of the House, he will take the necessary steps to have the House to meet earlier in the day?
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): No, Sir.
  Mr. Batey: Is not the right hon. Gentleman prepared to take the opinion of hon. Members of the House on this matter?
  Sir J. Simon: The hon. Member will perhaps recollect that this question has been examined very closely; indeed, it

  2073
  was examined during the term of office of the Government of 1930, and it was found that it would be very inconvenient.
  Mr. Batey: But are not things going worse? Are we not getting more late siatings than ever we did in 1930?
  Mr. Thorne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when I first came into the House we used to meet at 2 o'clock?
  Mr. Leach: Can the right hon. Gentleman do something about the almost permanent suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule?
  Sir J. Simon: I do not think that is the case. My memory goes back, like the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne), a long way, and the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule took place then quite as often as it does now.

  LOCATION OF INDUSTRY.
  Mr. Jenkinsasked the Prime Minister when the Commission on the Location of Industry is expected to report?
  Sir J. Simon: I am afraid that I have nothing further to add to the reply which the Prime Minister gave on 2nd May to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson).

  TOBACCO DUTY.
  Mr. Sextonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the avoirdupois weight of tobacco on which the extra 2s. per lb. is levied is calculated before or after allowance has been made for moisture; and what is the percentage in weight so allowed?
  Sir J. Simon: The rates of duty in the case of unmanufactured tobacco differ according as the tobacco contains (a) 10 per cent. or more, or (b) less than 10 per cent., of moisture. The weight of tobacco on which duty is levied is the weight inclusive of any moisture contained in the tobacco at the time of weighing.
  Mr. Sexton: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the consumer is not paying more than an extra 1½d. per ounce for his tobacco?
  Sir J. Simon: The hon. Member knows that there is a graduated scale of duty,
  2074
  but if he is interested and would like to go into more detail, I shall be glad to show him the scales.

  SPAIN (LOAN).
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an assurance that His Majesty's Government will not sanction the raising of any loan by or on behalf of the Spanish Government until all outstanding questions between both countries have been settled?
  Sir J. Simon: I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer which I gave on 18th May to the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss) and other hon. Members.
  Mr. Henderson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answer to which he has referred me indicates that the position was not suitable for the granting of international loans? Would that cover any application for the granting of credits under the Export Credits Act?
  Sir J. Simon: The answer to which I have referred the hon. and learned Member was an answer regarding loans raised in the London market. I pointed out that the conditions were not such as to make that a practical policy. I think the export credit question is a separate one, and I do not think that my answer covered that, nor indeed did the question.
  Mr. Watkins: Have the Spanish Government put down anything towards meeting their obligations with regard to compensation for loss of life and damage to our shipping?
  Sir J. Simon: That is another question.

  SHORT-TERM LOAN RATES.
  Mr. Craven-Ellisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can account for the rate of interest paid on Treasury bills which increased from just over 10s. per cent. at the beginning of last March to £1 11s. 2d. per cent., which is the highest rate since the beginning of the cheap money period in 1932; is he aware of the prejudicial influence of this change on the gilt-edged market and on the prospects of Government financing; and what he proposes to do in the matter?
  Sir J. Simon: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) on 16th May. The latest rate is 13s. 3½d
  Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the higher rates which are demanded from time to time are in the interests of his policy of cheap money rates?
  Sir J. Simon: There are a number of factors which enter into the question, and conditions very often vary from week to week. Like the hon. Member, I am very pleased when the rate comes down.
  Sir F. Sanderson: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the policy of the Government is a cheap money policy?
  Sir J. Simon: Yes, Sir.

  JOINT STOCK BANKS.
  Mr. Craven-Ellisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the fact that the demand for and supply of Treasury bills is solely governed by the policy of the Bank of England, the Exchange Equalisation Account and the Treasury; is he aware that as a result of their joint operations the cash in the joint stock banks has declined by over £10,000,000 in one month, February to March, and that the bill portfolio has fallen to £190,000,000 from over £300,000,000 last autumn causing a deep disturbance in the money market; and what steps does he propose to take to restore the position?
  Sir J. Simon: I cannot add anything to the replies which I gave my hon. Friend on 30th March and 18th May.

  SUBSIDIES AND OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. Dobbieasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can inform the House as to the estimated cost to the nation of the subsidy to farmers in regard to sheep, oats, and barley, per annum, and of the entire subsidies given to industry in general; and as to what would be the cost of advancing every old age pensioner five shillings per week?
  Sir J. Simon: As the answer includes a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. C. Williams: I take it that the answer is not very long, and as we have got through so many questions already, could we not have the figures?
  Mr. Tinker: Can we have the figures, at any rate, of the cost of advancing old age pensioners five shillings a week?
  Sir J. Simon: I do not want to read the whole of the answer, but I will do my best to summarise it. The estimated cost for one year of the proposed subsidy for sheep, oats and barley announced by the Minister of Agriculture would be: sheep, £2,500,000; oats, £2,970,000; and barley, £900,000, that is, at the prices ruling last year. Of course, the amount of the subsidy will vary with the level of prices. The provision made in the Estimates for the current year in respect of subsidies given to industry in general under existing legislation—there are about six or seven sets of figures—add up, I am afraid, to something like £12,000,000. The amount included in the table for oats and barley will not be required under the proposal announced by the Minister of Agriculture on 18th May. As regards the latter part of the question, the additional cost involved in increasing old age pensions by 5s. a week including pensions to widows between the ages of 65 and 70 and widows' pensions when the widow is aged over 65, would be about £38,000,000 a year at the present time, but would rise steadily for many years and would be about £46,000,000 in 10 years' time.
  Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman exclude de-rating as far as a subsidy to industry is concerned?
  Sir J. Simon: I do not think the derating provisions are included in the figures. The question is as to specific grants to special industries.
  Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that a rebate of this kind is, in fact, a subsidy?
  Mr. Kirkwood: When the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that to increase old age pensions would cost £46,000,000 in 10 years, does it means £46,000,000 for each year?
  Sir J. Simon: I said that it would be about £46,000,000 a year in 10 years' time.
  Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentle-man not aware that he would have the support of the whole House if he found this £46,000,000?
  Viscountess Astor: Is it not true that the Government are spending on nursery schools about one-eighth of the amount of the subsidy given to barley alone?
  Mr. Benn: Has the right hon. Gentleman expressed any opinion to his colleagues on the growing practice of giving this money by an estimate instead of by proper enactment?
  Following is the answer:
  The estimated cost for one year of the proposed subsidies for sheep, oats and barley announced by the Minister of Agriculture on 18th May, would have been as follows at the prices ruling last year:

  £

  Sheep

  …

  …

  …

  2,500,000

  Oats

  …

  …

  …

  2,970,000

  Barley

  …

  …

  …

  900,000

  The amount of the subsidy in each case will, of course, vary from year to year according to the level of prices.
  The provision made in the Estimates for the current year in respect of subsidies given to industry in general under the existing legislation was as follows:

  £

  Beet Sugar

  3,000,000

  Cattle Industry

  4,265,000

  Milk

  919,410

  Land Fertility Improvement

  1,500,000

  Oats and Barley

  930,000

  Bacon

  425,010

  Herring Industry

  73,450

  Civil Aviation

  1,999,000

  The amount included in this table for oats and barley would not be required under the proposals announced by the Minister of Agriculture on 18th May.
  As regards the latter part of the question, the additional cost involved in increasing old age pensions by five shillings per week, including pensions between the ages of 65 and 70 and widows' pensions when the widow is aged over 65, would be about £38,000,000 a year at the present time. The cost would rise
  2078
  steadily for many years and would be about £46,000,000 a year in 10 years time.

  CZECHO-SLOVAKIA (ASSETS, GREAT BRITAIN).
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has received as to the intention of the German Government to repudiate Czechoslovak Government debts?
  Sir J. Simon: In the course of the conversations referred to in the reply given yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys), it has not appeared that there is any intention of repudiating Czecho-Slovak Government debts.
  Mr. Henderson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the statement that was made by the French Finance Minister two or three days ago in the French Chamber, in which he stated that the German Government were contemplating the repudiation of these debts and that the French Government proposed to raise the tax on German imports into France?
  Sir J. Simon: I have not had my attention called to that, but I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will regard the information I have given him as being more positive than that.
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence (for Mr. Dalton)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the purpose of the conversations now taking place between His Majesty's Treasury and representatives of the German Government regarding the disposal of Czech balances held by the Bank of England and other institutions and persons in this country; and whether he will undertake that no part of such balances shall be paid over to the German Government, or to the Reichsbank, or to any subsidiary or agent thereof without the previous consent of this House?
  Sir J. Simon: In reply to the first part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss) yesterday. In reply to the second part of the question, there will, as stated in that reply, be no general release of assets

  2079
  unless and until a satisfactory arrangement has been made in regard to financial obligations due from Czecho-Slovakia to British holders. If an agreement is reached, it will be laid before Parliament in the usual way.
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: With regard to the first part of the answer, do I understand from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that when the Governor of the Bank of England, in his position as a director of the Bank for International Settlements has to come to a decision, that he makes no report whatever to the Treasury, and that therefore the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are ignorant of most important international events that are happening in the Bank for International Settlements?
  Sir J. Simon: I think the right hon. Gentleman is referring to a matter which was mentioned at Question Time yesterday, and I am very glad of the opportunity to deal with it in a short answer. There are two quite distinct things. There are, as the House knows, the assets, which have been blocked in this country, held on behalf of and at the order of Czecho-Slovakian institutions or individuals. Those we hold, and except in the case of helping refugees and the like we do not part with them, and we are engaged in seeing whether we cannot, by means of those assets, repay the debts due from Czecho-Slovakia, to provide a fund that will continue to be available for refugees, and to meet the claims of British holders who had, for example, bank balances in Czecho-Slovakia before the German annexation. That is the object of the discussion I have mentioned.
  The other matter is, as I understand, an asset—it was gold, I think—which was held by the Bank of England for the Bank for International Settlements at Basle. I should like to make it plain to the House that the Treasury did hear indirectly that it was believed that the German Reichsbank was seeking to get from the Bank for International Settlements an amount of gold with which it had been entrusted by the Czech National Bank; but the House will appreciate that that was a matter quite outside the blocking of Czech assets. Consideration was given in the Treasury to the question whether His Majesty's Government could in any way intervene. We had no desire to see
  2080
  the transfer made, but the matter was quite outside the Czecho-Slovakia (Restrictions of Banking Accounts) Act and it was clear that no such intervention would be possible in view of the formal and explicit undertakings given in the Protocols of 1930 and 1936 as to the immunity of the assets of the Bank for International Settlements from every form of interference and restriction.
  Replying directly to the question put to me, it is certainly not the fact that the Governor of the Bank of England reports to the British Government on a matter of this sort. It is a mistake to suppose that the Governor of the Bank of England serves on the Board of the Bank for International Settlements as a nominee of the British Government. That is not so at all. He is there as governor of one of the central banks, just as other eminent bankers who serve on the Board. I had this information, but not from the Governor of the Bank or the Bank. It came, indirectly, I think from a Continental source. As soon as I heard it I considered with my advisers whether there was any way in which we could put restraint on the matter. It was plain there was not, and it is clear that the London bank has got to obey the mandate given to it by its customer the bank in Basle.
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Are we to understand that in a matter of this supreme international importance the Governor of the Bank of England acts entirely in his individual capacity, and that he does not officially inform the Government; and even if the Government only heard of it unofficially, how could that justify the Prime Minister in the very sweeping statement he made last Friday that the whole matter of this payment to Germany through the medium of the Bank for International Settlements was a mare's nest?
  Sir J. Simon: There is no difficulty in understanding that. The statement that was made in the newspaper was that the British Treasury had agreed to release this sum. That was not true. The statement made by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was that the Treasury had agreed to the transfer. He pointed to me and said that I, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, had sanctioned the transfer. I had done nothing

  2081
  of the kind. Nobody had ever asked me for leave and I had not given leave. If it had been within my power I would not have given leave, but the matter was wholly outside my power, and in the circumstances I thought the right hon. Gentleman's statement was a monstrous suggestion to make.
  Mr. Sandys: Are we to understand from my right hon. Friend's reply that no Czech assets under the Act will be released without the prior consent of this House?
  Sir J. Simon: Without the prior consent of the Treasury. I stated in my first answer that we certainly shall not release any assets at all except for the purposes which I have mentioned, and about which, I trust, there is no difference of opinion.
  Mr. Benn: The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he would lay such an agreement before the House. What did he mean by that? Will he recollect that we had an unfortunate experience of his private arrangements for loans for Czechoslovakia, under which money was lost?
  Mr. Stokes: Is it not about time that the Government took over the Bank of England?
  Mr. G. Strauss: Do we understand that the Bank for International Settlements are holding this gold in trust for the people of Czecho-Slovakia, and by handing it over to another nation that has annexed Czecho-Slovakia they were, in fact, committing a breach of trust, and that our Government, hearing about it and agreeing to the transfer, are, in fact, conniving at a breach of trust committed by the Bank for International Settlements?
  Sir J. Simon: If the hon. Member will excuse me he is getting this matter quite wrong. The question was whether the Bank of England, which held a particular asset, had to obey the mandate of its customer the Basle Bank and hand that asset over. I did not know then, and I do not know now, what is the state of the account between the bank in Basle and Czecho-Slovakia. Why should I know? It has nothing to do with me. I told the House perfectly candidly that indirectly the Treasury had some information that
  2082
  this might be the result, and we did everything we could to find out whether we had a means of stopping it, and I do not think the House of Commons could expect me to do more than that.
  Mr. De la Bère: Why should the House of Commons be ignored by the Treasury?
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Was it candid of the Treasury to inform the Prime Minister that it was a mare's nest? I can understand it being said that what the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs had said was terminologically inexact, but to suggest that the whole thing was a mare's nest is surely very far from the facts.
  Sir J. Simon: I am afraid that I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at what was stated. It was stated in the Press and stated in this House that the Treasury had been facilitating, or authorising, or assisting this transfer. There was not a syllable of truth in that statement, and I think my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was perfectly justified in saying what he did say.
  Mr. De Chair: In view of the fact that Germany repudiated the Treaty, along with other Treaties, how can she have any claim on the Bank for International Settlements at Basle, which was set up in connection with the Reparation Clauses of the Treaty of Versailles?
  Sir J. Simon: The only issue I am aware of is that a bank in London was called upon to hand over that which had been deposited with it by a bank in Switzerland, and that is all I am concerned with, and, I should have thought, it is all that anyone who understands banking could only be concerned with. London will not remain the banking centre of the world for long if banks do not obey the cheques and orders of their customers.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Are the British Government going to hand to British citizens the money which they invested in Czechoslovakia and have now lost?
  Sir J. Simon: The object of blocking this money and of the discussions now going on is to secure that Czecho-Slovakian funds here shall be made available to repay debts owing by Czechoslovakia to citizens in this country.

  SCOTLAND.

    HOUSING.
    Mr. R. Gibsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many timber houses had been authorised, and of these, how many had been completed under each of the local authorities in Scotland at the last available date; what was the position at the corresponding date a year ago; and whether he has any statement to make regarding the effect of operations under air-raid precautions and National Service schemes on the rate of production of houses in Scotland?
    The Lord Advocate (Mr. T. M. Cooper): As the answer involves a tabu-

    Numbers of Timber Houses.

    Local Authority.

    Approved.

    Completed.

    Up to 30th April, 1938.

    Up to 30th April, 1939.

    Up to 30th April, 1938.

    Up to 30th April, 1939.

    County Councils.

    Angus

    …

    …

    —

    4

    —

    4

    Ayr

    …

    …

    40

    92

    2

    56

    Dunbarton

    …

    …

    —

    90

    —

    —

    Fife

    …

    …

    —

    40

    —

    —

    Lanark

    …

    …

    —

    512

    —

    68

    Perth

    …

    …

    —

    10

    —

    —

    West Lothian

    …

    …

    —

    70

    —

    —

    Town Councils.

    Aberdeen

    …

    …

    —

    76

    —

    —

    Ayr

    …

    …

    —

    36

    —

    —

    Dundee

    …

    …

    —

    540

    —

    32

    Forres

    …

    …

    —

    2

    —

    2

    Fraserburgh

    …

    …

    —

    37

    —

    —

    Greenock

    …

    …

    —

    100

    —

    —

    Kirkintilloch

    …

    …

    —

    50

    —

    20

    Scottish Special Housing Association.

    —

    650

    —

    38

    Total

    …

    …

    40

    2,309

    2

    220

    With regard to the last part of the question local authorities completed a total of 6,146 houses of all types in the first four months of 1939, which exceeds the corresponding number for any previous year.

    Mr. Dayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the fact that on the occasion of the last housing survey in Scotland it was discovered that over 500,000 persons were living in one or two-room apartments, of which over 46 per cent. were overcrowded, he can now say what legislation the Government propose to introduce to remedy these conditions?
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): I would refer the hon.
    lar statement, I propose with the hon, and learned Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Gibson: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the erection of 100 timber houses in Greenock is being held up for lack of timber, and will he look into the matter and do his best to expedite the erection of these houses, which are urgently required?
    The Lord Advocate: I will do that.
    Mr. C. Williams: Can my right hon. and learned Friend give the answer to the last part of the question, which does not involve figures?
    Following is the answer:
    Member to the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1935, which relates to the special problem of overcrowding in Scotland, and to the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1938, which increased the Exchequer assistance made available for this purpose. The survey referred to was made under the former Act to ascertain the extent of the overcrowding problem.
    Mr. Day: Is the Minister satisfied with the improvement that has been made since the last survey?
    Mr. Colville: I am never satisfied, and there is a great deal more to be done, but the fact remains that substantial progress is being made.
    Mr. Day: When will the next survey be made?
    Mr. Colville: No decision has been arrived at as to making a general survey, but I am in touch with the local authorities, and in a number of cases regional figures are available.
    Mr. R. Gibson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the erection of timber houses in Scotland is being held up owing to lack of material, and will he keep that fact in view?

    FARM INSTITUTES.
    Mr. T. Johnstonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that since 1935 there has been expended on farm institutes and county demonstration farms in England a sum of £294,000; why no such institutes or farms have been inaugurated in Scotland; and whether it is now proposed to take any steps to promote the establishment of these institutes in Scotland?
    The Lord Advocate: I understand that the figure quoted in the first part of the question is an estimate of the capital expenditure to be incurred by local authorities in England and Wales in respect of certain schemes which have been approved since 1935 as eligible for grant-aid. In Scotland, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, agricultural education is carried out at the three Agricultural Colleges, to each of which a demonstration farm is attached. It has not so far been found necessary to adopt the Farm Institute system. The colleges receive grants from State funds and the maintenance grants borne on the Vote of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland for the period of five years to 31st March, 1939, have amounted in the aggregate to about £270,000.
    Mr. Stephen: Can the Minister say whether Scotland is receiving its appropriate share of money in this particular respect?
    The Lord Advocate: I think that is so.

    GLASGOW LICENSING COURT.
    Mr. Johnstonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of decisions of the Glasgow Licensing Court that have been overturned upon appeal to the
    2086
    Glasgow Licensing Appeal Court during the past three years; and whether it is either the practice or the duty of members of the licensing courts to declare; any interest they may possess directly or indirectly in the business of the sale of alcoholic liquor prior to their adjudication upon any liquor licensing question submitted to them?
    The Lord Advocate: My right hon. Friend is informed that the findings of the Licensing Court were altered on appeal in 18 cases during the period referred to. With regard to the second part of the question, while there is no statutory obligation to make a formal declaration as to interest, provision for disqualification on the ground of interest is made by Section 9 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, and under the common law.
    Mr. Johnston: Does that also apply to an indirect interest, and in view of the fact that the Government are now promoting a Measure to deal with the disqualification of local councillors who may have an indirect interest in a matter on which they are called upon to vote, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the same stipulation applies to a member of a licensing court?
    The Lord Advocate: I am afraid I cannot commit myself to an answer to the abstract question which the right hon. Gentleman has asked. Much would depend upon what exactly is to be considered as falling within the expression "indirect interest."
    Mr. Johnston: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that there is a greater danger to the public interest in a matter of an indirect interest held by a member of a licensing court, who is not elected by local citizens, than there is in connection with the matters concerning which a Bill is being promoted by the Government?
    The Lord Advocate: I think there is great force in what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the point that has been raised.
    Mr. Silverman: May I ask whether the Government propose to give any time to facilitate the passage of a Private Member's Bill dealing with this point that was introduced the other day?
    The Lord Advocate: I am afraid I cannot answer that question.

    REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (ASSESSORS' CLERKS).
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that, owing to a number of Scottish clerks to the registration of voters not being employed directly by the local authorities but by the assessors, they are disqualified from participation in the superannuation schemes of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1937; and whether, in order to do away with the hardship involved thereby, he will take steps to have such clerks included in the local government superannuation scheme?
    The Lord Advocate: My right hon. Friend is aware of the position of the clerks in question. The Act of 1937 provides for the superannuation of employés of local authorities. Personal employés of officers of local authorities can, under the Act, be brought within the scope of a superannuation scheme only if they are transferred to the service of the local authority itself. My right hon. Friend cannot hold out any hope of a modification of this provision.
    Mr. Gallacher: In view of the difficulties with which these clerks are confronted, is there no way in which the Secretary of State could bring them within the Act, or arrange that they should automatically be transferred to the employment of the local authorities?

    BASKING SHARKS.
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether he is aware that big shoals of basking sharks have, during the last few days, entered the Firth of Clyde and large sharks have been seen in Kildalloig Bay, Ardnacross Bay and Campbeltown Loch; as the shark-hunting cruiser from Carradale does not carry wireless, the local fishermen have not been able to secure her help and are afraid to put to sea; and will he consider sending a fishery cruiser, or other suitable vessel, to assist in the destruction of these sharks;
    (2) whether he will take special steps to stop the depredations of sharks on the herring shoals in the Firth of Clyde; is he aware that last year after the sharks had left the Firth the herring season proved a record one both for the size of the shoals and the time that the herring remained in the Firth; and will he therefore immediately safeguard the fishermen from
    2088
    the interruption to their livelihood and the damage to their nets and gear caused by these sharks?
    The Lord Advocate: My right hon. Friend is informed that basking sharks have been observed in the Firth of Clyde, and he has seen Press reports of their appearances. No complaints of damage to gear have however been reported to local fishery officers, and there are no indications of reluctance on the part of fishermen to engage in fishing. As the hon. Member is aware, herring fishing in all areas is subject to wide fluctuations owing to numerous causes, and while herring fishing in the Clyde was more successful last year than in 1936 or 1937, my right hon. Friend is informed that it did not constitute a record either for the extent of the shoals or the period of operations. The operations of the commercial vessel engaged in shark hunting probably offer the best method of dealing with the problem, but the Fishery Board's cruisers have instructions to keep the matter under observation and to take every opportunity of destroying basking sharks by the methods which have proved successful in the past.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that only last week, just outside the bay of Campbeltown, fishermen had their boats thrown into the air, and that at the week-end bathers off the coast at Girvan were chased out of the sea?
    Mr. Colville: I have asked the fishery cruisers to pay particular attention to this question. Last year they destroyed no fewer than 50 of these sharks.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is it not a fact that the "Maid of the Mist" has no wireless? Surely it is imperative that these vessels should have wireless in order that they can get into contact with other vessels?
    Mr. Colville: The vessels of the fishery patrol all have wireless. The other is a commercial vessel and is not under my control.
    Mr. R. Gibson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Clyde Fishermens' Association consider this menace so serious, that the President yesterday intimated that a meeting of the association would be held in the next two or three days to consider it; and will the right hon. Gentleman look into the position and get

    2089
    into touch with the association and take into very careful consideration their views on the subject?
    Mr. Colville: My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has already intimated that no complaint of damage to gear has yet been received.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that this is a very serious menace to visitors to holiday resorts on the Clyde, and will he take steps to ensure that the danger is eliminated, because the basking sharks in the Clyde are as dangerous as the financial sharks elsewhere?

  AFFORESTATION.
  Mr. De Chairasked the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, how much work could be found for young men between the ages of 17 and 20 during the next three years on further afforestation; or whether, in the opinion of the Forestry, Commission, Great Britain has reached saturation point in the matter of afforestation?
  Colonel Ropner: I have been asked to reply. There will be more work for men between the ages of 17 and 20 during the next three years on further afforestation, but the Commissioners cannot state the proportions of adult and juvenile workers. Great Britain has not reached saturation point in the matter of afforestation.
  Mr. De Chair: Is it not the fact that there is enormous scope for further afforestation in this country?
  Colonel Ropner: Speaking generally, the Forestry Commission experiences very little difficulty in acquiring all the land required within the limits set by the funds placed at its disposal.
  Mr. Benjamin Smith: Are these employés paid trade union rates, and has the hon. and gallant Gentleman any difficulty in finding labour?
  Colonel Ropner: The rates of wages are very largely determined by the county rates of the agricultural wages boards.
  Mr. De Chairasked the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, how much land, within a radius of 10 miles of
  2090
  Brandon, has so far been acquired by the Forestry Commission; and how much of the remainder, which is not used for agricultural purposes, is suitable for development by the Forestry Commission?
  Colonel Ropner: Forty-nine thousand, acres have been acquired by the Forestry Commissioners within a radius of 10 miles of Brandon. No detailed information is available as to how much of the remainder is suitable and available for development by the Commissioners.
  Mr. De Chair: Is it not a fact that there are vast stretches which are at present completely barren and not used for anything, which could be put under timber?
  Colonel Ropner: Yes, I think that is so.
  Mr. Craven-Ellis: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether, instead of buying further land, the Forestry Commission would pay attention to the land which they already have; and is he aware that the New Forest is in a disgracefully neglected condition?
  Mr. De Chairasked the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, how many acres of land there are in Great Britain, too derelict for agricultural use under present economic conditions, which would be suitable for planting up with trees?
  Colonel Ropner: Assuming that the hon. Member has in mind land, such as rough pasture, which is not now cultivated, the Forestry Commissioners estimate that there may be some 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 acres in Great Britain suitable for the production of timber.
  Mr. De Chair: Will the Commissioners get on with the planting of this 3,000,000 acres?
  Colonel Ropner: I have given my hon. Friend the answer to that in reply to his first question.

  UNEMPLOYMENT (WINTER ALLOWANCES).
  Mr. W. Joseph Stewartasked the Minister of Labour the number of appeals against the stopping of winter allowances received by the appeals tribunals this year

  2091
  and the number that were refused a hearing?
  Mr. E. Brown: During March and April a total numbtr of 8,496 appeals against determinations of need were lodged, and in 412 of these cases leave to appeal was refused. I regret, however, that I am unable to distinguish in these figures appeals against the withdrawal of winter allowances.
  Mr. Stewart: Is there any reason why these people should have been refused a hearing?
  Mr. Brown: That, of course, is the decision for the tribunal concerned.
  Mr. Stewart: But is it not the case that these people had no opportunity to put their case before the tribunal, and is there any reason why they should not be allowed to do so?
  Mr. Brown: If the hon. Member has any particular case which he would like me to inquire into, I shall be glad to do so.
  Mr. Thorne: In cases where men are refused the right of appeal, what remedy have they?
  Mr. Brown: The answer is that under the regulations they have none.
  Mr. R. Gibson: Do the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman include Scotland, and could he give the figures for Scotland separately?
  Mr. Brown: These are the figures relating to a total of 578,550 cases.

  FLEET AIR ARM.
  Admiral Sir Percy Roydsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can make any statement as to the date of transfer of the administration control of the Fleet Air Arm from the Air Ministry to the Admiralty?
  The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Colonel Llewellin): It has been decided that the transfer of the administrative control of the Fleet Air Arm to the Admiralty shall take place to-morrow, 24th May. At the same time, the Royal Air Force Stations at Lee-on-Solent, Ford, Worthy Down, Donibristle, and Bermuda, will be transferred to the
  2092
  Admiralty for the use of the Fleet Air Arm. It is also intended that the Admiralty will take over from the Air Ministry at an early date the Royal Air Force establishment at Lympne Air Station and the lease of the Royal Air Force establishment at Southampton Airport.

  ORDNANCE WORKS, GLASCOED (DOCUMENT).
  Mr. Jenkinsasked the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to a case heard at the Usk police court, on Thursday last, in which a man was charged with having stolen a secret and important document from the ordnance works at Glascoed, when by the evidence it was proved that the document in question was found by an 11-year old girl in a dustbin; what steps he proposes to take to ensure that documents of this character will in future be properly guarded; and what steps he is taking to see that the man is properly compensated?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Captain Austin Hudson): I have been asked to reply. I am aware of the case to which the hon. Member refers. The plan in question, which had been superseded and which, in fact, had been in possession of the man charged, was marked "Secret and Confidential" and, in accordance with the rules, should have been returned to the foreman's office at the end of the day's work. The attention of all those working on the site has been drawn to the necessity of complying strictly with the regulations made for the custody of plans. As regards the question of compensation, I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who, after considering all the circumstances of the case, has found no ground for recommending any payment to this man from public funds.
  Mr. Jenkins: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the fact that any workman engaged on that site might have got hold of this plan and have been prosecuted in a similar manner; does he not see the need of greater care in the control of these plans, and further, who is responsible for deciding upon prosecution in these cases? Were the Government consulted about it or was action taken by the local police?
  Captain Hudson: In regard to to the first part of the supplementary question, steps are being taken to see that greater care is exercised in connection with these plans. The plans are not all in one, and, therefore, it was only part of a plan in this case, and it should of course have been returned to the office. With regard to the second part of the supplementary question, as to who decides upon these prosecutions, I should like to have notice.

  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    SHIPPING COMPANIES (FOREIGN DIRECTORS).
    Colonel Ropner (for Commander Marsden)asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the control of the Commonwealth Steam Tug Company, Limited, Bristol, is now in the hands of the Fairplay Towage and Shipping Company, Limited, whose managing directors, who have recently taken up residence in this country, are of German nationality; and whether, in the national interest, he will ensure that vital services of this kind are not allowed to be in other than purely British hands at the present time?
    Mr. Stanley: I am aware that the Fair-play Towage and Shipping Company, Limited, has acquired a controlling interest in the Commonwealth Steam Tug Company, Limited. Although two of the directors of the former company are German-Jewish refugees, the company is qualified under the Merchant Shipping Acts to own British ships, and I do not consider that any special action is called for.

    JAPANESE COMPETITION.
    Mr. Benjamin Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the trade between Japan and India, and between Japan and Australia, is carried under the Japanese flag; and whether the proportion shows any tendency to increase?
    Mr. Stanley: I regret that precise information on this matter is not available, but the hon. Member will doubtless be aware of the estimates of the extent of Japanese participation in these trades given in the Imperial Shipping Committee's report on British shipping in the Orient.
    Mr. Smith: In other words, this report says that there is an increase in this trade, and can the right hon. Gentleman say how far speed is a factor in eliminating British vessels from that trade?
    Mr. Stanley: It would be difficult in answer to a question to enter into a discussion about the speed of merchant ships. Speed is not the only factor which determines whether the ship is an economical one or not. Some views hold that the extra speed of the Japanese ships is not economic.
    Mr. Smith: Is it fair to say that the Imperial Shipping Committee adduced speed as a primary factor in eliminating British ships from certain trade routes?
    Mr. Stanley: There may be one or two lines in which speed becomes a prime factor.
    Mr. Robert Gibson: What is the proportion of this trade under the British Flag, and is it increasing?
    Mr. Stanley: I have answered that question. The hon. and learned Member will find the proportions set out in the Imperial Shipping List up to date. As far as one can make out since, no doubt owing to the temporary circumstances of the Sino-Japanese war, Japanese competition has tended slightly to decrease, but one cannot count on that being a permanent factor.

    CREWS' ACCOMMODATION.
    Mr. Benjamin Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of cases in which the Board has sanctioned a departure from the requirement that the whole of the crews' accommodation in new British ships must be situated above the load line and amidships or aft; and the reasons for which the departures were allowed?
    Mr. Stanley: Apart from the ships which were already under construction when the Crew Space Instructions of 1937 were issued, the Board have sanctioned such a departure in the case of five passenger ships, two troopships and 25 miscellaneous craft, such as lighters and tugs, in all of which it was impracticable fully to meet the requirements.
    Mr. Smith: In what way was it difficult to meet the requirements?
    Mr. Stanley: I cannot give details in each particular case, but if the hon. Member would like to know I will certainly get particulars for him.

  FISHING VESSELS (CREWS' ACCOMMODATION).
  Mr. Benjamin Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has observed the statement of the medical officer of health for the port of Grimsby for the year 1937 that on nearly all fishing vessels the forecastles are used for the storing of surplus gear; and whether he will take steps to put a stop to this practice in the interests of the health and comfort of the crews?
  Mr. Stanley: This statement has been brought to my notice. I understand that a store is usually available for this gear, but that as it is in daily use, the fishermen prefer to keep it at hand. I do not think that the matter is one in which I could usefully intervene.
  Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the regulations lay down that this space shall be afforded to the crew and, whether it is by the fishermen's wish or not, if it is taken for other purposes it means taking up their quarters and militates against their health?
  Mr. Stanley: I appreciate the question, but the hon. Member will realise that as this is done by the fishermen themselves to suit their convenience, it is an extraordinarily difficult practice to stop.
  Mr. Smith: Are we to understand that if anybody cares to break the law they are in order in doing so?
  Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman must not proceed on that assumption, or he will find it very dangerous.

  GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (EXCHANGE OF MATERIALS).
  Mr. Hamilton Kerrasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to make any further statement with regard to the American proposals for a barter arrangement in connection with raw materials; and what
  2096
  steps have been taken to consult the Lancashire cotton textile industry with regard to this matter?
  Mr. Priceasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps have been taken to advance further the proposals for direct exchange of cotton, rubber, and tin between the British Empire and the United States?
  Mr. Stanley: I cannot at present add to the statement made by the Prime Minister on 4th May, but I will not fail to inform the House when the negotiations have reached a stage at which I can usefully make a statement. As regards consultation with Lancashire cotton interests, I have already been in touch with the Liverpool and Manchester Cotton Associations and I intend to consult the cotton interests concerned before matters reach a stage involving any commitments in regard to cotton.
  Mr. Kerr: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the widespread newspaper reports in the United States have any foundation?
  Mr. Stanley: I do not know to what statements my hon. Friend refers, but offhand I should answer "No."
  Mr. Hammersley: Are we to understand that active negotiations are taking place?
  Mr. Stanley: That was stated by the Prime Minister on 4th May.
  Mr. Thorne: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House on what basis this-barter system is to be arrived at? Is it on the amount of social labour embodied in every one of the articles?
  Mr. Stanley: I am afraid I am not in a position to add anything to the answer.

  ROAD SCHEMES (EXPENDITURE).
  Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Treasury consent has been sought to provide moneys for dealing with the 5,000 miles of trunk roads and for preliminary works for 50 major schemes each costing £100,000; and will he, in pursuance of his policy that new internal projects are not possible in present circumstances, postpone Treasury consent until such time as the present necessary expenditure on the Defence services can be reduced?
  Sir J. Simon: By the Trunk Roads Act, 1936, the Minister of Transport was made responsible for the trunk roads of the country, and Parliament is asked each year to vote a grant-in-aid to the Road Fund to enable him to carry out these duties. The 50 major schemes referred to by my hon. Friend are, I understand, those described in Part II of Appendix III of the Roads, etc., Vote. Each of these schemes has in the ordinary course to receive specific approval of the Treasury before it is put in hand, and due regard to the general financial position will, of course, be paid before such approval is forthcoming.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what business it is proposed to take to-day if the Motion for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule is carried?
Sir J. Simon: I hope that with the co-operation of the House such progress will be made to-day as will ensure the Committee stage of the Civil Defence Bill being concluded to-morrow, All quarters of the House will realise the necessity of so doing.
Mr. Benn: I would like to ask when the Report stage of the Army Token Vote is to be taken, and whether the Minister of Labour will supply the House with details as to the manner of dealing with the civil liabilities of conscripts before the Report stage is asked for, in view of the fact that the Vote was put down on purpose that the House should understand the conditions under which the men were to serve?
Sir J. Simon: I am told that the Report stage will not be taken just yet, and that there will be an opportunity of raising that question.
Mr. Benn: Does that mean, therefore, thet the Military Training Bill will be enacted without the House of Commons
knowing what is being done about the allowances to conscripts?
Sir J. Simon: I may not have followed this matter as closely as I should, but I will do my best to answer the questions of the right hon. Gentleman. I think I am right in saying that the provision to be made for civil liabilities to which he refers will be made by Order in Council and that the Order in Council scheme has already been explained to the House.
Mr. Attlee: The difficulty really arises from the fact that the Order in Council is not yet before us, and that there is grave anxiety to know what the provision will be under which the conscripts will be called up. One of the vital points, therefore, is with regard to dealing with civil liabilities. The matter has been discussed, but it is surely very undesirable that this anxiety should run on over Whitsun. Cannot a White Paper be issued in which we are told the general scheme how the civil liabilities will be dealt with?
Sir J. Simon: The best answer I can give is that I will consult my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. As the men will not be called up until July, I do not think there will be all that difference. Anyhow, let me consult with my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Attlee: All these people have their arrangements to make, and they should know as early as possible.
Sir J. Simon: Certainly.
Mr. Gallacher: In view of the considerable time that is allowed for the Civil Defence Bill, will the Government agree to bring in a Bill to increase the amount of old age pensions?
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on the Civil Defence Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Sir J. Simon.]
The House divided: Ayes, 263; Noes, 141.

Division No. 147.]

AYES.

[3.58 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

Apsley, Lord

Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

Assheton, R.

Beechman, N. A.

Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

Bennett, Sir E. N.

Albery, Sir Irving

Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

Bernays, R. H.

Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)

Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

Blair, Sir R.

Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)

Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)

Bossom, A. C.

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

Barrie, Sir C. C.

Boulton, W. W.

Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (So'h Univ's)

Baxter, A. Beverley

Bower, Comdr. R. T.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

Boyce, H. Leslie

Bracken, B.

Guinness, T. L. E. B.

Perkins, W. R. D.

Brass, Sir W.

Hambro, A. V.

Peters, Dr. S. J.

Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

Hammersley, S. S.

Petherick, M.

Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

Hannah, I. C.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)

Pilkington, R.

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Raikes, H. V. A. M.

Bull, B. B.

Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

Ramsbotham, H.

Butcher, H. W.

Hepburn, P. G. T. Bushan-

Rankin, Sir R.

Campbell, Sir E. T.

Hepworth, J.

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Cartland, J. R. H.

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Carver, Major W. H.

Holdsworth, H.

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hopkinson, A.

Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)

Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)

Horsbrugh, Florence

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Howitt, Dr. A. B.

Ropner, Colonel L.

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

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

Rosbotham, Sir T.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)

Hudson, Rt. Han. R. S. (Southport)

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Channon, H.

Hume, Sir G. H.

Rowlands, G.

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

Hunloke, H. P.

Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

Hunter, T.

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

Chorlton, A. E. L.

Hurd, Sir P. A.

Russell, Sir Alexander

Christie, J. A.

Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

Salmon, Sir I.

Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

Jarvis, Sir J. J.

Salt, E. W.

Colfox, Major W. P.

Jennings, R.

Samuel, M. R. A.

Colman, N. C. D.

Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)

Sandeman, Sir N. S.

Colville, Rt. Hon. John

Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

Sanderson, Sir F. B.

Conant, Captain R. J. E.

Keeling, E. H.

Sandys, E. D.

Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)

Kellett, Major E. O.

Scott, Lord William

Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

Shakespeare, G. H.

Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S.G'gs)

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)

Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Cox, H. B. Trevor

Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

Craven-Ellis, W.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Critchley, A.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

Lancaster, Captain C. G.

Smithers, Sir W.

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

Latham, Sir P.

Snadden, W. McN.

Cross, R. H.

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

Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

Crowder, J. F. E.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Cruddas, Col. B.

Levy, T.

Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

Culverwell, C. T.

Lewis, O.

Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

Davison, Sir W. H.

Liddall, W. S.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)

De Chair, S. S.

Lindsay, K. M.

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

De la Bère, R.

Lipson, D. L.

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Little, J.

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton (N'thw'h)

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Dodd, J. S.

Lloyd, G. W.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.

Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

Sutcliffe, H

Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

Lyons, A. M.

Tats, Mavis C.

Dugdale, Captain T. L.

Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

Duggan, H. J.

M'Connell, Sir J.

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

Thomas, J. P. L.

Dunean, J. A. L.

MaCorquodale, M. S.

Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

Dunglass, Lord

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Eckersley, P. T.

Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

Titchfield, Marquess of

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

Tree A. R. L. F.

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

Macnamara, Lieut.-Colonel J. R. J.

Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

Ellis, Sir G.

Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Emery, J. F.

Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

Wakefield, W. W.

Emmott, C. E. G. C.

Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

Walker-Smith, Sir J.

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Markham, S. F.

Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

Entwistle, Sir C. F.

Marsden, Commander A.

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

Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)

Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

Everard, Sir William Lindsay

Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

Fildes, Sir H.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie

Fleming, E. L.

Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

Wayland, Sir W. A.

Fox, Sir G. W. G.

Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)

Wells, Sir Sydney

Furness, S. N.

Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

Fyfe, D. P. M.

Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Gluckstein, L. H.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

Williams. H. G. (Creydon, S.)

Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

Nall, Sir J.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Ead

Goldie, N. B.

Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

Womersley, Sir W. J

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.

O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

York, C.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

Palmer, G. E. H.

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Patrick, C. M.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

Peake, O.

Mr. Munro and Captain Waterhouse.

Grimston, R. V.

Peat, C. U.

NOES.

Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

Ammon, C. G.

Banfield, J. W.

Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Barnes, A. J.

2100

2101

Barr, J.

Hayday, A.

Quibell, D. J. K.

Batey, J.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Richards, R. (Wrexham)

Beaumont, H. (Batley)

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Ridley, G.

Bellenger, F. J.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Riley, B.

Bonn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

Hills, A. (Pontefrast)

Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

Benson, G.

Jagger, J.

Rothschild, J. A. de

Bevan, A.

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Sanders, W. S.

Broad, F. A.

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Seely, Sir H. M.

Brown, C. (Mansfield)

John, W.

Sexton, T. M.

Burke, W. A.

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Shinwell, E.

Charlston, H. C.

Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Silverman, S. S.

Cluse, W. S.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Simpson, F. B.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

Kirby, B. V.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)

Cocks, F. S.

Kirkwood, D.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Collindridge, F.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Cove, W. G.

Lathan, G.

Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)

Daggar, G.

Lawson, J. J.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Dalton, H.

Leash, W.

Sorensen, R. W.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Lee, F.

Stephen, C.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Leonard, W.

Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

Day, H.

Leslie, J. R.

Stokes, R. R.

Dobbie, W.

Logan, D. G.

Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

Lunn, W.

Summerskill, Dr. Edith

Ede, J. C.

Macdonald, G. (Ince)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

McEntee, V. La T.

Thorne, W.

Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

McGhee, H. G.

Thurtle, E.

Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

MacLaren, A.

Tinker, J. J.

Frankel, D.

Maclean, N.

Tomlinson, G.

Gallacher, W.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Viant, S. P.

Gardner, B. W.

Mander, G. le M.

Walker, J.

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Maxton, J.

Watkins, F. C.

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

Messer, F.

Watson, W. McL.

Gibson, R. (Greenock)

Milner, Major J.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

Montague, F.

Westwood, J.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)

White, H. Graham

Grenfell, D. R.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Wilkinson, Ellen

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Muff, G.

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

Noel-Baker, P. J.

Williams, T. (Don Valley)

Groves, T. E.

Paling, W.

Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)

Pearson, A.

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Hall, G. H. (Abardare)

Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Poole, C. C.

Hardie, Agnes

Price, M. P.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Harris, Sir P. A.

Pritt, D. N.

Mr. Mathers and Mr. Adamson.

BILL PRESENTED.
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (COMPULSORY VOTING) BILL,
  "to make compulsory the exercise of the parliamentary franchise; and for purposes incidental thereto," presented by Sir Frank Sanderson; supported by Sir Patrick Hannon, Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward, Mr. H. G. Williams, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore, Sir John Withers, Vice-Admiral Taylor, Mr. Craven-Ellis, Rear-Admiral Beamish, Major Braithwaite, Captain Arthur Evans, Sir John Mellor, Sir Robert Gower and Mr. Rickards; to be read a Second time upon Monday, 5th June, and to be printed. [Bill 145.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Public Health (Coal Mine Refuse) (Scotland) Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—
Scottish Union and National Insurance Company Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to constitute a joint board comprising representatives of the Stroud Rural District Council the Stroud Urban District Council and the Nallsworth Urban District Council; to transfer to and vest in the said Board the undertaking of the Stroud Water Company and the water undertakings of the Stroud Urban District Council and the Stroud Rural District Council; to empower the said Board to construct waterworks to supply water and to acquire lands; to make further provision with regard to the health local government and finance of the rural district of Stroud; and for other purposes." [Stroud District Water Board etc. Bill [Lords.]
And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Urban District Council of Milford Haven to enlarge their Prescelly Reservoir and to confer further powers

2103
upon the Council in regard to their water undertaking; to empower the Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Tenby to construct works to enable them to take a supply of water from the Urban District Council of Milford Haven; to make further provisions with respect to the finances of the Urban District; and for other purposes." [Milford Haven and Tenby Water Bill [Lords.]

STROUD DISTRICT WATER BOARD, ETC., BILL [Lords],
  MILFORD HAVEN AND TENBY WATER BILL [Lords],
  Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PUBLIC HEALTH (COAL MINE REFUSE) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 146.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  PALESTINE.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [22 nd May]:
  "That this House approves the policy of His Majesty's Government relating to Palestine as set out in Command Paper No. 6019."
  Which Amendment was: In line 1, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "as the proposals of His Majesty's Government relating to Palestine, as set out in Command Paper No. 6019, are inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the Mandate and not calculated to secure the peaceful and prosperous development of Palestine, this House is of opinion that Parliament should not be committed pending the examination of these proposals by the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations."
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  4.6 p.m.
  Mr. Herbert Morrison: I must first apologise that it was impossible for me to be present in order to hear personally the speech of the Secretary of State for the Colonies in opening the Debate yesterday, but I have taken pains to read his speech, and, having apologised for my absence, I will now tell the right, hon. Gentleman what I think of his speech. The right hon. Gentleman took as his text two promises that appear to have been made by representatives of His Majesty's Government during the progress of the Great War. If I were asked to select the text of the speech of the Secretary of State these are the words that I would select. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "There were two people who were interested from the point of view of settlement in Palestine—the Arabs and the Jews—and largely on the strength of promises made to them by His Majesty's Government, promises touching Palestine, each of them played a certain part in the War and each of them took certain risks for the Allied cause. This question then is a matter of honour. The good name of Great Britain is involved. The obligations which we contracted towards the Jews and the Arabs during the War are debts of honour, which cannot be paid in counterfeit coinage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd May, 1939; col; 1938, Vol. 347.]
  It seems to me that the right hon. Gentle-
  2130
  man took the view that we had made contradictory promises, that there was a moral and honourable obligation on our country to respect both of those promises, and that then he went on to face the problem that came to him. I am bound to say that, having read with great care the speech which he made, I cannot accept the view that His Majesty's Government is doing anything other than counterfeiting this business, or that it is doing anything other than breaking its promises and acting dishonourably before the whole of the civilised world. The right hon. Gentleman, having referred to the two promises and to British honour, it seems to me, devoted the rest of an hour's speech to an endeavour to twist the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate into some sort of harmony with the White Paper, notwithstanding the fact, as was proved by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen yesterday, that the White Paper is not in harmony with either the Balfour Declaration or the Mandate, is not in harmony with their wording, is not in harmony with their spirit. The policy which the Government have embodied in the White Paper, in my judgment—I do not think there can be serious argument about it—is in direct conflict with Ministerial declarations, including the declarations of right hon. Gentlemen who are now Members of the Government. They seem, first, to twist the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate to fit in with the policy of the White Paper, and then to prove that the White Paper was not out of harmony with the Declaration or the Mandate. I think the subsequent Debate showed that the right hon. Gentleman failed in that endeavour.
  The right hon. Gentleman's second purpose seemed to me to be to flatter the Jews for the purpose of reconciling them to becoming another permanent minority problem in the world. The Jews, already victims of other races as a minority in certain countries, are now to be made a permanent minority in the country that has been promised to them as the Jewish National Home in Palestine. I am afraid that the flattering of the Jews by the right hon. Gentleman will not reconcile them to becoming the victims of another permanent minority problem. Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman referred to, but he avoided the slightest clarity as to the future protection of the Jewish minority. Having decided that the Jewish people

  2131
  were to be in Palestine a permanent minority, not exceeding one-third of the population, having said that His Majesty's Government would at the time provide means for the protection of that minority, the right hon. Gentleman was utterly unwilling or utterly unable, or both, to give any indication as to how that protection would be afforded. In the course of his speech the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "It is true that at some stage during the transition period, when there are Palestinian heads in charge of the departments of government, consideration will be given to the question of changing the executive council, with its purely advisory functions, into a council of ministers, so that the Arab and Jewish heads of departments may enjoy some executive and ministerial authority; but it is, of course, contemplated that there will be proper safeguards for the Jewish National Home when that stage is reached, and that such safeguards must be an integral part of any scheme during the transition period leading up to the independent Palestinian State."
  Thereupon the right hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) asked:
  "What are those safeguards to be?"
  and the Secretary of State replied:
  "Those are matters for consideration when the time arrives."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd May, 1939; cols. 1950–51, Vol. 347.]
  His Majesty's Government, looking round the world, witnessing the persecution of Jewish minorities all over the world, deliberately planned a policy whereby in their own National Home the Jews are to be a permanent 33⅓ per cent. minority, and no more, in that country. Knowing the problems of Jewish minorities, knowing of the persecution that is proceeding, the Government decides deliberately to make permanent that minority. When the right hon. Gentleman is asked, "What are you going to do to protect them; what steps are you going to take to prevent their being persecuted and oppressed by a 66⅔ per cent. majority, possibly possessing all the supreme powers of the State?" he says, "I do not know; I have not thought about it; I have not considered it; I am not going to consider it until that point is reached." I say that the right hon. Gentleman has shamefully neglected his responsibilities and his duties; I say that he has no right deliberately to create this Jewish minority and then, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caith-
  2132
  ness, to be lightly indifferent as to how protection for the Jewish minority is to be achieved. All that he did in his speech was to talk of honour, to talk of counterfeiting, then to twist the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate all over the place in order to fit in with this precious White Paper, then to flatter the Jews in the hope that they would be reconciled to becoming another permanent minority problem, and, finally, deliberately to avoid any clarity as to how the Jewish minority is to be protected in due course.
  I do not wish to be violent in my language towards the right hon. Gentleman, but I am bound to say that on reading his speech the impression I formed was that the longer he spoke the more he quibbled, the more evasive and inconclusive he became. I should have had more respect for his speech if he had frankly admitted that the Jews were to be sacrificed to the incompetence of the Government in the matter, to be sacrificed to its inability to govern, to be sacrificed to its apparent fear of, if not, indeed, its sympathy with, violence and these methods of murder and assassination—that the Jews must be sacrificed to the Government's preoccupation with exclusively Imperialist rather than human considerations. Probably the right hon. Gentleman's speech was the best he could do with the case he had to present, but it is not a speech which is going to reflect much to the credit of British honour standing on the printed records of the House of Commons.
  As for the reply at the end of the Debate by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, there is little that needs to be said. It was true to type; that is to say, it was a meaningless speech, and it was meant to be a meaningless speech. There was some typical Sunday-school advice to the Jews and the Arabs to be good and not to quarrel, because it was inconvenient to His Majesty's Government that they should quarrel. In fact, it seemed to me to be merely a sub-edited edition of one of his speeches on the Government's policy in Spain, which at the end succeeded in handing Spain over to the Axis. May I say to the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that, if he has nothing to say, would it not be better that he should say nothing, and thereby avoid what has be-

  2133
  come an habitual wastage of Parliamentary time by these empty speeches that are meant to be empty, and by sheer evasion of the issues that are before the House.
  There were plenty of quotations yesterday from leaders of hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite, and I may unwittingly repeat one or two of those quotations. I am not going to quote much, but the record is fairly conclusive as to what right hon. Gentlemen have said. The present Prime Minister, when Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1935, in the "Jewish Chronicle" of 8th November—there was an election coming, and this was one of a series of speeches that included Palestine, the League of Nations, collective security and a number of other things—the Prime Minister then said to the "Jewish Chronicle":
  "You may be assured that it is the policy of the Government to carry out in the letter and in the spirit the Mandate for Palestine. They will discharge without fear or favour their obligations under that Mandate; and while safeguarding the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities will continue to facilitate the establishment of a National Home in Palestine for the Jewish people."
  If the right hon. Gentleman says that that is consistent with the policy of the White Paper, and I imagine he would be so bold as to say that it is, I want to know why the Prime Minister did not tell the "Jewish Chronicle" that the Jewish National Home was consistent with a maximum proportion, in this little, tiny country of Palestine, of 33⅓ per cent., and that it was consistent with their never being more than one-third of the population, under an Arab Government with a two-thirds majority of Arabs behind it. Why did he not say so? Why, before an election, did he lead the Jews to think that he really meant business, and then instruct his subordinate to come down here and lay before us a policy which is clearly inconsistent with the spirit of the declaration he made to the "Jewish Chronicle" at that time?
  Mr. De Chair: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that nothing has happened since 1935 to cause the circumstances to change?
  Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman should not get indignant about that. I am well aware that many things have happened, some of them bad things, and largely the responsibility for them rests
  2134
  with His Majesty's Government. Mr. Stanley Baldwin, as he was at that time, in a letter to the "Times" of 23rd October, 1930, and Sir Austen Chamberlain and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), whose sincere and very honourable speech was received with pleasure in all quarters of the House yesterday—these three prominent Members of the Conservative party were criticising the policy then laid down in the White Paper issued by Lord Passfield when he was Secretary of State for the Colonies. They wrote:
  "They have laid down a policy of so definitely negative a character"—
  they were referring to the Labour Government—
  "that it appears to us to conflict not only with the insistence of the Council of the League of Naions that it would be contrary to the intention of the Mandate if the Jewish National Home crystallised at its present stage of development, but with the whole spirit of the Balfour Declaration and of the statements made by successive governments in the last 12 years."
  I would draw particular attention to these words, that in their view it would be a breach of faith if the situation were crystallised "at its present stage of development." It is true that under the present White Paper a limited further amount of immigration will probably take place, though that is not certain even under the White Paper itself; but the limited amount of increased immigration, with a final stablisation at one-third as against two-thirds, is obviously fairly described as placing the Jewish National Home in the situation of being "crystallised at its present stage of development." That statement was signed by three distinguished leaders of the Conservative Party. Lord Hailsham and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer also made a declaration, in a letter to the "Times" dated 4th November, 1930, in which they said:
  "This country cannot afford to allow any suspicion to rest on its good faith or on its determination to carry out to the full its international obligations. If, therefore, the terms of the White Paper are the deliberate and considered announcement of Government policy, we would suggest that immediate steps should be taken to induce the Council of the League of Nations to obtain from the Hague Court an advisory opinion on the questions involved, and that the British Government should not enforce those paragraphs which are challenged unless and until that Court has pronounced in their favour."
  If that were a justifiable request at that

  2135
  time, in order that all these quasi-legal arguments might be resolved and settled by an authoritative tribunal—if that were true in criticism of the temporary policy of the Labour Government, which was subsequently abandoned, is it not at least equally true of the White Paper which is before the House of Commons this afternoon? Therefore, whatever else hon. Members opposite may da—whether they agree with our general point of view or whether they disagree with it—I suggest that this point of honour ought to appeal to them, that the House of Commons and the Government ought not finally to be committed to a policy as to which grave doubts exist as to its consistency with the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate, until they have taken the course recommended by Lord Hailsham and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1930, namely, the course of obtaining the opinion of the Court at The Hague, and getting that point settled in the first place.
  It is often said, though with untruth, that the Labour party has some unfriendliness towards the Arabs. May I assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the House, that there is not the slightest degree of unfriendliness to the Arab race among my hon. Friends on this side of the House? We know—I know, as my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) knows, for we have been there and have seen it—we know the hard, poor, rather poverty-stricken life that is spent, by a large proportion of the Arab community; and, just as we seek to uplift the social, economic and political status of the working people of our own country, so we have sought, and we shall in all our political activities seek, to promote and encourage the political, economic and social uplift of the status of the working people of all the countries of the civilised world. Therefore, there is no prejudice on this side of the House against the Arabs, and there is no reason why there should be. They have never done anything against us; we have never done anything against them; we wish them well. If at any time we were able to help the working people of the Arab countries to organise themselves in trade unions and lift theirstatus—[Interruption.] If I may say so without being unduly provocative, this is where the class prejudice comes out.
  Captain Alan Graham: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that two-thirds of the Arab race are nomads and that therefore they are not very naturally suited to trades unionism.
  Mr. Morrison: My interpretation of that interjection is that the very idea of working people in what are known as backward races being organised in trade unions is a funny idea to hon. Gentlemen opposite. Let me tell them that, so far as we are concerned, we have a fellowship and a friendship with the working people of all lands and races, and that we will, wherever the circumstances are appropriate, encourage them industrially to organise and to lift themselves up. As a matter of fact, there are, or at any rate there were, considerable numbers of the Arab population organised in trade unions in Palestine. It may be news to hon. Members opposite, but that is so. I met some of them, and there was a time when there was co-operation in trade union organisation between them and the Jews. There is still, but it has to be very discreetly done. There is still a desire for that co-operation among many Arab workmen in Palestine, and there is among the Jews a very wonderful trade union organisation. If that sincere co-operation has lessened as time has gone on, it has been as a result of terrorism, which has made it more difficult.
  Therefore, we are not at enmity with the Arabs. We have no prejudice against them, and there is no reason why we should have any prejudice against them. We are the friends of the Arabs as we are of every people in the world, and in particular we regard it as a duty, not only of the Labour movement in all countries, but of His Majesty's Government themselves, by their own administration and their own actions, to lift up the economic, social, and political status of the Arab masses in Palestine, Transjordan, and the other Arabian countries without in any way prejudicing the development of the Jewish National Home. But the Government here and the Government in Palestine have, I am afraid, looked upon Arab workmen just as hon. Members opposite look upon them, not as people to be brought up to face these matters, not as people to be given a higher economic and political status, but as subordinate, backward races to do the work of capitalist civilisation and to be exploited by

  2137
  capitalist civilisation. If the Government had taken pains, if the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary, who was once a Socialist—
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Never.
  Mr. Morrison: I will give him the benefit of the doubt, and say that if the right hon. Gentleman had remembered what he learned in the days when he was a member of this party, he would have given painstaking and energetic attention to this policy, by social and economic legislation steadily lifting the economic, the social and, in the end, the political status of the Arab masses. He has done precious little and, as a matter of fact, the Jews have done more for the Arabs in that direction than His Majesty's Government have done during almost the whole of the Mandate. I wish it had been otherwise. I would sooner the Government of my own country had done that job than left it to the Jewish people building their National Home. In that direction, I say that His Majesty's Government have miserably failed. Moreover, who was it that started all the discussions that led up to the admission of Iraq to the League of Nations? It was the Labour Government, and Iraq is an Arab country. Who was it that laid the foundations of the substantial independence of Egypt? It was the late Arthur Henderson also, and the Labour Government quarrelled with Lord Lloyd and some hon. Members opposite in the process. Therefore, it is an untruth to declare that Labour has any enmity towards the Arabs, for, unlike the Government, we are the true friends of the masses of the Arab people.
  This White Paper contains a lot of wishful thinking which is in conflict with the hard facts of the situation. It is useless continually wishing and hoping that the Arabs and the Jews will live together in friendly harmony. Wishing for things does not make those things happen. Hoping for change does not make the change occur. If change is to be brought about, if improvement is to be achieved, things have to be done, Ministers have to act, Administrations have to make changes in their administration in order that things may be done. I am weary of listening to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, and still more weary of listening to the Under-Secretary
  2138
  of State for Foreign Affairs, saying to the Arabs and the Jews, "Be friends, live together in harmony," just as they said it to the Franco people and the Republicans in Spain. At least, I would not mind them making these moral urgings if they would do something about it and make some contribution to a new situation. It is not enough merely to wish that things may get better. Statesmanship must create social, economic, and political conditions that make that possible. Government must be just, but it must also repress disorder, or Government must abdicate, and His Majesty's Government, faced with this disorder, have not consistently faced the implications of the disorder. They have run away. They have neither repressed disorder effectively and permanently, nor have they abdicated from their functions.
  Knowing that most of the trouble in Palestine has been created, not by the masses of the Arab people at all, but through a minority of certain classes of the Arabs, probably mostly by the agents of Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini, knowing that that was so—and it began in the days when the Prime Minister had a particular friendship with Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini—knowing that this trouble was largely the creation of foreign intervention and the activities of foreign agents, the Government nevertheless ran away in the earlier days of these difficulties. Then they plucked up some courage, and the Army was sent out. The disorders were largely stopped, order was largely restored, and now the Government propose to run away again. Properly handled, the Government need not send any material British force to Palestine at all to keep order. Properly handled, the Government could have had, and can still have, the active co-operation of the Jews and of a large proportion of the Arabs in maintaining order in Palestine; and I do not see why the Government should not at any rate in part, solve this problem on that line. There are people willing to train themselves to fight for the defence, order, and security of their own country, and I suggest that, subject to proper safeguards and answerable to the High Commissioner, they should be able to co-operate with the British Government in preserving order in their own country.

  2139
  But instead of taking such a line, the Palestinian Government have been weak and uncreative, and so have the home Government, with their consistent inconsistencies of policy and with their constant vacillations. The unfortunate consequence is that a widespread impression has been created that the way to make the British lion run is to make disorder, to murder, to ambush, and to assassinate. I venture to say that it is really a most unfortunate state of affairs when the impression has been created that the way to get things out of the British Government, the way to impress them, the way to modify their policy, is not to be reasonable, not to argue, not to persuade, but to resort to force and violence. As the noble Lord, the present Paymaster-General, said in the House of Commons on 29th April, 1920:
  "It would be intolerable, if the legitimate hopes of the Zionists were in any way affected by serious disturbances in that country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th April, 1920; col. 1514; Vol. 128.]
  That is exactly what is happening today, and it is almost admitted in the words of the White Paper itself, to which I now come. This White Paper can be shortly summarised. It proposes to see to it that there shall be a minority in Palestine. That is definitely laid down, but it was said in the 1922 Declaration, for which the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) was responsible:
  "But in order that this (that is to say, the Jewish) community should have the best prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on sufferance."
  If they are going to be there in a permanent minority and in due course under a Government in which they are a permanent minority, they will obviously be there, not "as of right," but "on sufferance."
  The White Paper goes on to say that the Government are now anxious to engage in experiments in self-government. The Government said this years ago. They declared quite a long time ago that they were anxious to develop, in particular, local self-government in Palestine, and it was urged upon them from many quarters of the House that that was the best avenue through which training in democratic self-government could be achieved. But the Government have not done it. The Gov-
  2140
  ernment have in the past obstructed these very local governing institutions which would have conferred great benefits on the country. The Government undertook to develop local government, and in the course of a Debate here in 1936 that was urged upon them from all quarters of the House, but in fact no progress has been made since 1936. Moreover, due to the troubled state of the country, one Arab municipality after another has been dissolved. Even Jaffa and Haifa are administered by appointed municipal committees co-called, and even existing municipalities are increasingly deprived of their elementary rights.
  I have learned, for example, a most extraordinary thing. There has been a municipality in Jerusalem for quite a long time, but I have learned that, not long ago, without the request of the municipality itself, the Government of Palestine compelled the municipality of Jerusalem to appoint to the post of town clerk, for the first time since the Mandate, a British district officer, incidentally a person who had no experience of municipal affairs. There is not an urban or rural district council in this country that would tolerate the Government appointing someone, apart from its own decision, to be its clerk. That is how the right hon. Gentleman is training the Palestinians in local government. If anything, he has gone backward rather than forward. It is still the case that the municipality of Tel-Aviv spends nearly all its money in a year before its gets the official approval of its estimates from the authorities at Jerusalem. The House is familiar with the difficulties which are put in the way of the municipality of Tel-Aviv. The Royal Commission found it necessary to devote a whole chapter to that particular problem, but their recommendations were ignored by the Colonial Secretary and by His Majesty's Government. Therefore, I cannot but feel that this reference to the development of local self-government is merely lip service, without any particular meaning at all.
  Then there is the whole of the argument on economic absorptive capacity. I do not wish to repeat the arguments that were put before the House with great effectiveness yesterday, for what the Government are really doing in all this discussion about economic absorptive capacity is this: They know that there are on record declarations by Minister

  2141
  after Minister that the test is economic absorptive capacity. Indeed, that was declared by the late Mr. Ramsay MacDonald to be the sole test. To justify their introduction of other qualifications, including the qualification imposed, in their judgment, by violence, including political considerations, the Government then do not look to the Mandate to see whether those considerations are justified by the Mandate, nor do they look to the Balfour Declaration to see whether they are justified by the Balfour Declaration, but they say that as those things are not mentioned in the Mandate or in the Balfour Declaration, they are perfectly entitled to administer the thing as if they were in the Mandate or in the Balfour Declaration. That is not a particularly accurate interpretation of either the Mandate or the Balfour Declaration, nor is it a particularly honourable instance of British administration in these matters. The Government are introducing into these instruments qualifications which are not actually there.
  On page 9 of the White Paper there is, almost in words, a complete surrender to disturbance, violence, murder and assassination, for the White Paper says, after argument about immigration, and so on:
  "The lamentable disturbances of the past three years are only the latest and most sustained manifestation of this intense Arab apprehension. The methods employed by Arab terrorists against fellow-Arabs and Jews alike must receive unqualified condemnation."
  It may be said that it is not fair to blame the whole thing on the Arabs. The Government ought to have given equal credit to Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini for the part they have played in this matter. The Government then go on, in terms, to set out that it shall not be the British Government that is to determine the quota or degree of Jewish immigration, that it shall not be actual conditions in Palestine themselves, that it shall not be economic absorptive capacity, or other considerations, because on page 10 of the White Paper they say:
  "The alternatives before His Majesty's Government are either (1) to seek to expand the Jewish National Home indefinitely by immigration, against the strongly expressed will of the Arab people of the country or (2) to permit further expansion of the Jewish National Home by immigration only if the Arabs are prepared to acquiesce in it."
  That alternative (2) means that the Arabs—and it is well known that the agents of Hitler and Mussolini are working with
  2142
  the Arabs—are to be the sole arbiters as to the degree and extent of Jewish immigration into Palestine. The Government having stated the alternatives, the second of which was to permit further expansion of the Jewish National Home by immigration, only if the Arabs are prepared to acquiesce in it, the White Paper says:
  "Therefore, His Majesty's Government, after earnest consideration, and taking into account the extent to which the growth of the Jewish National Home has been facilitated over the last twenty years, have decided that the time has come to adopt in principle the second of the alternatives referred to above."
  So they go on to the immigration formula, with its limitations, and finally give power to the High Commissioner to restrict dealings in land, which will put another economic stranglehold upon Jewish immigration and will be a double check to them in another and a direct economic way. The Government, ought to think again about giving that great power to the High Commissioner.
  We regard this White Paper and the policy in it as a cynical breach of pledges given to the Jews and the world, including America. This policy will do us no good in the United States, where we need to be done good, and where we need the good will of the great American people. It comes at a time of tragedy and apprehension for the Jewish race throughout the world, and it ought not to be approved by the House to-day. The Mandates Commission of the League of Nations ought to have an opportunity of discussing it. If there is dispute about the quasi-legal arguments, they ought to be referred for decision to an appropriate international legal tribunal. I beg of the House not to approve this White Paper, but at the very least to insist that the Government shall engage in the appropriate international consultations before the House is asked to make a decision on a matter which is not only a British matter but one for the international conscience of the world, and a matter in which all other countries of the world are by implication involved.
  If we do this thing to-day we shall have done a thing which is dishonourable to our good name, which is discreditable to our capacity to govern and which is dangerous to British security, to peace and to the economic interest of the world in general and of our own country. Moreover, it will not work. The Jews and the Arabs have both said they will not

  2143
  have this solution. Therefore, illegal disorders will probably go on and the friction will continue. This does not solve the problem. It is not even an effective surrender that brings peace to a country that so badly needs peace. Remember, that if the troubles continue scope will be given to the agents of Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini who in various places seem to have the habit of lodging bombs in canvas suit-cases; it happened in Jerusalem and I gather that it is happening in London, and I am apprehensive that if things go on as they are there will soon be a shortage of canvas suit-cases in Germany and Italy.
  Remember that ten years hence there is to be, if all goes well, responsible self-government in the country, subject to certain reservations in the interest of Imperial strategy. We are told that there is to be responsible self-government. There will be at least a two-thirds Arab majority. It is known in all parts of the House, it is known to Ministers, that a number of the leaders of the Arab disturbances in Palestine have been acting by the encouragement of German and Italian agents. It is known that part of those disturbances, a large part, can be traced to German and Italian activities in that country. Suppose Herr Hitler is in power in ten years time and suppose Mussolini is in power, what is to stop them then still sending their agents to Palestine and working upon the Arab people in the way they have been doing—working for the persecution of the Jewish race, working for the disarmament of the Jewish race by the new Government, working for the exclusion and persecution of the Jewish race in Palestine? What is to prevent them from doing that? As far as I can see, nothing, and about that possibility the right hon. Gentleman thinks nothing at all.
  I do not know what Government will be in power in ten years time, and it would certainly be wrong for me to indicate what such a Government would do in circumstances that we cannot foresee and cannot know, but I think it ought to be known by the House that this breach of faith, which we regret, this breach of British honour, with its policy, with which we have no sympathy, is such that the least that can be said is that the Government must not expect that this is going to be automatically binding upon
  2144
  their successors. They must not expect that. I will go no further than that, but they must understand that this document will not be automatically binding upon their successors in office, whatever the circumstances of the time may be.
  We cannot prevent this evil thing being done. We cannot prevent this White Paper being approved. Hon. Members opposite alone can stop this thing happening, and I appeal to them. I ask them to remember the sufferings of these Jewish people all over the world. I ask them to remember that Palestine, of all the places in the world, was certainly the place where they had some right to expect not to suffer or to have restrictions imposed upon them. Look at the extent of the country—this little patch of territory. Transjordan has been taken away. The rest of the Arabian countries released from Turkish rule as a result of the War have an enormous area. This tiny patch, Palestine, about the size of Wales, is left, and we are to stop these people from going there. I appeal to hon. Members opposite to take their courage in both hands, to put the honour of their country before the narrow claims of party, and to bring to bear all the pressure they can, all the influence they can, to prevent His Majesty's Government from doing this thing that they ought not to do.
  4.55 p.m.
  Sir Ralph Glyn: We always expect to hear from the right hon. Gentleman a constructive policy, and those of us who have been associated with him for some years in this House would expect that of him, but I regret that in his closing remarks he used what was tantamount to a threat that, should there be a change of Government in this country, the people of Palestine and the Arab States might feel no certainty of any continuity of policy. I feel strongly, and I hope the House will forgive me, because this is a question on which we all have very strong feelings. Some of us who are associated with the Arab Bureau, under Sir Gilbert Clayton, remember, and I hope we shall never forget, the services which the Arab people rendered to us in the War. We also know what was done in the way of promises to the Jews. Frankly, I often feel that we may have committed ourselves to inconsistencies, but what matters much more than what happened in the

  2145
  past is what is to be done in the immediate present and future.
  The right hon. Gentleman said not one word about the Conference that took place in London a few weeks ago. That Conference was presided over by my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, with astonishing tact and patience. Those of us who saw the delegates there from the Arab States, and the Jews, know that although they realised that the Conference had not been a success in coming to any final conclusion, they all felt that there was a Minister in the Government who was trying to take an impartial view and to bring us out of this extraordinarily difficult problem. If we are to do our duty as a mandatory power, at a time when the whole ideal of the League of Nations is being held up, perhaps, to ridicule, those of us who believe in the ideals of the League of Nations must realise that a greater responsibility rests upon us as a mandatory Power to try to act in this regard in the most impartial possible way. I know from the letters I am receiving—and I suppose other hon. Members are receiving letters from their constituents—that a number of Jews quite rightly, feel keenly about this matter, and are writing to their Members and trying to bring influence to bear upon them. If we had Arab constituents I suppose they would write to us as well, and seek to bring their influence to bear, but we have none. It is then, surely our definite duty not to be carried away by any spasm of sentimentalism but to remember that we have a responsibility to all the people who inhabit that part of the world.
  It is a tragedy that whereas to-day we have these troubles in Palestine, in former days when Palestine and the holy places were guarded by Turkish soldiers, infidels as they were called, they were more successful than we seem to have been. Let us remember that we have now our Treaty with Turkey, to which we all attach great hopes. I believe that Turkey will be able to assist in the ultimate federation of the Arab States, which must come. Already, there are treaties between Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, a chain of States across that part of the world. It has never been impossible for British genius to try and help peoples to come forward and take their place, and it is true that the Arab people look to us. I have no fears, as the right
  2146
  hon. Gentleman opposite seems to have, that they are ever going to be under the influence of Herr Hitler. One of the most foolish things ever done by the Axis Powers was when Signor Mussolini went into Albania. Some of us who know that country know the strength of Moslem feeling there. Nothing could have been done better to help our position than the action taken by Signor Mussolini in regard to Albania.
  But there is one matter on which, I hope, the Government will give us more assurance. I feel we must provide more than mere words for helping the economic development of the country as a whole. The potash concession in the Red Sea and the power and light concession have been worked successfully, I think, by Jewish enterprise—and I know some of the people concerned—but no effort has been made to form public utility societies, whereby the Arab cultivators can obtain grain and fertilisers at easy prices; nothing has been done to equip them with modern tools or to help them in marketing. If you analysed what is going on in the Jewish territory, at Tel-Aviv and elsewhere, if you had a Scottish firm of chartered accountants to go into what is the supposed prosperity of these regions, you would find that it would not all be on the favourable side of the balance sheet. Much of this prosperity depends on contributions provided by Jewry throughout the world. The very fact of their success in producing oranges has knocked the price of oranges down considerably. We should consider that without prejudice, because our obligation is to help both Jews and Arabs. When the right hon. Gentleman quoted the Secretary of State he did not quote the words which the Secretary of State quoted from the White Paper:
  "A State in which the two peoples of Palestine, Arabs and Jews, share authority and government in such a way that the essential interests of each are secure."
  We live in days of strict attention to realities, and the dreamers of dreams have not much chance. I agree that if we are to justify our position as a mandatory Power, we should put down disorder from whatever side it comes. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to see martial law established in Palestine if necessary. He rightly said that it was a few people who led this terrorist campaign. I think it is foolish

  2147
  and dangerous to-day to say, "We shall never treat with this person, that person, or the other person." We have all been long enough in public affairs to remember instances, such as the case of Ireland, where we said we would never treat with certain persons, and in the end it was those persons who signed the Treaty. If this policy is to be carried through, there should be no restriction whatever as to whom we deal with. This scheme of the Government's is, I think, a chance which should be accepted. I think it is a great opportunity; it may be the last opportunity. How many of us realise the immense sums which have been poured out in this small country since 1930. I think it averages between £7,000,000 and £10,000,000 a year. That cannot go on. Listening to some of my friends who are Jews—and I am glad to say I have many—I find it difficult to understand why they do not appreciate what has already been done by this country. Surely we have set an example to the world; and I am very anxious we should continue to do that.
  Mr. T. Williams: Does the hon. Member wish to imply that this country is spending £7,000,000 to £10,000,000 per annum in Palestine, or does he wish merely to imply that the taxpayers of this country are maintaining an army in Palestine? He is certainly not correct.
  Sir R. Glyn: The hon. gentleman may have looked up the figures; but I put a question in the House some years ago, and got the total figure spent by this country as the mandatory Power in Palestine. I think he will find that, quite apart from the Army of occupation in Palestine, that is the figure which has been spent. But be the amount £1,000,000 or £10,000,000, the sum does not matter. The Jews should be a little more confident that the spirit we have shown will ensure them that they will have a square deal in Palestine. The two people both have to live together in Palestine. I did not hear a word from the right hon. Gentleman opposite as to what he would do. I know it is not the Opposition's business to form a policy; it is their business to oppose; but we should not let party prejudice spoil this scheme. If the right hon. Gentleman has no definite suggestion to make, I should like to make one or two suggestions to him. I should like to ask him whether he spoke
  2148
  for the Opposition when he said that he wished to see the Arabs formed into trade unions and their status and position developed. We all wish that. Some of us who have lived with them know that they are by nature a nomad people; and if you settle them on territory it is against their nature to stay, unless they know they are to have an opportunity of developing that territory. The first essential is law and order; and the second, irrigation and so on. I see no other Power but us who can do that for them. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman would like to see the Arabs allowed to remain and bring up their families there; and, if so, why should he quarrel with the fact that only one-third of the population are to be Jews and two-thirds are to be Arabs? You have to lay down a line of some kind.
  I come to the very vexed question of the Jewish National Home. I listened to the Debate yesterday, and I did not hear any two hon. Members agree as to the definition of the National Home. Lord Balfour felt—and I feel—that what we should do is to work for the Jews to have a spiritual National Home, a sort of Vatican City, where they can have extended universities and a new Temple of the Covenant; where they can enshrine that wonderful history and traditional belief in custom which has kept them together, scattered as they are over the face of the earth. The world cannot afford to lose the Jewish art and culture. That is something we can help to preserve without doing any harm to the Arab. Where we have gone astray is in assuming that this is all on a material, or territorial, basis. We must get our minds on to the other plane: the plane which is non-material, and the things which are eternal. I believe the Jews would flock to Palestine, and from there go back to their own countries, fortified and strengthened by the knowledge that they have a common place for Jews of all kinds to study their language, customs and faith. It is towards that end that we should all direct our attention. If we go on muddling and meddling with the affairs of the Arabs who are there, and thinking only in terms of land settlement, we are likely to forget things which matter much more.
  I believe this House has a tremendous responsibility. I shall certainly support the Government, because this scheme is

  2149
  the only one that I can see that can bring peace and hope to the country. We shall look to the Opposition, who may be the Government at some future time within the next 10 years; and I believe they will not shatter what may be the frame for a building which will prove to be a triumph of British administration. If so, I believe this can be done on a sure foundation, so that the Arab people may greatly benefit from contact with the Jews. Why should we in this House always emphasise difficulties, and never try to help those people who are wanting to build up something worth while in Palestine? We should help them by concentrating on points of agreement and promising them that they shall have law and order, and that not only we but the whole of Western civilisation is there, under the Mandate of the League, ready to show that, in these days of horror and persecution, we have still time to think of building something that is worth while.
  5.13 p.m.
  Sir Archibald Sinclair: I am under no temptation to fail to follow the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), who has spoken with such good humour and breadth of view. I have no Jewish blood and no Jewish constituents, so I am able to speak, as he has done, with impartiality. But the hon. Member has told us, with great eloquence, what his idea of a Jewish National Home would be—a sort of Vatican City, a centre of Jewish art and culture. It is that now. It has a great university and a great school of medicine. While that may be the hon. Member's idea of a Jewish National Home, while it may have been his idea from the beginning, it was certainly not the kind of National Home that was in fact promised to the Jews on behalf of His Majesty's Government and the British people. I will not delay the House with quotations, though I could do so, but I will refer the hon. Member to innumerable speeches which have been made by great leaders of the British people, like Lord Balfour, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), the present Prime Minister, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, and many others, who held out to the Jewish people the hope of returning to that land which they loved so much, but which the hon. Member for Abingdon seems to think a matter of such very
  2150
  little importance. I do not happen to be a Jew, but I am a Scotsman; and the people of my country really do love the land with an instinctive feeling which the Englishman, I think, does not quite understand. So we understand the Jewish love of the soil of Palestine. It is that feeling which has held together the 16,000,000 Jews throughout the world through the centuries of their dispersion, the love of their own homeland to which they always hope and believe they are destined to return. That was the conception of the Jewish National Home which the leaders of British public opinion have since the War constantly encouraged the Jews to hold. While the hon. and gallant Gentleman may have a different conception, that will not shield the Government, and Parliament, if it endorses this policy, from the accusation of betrayal which will be levelled against them by the Jews of the world and by their innumerable sympathisers who are not of the Jewish race.
  The hon. Gentleman said that we really ought to help the Arabs to develop then-share in the life of Palestine, and certainly there would be no opposition from anybody in any part of this House to any well-judged measures which the Government might devise for that purpose. Indeed many of us have for many years been urging the Government and the local administration in Palestine to be more active in the development of the country along these lines. If they had been more active, some of the more unhappy developments of recent years might have been avoided, but at the same time I feel bound to say this in the name of that impartiality which the hon. Member enjoined upon us, that the Jews have devoted themselves with energy, brains, sacrifice, money to the development of that country, and such development as has been carried out in Palestine by the Government has been with the fruits of Jewish labour. It is not true, as the hon. Gentleman thinks, that the British taxpayer has been subscribing substantial sums of money to Palestine. I assure him that it is quite untrue. If he looks at the facts, he will find that, apart from the cost of the Army in Palestine and apart from Transjordan, no money at all has been spent from British funds in Palestine since 1920. The Jews have spent this money and energy and have made these sacrifices for the development of the

  2151
  country. Why do not the Arabs do the same? It is not true to say that there are no Arabs that have the capital. We have met these wealthy Arabs. We know them, and if they can find money for arms and equipment for organising revolts against British rule, why cannot they find money for a little development on behalf of the poor Arab people?
  It is often said that the Arab case is indifferently put in this House, and that it is only the Jewish case which gets put effectively. I cannot help thinking that there is a great deal of truth in that when I listen to the Debate which is taking place during these last two days. A number of hon. Members have made eloquent speeches which were ostensibly on behalf of the Arab case. The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Crossley) told the House that he was going to deploy the Arab case. But did he? He did not at all. He deployed the case of powerful feudal families in Palestine. When I think of the Arab people whom I want to help I do not think of those powerful feudal families, and of the Mufti or the Nahashibis. I think of the fellahin living by the hundreds of thousands on the land, and living there more prosperously, as the Royal Commission reported to us, than they were before the Jews came to establish their National Home in 1920.
  I think also of the increasing number of Arab industrial workers. The hon. Member for Stretford referred rather contemptuously to the 25,000 whom he found cooped up in little shacks on the outskirts of Haifa. He rather indicated to the House that they were wretched, unemployed, destitute people. You have only to look at the report of the Royal Commission to find them described as living in what the Royal Commission describes as Tin Town. It may be that their housing is bad and that it reflects discredit upon the Government of the country, but not upon the Jews who were not responsible for it. The Royal Commission also says that they are people who find employment in the industrial life of the country and are earning increasingly good wages and improving their conditions. When a little time ago the Government set aside £250,000 to resettle the Arabs who had been turned off their land in order to make room for Jewish enterprises, only one-third of the money was used. The other Arabs had either got into
  2152
  agriculture again and obtained other holdings on their own account or had entered industry and were earning good wages.
  I think of the fellahin, of these people who are working in industry and improving their position, of the villagers terrorised by the bands of the Mufti and working where they can in close co-operation with the Jews. I think of those trade unionists of whom the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) spoke, who were also, as he pointed out, terrorised by the so-called Arab leaders. These people, with their standards of living rising and their social services improving, and the increased happiness of their families dependent upon Jewish enterprises under the protection of the Mandatory Power—these are the Arabs whom the House ought to protect against the feudal Arabs and the foreign agitators, and protect them against the loss of the spring of their own happiness which is the Jewish National Home. It is from that that their increased prosperity is derived. The benefits which the Arabs have derived from the Jewish National Home depend on the continuance of its prosperity. That is in the report of the Royal Commission. We must not ignore the mass of the Arab people whose welfare, along with that of the Jews, should be our primary consideration in Palestine. It is only if we think of that that we shall be able to reconcile the interests of the Jews and Arabs in Palestine. In concluding his eloquent speech last night the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs referred to the blessings of retirement, rest, quietness and confidence in a very eloquent passage. It is our task to confer these blessings upon the Arabs and Jewish people in Palestine, and until we have done so His Majesty's Government must forego them for themselves.
  I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House to-day, as there are, no doubt, many other Members who want to speak, and therefore I propose to concentrate almost entirely upon one point for the rest of my speech, and it is the impropriety of asking Parliament to endorse the policy of His Majesty's Government at the present time. The Under-Secretary of State in his speech winding up the Debate last night said:
  "The Amendment of the official Opposition requests that the House should await the examination of the proposals by the Per-

  2153
  manent Mandates Commission of the League. In the view of His Majesty's Government it will not be necessary for the House to await such a decision because there is nothing inconsistent between the Mandate and anything contained in this White Paper."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd May, 1939; col. 2055; Vol. 347.]
  It is my very strong representation to the House, and especially to the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, who, I understand, is going to answer this Debate, that the White Paper is inconsistent with the terms of the Mandate. I am going to base myself not on my own unsupported assertions but upon the highest authorities there are available. I have first the report of the Palestine Royal Commission of 1937, and on page 39 it says:
  "Unquestionably, however, the primary purpose of the Mandate as expressed in its Preamble and its Articles, is to promote the establishment of the Jewish National Home."
  On page 374, the same Commission say:
  "To put it in one sentence, we cannot—in Palestine as it now is—both concede the Arab claim to self-government and secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home."
  And on the following page they say:
  "We do not think that any fair-minded statesman would suppose, now that the hope of harmony between the races has proved untenable, that Britain ought either to hand over to Arab rule 400,000 Jews, whose entry into Palestine has been for the most part facilitated by the British Government and approved by the League of Nations; or that, if the Jews should become a majority, a million or so of Arabs should be handed over to their rule."
  Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say that we ought to trust to the safeguards, if we hand them over to the care or supervision of self-governing institutions in which the Arabs will have a majority of two to one over the Jews. But what safeguards? We have no right to believe that the safeguards will be effective unless we are told very clearly what they are. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney has already quoted what occurred between the Secretary of State and myself yesterday. The Secretary of State, in answer to my interjection, said that I ought not to hurry at this stage. I ought not to ask him to lay down a time-table. I did not ask him to lay down a time-table but to tell us what the type and character of the safeguards for the five-year period of transition were going to be. Are they to be solid and real safeguards for the
  2154
  continuation of the Jewish National Home, so real that the Government would be ready to enforce them if necessary, as they have not been prepared to enforce the undertakings which successive Governments have given to the Jews up to now? These are questions to which we are entitled to an answer, and we ought to have an answer before we endorse the proposal which His Majesty's Government have brought before us. There could be nothing more unfair and more likely to lead to confusion and to renewed disturbance in Palestine than any uncertainty about what the fate of either the Jewish or the Arab people is going to be under the new dispensation. Here I would call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the report of the Partition Commission of last year. On page 103 they say:
  "The worst possible form of settlement would be one which left both Jews and Arabs in any part of Palestine uncertain whether in a few years time either of them may not be subjected against their will to the political dominance of the other."
  Could there be in a single sentence a clearer summary of the situation which would arise if we endorse this White Paper? In the words of the Partition Commission this White Paper, because it leaves the uncertainty as to whether in a few years time the Jews may not be subjected against their will to the political domination of the Arabs, is the "worst possible form of settlement." That judgment prophetically condemned this White Paper. Again, if, as the Royal Commission reported, the promotion of a Jewish National Home is the primary purpose of the Mandate, and if, as they also reported, it is impossible to concede both the Arab claim of independence, as the White Paper does, and secure the establishment of a Jewish National Home His Majesty's Government's proposals are clearly contrary to the Mandate by the judgment of the Royal Commission. Let me quote from a letter written by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald to the Prime Minister in February, 1931. This is what he wrote:
  "The words (in the Mandate) are not to be read as implying that existing economic conditions in Palestine should be crystallised. On the contrary, the obligation to facilitate Jewish immigration "—
  the obligation was to facilitate, not to stop, Jewish immigration if the Arabs objected—

  2155
  "and to encourage the settlement by Jews on the land remains a positive obligation of the Mandate."
  If it remains "a positive obligation of the Mandate," to discourage and stop Jewish immigration must be contrary to the Mandate:
  "and it can be fulfilled without prejudice to the rights and positions of other sections of the population in Palestine."
  I cannot imagine that the Government can disavow the opinion expressed by the Royal Commission, by the Partition Commission, and by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald when he was Prime Minister, and if it is true then it is my submission that this White Paper is contrary to the Mandate. Indeed, less than two years ago, when the Government went to the Mandates Commission to consult them about the proposals of the Partition Commission, the Mandates Commission said:
  "The (Mandates) Commission does not question that the Mandatory Power, responsible as it is for the maintenance of order in the territory, may on occasion find it advisable to take such a step (as to restrict immigration), and is competent to do so, as an exceptional and provisional measure; it feels, however, bound to draw attention to this departure from the principle, sanctioned by the League Council, that immigration is to be proportionate to the country's economic absorptive capacity."
  The right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), who was then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, said at the meeting of the League Council the following month that this reduction of Jewish immigration was
  "a purely temporary measure designed to meet temporary and exceptional conditions."
  Not only was the then Foreign Secretary most anxious to prove that it was "temporary and exceptional," but the Mandates Commission pointed out that unless it was temporary and exceptional it would be contrary to the Mandate. As it is suggested in the White Paper that immigration is to be restricted and finally made subject to the approval—"acquiescence" is the word used in the White Paper—of the Arabs, I say that it is, in fact, a departure from the principles of the Mandate as recognised by the Royal Commission, the Partition Commission, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, the Mandates Commission, and the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington when he was representing His Majesty's Government only two years ago. It may be argued—
  2156
  although it is not my argument—that circumstances make it impossible to carry out the terms of the Mandate in Palestine at the present time and that His Majesty's Government cannot be under an obligation to perform the impossible. But it is clearly under the obligation to report such circumstances if they exist to the Mandates Commission; it cannot brush it aside as the Under-Secretary of State suggested in his speech last night. He said:
  "I think it is very important that the House should make up its mind on this question in view of the definite and routine arrangements under which this policy will come before the League."
  "Routine arrangement"! It is the vital duty of the Government to consult the Mandates Commission of the League:
  "Hon. Members should be under no illusion that the responsibility for the government of Palestine does not rest upon our shoulders. While we wish at all times to pay due weight to the valuable opinions of the Permanent Mandates Commission it is for us to discharge this responsibility."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd May, 1939; col. 2055, Vol. 347.]
  If there is any doubt as to whether we are departing from the terms of the Mandate quite clearly we have to go back to the Mandates Commission and consult them and get their opinion as to whether the proposals and the policy of the Government are in accordance with the Mandate or not. The Secretary of State is bound by the Declaration of his predecessor, the Duke of Devonshire, who, in 1923, said:
  "It is not possible for us to say that we wish to reserve certain portions of the Mandate and dispense with others. If we resign that position of trust it would be for the League of Nations to determine what new arrangements should be put in force. It amounts, in fact, to this, that if we are compelled to admit the impossibility of carrying out obligations placed upon us we shall have to retire altogether."
  Therefore, I say that this restriction of immigration within arbitrary limits, unrelated to the economic absorptive capacity of the country, and the undertaking to make its continuance dependent on Arab sufferance, this restriction of Jewish immigration without any corresponding restriction on Arab immigration, thus having swept away the obligations imposed by the Mandate to facilitate Jewish immigration, introducing into the immigration policy, contrary to the specific terms of the Mandate, an element

  2157
  of discrimination against the Jews on grounds of race and religion, the reduction of the Jews to the status of a permanent minority—all these things, whether justified or not in the existing circumstances in Palestine—that is not a question which I am arguing at the moment—are all grave departures from the terms of the Mandate, and they call in question our moral right to continue to hold it. They are not matters within the sole jurisdiction and responsibility of His Majesty's Government or even of Parliament, but require the most careful study and examination at the hands of the Mandates Commission.
  Indeed, we ought in these grave matters of the true interpretation of the Mandate to obtain, as the right hon. Member for South Hackney argued, on the precedent of the letter signed by Lord Hailsham and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1930, to get an opinion from the Hague Court. I support the demand which the right hon. Member for South Hackney made that that opinion should be obtained. My contention is that such an opinion from the Hague Court should be obtained forthwith, and, having been obtained, that His Majesty's Government should either consult Parliament afresh or go straight to the Mandates Commission. But Parliament ought not to commit itself to proposals which there is at least a strong case for regarding as conflicting with the fundamental principles of the Mandate until they have been approved by the Mandates Commission.
  If we now follow His Majesty's Government in yielding to violence in Palestine we shall create confusion in that country, we shall incur the scorn of Europe, we shall not propitiate either the Palestinian agitators or the Governments of Egypt and the Arab States, all of whom have rejected these proposals, and we shall anger public opinion in the United States of America. For generations the hostility of the Irish people has poisoned our relations with the people of the United States of America. For that hostility, now so happily allayed, we should, if we accept these proposals, substitute the hostility of 5,000,000 Jews and their Protestant sympathisers in the United States.
  This White Paper is a spring not of healing but of bitter waters. There comes to my mind a saying of Prince Max of Baden, that Great Britain has two great
  2158
  sources of strength—her fleet and her good name. The good name of Great Britain will be tainted if Parliament accepts this White Paper and endorses it before obtaining the impartial judgment of The Hague Court and the Mandates Commission. It is a repudiation of solemn pledges which Parliament and the people of Great Britain have given to the Jews. If His Majesty's Government really think otherwise, let them fortify themselves by the impartial judgment of The Hague Court and the Mandates Commission. Until they do so I, for my part, shall refuse, and I hope Parliament will refuse, to endorse their policy.
  5.44 p.m.
  Dr. James Little: I rise for the first time to speak in this House under a solemn sense of duty and with a deep sense of responsibility, and I ask with all my heart for the indulgence and sympathy of the House. I was sent here to act in conjunction with my colleague by, I understand, the largest constituency save one in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I was sent here to support the Government, not to embarrass them, and I am not going to embarrass the Government, but I am not going back on my own opinions to please anybody. God has given me what intelligence I have, it may be much or very little, but what He has given me I am going to use. As they say in Ulster, I am no "yes-man." I do not intend to embarrass the Government in the least, but I am going to have my say.
  To me, there is quite a remarkable similarity between the conditions as they prevailed in Ireland before the Treaty and the state of affairs in Palestine to-day. After personal experience of many years of what has happened in Ireland since the Treaty, and what is happening to-day, I say to the Government, in that old Latin phrase of two words, festina lente—"hasten slowly." The Irish Treaty was drawn up by the Government of that time with an eye on the terrorists in Ireland. On Saturday last, I left the noise of London and went to Hyde Park in order that I might get away from the noise and bustle and try to understand the White Paper; and as I read it, I came to the conclusion that it was drawn up with an eye on the terrorists in Palestine. Just as the arrangement in Ireland has not brought peace but a sword, so I am sure the very same thing will happen in Pales-

  2159
  tine. I have no place for terrorists. To them I would make no concession, for wherever one finds them, on the Continent, in Palestine, in Ireland—and now they have transferred their activities to England—they are nothing more or less than the humbugs of the world. There is something wrong with the mentality of men in Palestine who will go out and shed innocent blood; and there is something wrong with the mentality of men here or in Ireland who will face a long sentence of penal servitude for the empty satisfaction of crying, "Up the Republic"—an idea for ever impossible in Ireland.
  In Palestine, we are dealing with people of two races who have different ideals, and in Ireland the same difficulty existed. In Palestine there will happen what happened in Ireland—the projected settlement will drive the two peoples farther and farther apart. I stand here and say that with sorrow. To my deep sorrow, it happened in Ireland. At the time the Irish Treaty was entered into—a treaty that was made and signed only to be broken by the present rulers of Eire, who have driven a coach and four through it—there was nothing more than an ordinary border between the North and the South. Now that line of demarcation has become an unbridgeable gulf, deep as an abyss. Everything that the mind of man could invent has been done South of the border to make the union of Ireland for ever impossible. I can foresee, without having the vision of a prophet, the very same thing happening under the proposed settlement in Palestine between the Arabs and the Jews. The House is being asked to set up a witches' cauldron in Palestine, something similar to that which a former Government set up in Ireland.
  It is not without significance that in Ireland, when there came a breathing-space and one hoped that a more friendly atmosphere might prevail, and that, although any thought of a union of North and South was wholly out of the question, a better understanding might be reached for the welfare and good of all the inhabitants and the prosperity of the country, someone was found to stir up the hell broth in the cauldron. I am sorry to say this is what has happened time and again. All the prosperity of Ireland, North and South, has been retarded, to
  2160
  my deep sorrow and that of every lover of Ireland. I fear the same thing in Palestine. The House had an example of this in connection with the recent Military Training Bill. The Prime Minister of Northern Ireland said that Northern Ireland was with Britain heart and soul. We share in your successes and difficulties, we are one with you, and we intend to remain one with you. But immediately the Prime Minister across the border intervened. He held up a paper constitution, and said, "I am going to dictate for all Ireland, and there is going to be no conscription." To the chagrin and embitterment of the people of Northern Ireland, he was heeded by the British Government. They may have had some good cause for that—it is not known in Ulster—but nothing has ever embittered the Protestant people of Ulster so much as being slighted by the British Government in this respect. For we are one with you, we rejoice with you and fight with you, and we stand up for the rights of Britain and the civil and religious liberty for which our forefathers paid dearly and which we enjoy. Now, under the White Paper, it is not improbable that the Arabs will dominate the Jews in the very same way and seek to bend the Jews to their will, and the Jews will no more stand this than we in Ulster stand it. Let that not be forgotten.
  I am not leaning either to Jew or Arab. I want fair play. There is not one in the whole of that vast constituency which I have the honour to represent who does not know that I came to this House to stand for fair play for Jew, Arab and Christian. I rather like the idea of the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) that Palestine should become a British Colony in which all the inhabitants, irrespective of race, would receive British justice. I would ten thousand times rather see that than see the White Paper put into force, for, to take the analogy of Ireland, I know what the stirring of the witches' cauldron will mean there also. I can foresee, when the Arabs take over the State, as is contemplated, after ten years, a marked decrease of the Jewish population. There may be no expulsions—and it is likely that there will not be—but circumstances will wear them out, so that they must seek sanctuary elsewhere. That is what has happened to the Protestants of Eire. Is it not marvellous that those so-called per-

  2161
  secuted people in the North—so persecuted that they are just as happy and well-protected as I am—the Roman Catholics, are increasing in the North, and that the Protestants are dying out in the South, where we are told they are pampered? They have not been expelled from Eire, but conditions there are such that the Protestants number only 6 per cent. of the population. The Lord Primate of all Ireland, who knows the circumstances well, and who was Archbishop of Dublin for many years before his recent appointment to the Primacy, in his speech at the General Synod two weeks ago, made reference to this abnormal decline, and gave some of the causes of it. I would commend that address to members of the Government and Members of the House. I am convinced that something similar will happen to the Jews if the arrangements set forth in the White Paper are carried out.
  The White Paper is not all bad—far from it. It contains the foundations, I believe, of a just and permanent settlement, if it were thoroughly taken up; but I cannot see even the remotest prospect of peace in Palestine in the plan sponsored by the Government. If the Arabs are so strongly opposed at the moment to Jewish immigration, will they not be ten times more strongly opposed to it at the end of ten years, when the British Mandate no longer runs? Then the chances will be that not merely will the incoming of the Jews be stopped, but it will be impossible for them to dwell in the land. I thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to speak. I hold no brief for the Jews—there is not one drop of Jewish blood in my veins, and I would pass even Herr Hitler—but before I close, I wish to say that there is no country on the face of the earth that has dealt hardly with the Jews but has suffered for it. Go back to the old civilisations—Babylon, Ninevah, Assyria, Rome, that mighty Empire, and the Russia of yesterday—and study the facts for yourselves. Today Germany, by her treatment of the Jews, is laying up for herself wrath against the day of wrath. I am convinced of that. I am proud to be an Irishman and to have been born an Irishman. I am proud to be a British citizen. I do not wish anyone ever to have the remotest ground for saying that Britain has even once dealt hardly with the Jews.
  2162
  Notwithstanding the fine gilding which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State placed on the White Paper yesterday, I do not believe that the White Paper, if carried out, will deal justly with the Jews. I believe with that grand old man, St. Paul, that:
  "All Israel shall be saved."
  I have prayed and worked all my life for it. For these reasons, I ask the Government solemnly—as one of their own supporters and one who will never set himself to embarrass them—to take back this White Paper. Greater things than that have been done by Governments in this place, and done successfully. I want the Government to take back the White Paper and, without looking at terrorists or for that matter to any man, or asking anybody whether it pleases him or not, to seek Divine guidance, and under that Divine guidance find a more equitable settlement of affairs in Palestine. Despite all their defects, God still has a deep interest in the Jews.
  5.58 p.m.
  Mr. Maxton: Once or twice during the period of my Parliamentary experience I have had imposed upon me by the House the duty of congratulating a new Member on his maiden speech. I do not think I have ever done it on an occasion when it was so fully deserved as it is on this occasion. I am sure there has not been a maiden speech for a very considerable period of which the House so fully appreciated and enjoyed the oratory and Parliamentary skill. The hon. Member for Down (Dr. Little) may have misunderstood the laughter of the House and believed that it might be derisive. That was not the case. It was laughter that arose from all the older Members of the House because we were delighted at the way with which this novice was getting away with something that all the rest of us would have been stopped doing. I am barred by the etiquette of the House from making any comment on or criticism of the speech. We welcome the new Member in our midst. His predecessor was a kindly, genial, but very silent colleague. I am sure that the hon. Member is going to be kindly and genial, but I am not quite so sure about the silence. May I say that I thought of him as a kindred soul, when I heard him declare that he was not going to be a "yes-man." But he will be very lonely, and he will find

  2163
  some difficulty in maintaining that attitude along with the other one which he promised at the end of his speech of not embarrassing the Government. But I leave him to make the necessary compromise and to find the line himself.
  I rise, as others on this side of the House have risen, to oppose the White Paper very strongly from the point of view which has been put in many quarters, that it should, at least, be submitted to the impartial and judicial consideration of bodies which have not the same close political interest in the matter as this House has. One consideration has been present in my mind during the whole of this discussion. The guiding idea in the White Paper is that 5 years hence, or 10 years hence, the time will be more propitious for doing something in the way of bringing democracy and self-government to Palestine, than it is at present. Looking back over the period during which this subject has come up for discussion over and over again in this House what strikes me is that one would have said, 5 years ago or 10 years ago, that 5 years or 10 years forward from that period, the position would be better for extending self-government to Palestine than it was then. If we look back over the last 5 or 10 years we must all realise now that Palestine then, was a simple problem compared with what it is to-day. I do not know what reasons the Colonial Secretary has for assuming that 5 or 10 years hence, the Palestine problem will have simplified itself.
  Five years ago we had not the huge complication of the refugee problem. I do not know how it affects other people, but the refugee problem has altered my way of looking at this subject in a very substantial degree. We had not the strategical problem then and it seems to me, though I may be wrong and unduly suspicious, that one of the big motives behind the production of this White Paper is that of strategic considerations. Those two problems have arisen in an acute form only in the last five years. We here in Great Britain have told the world that we are champions of democracy against all others. I have a strong feeling that one of the best things we could do for democracy in these times is to show some confidence in it. I have grave doubts about the democracy of us in this House, 2,000 miles away from the
  2164
  scene, holding the destinies of the people in that territory in our hands. I have grave doubts as to the democracy of Arabs in Syria, in Egypt and in Iraq, telling me how to deal with the lives of the people in Palestine, just as I have grave doubts of the democracy of Jews in Glasgow, Edinburgh, London or New York, telling me how to decide the lives, of the people in Palestine. I have grave doubts as to the democracy of the conferences which the Colonial Secretary-calls in London, and to which he summons people from all over the place, while he never makes any serious attempt to summon the ordinary Arab and Jewish folk from Palestine, who have to live and work and earn their livelihood there, to hear their views of the situation.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) said that he had no Jews in his constituency. I have a few. They are not of such numbers as to make them a very important consideration electorally. They are a friendly, decent section of our community. I have had no word from one of them about this issue. In all the huge barrage of stuff that has been sent out from all quarters and from all sorts of organisations, I have not had one letter from any of my Jewish friends in my own constituency about this issue. I have had one letter from a personal friend who is a Jew, but is not one of my constituents, and he suggests that the appropriate way of dealing with the problem is to hand over the Mandate to Turkey. I put that view to the House. Turkey in these days has become one of those nations ranked against the dictatorships. It is now one of the great democracies of Europe. My friend's suggestion might be worthy of consideration, but my own personal view is that nobody can save either the Jews or the Arabs of Palestine, except the Jews and Arabs of Palestine themselves. For us, it is an impertinence to assume that we are capable either of tutelage over them or of conferring self-government on them. Neither Jews nor Arabs can imagine that they are likely to get freedom and decent ways of living in that country, without shouldering responsibilities and going through struggles, just the same as other people.
  The Jews under present conditions are in a minority of one to two. The hon. Member for Down (Dr. Little) spoke

  2165
  about the position in Ireland. He takes a certain view of how Ireland should be run. We Scottish have taken a different view of our relationships with this country. In this House we are in a permanent minority of one to ten, but from years of historical experience, we have learned how to make the best of that position. We do it by not exaggerating our national sentiments, which are very real, and also by not exaggerating unduly the superiority of our rulers. We do not take them half so seriously as they take themselves, and that seems to me to be a suitable basis for democratic life in any community. I do not see why the Jews, with their experience of centuries of struggle, should be afraid to face life on a democratic basis in the minority which is only one to two. They have lived through the centuries, in all quarters of the globe, as insignificant minorities without any civic rights, in many cases, without working rights, without trading rights. To me it seems that the right thing to do is to say that we are going to have democracy now in Palestine in the fullest sense of the word, not a democracy in which Arabs are manipulated by people outside, or Jews manipulated by people outside, or the British Government or the British armed forces, but a democracy which puts on the people living in that territory the task of making themselves into a proper democratic community, shouldering all the responsibilities of a democratic community.
  My contacts with the people of Palestine have been with the ordinary working-class people, the labourers, the men living in the Jewish communes, and the fellaheen, and my friends in Palestine have, from the outset regarded their work as being equally for Jew and Arab. They have not recognised national divisions at all and my hon. Friends and I in this House stand for the Palestinian worker, without regard to religion or race. Those workers have conducted strikes, and they have conducted movements, in the interests of all. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) referred to the significant happening of a fortnight ago when the Jewish families moving into a new agricultural commune were welcomed in the heartiest fashion by the local Arab fellaheen, who prepared a feast for them and brought them appropri-
  2166
  ate Arab gifts in token of complete friendship and harmony. A friend of mine there informs me in a letter that one of the things for which he hoped from that invasion of Jewish workers into that district, was that he and his friends would have some assistance in resisting the rapacity of their Arab absentee landlord who seized a big proportion of the fruits of their labour, while he spent his time abroad in Cairo or Paris.
  That is the road which the working people of Palestine, Jew and Arab, have to take. They have to take part in the working-class struggle for an entirely new kind of social order, the same sort of struggle as that in which the workers of this and other lands have to participate. The struggle about nationality to-day is, to my mind, completely out of date. It is an anachronism. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) smiles. It is there, I admit—nationalism, in excelsis, perhaps more furious, more bitter and more cruel than ever it has been, but I believe that this is the dying kick. The problem to-day is not a problem of frontiers but of social and economic conditions and the future of Palestine lies with the working-class people who are living there. What does it matter who lived there 1,500 years ago? What does it matter what Balfour said 20 years ago? What does it matter what McMahon wrote. The problem is how the ordinary folk there are to live decently, securely and happily in the future. It can be solved only by the people themselves shouldering the responsibility. It cannot be solved by us. We need not think that we can do anything for them.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Dominions is to reply. He is head of a Department that walked into Newfoundland and took away self-government from that country. It is true that he was not the Minister at the time, but he is carrying on the policy, and he inherits the responsibility. His Department said, "We will walk into Newfoundland and by ruling directly, as a strong Government, we will make a new kind of community there." Everybody knows that under the dictatorship of Whitehall the position of the Newfoundland people is infinitely worse than it was when we destroyed its democracy. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that from the Box, but he has said something about international complications and so on, as

  2167
  if a democratic Government did not have international complications also. Do not let us imagine that in these days the British are capable of managing the affairs of people in all corners of the globe. Let us assume that among the Jewish people and Arab people in Palestine there are as good political brains as there are in this House. I talked with simple, plain men who were as well informed on the general politics of the world, of Europe and their own country as anybody in this House. They must have a chance of facing their problems in a responsible way, and what Great Britain and the British Government have to do is not to postpone for five or ten years the shouldering of that responsibility, but to give it to them now.
  6.16 p.m.
  Mr. Churchill: I should like to add my tribute to the very happily couched tribute of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) to the maiden speech to which we listened from the hon. Member for County Down (Dr. Little). It reminded me of my earliest experience in this House nearly 40 years ago when I heard the late Mr. Timothy Healy, who was not allowed to raise the difficult question of Irish land policy upon the Address or to refer to Ireland in any way, deliver a speech entirely concentrated upon "the melancholy island of Uganda." I am sure we hope that the great adroitness in skating round the edge of the abyss already shown by the hon. Gentleman will carry him to the highest levels of Parliamentary eminence. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton—I call him so, breaking the Parliamentary tradition of opponents, but, after all, he is, as he said, rather a solitary figure—reminded me of a story I heard of the late Lord Balfour, whose name seems curiously pertinent to-day, who at a conference during the War made a very lucid, interesting and captivating speech, exactly like the one to which we have just listened; and at the end of it M. Clemenceau was forced to ask him, "Mr. Balfour, are you for or against?". That, no doubt, is a secret which will be revealed when we go from this Chamber into the Lobbies which surround us. I gladly acknowledge the extremely complimentary terms in which the Colonial Secretary referred to my literary exertions,
  2168
  but I am sure he will be the last man to wish that I should be at all drawn from my public duty by any such insidious, seductive processes, however gratifying they may be at the moment.
  I say quite frankly that I find this a melancholy occasion. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), I feel bound to vote against the proposals of His Majesty's Government. As one intimately and responsibly concerned in the earlier stages of our Palestine policy, I could not stand by and see solemn engagements into which Britain has entered before the world set aside for reasons of administrative convenience or—and it will be a vain hope—for the sake of a quiet life. Like my right hon. Friend, I should feel personally embarrassed in the most acute manner if I lent myself, by silence or inaction, to what I must regard as an act of repudiation. I can understand that others take a different view. There are many views which may be taken. Some may consider themselves less involved in the declarations of former Governments. Some may feel that the burden of keeping faith weighs upon them rather oppressively. Some may be pro-Arab and some may be anti-Semite. None of these motives offers me any means of escape because I was from the beginning a sincere advocate of the Balfour Declaration, and I have made repeated public statements to that effect.
  It is often supposed that the Balfour Declaration was an ill-considered, sentimental act largely concerned with the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), for which the Conservative party had no real responsibility, and that, as the Secretary of State said yesterday, it was a thing done in the tumult of the War. But hardly any step was taken with greater deliberation and responsibility. I was glad to hear the account which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook gave, derived from the days when he was working in the Secretariat of the War Cabinet, of the care and pains with which the whole field was explored at that time. Not only did the War Cabinet of those days take the decision, but all Cabinets of every party after the War, after examining it in the varying circumstances which have arisen, have endorsed the decision and taken the fullest responsibility for it. It was also endorsed in

  2169
  the most cordial and enthusiastic terms by many of the ablest Conservative Private Members who came into the House when a great Conservative majority arrived after the General Election at the end of 1918. It was endorsed from the very beginning by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
  I make him my apologies for going back as far as 20 years, but when you are dealing with matters which affect the history of two or three thousand years, there is no reason why the continuity of opinion should not be displayed. My right hon. Friend, on 13th October, 1918, said:
  "The sympathy of the British Government with Zionist aspirations does not date from yesterday… My father was anxious to find such a territory within the limits of the British Constitution…To-day the opportunity has come. I have no hesitation in saying that were my father alive to-day he would be among the first to welcome it and to give it his hearty support."
  Then other members of the Government, most distinguished members, who were then Private Members in the House—a brilliant crop, if I may say so, in their young first fresh flight—made a strong effort. The Dominions Secretary, quite a slim figure on the benches up here was heavily engaged. There were also the Minister of Health, the Home Secretary and, above all, the Prime Minister; and this is the memorial they sent us. I abridge it, but not in such a way as to alter its sense. I may in abridging it diminish its force, but its force is evident from the extract:
  "We, the undersigned, having cordially welcomed the historic Declaration made on 2nd November, 1917, by His Majesty's Government "—
  that is, the Balfour Declaration—
  "that it would use its best endeavours to facilitate the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine…now respectfully and solemnly urge upon His Majesty's Government the necessity of redeeming this pledge by the acceptance of a Mandate under the League of Nations."
  Here was this statement which was made and which was put forward, and while I say I do not compare the responsibility of private Members with that exercised by Ministers of the Crown or by the head of the Government, nevertheless I think, when all is said and done, that Zionists have a right to look to the Prime Minister to stand by them in the days of his power. They had a special right to look to him because he was not only giving effect to
  2170
  his own deep convictions, but was carrying forward the large conceptions of his father whose memory he reveres and whose renown he has revived. I was not a member of the War Cabinet in the days when this pledge was given. I was serving under it as a high functionary. That was the position of the Secretaries of State. I found myself in entire agreement with those sentiments so well expressed by the Prime Minister and his friends when they were sending in their memorial.
  When I went to the Colonial Office it was in this spirit that I wrote this dispatch, under the authority of the Cabinet, which is quoted so much in the White Paper now before us. Great use is made of this dispatch of 1922 in the White Paper. It is sought to found the argument of the White Paper largely upon it. I stand by every word in those lengthy quotations which have been made from what I wrote. I would not alter a sentence after the 16 years that have passed, but I must say I think it rather misleading to quote so extensively from one part of the dispatch without indicating what was its main purpose. The particular paragraph quoted would do little to cool down the ardour of the Zionist and little to reassure the apprehensions of the Arabs. The main purpose of the dispatch was clear. This is what I said in paragraph (1):
  "His Majesty's Government have no intention of repudiating the obligations into which they have entered towards the Jewish people."
  I then proceeded to say that the Government would refuse to discuss the future of Palestine on any basis other than the basis of the Balfour Declaration. Moreover, the whole tenour of the dispatch was to make it clear that the establishment of self-governing institutions in Palestine was to be subordinated to the paramount pledge and obligation of establishing a Jewish National Home in Palestine. In taking up this position on behalf of the Government of the day I really was not going any further than the views which were ardently expressed by some of the ablest and most promising of our back-benchers at that time. The fact that they are leading Ministers to-day should, I think, have gained for the problem of Palestine a more considered and more sympathetic treatment than it has received.

  2171
  Last night the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs used a surprising argument. He suggested that the obligation to introduce self-governing institutions into Palestine ranked equally with the obligation to establish a Jewish National Home. In this very dispatch of mine, which represented the views of the entire Government of the day, the greatest pains were taken to make it clear that the paramount duty was the establishment of a National Home. It was said on page 6:
  "The position is that His Majesty's Government are bound by a pledge which is antecedent to the Covenant of the League of Nations, and they cannot allow a constitutional position to develop in a country for which they have accepted responsibility to the principal Allied Powers which may make it impracticable to carry into effect a solemn undertaking given by themselves and their Allies."
  There is much more to the same effect. It seems to me that the Under-Secretary of State had some reason to complain of the manner in which he had been briefed on this subject, because his argument was exactly contrary to the tenour of the dispatch from which the Government have quoted with a strong expression of approval and agreement wherever they have found it possible to assist their case.
  Now I come to the gravamen of the case. I regret very much that the pledge of the Balfour Declaration, endorsed as it has been by successive Governments, and the conditions under which we obtained the Mandate, have both been violated by the Government's proposals. There is much in this White Paper which is alien to the spirit of the Balfour Declaration, but I will not trouble about that. I select the one point upon which there is plainly a breach and repudiation of the Balfour Declaration—the provision that Jewish immigration can be stopped in five years' time by the decision of an Arab majority. That is a plain breach of a solemn obligation. I am astonished that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, of all others, and at this moment above all others, should have lent himself to this new and sudden default.
  To whom was the pledge of the Balfour Declaration made? It was not made to the Jews of Palestine, it was not made to those who were actually living in Palestine. It was made to world Jewry and in particular to the Zionist associations. It
  2172
  was in consequence of and on the basis of this pledge that we received important help in the War, and that after the War we received from the Allied and Associated Powers the Mandate for Palestine. This pledge of a home of refuge, of an asylum, was not made to the Jews in Palestine but to the Jews outside Palestine, to that vast, unhappy mass of scattered, persecuted, wandering Jews whose intense, unchanging, unconquerable desire has been for a National Home—to quote the words to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister subscribed in the Memorial which he and others sent to us:
  "the Jewish people who have through centuries of dispersion and persecution patiently awaited the hour of its restoration to its ancestral home."
  Those are the words. They were the people outside, not the people in. It is not with the Jews in Palestine that we have now or at any future time to deal, but with world Jewry, with Jews all over the world. That is the pledge which was given, and that is the pledge which we are now asked to break, for how can this pledge be kept, I want to know, if in five years' time the National Home is to be barred and no more Jews are to be allowed in without the permission of the Arabs?
  I entirely accept the distinction between making a Jewish National Home in Palestine and making Palestine a Jewish National Home. I think I was one of the first to draw that distinction. The Government quote me, and they seem to associate me with them on this subject in their White Paper, but what sort of National Home is offered to the Jews of the world when we are asked to declare that in five years' time the door of that home is to be shut and barred in their faces? The idea of home to wanderers is, surely, a place to which they can resort. When grievous and painful words like "breach of pledge," "repudiation" and "default" are used in respect of the public action of men and Ministers who in private life observe a stainless honour—the country must discuss these matters as they present themselves in their public aspect—it is necessary to be precise, and to do them justice His Majesty's Government have been brutally precise. On page 11 of the White Paper, in Sub-section (3) of paragraph 14 there is this provision:

  2173
  "After the period of five years no further Jewish immigration will be permitted unless the Arabs of Palestine are prepared to acquiesce in it."
  Now, there is the breach; there is the violation of the pledge; there is the abandonment of the Balfour Declaration; there is the end of the vision, of the hope, of the dream. If you leave out those words this White Paper is no more than one of the several experiments and essays in Palestinian constitution-making which we have had of recent years, but put in those three lines and there is the crux, the peccant point, the breach, and we must have an answer to it.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs may use his great legal ability. He is full of knowledge and power and ingenuity, but unless this can be answered, and repulsed, and repudiated, a very great slur rests upon British administration. It is said specifically on page 10 of the White Paper that Jewish immigration during the next five years will be at a rate which, if the economic absorptive capacity allows, will bring the population up to approximately one-third of the total population of the country. After that the Arab majority, twice as numerous as the Jews, will have control, and all further Jewish immigration will be subject to their acquiescence, which is only another way of saying that it will be on sufferance. What is that but the destruction of the Balfour Declaration? What is that but a breach of faith? What is it but a one-sided denunciation—what is called in the jargon of the present time a unilateral denunciation—of an engagement?
  There need be no dispute about this phrase "economic absorptive capacity." It represented the intentions of the Government and their desire to carry out the Palestinian Mandate in an efficient and in a prudent manner. As I am the author of the phrase, perhaps I may be allowed to state that economic absorptive capacity was never intended to rule without regard to any other consideration. It has always rested with the Mandatory Power to vary the influx of the Jews in accordance with what was best for Palestine and for the sincere fulfilment—one must presuppose the sincere fulfilment—of our purpose in establishing a Jewish National Home there. It was never suggested at any time that the deci-
  2174
  sion about the quota to be admitted should rest with the Jews or should rest with the Arabs. It rested, and could only rest at any time, with the Mandatory Power which was responsible for carrying out the high purpose of the then victorious Allies. The Mandatory Commission of the League of Nations, as was mentioned by the spokesman for the Opposition when he opened the Debate this afternoon, has recognised fully that the Mandatory Power was entitled to control the flow of immigration, or even to suspend it in an emergency. What they are not entitled to do, at least not entitled to do without reproach—grave, public and worldwide reproach, and I trust self-reproach as well—is to bring the immigration to an end so far as they are concerned, to wash their hands of it, to close the door. That they have no right whatever to do.
  I cannot feel that we have accorded to the Arab race unfair treatment after the support which they gave us in the late War. The Palestinian Arabs, of course, were for the most part fighting against us, but elsewhere over vast regions inhabited by the Arabs independent Arab kingdoms and principalities have come into being such as had never been known in Arab history before. Some have been established by Great Britain and others by France. When I wrote this despatch in 1922 I was advised by, among others, Colonel Lawrence, the truest champion of Arab rights whom modern times have known. He has recorded his opinion that the settlement was fair and just—his definite, settled opinion. Together we placed the Emir Abdulla in Transjordania, where he remains faithful and prosperous to this day. Together, under the responsibility of the Prime Minister of those days, King Feisal was placed upon the throne of Iraq, where his descendants now rule. But we also showed ourselves continually resolved to close no door upon the ultimate development of a Jewish National Home, fed by continual Jewish immigration into Palestine. Colonel Lawrence thought this was fair then. Why should it be pretended that it is unfair now?
  I cannot understand what are the credentials of the Government in this matter of Palestine. It is less than two years—about 18 months if I remember aright—since they came forward and on their faith and reputation, with all their

  2175
  knowledge and concerted action, urged us to adopt a wholly different solution from that which they now place before us. The House persuaded them then not to force us into an incontinent acceptance of their partition plan, and within a few months, though they did not thank us for it, they had themselves abandoned and discarded it as precipitately as they had adopted it. Why, now, should they thrust this far more questionable bundle of expedients upon us? Surely it would only be prudent and decent for the Government, following the advice given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was a private Member in 1930, following the opinion of the jurists of those days, to ascertain the view taken by the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations, before whom these proposals are to go, before claiming a Parliamentary decision in their favour.
  I cannot understand why this course has been taken. I search around for the answer. The first question one would ask oneself is foreshadowed in a reference made in the speech of my hon. Friend, and is this: Is our condition so parlous and our state so poor that we must, in our weakness, make this sacrifice of our declared purpose? Although I have been very anxious that we should strengthen our armaments and spread our alliances and so increase the force of our position, I must say that I have not taken such a low view of the strength of the British Empire or of the very many powerful countries who desire to walk in association with us; but if the Government, with their superior knowledge of the deficiencies in our armaments which have arisen during their stewardship, really feel that we are too weak to carry out our obligations and wish to file a petition in moral and physical bankruptcy, that is an argument which, however ignominious, should certainly weigh with the House in these dangerous times. But is it true? I do not believe it is true. I cannot believe that the task to which we set our hand 20 years ago in Palestine is beyond our strength, or that faithful perseverance will not, in the end, bring that task through to a glorious success. I am sure of this, that to cast the plan aside and show yourselves infirm of will and unable to pursue a long, clear and considered purpose, bending and twisting under the crush and pressure of events—
  2176
  I am sure that that is going to do us a most serious and grave injury at a time like this.
  We must ask ourselves another question, which arises out of this: Can we—and this is the question—strengthen ourselves by this repudiation? Shall we relieve ourselves by this repudiation? I should have thought that the plan put forward by the Colonial Secretary in his White Paper, with its arid constitutional ideas and safety catches at every point, and with vagueness overlaying it and through all of it, combines, so far as one can understand it at present, the disadvantages of all courses without the advantages of any. The triumphant Arabs have rejected it. They are not going to put up with it. The despairing Jews will resist it. What will the world think about it? What will our friends say? What will be the opinion of the United States of America? Shall we not lose more—and this is a question to be considered maturely—in the growing support and sympathy of the United States than we shall gain in local administrative convenience, if gain at all indeed we do?
  What will our potential enemies think? What will those who have been stirring up these Arab agitators think? Will they not be encouraged by our confession of recoil? Will they not be tempted to say: "They're on the run again. This is another Munich," and be the more stimulated in their aggression by these very unpleasant reflections which they may make? After all, we were asked by the Secretary of State to approach this question in a spirit of realism and to face the real facts, and I ask seriously of the Government: Shall we not undo by this very act of abjection some of the good which we have gained by our guarantees to Poland and to Rumania, by our admirable Turkish Alliance and by what we hope and expect will be our Russian Alliance? You must consider these matters. May not this be a contributory factor—and every factor is a contributory factor now—by which our potential enemies may be emboldened to take some irrevocable action and then find out, only after it is all too late, that it is not this Government, with their tired Ministers and flagging purpose, that they have to face, but the might of Britain and all that Britain means?
  Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: You signed the Irish Treaty.
  Mr. Churchill: I do not complain of that interruption. The Prime Minister of the day, Sir Austen Chamberlain—who was the leader of the Conservative party—myself and other Ministers signed that Treaty. You would not wish me, Sir, and I should not be allowed, to go into that discussion at all, but let me say that the former Mr. Baldwin was a prominent supporter of it. I remember at a most critical juncture being refreshed by the most active support of my right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister, when he spoke from another bench. If these ancient taunts are being flung about, about which I do not at all complain, by my hon. and gallant Friend, with his great knowledge of Russia, which was so serviceable to us in the War, but which has somewhat overclouded his mind since, he had better realise that they do not strike only at the breast of the Member now in possession of the House.
  It is hoped to obtain five years of easement in Palestine by this proposal; surely the consequences will be entirely the opposite. A sense of moral weakness in the mandatory Power, whose many years of vacillation and uncertainty have, as the right hon. Gentleman admitted yesterday, largely provoked the evils from which we suffer, will rouse all the violent elements in Palestine to the utmost degree. In order to avoid the reproach, the bitter reproach, of shutting out refugees during this time of brutal persecution, the quota of immigration may be raised, as we were told by the Secretary of State, and may be continued at an even higher level in the next five years. Thus, irritation will continue and the incentive to resist will be aggravated. What about these five years? Who shall say where we are going to be five years from now? Europe is more than two-thirds mobilised tonight. The ruinous race of armaments now carries whole populations into the military machine. That cannot possibly continue for five years, nor for four, nor for three years. It may be that it will not continue beyond the present year. Long before those five years are past, either there will be a Britain which knows how to keep its word on the Balfour Declaration and is not afraid to do so, or, believe me, we shall find ourselves relieved of many oversea responsibilities other than those comprised within the Palestine Mandate.
  2178
  Some of us hold that our safety at this juncture resides in being bold and strong. We urge that the reputation for fidelity of execution, strict execution, of public contracts, is a shield and buckler which the British Empire, however it may arm, cannot dispense with and cannot desire to dispense with. Never was the need for fidelity and firmness more urgent than now. You are not going to found and forge the fabric of a grand alliance to resist aggression, except by showing continued examples of your firmness in carrying out, even under difficulties, and in the teeth of difficulties, the obligations into which you have entered. I warn the Conservative party—and some of my warnings have not, alas, been ill-founded—that by committing themselves to this lamentable act of default, they will cast our country, and all that it stands for, one more step downward in its fortunes, which step will later on have to be retrieved, as it will be retrieved, by additional hard exertions. That is why I say that upon the large aspect of this matter the policy which you think is a relief and an easement you will find afterwards you will have to retrieve, in suffering and greater exertions than those we are making.
  I end upon the land of Palestine. It is strange indeed that we should turn away from our task in Palestine at the moment when, as the Secretary of State told us yesterday, the local disorders have been largely mastered. It is stranger still that we should turn away when the great experiment and bright dream, the historic dream, has proved its power to succeed. Yesterday the Minister responsible descanted eloquently in glowing passages upon the magnificent work which the Jewish colonists have done. They have made the desert bloom. They have started a score of thriving industries, he said. They have founded a great city on the barren shore. They have harnessed the Jordan and spread its electricity throughout the land. So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population. Now we are asked to decree that all this is to stop and all this is to come to an end. We are now asked to submit—and this is what rankles most with me—to an agitation which is fed with

  2179
  foreign money and ceaselessly inflamed by Nazi and by Fascist propaganda.
  It is 20 years ago since my right hon. Friend used these stirring words:
  "A great responsibility will rest upon the Zionists, who, before long, will be proceeding, with joy in their hearts, to the ancient seat of their people. Theirs will be the task to build up a new prosperity and a new civilisation in old Palestine, so long neglected and mis-ruled."
  Well, they have answered his call. They have fulfilled his hopes. How can he find it in his heart to strike them this mortal blow?
  7.0 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Sir Thomas Inskip): There are few Debates which raise issues of such far-reaching importance as this, and still fewer in which the ordinary party divisions have had so little influence upon the formation of opinion. Speeches on this side, as we have just heard, have put what I may call the Jewish case higher even and more pointedly than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), and speeches on the other side of the House have put the case for the Arabs contrary to the opinions held by the majority of hon. Members opposite. One speech from the Box opposite was made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) last night in which he jettisoned the whole argument of his companions, but he made some constructive and helpful suggestions which both deserve and need examination before they could be fully adopted. Perhaps, even though the hon. and learned Gentleman is not here, I may be allowed to say, in response to his suggestions that a good deal more help should be given to the Arab fellaheen in developing their own capacity, that a reference to the Peel Commission Report will show what has been done in that direction with the co-operation both of the Jews and the Arabs serving upon the same committees and, if further attention to that matter can secure better results, I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that his ideas will bear fruit.
  Amongst other speeches which have broken across the ordinary party divisions there has been the speech of my right
  2180
  hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). He described it as a melancholy occasion. I do not know whether the melancholy nature of the occasion was due to the fact that he was out of agreement with the views of the Government. If that was the case, he must by this time be fairly well inured to the buffets of fate. This is not the first occasion on which he has found himself in this situation. The outstanding question which all speeches, of whatever colour and from whatever quarter, have discussed has been the nature and scope of our obligations, which, as the Secretary of State for the Colonies stated, are debts of honour which we must repay if we are not to be dishonoured. My right hon. Friend the Member for Epping took as his thesis the position that we had repudiated some obligations solemnly undertaken. He did not, as some others did perhaps, engage, too much as I think, in reproaches of the Government for past vacillation and delay. Such reproaches seem to most of us to-day, I suppose, to be futile and unfruitful. I am not claiming that this Government, or preceding Governments which have had to deal with the question, are impeccable or free from blame. All of us may have been, other Governments may have been, too sanguine, hoping that the sun might one day rise upon two races in Palestine, rivals only in their contribution to the peace and prosperity of that land. I shall examine the Mandate in a moment, but it is perhaps relevant to remind the House of one passage in the White Paper of 1937 in which a statement of policy by the Government is contained. It says:
  "His Majesty's Government and their predecessors have taken the view, which the language of the Mandate itself implies, that their obligations to Arabs and Jews respectively were not incompatible on the assumption that in the process of time the two races would so adjust their national aspirations as to render possible the establishment of a single commonwealth under a unitary government."
  That is the sort of optimism to which I referred when I said that possibly we had been too sanguine in the past as to the development of happy relations between the two communities. Unhappily to-day, and for some months past, there has been an uncompromising temper which has belied the hope that we held, and now, as all hon. Members must recognise, whoever has to bear the blame for the mistakes of the past, we have to begin afresh

  2181
  even if we come to the conclusion that my right hon. Friend has arrived at. It would be unpardonable on the part of this Government, still more impossible, on the part of this country, to abandon in despair the task committed to it when it received the Mandate which we are considering today. I have received a communication to-day in which it is suggested that we should return the Mandate to the League of Nations. I hope the House is agreed that we must bend our minds and wills to some better execution of the Mandate than that.
  Sir A. Sinclair: Fulfil it.
  Sir T. Inskip: I will show that we are going to fulfil it. It is not useful perhaps to discuss and analyse the terms of the Balfour Declaration. It has been the subject of endless debate and analysis. If I do not put it under the miscroscope it is because the broad intention of the Declaration is plain. My right hon. Friend the Member for Epping, and I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Spark-brook (Mr. Amery) also, seemed to think that we doubt the binding character of the Declaration. We do not seek to diminish the full meaning of a single word or phrase in it. The obligation which we recognise is to fulfil the Declaration, and I am hoping to submit to the House considerations which may persuade them that the White Paper is the fulfilment of the Declaration as well as of the Mandate.
  My right hon. Friend quoted passages from some Memorial that the Prime Minister and others, including myself, addressed to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) when he was Prime Minister 20 years or so ago. I am bound to say that I found that quotation good sense and free from any vice. I should be very glad to append my signature to it again if my right hon. Friend would put his above mine. I do not attempt to paraphrase the Balfour Declaration. New words only excite fresh contention, and I might be guilty, unwittingly, of putting in words more attuned to my argument. The House must know it almost by heart now. The fact was that everyone was conscious of the Jewish sufferings at that time and the history and the effects of the Jewish dispersion, prolonged to this very hour, and both policy and pity seemed to demand that we should provide for them some place in
  2182
  which they might make a centre or, if you like, a home of Jewish aspirations. It was to give them new hope and courage if we could do it. But surely everyone will recognise that we certainly did not contemplate the expulsion or the supplanting of the existing population of the country. These Jewish people, the new immigrants, were not going to occupy an empty land nor, surely, were they going to subject the people in the land to the domination of what was to the inhabitants a foreign race. The word "rights," everyone remembers, has been used thrice in these documents that we are contemplating, once in the Balfour Declaration and twice in the "Mandate." The word must mean something of great importance. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook, if I do not do him an injustice, suggested that it is a word co-terminous with "cultural interests."
  Mr. Amery: I thought that it affected not only civil and religious rights but also the existence of the Arab community as a community living equally in Palestine with the Jewish people.
  Sir T. Inskip: Of course I do not want to summarise my right hon. Friend's contention but I think he used with some emphasis the phrase "cultural interests," or something of that sort. But it is surely inconceivable that the rights of the Arab population meant only that. What my right hon. Friend said confirms me in my opinion that "rights" meant something of the greatest importance and substance. I agree with my right hon. Friend that the Mandate must be taken as the governing document. It is fuller, it is more detailed, and even more precise, of course, than the Declaration. I agree also with him that it is a document which marks the limit of the Jewish claims. But then look at this word "rights" in the Mandate, which is of such vital importance in this matter. It is mentioned twice in the document. In Article 2 it is the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, and in Article 6 it is the rights and the position of every section of the population which are not to be prejudiced. I should be very much surprised as an Englishman if I were told that my civil rights and the civil rights of my fellow-countrymen did not include the right to be secured from the political domination of an immigrant alien race.

  2183
  Surely, even if there is some doubt about the word "rights," when it is the position of this population that is not to be prejudiced, that must connote some reference to the relative position which they are to hold with these people for whom a fresh place was to be found in Palestine. Let the House realise that in the Mandate these words about ensuring the rights and position of the inhabiting race are the controlling condition upon which alone the Mandatory Power was authorised and enjoined to provide for the close settlement of the Jewish population. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook is inclined to add the White Paper of 1922 to the Mandate as the authority for measuring the extent of our duties.
  Mr. Churchill: He quoted a great deal of it.
  Sir T. Inskip: I am not making any complaint; I am agreeing. My right hon. Friend need not be apprehensive. But, if that is so, may I look at what the White Paper of 1922 said, in a passage which, I think, has not been quoted, from the letters written by my right hon. Friend's direction, in which a statement by the High Commissioner was included. He said:
  "These words 'National Home' mean that the Jews, who are a people scattered throughout the world whose hearts are always turned to Palestine, should be able to found here their home, and that some amongst them, within the limits fixed by the numbers and the interests of the present population, should come to Palestine in order to help, by their resources and efforts, to develop the country to the advantage of all its inhabitants."
  I find it difficult to imagine a more complete exposition of the view for which I stand, that the position of the Jews in this land of theirs, as it once was, has to be related to the rights held and owned by the Arab population. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook was inclined to reject the Hogarth statement as irrelevant, because the Hogarth statement was made to Arab representatives. But, if he prayed the White Paper of 1922 in aid of the Jewish case, I should have thought that I had an equal right to pray in aid the Hogarth statement in support of the Arab case.
  Mr. Amery: My right hon. Friend will forgive me, but he is really misrepresent-
  2184
  ing me. I said that the complete acceptance at the peace negotiations by King Feisal and his Arab associates of the Mandate, and, indeed, I might add, its subsequent endorsement by Colonel Lawrence, made previous expectations irrelevant, just as previous expectations of the Jews were made irrelevant by the Mandate.
  Sir T. Inskip: Of course, I accept what my right hon. Friend says is his contention, but I think he said, as he has admitted, that the Hogarth statement was irrelevant.
  Mr. Amery: It was irrelevant after the statement of King Feisal.
  Sir T. Inskip: I was not discussing why it was irrelevant, but simply saying that my right hon. Friend said that it was. I should have thought that it was relevant, but it is not of sufficient importance for my right hon. Friend and myself to spend much time on it. Then there was a phrase in the White Paper which was quoted from a previous statement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping in debate, and the importance of which I do not want to whittle down by one jot or tittle. He said:
  "It"—
  he was referring to the Jewish people—
  "is in Palestine as of right, and not on sufferance."
  Of course, my right hon. Friend did not mean by that that all Jews were in Palestine as of right, because that is a possibility which is not to be contemplated. What, of course, he meant was that those who came into Palestine came in as of right, and not on sufferance. It was said by an hon. Member in the course of the Debate that we were changing "as of right" to "on sufferance." I deny that altogether. Every Jew who is in Palestine to-day, or who will be there under the policy of this White Paper, will be there, and I assert it plainly, as of right, and not on sufferance. The position will be perfectly clear to hon. Members if they reflect upon it for a moment. Every country or Dominion within the British Empire admits the right of a British subject to be wthin its territories, but some of them have rules preventing even British subjects from entering except on certain conditions. A British subject is not prevented from being in Canada or in Ireland as of right because he is not able to

  2185
  go there unless he goes within the rules of some law made by the Dominion concerned. I assert once more that the Jewish population will be, and ought to be, in Palestine as of right, and I have no intention of admitting for a moment the view that they ought to go there on sufferance, subject to expulsion if some dominant political power which may for the moment be in Palestine subsequently attempts to expel them. I am sure that this House, and every House that will consider the matter, will protect the Jew against any such outrage as an attempt to convert them into persons who are there by permission of the Arab population.
  We reject, of course, the high claims that have been made by the Arabs to sovereignty over Palestine. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Crossley), who spoke yesterday, put the Arab case much higher than the Government could ever admit. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping that the promised recognition of Arab independence over the vast part of Arabia has been handsomely carried out, and they have no right of complaint of the way in which up to now His Majesty's Government have fulfilled their obligations. Now we are face to face with the question whether the White Paper and its policy are in conflict with the obligations undertaken under the Mandate, and we have cause to be grateful to my right hon. Friend for addressing himself to this one point. Until he spoke, apart from some general and vague observations in different quarters of the House as to departure from the terms of the Mandate, we had been given no particulars of the conflict. We were told that there was disagreement, but my right hon. Friend fastened upon this one point, and I should like to address myself to it for a few moments in accordance with the invitation that he gave. The House knows that the Jewish population has expanded by hundreds of thousands of immigrants, and it is now proposed to restrict further immigrants to the number of 75,000. Is objection taken to the imposition of any limit upon the number; or is it an objection to the particular number selected?
  Mr. Silverman: To the total cessation.
  Sir T. Inskip: I do not follow the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend the Member for Epping seemed to me—
  Mr. Silverman: My point was that for five years there is to be immigration up to a total of 75,000, and I said that what was objected to in principle was the total cessation of immigration at the end of that period.
  Sir T. Inskip: The objection is to the total cessation at the end of the period. My right hon. Friend the Member for Epping seemed to me really to admit the Government's case. He said he had never taken up the position that the number of Jews to be admitted as immigrants was to be as they liked, but that the number had to be settled by reference to what is best for Palestine.
  Mr. Churchill: I was speaking of the annual quota. Certainly that must be regulated.
  Sir T. Inskip: The House will at once follow that, if there is power, in the interests of what is best for Palestine, to fix the annual quota at so many thousands, or at nothing, there must be power at some point to say that the limit has been reached. I suggest that the fallacy underlying the argument of my right hon. Friend is this: We are supposed to be putting the Arabs in a position to veto the establishment of a Jewish National Home. We are not. Putting the matter at its very highest, what we are doing is putting the Arabs in a position to veto the future number of immigrants into Palestine. I repudiate at once the suggestion that we are giving the Arabs the power to veto the establishment of a Jewish National Home.
  I can satisfy any hon. Member who is prepared to consider the facts as they exist to-day, when I remind the House that the Jews now own a large proportion of what they have made some of the best land in Palestine. They have established their own religious courts, they have set up their own educational system, they own and conduct their own hospitals, they have their own social services, they practise their own culture in art and music, they have their own agricultural settlements and their own industrial enterprises. I suggest that this makes the Jewish National Home, not a place where every Jew can resort as of right, but certainly a place where those Jews who are admitted will have a perfect right to resort. My right hon. Friend defined a home as "a place to which they can resort." Who are "they"? Not the

  2187
  whole 15,000,000 of the Jewish race. They are the people who will be admitted on the consideration of what is best for Palestine, and opinions may differ as to what is best for Palestine. My right hon. Friend and I are evidently not going to see eye to eye on that question. I join with him in agreeing that the criterion in any year—and if it applies to any year, it must apply to a sum of years—must be what is best for the country—
  Sir A. Sinclair: And the Arabs are going to decide.
  Mr. H. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I understood him to assert that there was to be no Arab veto on Jewish immigration. In the course of my speech I drew attention to the top of page 10 of the White Paper, where the second alternative Government policy is set out as:
  "To permit further expansion of the Jewish National Home by immigration only if the Arabs are prepared to acquiesce in it."
  Later in the same paragraph, the White Paper says that that is the policy which His Majesty's Government have accepted, and that means that the Government have in principle accepted a complete Arab veto on Jewish immigration.
  Sir T. Inskip: The right hon. Gentleman may cross-question me as he likes, but there ought to be no mistake at all about the meaning of the words. The fact is that the Government have decided, having regard to the interests of the country and the rights of the Arab population, that the number of immigrants to be admitted in the next five years is to be 75,000, and then it is to stop, and if there is to be any extension of that number, it must be done with the acquiescence of the Arab population.
  Mr. Churchill: That is the breach.
  Sir T. Inskip: The right hon. Gentleman says that that is the breach, but I say that it is not a breach, because there is not a single word in the Mandate to compel us indefinitely to prolong the immigration of Jews. That is the vital point at which we part company on this issue, and those who assert that there was an obligation of an unlimited character to admit Jewish immigrants are, I suggest, writing into the Mandate something that they will not find a single word
  2188
  there to support. Nor is there a word in the Mandate to support the theory that we were to contemplate the establishment of a Jewish State. It would have been a stupendous pronouncement to make, and it would certainly have been made in clear and unequivocal terms, if that had been the intention of the Government. It is true that General Smuts said that in generations to come there would be a foundation, he hoped, for a Jewish Commonwealth, but General Smuts was there taking on more the role of a prophet than of a politician, and I suppose that General Smuts would be very much surprised to hear that "in generations to come" meant in 1939.
  The fact is—and we come back to the position which my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary has made so plain—that as the Peel report said, this is "a conflict of right with right." I would like to say upon that that one of the tasks for which the British race are peculiarly well-fitted is to reconcile a conflict of right with right. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may smile at that, but they know very well that in many a great reform in the history of the British race rights have been reconciled with rights. Our own common law teaches us that the individual rights that we ourselves enjoy are limited by the rights that other people enjoy, and the rights of the Jews in Palestine, as I am sure they would admit, must be limited by the rights of other people in Palestine. The only question is as to what effect that limitation may have on the exercise of a particular right.
  Here you have the Jews with ages, not centuries, of possession in Palestine, under the goad of savage persecution, sick with hope deferred, supremely efficient, but, on the other hand, you have the Arabs in possession, dominant, or their kith and kin dominant, in the greater part of the Arab Peninsula, members of a widespread political system, nurtured and supported by a fervour of religious enthusiasm which our colder Northern character cannot fully understand. How are we to satisfy the hopes, and how are we to allay the fears, of each? I can only say that if Palestine is the citadel of Jewish hopes, it is the native land of a large Arab population, and the task, intricate as it is, is to reconcile the hopes, and the fears of those two populations. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr.

  2189
  T. Williams), who spoke yesterday, agreed—I think he volunteered the statement—that some modification of our original desires and intentions may be necessary. It is again a question of degree, and the problem is one of pure statesmanship. Hon. Members opposite may pour reproach after reproach on the Government and on myself, but they are barren of hope or promise for the future. The purpose of the Government is to give the healing hand of time an opportunity of doing its work, and then the two races will have it in their power to hallow with the blessings of peace this land in which we are all interested.
  May I say one word more? The Jewish cultivators and the Arab fellahin alike are indispensable contributors to the cause of peace, and humble folk very often are more ready than are their leaders to compose their quarrels. I heard with satisfaction the incident to which reference has been made this afternoon—occasions
  on which Arabs have welcomed Jews to some new settlement. Such instances make us full of hope, if only we can give time and opportunity for passions to subside and for the natural feelings of friendliness to show themselves in that land. The leaders on both sides have a great responsibility. Something has been said about the use of violence by the Jews. We have condemned the use of violence by the Arabs, and the same judgment must be passed upon violence whoever uses it. But these leaders can, if they so decide, make the land of Palestine a reproach among the nations. Also they can, if they will—and I hope they will—vie with each other in making that land of blessed hope, a land of fulfilled promise.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 281; Noes, 181.

  Division No. 148.]

  AYES.

  [7.39 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)

  Fox, Sir G. W. G.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

  Channon, H.

  Furness, S. N.

  Albery, Sir Irving

  Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

  Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)

  Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

  Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)

  Chorlton, A. E. L.

  Gledhill, G.

  Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (So'h Univ's)

  Christie, J. A.

  Gluckstein, L. H.

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

  Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

  Apsley, Lord

  Colfox, Major W. P.

  Goldie, N. B.

  Assheton, R.

  Colville, Rt. Hon. John

  Gower, Sir R. V.

  Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)

  Conant, Captain R. J. E.

  Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

  Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)

  Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

  Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

  Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'burgh, W.)

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

  Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)

  Cox, H. B. Trevor

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Balniel, Lord

  Craven-Ellis, W.

  Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

  Barrie, Sir C. C.

  Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

  Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)

  Baxter, A. Beverley

  Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

  Guinness, T. L. E. B.

  Beauchamp, Sir B. C

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.

  Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

  Cross, R. H.

  Hambro, A. V.

  Bennett, Sir E. N.

  Crowder, J. F. E.

  Hannah, I. C.

  Bernays, R. H.

  Cruddas, Col. B.

  Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

  Blair, Sir R.

  Culverwell, C. T.

  Harbord, A.

  Blaker, Sir R.

  Davison, Sir W. H.

  Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

  Bossom, A. C.

  Do Chair, S. S.

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Boulton, W. W.

  De la Bère, R.

  Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

  Bower, Comdr. R. T.

  Despeneer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Dodd, J. S.

  Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

  Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)

  Doland, G. F.

  Hepworth, J.

  Brass, Sir W.

  Donner, P. W.

  Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)

  Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

  Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.

  Higgs, W. F.

  Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

  Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

  Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

  Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

  Dugdale, Captain T. L.

  Hopkinson, A.

  Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

  Duggan, H. J.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

  Duncan, J. A. L.

  Howitt, Dr. A. B.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

  Dunglass, Lord

  Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

  Bull, B B.

  Eastwood, J. F.

  Hulbert, Squadron-Leader N. J.

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Hunloke, H. P.

  Burghley, Lord

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

  Hunter, T.

  Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

  Ellis, Sir G.

  Hurd, Sir P. A.

  Burton, Col. H. W.

  Emery, J. F.

  Hutchinson, G. C.

  Caine, G. R. Hall-

  Emmott, C. E. G. C.

  Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.

  Campbell, Sir E. T.

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Entwistle, Sir C. F.

  Jarvis, Sir J J.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Errington, E.

  Jennings, R.

  Cayzer, Sir C- W. (City of Chester)

  Everard, Sir William Lindsay

  Keeling, E. H.

  Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)

  Foot, D. M.

  Kellett, Major E. O.

  Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

  Petherick, M.

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)

  Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Smart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Kimball, L.

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

  Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

  Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Purbrick, R.

  Taskar, Sir R. I.

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

  Radford, E. A.

  Tate, Mavis C.

  Lancaster, Captain C. G.

  Raikes, H. V. A. M.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Latham, Sir P.

  Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

  Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Thomas, J. P. L.

  Lewis, O.

  Rankin, Sir R.

  Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

  Liddall, W. S.

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

  Liewellin, Colonel J. J.

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  Lloyd, G. W.

  Rayner, Major R. H.

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Touche, G. C.

  MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

  Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

  Train, Sir J.

  M'Connell, Sir J.

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Tree, A. R. L. F.

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Renter, J. R.

  Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

  MaoDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Wakefield, W. W.

  McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

  Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

  Walker-Smith, Sir J.

  McKie, J. H.

  Rowlands, G.

  Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

  Macnamara, Lieut.-Colonel J. R. J.

  Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

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

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

  Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

  Maitland, Sir Adam

  Russell, Sir Alexander

  Warrender, Sir V.

  Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

  Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

  Waterhouse. Captain C.

  Manningham-Butler, Sir M.

  Salmon, Sir I.

  Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie

  Markham, S. F.

  Salt, E. W.

  Wayland, Sir W. A.

  Marsden, Commander A.

  Sandeman, Sir N. S.

  Webbe, Sir W. Harold

  Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

  Sanderson, Sir F. B.

  Wedderburn, H. J. S.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Schuster, Sir G. E.

  Wells, Sir Sydney

  Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

  Scott, Lord William

  Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

  Mitcheson, Sir G. G.

  Shakespeare, G. H.

  Wickham Lt -Col. E. T. R.

  Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.

  Shepperson, Sir E. W.

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)

  Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

  Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)

  Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

  Wilson. Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

  Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

  Windsor-dive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

  Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Munro, P.

  Smith Sir R W (Aberdeen)

  Nall, Sir J.

  Smithers, Sir W.

  Wise, A. R.

  Neven-Spenoe, Major B. H. H.

  Snadden, W. McN.

  WOmersley, Sir W. J.

  Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

  Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

  Wood, Hon. C. I. G.

  O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

  Wragg, H.

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Spens. W. P.

  Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

  Palmer, G. E. H.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)

  York, C.

  Patrick, C. M.

  Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

  Young, A. S. L. (Particle)

  Peaks, O.

  Storey, S.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Peat, C. U.

  Stourton. Major Hon. J. J.

  Captain Margesson and Lieut.- Colonel Kerr.

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  NOES.

  Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

  Daggar, G.

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Adams, D. (Consett)

  Dalton, H.

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

  Hardie, Agnes

  Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

  Davies, C. (Montgomery)

  Harris, Sir P. A.

  Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

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

  Day, H.

  Hayday, A.

  Ammen, C. G.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Dobbie, W.

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Banfield, J. W.

  Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

  Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

  Barnes, A. J.

  Ede, J. C.

  Hicks, E. G.

  Barr, J.

  Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

  Hills, A. (Pontefract)

  Batey, J.

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Holdsworth, H.

  Beaumont, H. (Batley)

  Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

  Hollins, A.

  Bellenger, F. J.

  Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

  Isaacs, G. A.

  Bonn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

  Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

  Jagger, J.

  Benson G.

  Frankel, D.

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Bevan, A.

  Gallachar, W.

  Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

  Braoken, B.

  Gardner, B. W.

  John, W.

  Broad, F. A.

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Carn'v'n)

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

  Bromfield, W.

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)

  Brown, C. (Mansfield)

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Buchanan, G.

  Gibson, R. (Greenock)

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

  Burke, W. A.

  Green, W. H. (Deptford)

  Kirby, B. V.

  Cape, T.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Cartland, J. R. H.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

  Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

  Lathan, G.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

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

  Cluse, W. S.

  Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

  Lawson, J. J.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R. *

  Groves, T. E.

  Leach, W.

  Collindridge, F.

  Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)

  Lee, F.

  Cove, W. G.

  Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

  Leonard, W.

  2192

  2193

  Leslie, J. R.

  Paling, W.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Lipton, D. L.

  Parker, J.

  Stephen, C.

  Loeker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

  Parkinson, J. A.

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Logan, D. G.

  Pearson, A.

  Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

  Lunn, W.

  Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

  Macdonald, G. (Ince)

  Pilkington, R.

  Summerskill, Dr. Edith

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Price, M. P.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  McGovern, J.

  Pritt, D. N.

  Thorne, W.

  Maclean, N.

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Thurtls, E.

  Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

  Tinker, J. J.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Richards, R. (Wrexham)

  Tomlinson, G.

  Mander, G. le M.

  Ridley, G.

  Viant, S. P.

  Mathers, G.

  Riley, B.

  Walkden, A. G.

  Maxton, J.

  Ritson, J.

  Walker, J.

  Messer, F.

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

  Watkins, F. C.

  Milner, Major J.

  Rothschild, J. A. de

  Watson, W. McL.

  Montague, F.

  Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)

  Welsh, J. C.

  Moreing, A. C.

  Sanders, W. S.

  Westwood, J.

  Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)

  Seely, Sir H. M.

  White, H. Graham

  Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)

  Sexton, T. M.

  Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

  Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

  Shinwell, E.

  Wilkinson, Ellen

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

  Silkin, L.

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Silverman, S. S.

  Williams, T. (Don Valley)

  Muff, G.

  Simpson, F. B.

  Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Noel-Baker, P. J.

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Owen, Major G.

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Mr. Charleton and Mr. Anderson

  Question put, "That this House approves the policy of His Majesty's Government relating to Palestine as set out in Command Paper No. 6019."
  The House divided: Ayes, 268; Noes, 179.

  Division No. 149.]

  AYES.

  [7.49 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

  Christie, J. A.

  Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

  Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

  Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

  Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

  Albery, Sir Irving

  Colfox, Major W. P.

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Allan, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)

  Colville, Rt. Hon. John

  Grimston, R. V.

  Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Se'h Unlv's)

  Conant, Captain R. J. E

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Apsley, Lord

  Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)

  Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

  Assheton, R.

  Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'burgh, W.)

  Guest, Mai. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)

  Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)

  Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.

  Cuinness, T. L. E. B.

  Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Cox, H. B. Trevor

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.

  Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

  Craven-Ellis, W.

  Hambro, A. V.

  Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

  Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

  Hannah, I. C.

  Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)

  Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

  Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

  Balniel, Lord

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

  Harbord, A.

  Barrie, Sir C. C.

  Cross, R. H.

  Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

  Baxter, A. Beverley

  Crowder, J. F. E.

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

  Cruddas, Col. B.

  Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

  Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

  Culverwell, C. T.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

  Bennett, Sir E. N.

  Davison, Sir W. H.

  Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

  Bernays, R. H.

  De Chair, S. S.

  Hepworth, J.

  Blair, Sir R.

  De la Bere, R.

  Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)

  Blaker, Sir R.

  Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

  Higgs, W. F.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Dodd, J. S.

  Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

  Boulton, W. W.

  Doland, G. F.

  Hopkinson, A.

  Bower, Comdr. R. X.

  Donner, P. W.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Boyee, H. Leslie

  Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.

  Howitt, Dr. A. B.

  Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)

  Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

  Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

  Brats, Sir W.

  Dugdale, Captain T. L.

  Hulbert, Squadron-Leader N. J.

  Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

  Duggan, H. J.

  Hunloke, H. P.

  Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

  Dunglass, Lord

  Hunter, T.

  Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

  Eastwood, J. F.

  Hurd, Sir P. A.

  Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

  Hutchinson, G. C.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

  Ellis, Sir G.

  Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

  Emery, J. F.

  James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

  Bull, B. B.

  Emmott, C. E. G. C.

  Jarvis, Sir J. J.

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Jennings, R.

  Burghley, Lord

  Entwistle, Sir C. F.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

  Errington, E.

  Kellett, Major E. O.

  Burton, Col. H. W.

  Everard, Sir William Lindsay

  Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

  Caine, G. R. Hall-

  Foot, D. M.

  Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

  Campbell, Sir E. T.

  Fox, Sir G. W. G.

  Kimball, L.

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Furness, S. N.

  Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)

  Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

  Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)

  Gledhill, G.

  Lancaster, Captain C. G.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)

  Gluckstein, L. H.

  Latham, Sir P.

  Channon, H.

  Goldie, N. B.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

  Gower, Sir R. V.

  Lewis, O.

  Liddall, W. S.

  Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

  Tasker, Sir R. I.

  Liewellin, Colonel J. J.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Tate, Mavis C.

  Lloyd, G. W.

  Rankin, Sir R.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

  Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

  MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Thomas, J. P. L.

  M'Connell, Sir J.

  Rayner, Major R. H.

  Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Rots)

  Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  Macdonald, Capt. T. (Isle of Wight)

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

  Remer, J. R.

  Touche, G. C.

  McKie, J. H.

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

  Train, Sir J.

  Macnamara, Lieut.-Colonel J. R. J.

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Tree, A. R. L. F.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

  Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

  Maitland, Sir Adam

  Rowlands, G.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

  Makins, Brigadier General Sir Ernest

  Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

  Wakefield, W. W.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

  Walker-Smith, Sir J.

  Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D R.

  Russell, Sir Alexander

  Wallace, Capt. Rt. Han. Euan

  Markham, S. F.

  Russell, S. H, M. (Darwen)

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

  Marsden, Commander A.

  Salmon, Sir I.

  Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

  Meller, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

  Salt, E. W.

  Warrender, Sir V.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Sandeman, Sir N. S.

  Waterhouse, Captain C.

  Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

  Sanderson, Sir F. B.

  Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvis

  Mitcheson, Sir G. G.

  Schuster, Sir G. E.

  Wayland, Sir W. A.

  Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.

  Scott, Lord William

  Webbe, Sir W. Harold

  Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)

  Shepperson, Sir E. W.

  Wedderburn, H. J. S.

  Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

  Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

  Wells, Sir Sydney

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cireneester)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

  Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

  Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

  Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

  Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

  Nall, Sir J.

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

  Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

  Williams, H. G. (Creydon, S.)

  Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

  Smithers, Sir W.

  Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)

  O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

  Snadden, W. McN.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

  Wise, A. R.

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

  Peake, O.

  Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Peat, C. U.

  Spens, W. P.

  Wragg, H.

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)

  Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

  Petherick, M.

  Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

  York, C.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Storey, S.

  Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

  Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Purbrick, R.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Mr. Munro.

  Radford. E. A.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

  Raikes, H. V. A. M.

  Suicliffe, H.

  NOES.

  Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

  Dobbie, W.

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Adams, D. (Consett)

  Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

  Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

  Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

  Ede, J. C.

  John, W.

  Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

  Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

  Adamson, W. M.

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)

  Alexander. Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

  Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

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

  Evans. E. (Univ. of Wales)

  Kirby, B. V.

  Ammon, C. G.

  Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Andersor, F. (Whitehaven)

  Frankel, D.

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

  Atllee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Gallacher, W.

  Lathan, G.

  Banfield, J. W.

  Gardner, B. W.

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

  Barnes, A. J.

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Carn'v'n)

  Lawson, J. J.

  Barr, J.

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Leach, W.

  Batey, J.

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Lee, F.

  Beaumont, H. (Batley)

  Gibson, R. (Greenock)

  Leonard, W.

  Bellenger, F. J.

  Green, W. H. (Deptford)

  Leslie, J. t.

  Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon, A.

  Lipson, D. L.

  Benson, G.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Locker-Lampion, Comdr. O. S.

  Bevan, A.

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

  Logan, D. G.

  Bracken, B.

  Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

  Lunn, W.

  Broad, F. A.

  Griffiths, J. (Lianelly)

  Macdonald, G. (Ince)

  Bromfield, W.

  Groves, T. E.

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Brown, C. (Mansfield)

  Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)

  McGovern, J.

  Buchanan, G.

  Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

  Maclean, N.

  Burke, W. A.

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Cape, T.

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Cartland, J. R. H.

  Hardie, Agnes

  Mander, G. le M.

  Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

  Harris, Sir P. A.

  Maxton, J.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)

  Messer, F.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

  Milner, Major J.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

  Hayday, A.

  Montague, F.

  Collindridge, F.

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Moreing, A. C.

  Cove, W. G.

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)

  Daggar, G.

  Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

  Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)

  Dalton, H.

  Hicks, E. G.

  Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

  Hills, A. (Pontefract)

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

  Davies, C. (Montgomery)

  Holdsworth, H.

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Hollins, A.

  Muff, G.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Isaacs, G. A.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Day, H.

  Jagger, J.

  Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

  2196

  2197

  Noel-Baker, P. J.

  Sanders, W. S.

  Thurtle, E.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Seely, Sir H. M.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Owen, Major G.

  Sexton. T. M.

  Tomlinson, G.

  Paling, W.

  Shinwell, E.

  Viant, S. P.

  Parker, J.

  Silkin, L.

  Walkden, A. G.

  Parkinson, J. A.

  Silverman, S. S.

  Walker, J.

  Pearson, A.

  Simpson, F. B.

  Watkins, F. C.

  Pathick-Lawrenee, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)

  Watson, W. McL.

  Pilkington, R.

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Pries, M. P.

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Welsh, J. C.

  Pritt, D. N.

  Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)

  Westwood, J.

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  White, H. Graham

  Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Wilkinson, Elian

  Richards, R. (Wrexham)

  Stephen, C.

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  Ridley, G.

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Williams, T. (Don Valley)

  Riley, B.

  Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

  Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

  Ritson, J.

  Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

  Summerskill, Dr. Edith

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Rothschild, J. A. de

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)

  Thorne, W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.

  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  Resolved,
  "That this House approves the policy of His Majesty's Government relating to Palestine as set out in Command Paper No. 6019."

  CIVIL DEFENCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 9th May.]
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  CIVIL DEFENCE BILL.

    CLAUSE 14.—(Appeals.)
    7.59 p.m.
    The Chairman: I understand the Government propose to accept a number of the Amendments on the Order Paper. If the Committee generally think that it would help our proceedings, I am prepared to ask the Minister to indicate which Amendments the Government intend to accept.
    The Lord Privy Seal (Sir John Anderson): On Clause 14 the Government are prepared to accept all the Amendments on the first page of the Order Paper.
    Amendments made:
    In page 12, line 9, leave out "either of the last two preceding Sections," and insert "Sub-section (2) of Section twelve or Sub-section (1) of Section thirteen."
    In line 11, leave out "or a copy thereof."—[Mr. Spens.]
    In line 12, after "is," insert:
    "entitled to any interest which may, under the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to factory premises occupied under short leases, become the subject of a charge in respect of the expenses of the occupier of the premises in providing the shelter to which the notice relates, or is."
    In line 16, leave out "shelter to which the notice relates," and insert "said shelter."—[Mr. Fleming.]
    In page 13, line 1, leave out "twenty-eight," and insert "twenty-one."—[Mr. Ede.]
    In line 2, at the end, insert:
    "(b) In the case of factory premises where no notice has been served by a factory inspector, be fourteen days from the service of the notice by the occupier."—[Mr. Fleming.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 15 (Special provisions as to commercial buildings when Owner does not occupy the whole building).
    8.2 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: On this Clause, I am prepared to accept the first two Amendments in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens). Then comes an Amendment in my name, which is little more than formal; and after that I am prepared to accept the Amendments in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford down to that relating to line 23. That is as far as I can go at the moment.
    8.3 p.m.
    Mr. Spens: I beg to move, in page 13, to leave out lines 16 to 29.
    Mr. Attlee: Could the hon. and learned Gentleman indicate whether any of these Amendments are of substance, or whether they are all more or less drafting?
    Mr. Spens: This Amendment and the next Amendment are of substance, undoubtedly. They substitute for an obligation at present in the Bill that the landlord should pay a lump sum for compensation in respect of impairment of the value of premises an obligation on the tenant to pay a smaller sum in rent.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 13, line 33, at the end, insert:
    "(2) Where the usefulness of any part of a commercial building is impaired by reason of the execution therein of any works by virtue of this Part of this Act by the owner of the building, then, unless it is otherwise agreed in connection with, or after, the provision of the shelter, the rent payable under every lease derived from the estate or interest of the owner, being a lease in existence at the date of the completion of the works and comprising the part of the building the usefulness of which is so impaired, shall be decreased to the extent and for the period specified in the subsequent provisions of this Section.
    (3) The said decrease shall be at an annual rate equal to the diminution of the annual value of the part of the building ascribable to the impairment, ascertained as at the date of the completion of the works."—[Mr. Spens.]
    In line 41, after "interest," insert:
    "(being a lease in existence at the date of the completion of the works)."—[Sir J. Anderson.]
    In page 14, line 5, after "payable," insert "by any person."
    In line 10, after "of," insert:
    "the total of the two following amounts, that is to say—
    (a)."
    In line 11, at the end, insert:
    "(b) any diminution of the annual value of any part of the building ascribable to an impairment of the usefulness thereof by reason of the execution of the works ascertained as at the date of the completion of the works."
    In line 14, leave out "expenses," and insert "total."
    In line 18, at the end, insert:
    "(4) The said increase shall operate in relation to a lease notwithstanding that the rent payable thereunder is decreased under the provisions of Sub-section (2) of this Section, and any such increase and any such decrease shall be set off against each other accordingly."
    In line 19, leave out "the said increase," and insert "any such increase or decrease as aforesaid."
    In line 23, after "increase," insert "or decrease."—[Mr. Spens.]
    Mr. Spens: On a point of Order. If you are not calling my Amendment in respect of line 28, will it be possible for me to move the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), which raises, in a different form, the same point?
    The Chairman: Yes.
    8.7 p.m.
    Mr. Spens: I beg to move, in page 14, line 28, at the end, to insert:
    "(5) The Rating and Valuation (Air-Raid Works) Act, 1938, shall be read and have effect as if, in addition to the matters referred to in Section one of that Act (which relates to relief of air-raid protection works from rates) that Section provided that in ascertaining under the principal Act (as defined in Sub-section (4) of that Section) the value for rating purposes of a hereditament no regard shall be had to the said increase or to such portion of the rent as is attributable to expenses as defined in Sub-section (5) of this Section or to any part of such expenses."
    I move this Amendment because the additional rents which the tenants have to pay under a scheme are, in fact, a method of paying back money which the owners have had to pay for the erection of a shelter. The question is whether, in those circumstances, proper allowance ought not to be made for the repayment of capital for rating purposes, and so on.
    8.8 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): I fully appreciate what my hon. and learned Friend has in mind, and I hope he will be satisfied with my assurance that the Government are prepared to accept what we understand is the object of the Amendment. But, as at present advised, we are not satisfied that the Amendment is necessary in order to achieve that objective. We are advised that the point is already covered by the Rating and Valuation (Air-Raid Works) Act, 1938. But my right hon. Friend will certainly examine the point further, and consult with the Movers of the Amendment; and if any specific provision is necessary, he will move a suitable Amendment on the Report stage. I hope that, on that assurance, my hon. and learned Friend will not find it necessary to press the Amendment.
    Mr. Spens: Having regard to that assurance—though as to whether the point is covered by the Air-Raid Works Act is another question—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Fleming: On a point of Order. There is an Amendment standing in my name. Do you not intend to call that?
    The Chairman: No; it is not selected.
    Mr. Spens: I beg to move, in page 15, line 27, at the end, to add:

    2201
    "(9) Sub-sections (2), (3), (4), (7) and (8) of this Section shall apply in relation to any sums for which the owner of a commercial building becomes liable to a local authority (for the purposes of Part II of this Act) under an agreement for the provision of a public air-raid shelter for the use, in whole or in part, of persons working or living in the building, as if—

    (a) the sums were expenses reasonably incurred in providing in pursuance of a notice duly served by the owner under the preceding provisions of this Part of the Act (not being a notice cancelled on appeal) shelter of the type specified therein; and

    (b) the date of the conclusion of the agreement were the date of the completion of the works."

    8.12 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: This is the first of a series of Amendments, in the name of the same hon. Members, consequential on an Amendment already accepted on Clause 2, the purpose of which was to make it possible for a factory occupier or the owner of a commercial building who could not himself provide shelter on the premises under his own control to enter into an arrangement with the local authority, on a purely voluntary basis so far as the local authority was concerned, by which the local authority could, on agreed terms, provide shelter on his behalf.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 17.—(Exchequer grants in respect of provision of air-raid shelter in factory premises, mines, commercial buildings, etc.)
    Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 15, line 40, to leave out from "building," to "who," in line 41.
    This Amendment should be considered with another Amendment—in page 16, to leave out lines 6 to 13. These are Amendments of substance, but I think no objection will be taken to them in any quarter of the Committee. As the Bill stood, provision was made for the payment of grant at the approved rate, a Tate equivalent to the current rate of Income Tax on that portion only of the expense incurred by the owner of a commercial building which he was not in a position, under the Clause, to pass on to the tenant.
    2202
    The effect, therefore, was that, if an owner, for example, occupied one-half of the building himself and let the other half to tenants, he received a grant on half his total expenditure, the theory being that he would recover his expenditure in respect of the other half by way of repayment from his tenants. That, however, overlooked the fact that the payments made by the tenants to the owner under the Bill by way of increases of rent will be subject to payment of Income Tax, and, therefore, the owner will not, in fact, be placed in a position to recover the full amount that he ought to recover. The Amendment remedies the position, and it provides in effect that, in one way and another, the owner shall receive grants at the full rate of 27½ per cent. on his expenditure. In that way the inequality, which, it must be admitted, would have resulted from the Bill as originally drafted, will be removed. It is for that reason that I move this Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    8.16 p.m.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the Committee if we follow the practice inaugurated on earlier Clauses when I say that the Government propose to accept the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys), in page 15, line 42, and the following Amendment standing in his name in page 16, line 4. Then comes the Government Amendment, and it is also proposed to accept the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Withington (Mr. Fleming), in page 16, line 36.
    Mr. R. C. Morrison: May I ask you, Sir Dennis, for guidance, whether the Amendments to be called by you rule out the Amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friends—in page 16, line 35, to leave out "September," and to insert "December"?
    The Chairman: That does not follow. This does not affect the position concerning my selection of Amendments.
    Mr. Spens: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys), I beg to move, in page 15, line 42, after "provides," to insert "or secures the provision of."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 16, line 4, after "providing," insert "or securing the provision of."—[Mr. Spens.]
    Leave out lines 6 to 13.
    In line 35, at the end, insert "or."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]
    Mr. R. C. Morrison: May I ask you, Sir Dennis, whether you are calling the Amendment to which I have referred?
    The Chairman: I have not overlooked it, but I have not selected it.
    Further Amendment made: In page 16, line 36, leave out "and," and insert:
    "or preparatory measures are then being taken for the provision of the shelter and (in each case)."—[Mr. Fleming.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    8.21 p.m.
    Mr. R. C. Morrison: I want to raise briefly the question of the payment of grants in respect of shelters provided or substantially begun before the end of September. In view of the fact that there has been considerable delay on this Bill and it will probably be towards the middle of June at the earliest before it reaches the Statute Book, the time left is very short. While I have no desire to delay this Bill being carried into force, I have a good deal of objection to legislation which it is almost impossible to carry out. It seems to me that the time between the Bill actually reaching the Statute Book and September is almost inadequate, and in fact may prove inadequate in a number of cases, when it is borne in mind that many of the plans for shelters have to be submitted to the local authority for their consent and that during the month of August and part of September the local authorities are in vacation. I have indicated one or two of the difficulties which may arise, and rather than that they should have to come along later and say, "We are sorry that we cannot carry out this according to schedule," it might be well if the Minister could make some statement on the point now.
    8.23 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: I gladly respond to the suggestion which has been made by the hon. Gentleman. I quite appreciate
    2204
    the force of the point he has raised. When the Bill was introduced we hoped that it would pass into law at an earlier date than now seems possible, but I would call the attention of the Committee to the fact that we have just accepted an Amendment which goes a very long way in the direction desired by the hon. Member. We have agreed to insert in this Clause the words "or preparatory measures are then being taken for the provision of the shelter." That results in this change, that whereas, as the Clause stood, the Minister, before he could make a grant, had to be satisfied that the work was actually in progress by the end of September, and that the shelter would be provided within a reasonable time thereafter, now it will suffice if he is satisfied that, by the end of September, preparatory measures have been taken for the provision of a shelter. That gives greater latitude, and I hope in the circumstances the hon. Gentleman will not press the point he has just put.
    Sir Granville Gibson: Will my right hon. Friend think sufficient preparatory measures have been taken if an architect has been called in to take charge of the work?
    Sir J. Anderson: That must be left to be worked out in the course of administration. The Minister has to be satisfied that the responsible occupier or owner means business, and if he is satisfied that he means business, and that work will go ahead, the Minister will be free to authorise the payment of grant. That is as far as one ought to go.
    8.25 p.m.
    Mr. Banfield: I want to put a point which is causing some anxiety to business people who desire to provide air-raid shelter. They have in their possession basements which could easily be adapted as air-raid shelters, but at the moment they are used for the productions of the factory or for warehousing purposes. What they want to know is whether, if they adapt these basements as air-raid shelters, and would therefore have to extend their premises to make room for the production or warehousing purposes, they would be able to obtain a grant from the Exchequer. The matter is puzzling some of them. Here you have a part of a factory which would be most suitable as an air-raid

    2205
    shelter, but if it is to be so used extensions would have to be made to accommodate the production and warehousing facilities which would be displaced, and they would like to know whether in these circumstances, provided the plans are approved by the responsible authority, such an expenditure would rank for grant?
    8.27 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I hope that the answer given to the hon. Member for Pudsey and Otley (Sir C. Gibson) does not indicate that there is going to be any slackening of pressure on persons who are responsible for providing these shelters. No one wants to act oppressively towards people who may be very often in a difficulty in making the necessary arrangements, but I think it should be made quite clear that the Government must be convinced before the end of September that these works are really being undertaken and that there must be a clear indication as to the physical action to be taken in order to secure the approval of the Government. Speaking from the point of view of a local authority, I hope we are not to be left in the position that about March next year we shall be confronted with a situation that people will be able to say that they engaged an architect last August, but he was very busy or away on holiday, or that the Government had taken all his staff, and that they had not been able to make a start yet. The Government must be precise in insisting that there must be some tangible effort showing before this date that there is a genuine intention of getting on with the work.
    8.29 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), at any rate in substance. It was for that reason that I deprecated the acceptance of an Amendment which would have involved the postponement of the date, but I think we should allow some further latitude in view of the delay that has taken place. The hon. Member may be assured that the Government will be very much alive to the importance of seeing that the provision of these shelters is pushed forward as rapidly as is humanly possible. I think the answer to the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) must be that what attracts the grant will be the work under-
    2206
    taken for the purpose of providing shelter, and that work only. I would point oat that as regards the strengthening of basements the plans incorporated in the literature issued by the Department do not involve the putting out of action, otherwise than quite temporarily, of basements which have to be strengthened. Methods have been devised which do not involve any material curtailment of the usefulness of basements for ordinary purposes.
    8.31 p.m.
    Mr. A. V. Alexander: In regard to the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield), what we are concerned about is what the grant ultimately is likely to be for those employers who hold the view that merely to adhere to the basis of the air-raid precautions code for building would not be sufficient to secure adequate protection for their employés. We have had no decision on this point; and obviously what we are concerned about on this Clause is that if you are going to have an expenditure which may amount, for a deep shelter on a particular works, to £12 or £13 per head, by some strange channels of consideration and decision the grant might be confined to a minimum rate per head, which the Government might lay down as a reasonable expenditure for fulfilling the code which they have prescribed, but which employers in a vulnerable area might not think was sufficient to protect their employés. I hope the Lord Privy Seal will consider this point and not insist on the rigid basis of the code.
    Sir J. Anderson: I readily give the assurance that the door is not closed to the provision in suitable cases of shelter beyond the standard normally contemplated in the code. The provision is included in Clause 17, Sub-section (4), which provides:
    "No expenses shall be deemed for the purposes of this Section to be reasonable in so far as they exceed such standard as may be prescribed by regulations of the Minister made with the consent of the Treasury, unless they were incurred in circumstances so prescribed."
    That is wide enough to cover the point made by the right hon. Member.
    Mr. Alexander: Those words are all right, but what I am concerned with is the action of the Department.
    Sir J. Anderson: We shall consider each case on its merits.
    Sir Robert Tasker: I hope the Lord Privy Seal will regard sympathetically for grant the provision of sandbags by institutions as some kind of shelter from blast where it is impossible to provide any other kind of shelter.
    Sir J. Anderson: The answer is that the provision of sandbags does not come within the scope of capital expenditure contemplated by the Clause. Expenditure incurred on the provision of sandbags is the sort of expenditure which would rank for Income Tax relief under the arrangements announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in connection with last year's Budget.
    Sir R. Tasker: But charitable institutions are not liable for Income Tax.
    Sir J. Anderson: But this is not capital expenditure.

    CLAUSE 18.—(Training of employés.)
    8.35 P.m.
    Dr. Haden Guest: I beg to move, in page 17, line 9, to leave out "fifty," and to insert "thirty."
    This Clause deals with the training of employés, not only in the routine to be followed in the event of an air raid that is, seeking shelter or dispersing—but also in the first-aid treatment to be given, the emergency treatment for gas, and measures to be taken to fight fire. All those things are exceedingly important. In the Clause as drafted, the reference to 50 persons excludes a very large number of small establishments, such as those in the East End of London, in Birmingham, Sheffield, and many other industrial cities. There are large number of establishments employing fewer than 50 people, and because of that, discipline in the case of an air attack will be all the more necessary. Therefore, it is essential that these employés should have training. I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment, and thus bring within the scope of the Bill a very large number of factories and workshops.
    Sir J. Anderson: I am prepared to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    8.37 p.m.
    Mr. Vyvyan Adams: I call the attention of the Committee to Sub-section (2) which reads:
    "It shall be the duty of every person to whom this Section applies, not later than one month from the date on which this Section first applies to him, to make a report in writing, in the case of factory premises, to the factory inspector for the district, in the case of a mine, to the mines inspector for the district, and, in the case of a commercial building, to the local authority, stating what measures he has taken or is taking or proposing to take to secure that all the persons employed by him in the premises, mine or building are trained as respects the routine to be followed in the event of an air raid and that a suitable proportion of those persons are trained and equipped to give first-aid treatment, to deal with the effects of gas and to fight fires."
    All the services specified in this Sub-section are, I believe, voluntary services, and I should like to know from the Lord Privy Seal under what law the employer is able to compel his employés to be trained for these purposes. Can the employer legally insist upon this training? I suggest that the answer to that question is "no." There is, in fact, no Act of Parliament or regulation which can compel an employer to do this or enable him to compel his employé to be so trained. Nor, I venture to say, with great respect, will any speech that may be forthcoming from the Lord Privy Seal secure the result which I think the Government and probably the whole Committee have in mind. I would further like to add, if this is in order, that I think that result can be secured only if the Committee are willing to accept an Amendment like the one which I have not been allowed to move.
    8.39 p.m.
    Dr. Guest: I want to ask the Lord Privy Seal a question on a matter which has been brought to my notice by the Standing Joint Committee of Metropolitan Borough Councils. They are anxious to know whether, in connection with the training to be given in these workshops and factories, the local authorities are expected to give assistance by providing lectures and equipment or whether that is to be the employer's responsibility. There are in the Bill so many details on

    2209
    which one might put down Amendments that one finally comes to the conclusion that one cannot put down any Amendments, and that the points must be the subject partly of regulations and partly of common sense. I hope it may be possible for the Minister to clear up this matter. There is another matter to which I wish to refer. Would it be possible to ensure that the local authorities are, in fact, informed in all cases where reports on factory premises are made by inspectors? Under the provisions of the Bill, they might not always be directly informed, and it is desirable that the local authorities should be kept in the closest touch with what is going on.
    8.41 p.m.
    Mr. Higgs: I wish to associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams). Many employers have experienced considerable practical difficulties in inducing their employés to take part in these services, and sometimes have had to go as far as making a minor payment in order to get the employés to take part in the various classes and organisations run by the factories. This is a serious difficulty, and I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will take notice of what was said by the hon. Member for West Leeds. Unless something is done in that direction, I am afraid these voluntary services will not be efficient.
    8.42 p.m.
    Mr. Gallacher: There is one matter arising from this Clause which I would like to have cleared up by the Lord Privy Seal. The Clause makes it necessary for the employer to advise the factory inspector or the mines inspector, as the case may be, of the arrangements that have been made for his employés to be efficiently trained in order to carry out the work in connection with the safety of the premises and the people working in them. I should like to know what will be the situation, not in the case of a factory, mine or commercial building, but in the case of a shelter for the factory which is provided by the local authority. Whose will be the responsibility in connection with the training of those employés in any particular class? The Lord Privy Seal will remember that at an earlier stage in the discussions an Amendment was moved to allow a local authority to provide a shelter where it is not suitable to have one in the factory. Where there is
    2210
    such a shelter away from the factory, provided by a local authority, will it be the responsibility of the factory to see that the employés are trained to undertake full responsibility for that shelter?
    8.44 p.m.
    Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: According to Sub-section (2) of this Clause,
    "It shall be the duty of every person to whom this section applies, not later than one month from the date on which this section first applies to him, to make a report in writing, in the case of factory premises, to the factory inspector for the district, in the case of a mine, to the mines inspector for the district. …"
    When those reports are submitted to the mines inspector in cases where the measures set out in the Bill are not complied with, to whom will the mines inspector make his report? Will the report be submitted to the Department controlled by the Lord Privy Seal, or will it be submitted to the Mines Department?
    8.45 p.m.
    Mr. Alexander: While I dissent from the spirit of the proposal of the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams), I can understand what caused him to put down his Amendment, and I suggest that it would be convenient if the Lord Privy Seal would advise the Committee, and through the Committee the country, of what is intended by this Clause. This matter has been more or less brought to a head by the fact that, recently, much publicity was given to the dismissal of a lady member of a staff because of her refusal to take part in routine staff drills in connection with air-raid precautions. This Clause makes it compulsory on employers to provide certain services in connection with the training of employés. If the employés are to read into these provisions that they must provide a satisfactory air-raid precautions corps to the extent of the training provided, and if even in that case a number of employés refuse to take advantage of the training, we are in a somewhat difficult position. I do not think my hon. Friends would join in any proposal to compel workers to undertake services outside the duties of their job, if they did not volunteer to do so, but I think this is a matter on which we ought to have guidance.
    8.47 p.m.
    Mr. Gordon Macdonald: I wish to draw attention to the effect of Sub-section

    2211
    (2), in relation particularly to mines. We have rescue parties in connection witch mines under the Mines Acts, and I take it that if there was a rescue party for each colliery it would meet the requirements of this Clause. At the moment we have not such rescue parties in each colliery in all parts of the country. There are regional rescue parties, and these are well trained and are mainly for the purpose of dealing with explosions. Is it the intention under the Bill to have a rescue party of that type for each colliery?
    8.48 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: Perhaps it will be convenient if I endeavour to deal first with the general question concerning the position of employers under this Clause. The Government have deliberately refrained from entrusting employers with special powers in relation to their workpeople in the discharge of the obligations which the Clause clearly lays upon them. The view on which the Government proceed, is that, in this as in many other matters arising under the Bill, good will and good sense will go much further in the direction in which we desire to see progress, than compulsory provisions. The arrangements for training and drill and so forth for which the Clause provides will undoubtedly be a function of management. We anticipate that in all but an insignificant minority of cases, it will be dealt with as a matter of factory or of shop routine. There are precedents such as that to which the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) referred, of rescue parties in coal mines, and I can also refer, in connection with factories, to provisions for fire drill and welfare and all that sort of thing, which involve obligations on the employer without placing the employer in a position to apply compulsion under statutory powers to any of his workpeople. That is the line upon which the Government proceed, and we hope that such questions as may arise will be capable of being dealt with, and will in practice be dealt with, under the normal industrial machinery, and that if difficulties arise they will be the subject of discussion between the employers and the representatives of the workers. I think that is all I need say on the general question.
    The hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) asked about the position of local authorities. There again we have
    2212
    deliberately refrained from specifying in precise detail how we expect employers to set about the fulfilment of these obligations. In the case of the larger concerns, we think that probably special arrangements will be made by the employers for the instruction of workpeople on the premises. In the case of the smaller concerns, where only a small gang may have to be instructed in first aid, fire fighting, or anti-gas work, it may be found in many cases most convenient to arrange either for the employés of several concerns to be trained together or for the local authority to make some arrangement by which training will be given on the premises of the local authority. We have left the arrangements elastic, and these arrangements are being made up and down the country to-day and we have not found that any practical difficulty arises. The number of qualified instructors in the various branches of Civil Defence has increased enormously during recent months, and at the Home Office schools instruction has been given not only to the employés of local authorities but also to a number of the employés of industrial and commercial concerns. I think the purpose of the Clause would best be served by leaving the arrangements as flexible as possible.
    In regard to the point made by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), I would mention that this Clause is not concerned with the provision of shelters but solely with the question of training. He wanted to know whether in a case in which a local authority provides a shelter by arrangement with the employer, that will modify the employer's obligation under the Clause. The answer is "No." It will be the business of the employer to see that his employés understand what I may call their drill and that an adequate proportion of them are properly instructed in the various special aspects of Civil Defence such as fire-fighting, first aid and so on. The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. W. Joseph Stewart) raised a question about the mine inspectors. They will, of course, in the discharge of these duties remain subject to their own Department. It will be a matter of administrative arrangements to co-ordinate the work under this Measure of factory inspectors and mines inspectors, and the necessary arrangements will be made. Where an employer proves recalcitrant, which we

    2213
    hope will be only in a small minority of cases, the mines inspector or the factory inspector will probably be in a position to follow up the matter in the courts under the authority delegated to him by his Department.
    The hon. Member for North Islington also expressed the hope that steps would be taken to see that local authorities are kept informed of the progress of Civil Defence measures within the sphere of the employers, in regard to both shelters and training. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is the desire of the Department to maintain the closest practical contact between local authorities and those who are generally responsible for the development of Civil Defence measures. I have suggested to local authorities and to the associations of employers that joint industrial committees should be set up to secure the necessary co-ordination. I think this is an expedient which has been particularly successful in certain cases and may with advantage be developed.
    8.56 p.m.
    Mr. V. Adams: This is the first time I have ever heard of an Act of Parliament being made to depend for its enforcement upon good sense and good will. I have always understood that Statutes are enforced by sanctions. This is a Statute in embryo. Part of this Clause is left in the air sanctionless and is merely a pious aspiration. On the other hand, heavy sanctions may be set in motion against the employer—£100, and £50 a day for each day he is found to be in default. As to the other part of the Clause where it affects the employé, we might as well leave the Clause out altogether, because what is the good of regulations which you cannot enforce? I ask the Committee to consider what will happen if employés decline to be trained. They are perfectly entitled to decline, and what remedy will be open to the employer? Is it to give notice to his employés? Suppose dismissal, which was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander), is multiplied indefinitely throughout the country, I ask the Committee again to consider the endless complications and dislocations that will follow. It might wreck a business as well as ruin the careers and livelihood of the workpeoples involved. The Government ought to have the courage to take
    2214
    powers to enforce the very excellent regulations.
    Mr. Higgs: Surely the matter resolves itself into the fact that employers who pay employés for being trained will get them trained, whereas those who do not pay their employés will not get them trained.
    8,59 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I am sure that Members on this side will realise that this Clause was framed while the Government still believed in the voluntary principle. The speech of the Lord Privy Seal dealing; with the speeches of the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams) and of the hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Higgs) was a complete answer to-all the Government speeches that were made in support of the Military Training, Bill.
    The Chairman: We are not discussing; that Bill now.
    Mr. Ede: I am going to leave it straight away, but it is desirable that we should point out that any effort to introduce compulsion into this Clause would be strongly opposed by hon. Members ort this side. We recognise that the Minister is putting the employer into an impossible position, because his employés may for some reason refuse to take up Civil Defence at all. They may say, "Now is the time to play the old boy up. Let us remember that he cut down the number of days available for the beanfeast last year, and we have no other way of getting back on him. Let none of us agree to be trained." I suggest that the employer's liability would really be discharged if he made training available for his employés. If between now and the Report stage the right hon. Gentleman introduces words to make the employer liable if he did not make training availaable, he will have preserved the voluntary principle and relieved the employer of the impossible position in which certain employers may now be put. He will, too, have satisfied everybody.
    One imagines that the cases where there will be wholesale recalcitrancy on the part of employés will be very limited. After all, it is their lives they are risking by not being trained, and one must assume that in the majority of cases they will be willing. We have already heard of a case of one conscientious

    2215
    objector whose conscience went to the length of saying that she would do nothing to protect herself or anyone else from the consequences of enemy action. I imagine that such people are very few. It was just that employer's bad luck that he should happen to hit upon such a person in the first round, but we are bound to recognise the difficulties that will arise from such circumstances. I would suggest that making training genuinely available to the employés ought to be sufficient discharge of the employer's obligation under this Clause.
    9.3 p.m.
    Mr. George Griffiths: I am interested in this question from a double standpoint. There are not only employés who are trained by employers, but volunteers, who may also be the same employés, who are serving a local authority. I am a member of an A.R.P. Committee and we have a good number of volunteers; indeed, we have as many as any other neighbouring area. Many of these are employed at the colliery where 3,500 men work. I should like to know whether the men who have been trained can be called on first by the employer or first by the local authority. We have a lot of men who are trained for ambulance work at the colliery. They love ambulance work and they know that if there is a chance of a soft job they are the chaps to get it. If there is a day extra to be worked at the pit which is on short time the ambulance men are favoured. The employer naturally has a hold on his employés, who feel bound to him first, but it is not clear whether their duty is first to their employer or first to the local authority. I shall be glad if the Lord Privy Seal will make the position clear.
    9.5 p.m.
    Mr. Batey: No one in this Debate has dealt with a question which is worrying me. To my mind the weakness of the Clause is that it links mines with factories, and there is a world of difference between them. The mines will train men for first aid and fire duties and so will the factories. It will be easy in the case of a factory to get at the men who are to render first aid or to deal with fires, but should anything occur at a mine the trained men may be below the surface two or three miles away from the shaft and it will not be so easy to get them out to deal with the fires. At the moment
    2216
    collieries have men trained to render first aid, but if they are to have men available to cope with fires they will have to train a separate group of men altogether. I think it would be better to decide that if a fire occurs the local authority must attend to it, because it might be impossible to get the trained men out of the pit in time.
    9.7 p.m.
    Sir G. Gibson: I have a certain amount of sympathy with the attitude of the Government, in spite of their disinclination to give special powers to the employers as set out in an Amendment. When the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams) moved it—
    Mr. V. Adams: On a point of Order. I did not move the Amendment. I was speaking on the Clause.
    Sir G. Gibson: I can quite understand that there may be opposition on the part of employés to compulsion being applied to them to undertake this service, but there are penalties to be imposed on employers, and the Lord Privy Seal ought to consider whether, in the event of facilities for training being provided, although the employés do not take advantage of them, the employer should not be made exempt from the penalties in the Bill.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: You do not suggest that the employés should be subject to penalties?
    Sir G. Gibson: No, I am not suggesting that, but if the employer has fulfilled his obligation under the Bill it is decidedly unfair to impose financial penalties upon him. Regarding the point made by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) about employés who are members of the A.R.P. scheme organised by local authorities, is it to be understood that if an employer should request some of his employés to make up the quota for his own works that he has the first call on them, although they may have already enlisted in the local A.R.P. scheme? There is a feeling on the part of some employés that to be members of the local authority A.R.P. scheme gives them some sort of official status, and they will not have that official recognition if they become members of the classes, as it were, organised by the firms for whom they are working. I hope that on Report stage the Lord Privy Seal will make such

    2217
    arrangements as will exempt employers from penalties if they have made all the necessary arrangements for providing instruction for their workers.
    9.10 p.m.
    Mr. Westwood: I suggest to the Lord Privy Seal that the matter we have been considering ought to have serious consideration from him between now and the Report stage. There will be two. schemes running side by side, the scheme of the local authority, which will deal with A.R.P. for the whole population of the area, and then the schemes organised by employers and applying to their works and their employés. It is very likely that that state of affairs will create confusion in the minds of many of our people. For one thing there will be no one responsible for the organisation of these arrangements on their application to the respective works in the area. Another difficulty that I foresee is that under Sub-section (3) of the Clause it will be open to a factory inspector in the case of factories, to a mines inspector in the case of mines, and to the local authority in the case of commercial buildings, to serve a notice on an employer specifying certain works which have to be undertaken. I am sure the Lord Privy Seal will agree that there are many different points of view among local authorities. Many of them have not faced up to their responsibilities on the matter of air-raid precautions, and it will not be sufficient just to leave it to some of these recalcitrant authorities to issue even a notice to employers to require them to provide facilities for the training of their employés.
    I think I should be right in saying that there is no conflict of opinion between this side of the Committee and the other regarding the necessity for providing schemes for training employés, although there would undoubtedly be conflict if compulsion were to be applied to the employés. It must be left to them to volunteer, but I am certain that if it is proved to them that it is in their own interests, from the point of view of their own safety, to undertake the necessary training there will be all the voluntary effort that is required to make a success of the scheme. But I do not think the working of the Clause will give us the results which we desire, and I suggest in all seriousness that the Lord Privy Seal should before the Report stage take into
    2218
    consideration some of the difficulties which have been pointed out. For one thing I hope that the proposal to leave it to the local authority to see that these schemes are put into operation will not be accepted as satisfactory. There ought to be some more uniform system of ensuring that employers provide schemes for training; and if such arrangements are made I am certain that the arguments which could be used among the employés in our factories, workshops and commercial institutions would secure the necessary response.
    9.15 p.m.
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Johnston) has said, there is very little of substance outstanding between the two sides of the Committee upon this matter. The only question is how the Clause can be made apt to carry out the purpose which is common to both sides. Many points have been raised in the course of the discussion, but all reasonable points have been foreseen, and it is for that reason that the Clause takes the form it does instead of the more rigid and compulsory form that has been suggested in some quarters.
    In this problem it is necessary to secure the degree of uniformity which is adequate, and steps have been taken to that end by the issue of handbooks and the creation of a joint committee advisory to local councils, employers and others, in order to get a common standard of working; but while a degree of uniformity is necessary and admirable, it is necessary also to have a certain degree of elasticity because the circumstances of industrial establishments vary enormously. It is far that reason that the duty of providing training in air-raid precautions in industrial establishments is made a function of management; that is to say, that in the conduct of its own affairs the management is used to working in co-operation with its employés. We believe that by common sense and good will in a matter which is to the interests of both sides this result can be better achieved than if we tried to lay down too many compulsory regulations upon the matter to start with. The problem in many industrial undertakings is not in the scale that has been mentioned, but relates to only a small fraction of the total, and there should

    2219
    never be, except in rare cases, any difficulty in recruiting men who are willing to undertake this task.
    Colonel Sandeman Allen: What is to happen in a loading station where lorries are loaded? The men are spread out all over the country during the day, and although there is a large number of men on the books, the men are not available for training.
    Mr. Morrison: That problem has not been lost sight of. An Amendment is to be proposed to Clause 72 raising the point directly, and we can deal with it when we come to the Amendment. It is a separate problem. We shall, of course, consider everything that has been contributed to the discussion of this question by the experience of hon. Members. The Debate has followed very much the course that we anticipated. The problem is of a rather protean character owing to the Various circumstances in which industrial occupations are carried on. I would say in reply to the hon. Member for Hems-worth (Mr. G. Griffiths) who was rightly concerned about a man having a double obligation, to the local authority at home as well as at his working place, that if a man had engaged himself to perform a more responsible, full-time job in A.R.P. under the local authority he would not be the best person to be chosen for a similar obligation at an industrial establishment, because circumstances might arise which would demand his being in two places at the same time. Surely that is a matter which can be surmounted by the parties concerned. I do not think we shall find that it involves many difficulties.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: Shall we discourage a person from volunteering under the local authority if he has already volunteered for his firm?
    Mr. Morrison: The answer would depend entirely upon what he had undertaken to do. I imagine that some of them will have undertaken positions of responsibility with the local authority, but I can foresee cases where men will have volunteered under the local authority at some distance from the places where they work. In such a case a man might discharge duties to his establishment during his working hours and to the local authority in his residential hours. To my hon. Friend who pointed out that employers
    2220
    were being placed under an obligation, I am bound to say that if an employer did his best to comply with the regulations to provide facilities for training I very much doubt whether any penalty would ever be visited upon him by any bench with a sense of fairness in the matter. It is necessary to lay this duty upon employers because it is a managerial function, and unless that is done we cannot be certain that the function will be carried out. There may be other points with which I have not dealt, but they will be considered. I hope that the Committee will agree with the broad plan of this Clause, which is that we have to look for a solution of the problem to co-operation and good will between managements and their staffs, in order to secure an object that is common to the safety of both.
    9.21 p.m.
    Mr. V. Adams: May we take it that the Government are not merely giving an assurance that this will be reconsidered but that it will be carefully examined between now and the Report stage? Speaking for myself, as I believe I was the first to raise this matter, I hope a formula can be devised to convey the meaning which underlay the speech of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I was not quite sure what the words "making training available" might be interpreted as meaning in a court of law, but I wish to impress upon my two right hon. Friends who are conducting the Bill through the Committee that, as the Clause stands, matters are completely unfair to any employer who tries to do his duty but is unfortunate in being unable to secure an adequate measure of co-operation from a sufficient proportion of his employés. On those grounds I hope that the Government will reconsider this matter seriously between now and the Report stage.
    9.23 p.m.
    Mr. David Adams: I believe that the Committee has seriously considered the statement made in Clause 18 (2) where it is laid down that the employer is liable to take measures to secure that all persons employed by him in his premises, mine, factory, etc., shall be trained and expected to follow the routine in the case of air raids. If that be so, it is clear that the matter cannot be left at large in a voluntary sense, unless, by some marvellous good will between the parties, employés

    2221
    will be willing to expend a considerable amount of their free time in being trained without any remuneration. That this position is looked upon in my own county of Durham as not very satisfactory means there is provision made that training shall be given, particularly to apprentices, during working hours, so that no time or money is lost on such training. It is most important to require either compulsory training, which the Government are probably not prepared to introduce, in view of the response accorded to the compulsory military training, or some arrangement between the two parties for payment for lost time. Certainly I cannot see the justice of penalising employers in the event of a voluntary arrangement breaking down, and the employés for some private reason declining to have anything to do with protection of this character. The Lord Privy Seal must look more closely into the Clause; otherwise it is bound to break down.
    9.26 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: I think there is a danger of falling into a misapprehension here. There is nothing very novel in the Clause. It regularises arrangements which have been made in a very large number of cases all over the country. What it contemplates, as has been explained in a handbook which has already been widely circulated, is first that all the employés shall be trained in regard to the routine that they should follow in the event of air raids. That does not involve giving up a great deal of time in order to learn what to do. It is something in the nature of boat drill, that the people should know what course they should follow in order to get to shelters and how they should comport themselves. Apart from that, a proportion of the employés are to be trained in specific duties—first-aid, fire-fighting, anti-gas measures and so on. The handbook is based on experience already acquired and indicates, according to the size nad character of the establishment, the proportion of the employés who should be so trained.
    Mr. R. J. Taylor: What proportion?
    Sir J. Anderson: It varies according to the size of the establishment. From 10 per cent. downwards is the sort of proportion, with a smaller percentages in the case of large establishments. That is all set out. The Clause has been discussed with representatives of the employers'
    2222
    organisations, and they have not indicated the sort of apprehension as to the effect which it will in practice have which those hon. Members who have been so solicitous on behalf of employers have indicated. Those employés who form part of the specially trained gangs in a factory or commercial establishment will, during working hours, owe their first duty to that establishment. It will not be expected that they should be under a concurrent obligation to the local authority, although every addition to the number of people trained in Civil Defence measures is an addition to our national strength, and it does not at all follow that people trained primarily for what we call industrial air-raid protection—people so trained have the same recognition as people trained in Civil Defence under a local authority—will not be available, perhaps as a second line, to supplement the local authority services outside working hours.
    9.30 p.m.
    Sir John Mellon: I am not at all sure that the question of the position of employers is entirely a theoretical difficulty, because I have been told by one very large employer of labour that he was seriously apprehensive about the position, with regard to the question of the willingness of some of his employés to be trained. There is no question that under the Clause a duty is imposed upon employers which it is possible, through no fault of their own, they will be unable to discharge.
    The Chairman: I think the hon. Baronet has only just come in, so that it is not his fault, but what he is saying at the moment is a most notable case of repetition.
    Sir J. Mellor: I was only going to say I could not see any reason why between now and Report the Government could not devise a form of words which would entirely satisfy the objections that have been taken.
    The Chairman: The hon. Baronet is still repeating, almost word for word, what has been said several times.
    Mr. Gallacher: Goaded into it by continual repetition, might I say to the Lord Privy Seal that an employer who keeps such intolerable conditions in his factory as will not allow him to get a proportion of, say, 10 per cent. to volunteer for

    2223
    national service should be in jail. For the safety of the country it would be better. I was not satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my question. It was too casual. I should like him to give more serious consideration to this very big problem with which he is confronted, because there is a casual attitude in many local authorities too. The position in a factory where the employés remain in or about the premises will be different from the case where they immediately leave it, so there will have to be consideration given to the particular kind of training in different kinds of factories.
    Clauses 19 and 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 21.—(Erection of shelters provided by the Crown.)
    Mr. Ede: Will the Minister indicate, as previously, which, if any, of the Amendments he proposes to accept?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: The Government propose to accept the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) and other hon. Members in page 19, line 7, the following Amendment in the same names, and the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Ross Taylor).
    9.35 p.m.
    Sir George Broadbridge: I beg to move, in page 18, line 29, to leave out "may," and to insert "shall."
    This may seem a very small alteration, but it is of considerable importance. This Clause deals with the erection of shelters provided by the State, which are distributed free to certain specified householders. Sub-section (1) says:
    "Where the occupier of any premises has been provided on behalf of His Majesty with materials for an air-raid shelter to be erected on the premises, the local authority shall give him advice as to the position in which the shelter should be erected";
    and Sub-section (2) goes on to say:
    "Any occupier to whom advice has been given as aforesaid may erect the shelter in accordance therewith, and may for that purpose break up the surface of any land in his occupation whether paved or not, but shall take due care not to damage any drains, sewers, pipes, cables or other works."
    2224
    Surely, if the occupier gets the shelter for nothing, and gets the advice of the local authority free as to what he shall do, he ought to follow that advice. Otherwise, householders will say they can do what they please with these shelters, and, if anyone complains, they have only to say they have exercised due care in what they did. Anybody can say this, but it is not everyone who can do it, and endless conflicts may arise unless the tenant or occupier follows the advice of those who ought to know.
    9.38 p.m.
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I regret that the Amendment of my hon. Friend would have an effect that would not be in accordance with the provisions it is desired to enact. The adoption of the word "shall" would make it obligatory on anyone who had a shelter to set it up at once, whereas there are many cases in which it is more convenient that the shelter should be stored and erected when the emergency arises. Therefore, the Amendment would have a greater effect than my hon. Friend wishes. I understand his point is that, if a person gets a shelter free and gets advice free, he ought to follow that advice. I will look into that point and see what there is in it, but obviously it would be impossible to accept the Amendment because of its deleterious effects. I will, however, as I have said, look into the point as to whether it is necessary to secure that, when there is proper provision for the giving of advice by the local authority, that advice should not be disregarded.
    Amendment negatived.
    9.40 p.m.
    Mr. David Adams: I beg to move, in page 18, line 29, after "may," to insert:
    "subject to such directions as the local authority may give."
    Clause 21 enacts that, where a shelter has been handed to a local authority and passed on by the local authority to a householder, the local authority is under an obligation to give advice as to where such shelter shall be placed. The addition of the words of my Amendment seems to be necessary, as the person putting down the shelter is under an obligation to take due care not to damage any drains, sewers, pipes, cables, or other works. The local authority is able to advise the householder where such underground works are situated, but, if he is

    2225
    left at large to put down the shelter, and if, from ignorance of the position of drains and so on, he does any damage, that will be useless damage which could be avoided by providing that he shall act subject to the directions of the local authority and in conformity with the advice which they have given him in the first instance.
    9.42 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: I confess I should have thought that the words of this Amendment would not add anything material to the Clause as it stands, because I am advised that the effect of the Clause is that, when advice has been given by the local authority, which is under an obligation to give such advice, the authority of the occupier in regard to the erection of the shelter is limited to installing the shelter in accordance with the advice that has been given, and it is only when he acts in that way that he is held indemnified if, having exercised due care, he nevertheless does damage. I do not think that the super-imposition of directions following on advice would produce a situation clearer from the occupier's point of view than that created by the Clause as it stands, but, as a point of interpretation has been raised, I am perfectly willing to go into the matter in consultation with my advisers and see whether we can improve in any way on the wording of the Clause.
    Mr. Adams: On the assurance which the Lord Privy Seal has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    9.44 p.m.
    Mr. R. C. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 19, line 2, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that the powers conferred by this Sub-section shall not be exercisable with reference to any land belonging to the Metropolitan Water Board, in which there are laid any mains, pipes, apparatus or works of that Board."
    This Amendment deals with a point similar to that raised by the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams). As I understand the present position, certain shelters which have been sent out by local authorities to householders are being erected largely on the instructions of representatives of the local authorities, but when
    2226
    the time comes when people are in a position to buy shelters, there will not, as far as I understand the matter, be any obligation on people who buy shelters to ask the local authority or anyone else where they shall put them up. When you come to that position, the Metropolitan Water Board are very much concerned that some of these people may place their shelters without due care on some of the Board's water mains or pipes, and if any repairs become necessary to those shelters, it may put those pipes in a dangerous position. The Metropolitan Water Board inform me that, in view of the fact that many free shelters are already erected in their area, when the time comes for private householders to purchase shelters and erect them, the difficulty which they fear may arise.
    9.46 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: The hon. Member has certainly thrown a light on the Amendment which had not dawned upon me before, but I doubt whether the words which he proposes to insert would serve to meet the point that he has raised, because although it is true, as he said, that persons purchasing shelters are under no obligation to take advice from the local authority, it is only where shelters are erected in accordance with advice given by the local authority that the consequences against which the provisions in Sub-section (2) protect the occupier will follow. Therefore, as regards the person who purchases a shelter and proceeds to erect it without seeking the advice of the local authority, the Clause as it stands, without the Amendment, does not in any way affect the relationship of the parties. The special provisions of the Clause come into operation only where the occupier, whether he has been given a shelter free or has purchased one himself, proceeds to erect it according to the advice given by the local authority. I therefore suggest that the Amendment does not in fact meet the purpose which the hon. Member has in mind.
    9.48 p.m.
    Mr. R. J. Taylor: I think this raises the same point as the previous Amendment. Would it not be better to take this Amendment into consideration, so that the position can be made quite clear to the people—
    The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton-Brown): We cannot go back on the last Amendment.
    Mr. Taylor: On the explanation which is now given, it appears to me that if a person purchases an air-raid shelter, he comes under none of these indemnifying provisions. Would it not be better to make it clear that the person who purchases a shelter should, if he wants to escape having to be charged for damage, secure the advice of the local authority before erecting the shelter?
    9.49 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: I think that is clear, and there is a later Clause in the Bill which excuses persons who erect shelters from certain obligations to which they would otherwise have to conform only where they proceed in accordance with the advice given to them. Where they do not so proceed, they have to submit their plans to the local authority, so that care may be taken to see that nothing is done that ought not to be done.
    9.50 p.m.
    Mr. Annesley Somerville: In view of the great importance of the Metropolitan Water Board system in providing London with its water—and this Amendment refers to that system—I hope the Lord Privy Seal will make quite sure that the later Clause to which he has referred will provide for the point raised in the Amendment, because obviously it is of very great importance to the people of London.
    9.51 p.m.
    Mr. Gardner: The Metropolitan Water Board are very much concerned about the situation that is created by the power in this Bill for persons to enter on land adjacent to their premises for the purpose of erecting shelters. Any weakening of the ground surface would have the effect of taking away the protection that the board's mains now have. It must be remembered that this Clause deals only with damage that may be done to mains and pipes, but the board's mains contain water under pressure, under great pressure, and that pressure must be maintained in an emergency, for fire-fighting reasons. Therefore, any weakening of the surface of the ground which takes away the cover that the mains now have may result in doing something which nobody wishes to see done. For that reason this Amendment has been placed on the Paper.
    Sir Irving Albery: May I ask whether a local authority under this Bill is under any obligation to give advice to those who purchase shelters?
    9.52 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: The answer to that question is that, where materials are sold to the occupier, the local authority shall not be under any duty to give advice until requested by the occupier, but if the occupier asks for advice, the local authority is under obligation to give it. The Clause to which I referred just now is Clause 66, and if hon. Members will look at it, they will see the precise limits of the exemption provided by the Bill from the requirements as to the giving of notice to local authorities and the submission of plans and specifications. The exemption applies only where the occupier has proceeded on advice given by a local authority, in accordance with any provision of this Measure specifically requiring such advice to be given, or on the advice of a Government Department. I think the protection is pretty complete and should suffice, for, as the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) said, what is concerning the Metropolitan Water Board is the case of the occupier who purchases a shelter and proceeds to erect it according to his own ideas, without the advice of the local authority.
    9.54 p.m.
    Mr. R. C. Morrison: I do not propose at this stage to press the Amendment, but I hope that before Clause 66 is reached the right hon. Gentleman will look at the point about which I am still a little concerned. I am not sure that a person who purchases a shelter requires any authority from anyone to put it up. If he were building, he would require authority, but if he is going to sink a shelter beneath the ground—and the deeper he sinks it the more dangerous it will be, from the point of view of the Metropolitan Water Board—no particular authority is required. No authority from the local authority is required for the purpose of digging a hole in your garden.
    Sir J. Anderson: I will look into the point, but I think the hon. Member is wrong.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    9.55 p.m.
    Sir G. Broadbridge: I beg to move, in page 19, line 3, to leave out Sub-section (3), and to insert:

    2229
    "(3) Where works as provided in this Part of the Act are executed in or on any premises, building or land, by or on the advice of a local authority, the owner of the premises, building or land shall be entitled to recover from the local authority, compensation for any depreciation he has thereby sustained in the value of such estate or interest."
    This Amendment depends upon the suggestion that the advice of the local authority should be followed, although it is not really essential. The Clause exempts the local authority from any responsibility for damage to the premises, but it seems only fair to suggest that where damage is caused to drains, sewers, pipes, cables and so on, through the exercise of the powers given under this Sub-section, the local authorities should make good such damage or pay compensation, and at the end of the period of the emergency, as defined by the Minister, the local authority should restore the premises to their former state, or pay the cost of such restoration.
    9.56 p.m.
    Mr. Graham White: I hope the Lord Privy Seal will not accept the Amendment. Under Sub-section (3) it is provided that the local authority in giving advice shall exercise reasonable care, and if damage results to the property the local authority shall not be liable unless they have failed to exercise care. If the new Sub-section were substituted, it seems to me that the whole purpose of this part of the Bill would be defeated. If the local authority give advice they will give advice as to the most suitable and most effective place in which to erect the shelter. If the matter is to be left in the way suggested by the new Sub-section, the owner or occupier of the premises might produce a list of vexatious charges, and the whole scheme might be held up.
    9.57 p.m.
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I hope my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment. The Government are providing the shelters and the local authorities are providing the advice, and you have to have such considerations in mind as have been mentioned by the hon. Member for Birkenhead, East (Mr. White). You have to select the most suitable place for the erection of the shelter and also to guard against damage such as that mentioned by the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison). When all
    2230
    these things are taken into consideration it is reasonable that Sub-section (3) which relieves them from liability, unless they have been negligent, should remain part of the Bill. Not only are the Government providing the shelters and the local authority providing the advice, but the man is getting his property improved by a provision which makes it more suitable, seeing that we are living in an age when air raids have to be provided against. I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    9.58 p.m.
    Mr. A. Somerville: I beg to move, in page 19, line 7, after "by," to insert "or in consequence of."
    This Amendment is a reasonable extension of the protection given by the Subsection, and I thank my right hon. Friend for accepting it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. A. Somerville: I beg to move, in page 19, line 12, at the end, to insert:
    "and the provisions of Sub-section (2) of this Section shall apply in relation to the local authority as they apply in relation to an occupier erecting a shelter in accordance with advice given by the local authority."
    This Amendment extends to the local authority the protection that is given to the individual by Sub-section (2), and again I thank my right hon. Friend for accepting the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Ross Taylor: I beg to move, in page 19, line 18, at the end, to insert:
    "(6) Public utility undertakers who carry on a gas or electricity undertaking shall not be liable to pay compensation or damages for or in respect of any loss of life or injury or damage to persons or property resulting from damage done by any occupier to any pipe, cable, or other work in the exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of this Section."
    10.0 p.m.
    Mr. Duncan: This Amendment applies to gas and electricity undertakings. What about the Metropolitan Water Board? Water mains are just as liable to be damaged as gas mains, because water mains are under high pressure. If this Amendment is to be accepted, will my right hon. Friend consider the incorporation of words to carry out the same idea in relation to water undertakings?
    Sir J. Anderson: I am prepared to accept this Amendment and to propose words at a later stage extending the principle to water undertakings.
    10.1 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: This is a very widely worded Amendment, and, although I am not complaining about it, the very width of the words makes one wish that we might have heard a little more about it. In the event of some quite innocent person losing his life or suffering serious injury as a result of one of the occasions against which the public undertaking is safeguarded, who will be responsible for paying reasonable compensation to the innocent passer-by or other person who may be involved in loss? Does this Amendment go so far as to relieve the public utility undertaker of responsibility for the death or injury of an employé who may be killed or injured as a result of interference with the works? Clearly, we are removing the liability from the public utility undertaker. On whose shoulder are we placing it? Is the person who may be injured to be left to his own devices in endeavouring to find a remedy? Generally speaking, the public utility undertaker is insured against these risks. The person who inflicts the damage may be a person of straw, like the people who used to drive motor cars and inflict death or injury on people, and although the county court used to give enormous damages against them it meant nothing to the victims or their dependants because it was impossible to recover.
    Clearly, there may be very heavy claims resulting from these injuries, and I think the Committee ought to be assured, before they agree to putting these words in the Bill, that the innocent injured party will still have quite adequate remedies against some person capable of meeting the compensation who may be held to be responsible for the injury.
    10.5 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: All I can say is that it seems to the Government reasonable that public utility undertakers, whose property has been damaged as a result of action for which they have no responsibility, over which they have no control, should be relieved of all liability. I believe that until the recent case in the courts was decided, no one thought that there could be any question of a public utility undertaker being under a liability in such cir-
    2232
    cumstances. The acceptance of this Amendment, while making it clear that the public utility undertaker will not be liable in any way for such actions, does not affect the position with regard to rates of compensation, whatever it may be under the law.
    10.6 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I do not know what my hon. Friends on this side think of that answer, but I am bound to say that it provides me with very cold comfort. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not misunderstand me when I say that I would have liked some opinion which represented the law on the subject. His right hon. Friend beside him might forget for a moment that he is Chancellor of the Duchy, and give us the benefit of his opinion on a matter on which he is competent to advise us as one learned in the law. One has always in mind the position of the person injured by a motor car driven by someone who had not taken out insurance. We are dealing with the ordinary passerby who may be injured by burst mains. If the person who has caused the injury has received a shelter free, and is, therefore, either a manual worker or someone other than a manual worker whose income is less than £250 a year, he may be the person who ought to be proceeded against—I would not say that even that is certain, but if he is, and substantial damages are awarded, what possible chance is there of the claimant ever getting his money? This is a very serious point, and I feel so strongly on it that I should be inclined to go into the Lobby against the Amendment. I am as anxious to get the Bill as the right hon. Gentleman is, but one cannot allow an important point like this to go by default.
    10.8 p.m.
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am afraid there is not much in the way of legal elucidation that I can add to what has been put, shortly and clearly, by my right hon. Friend. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has instanced the case of a man run over by a motor car, and has pointed out that the victim is protected by a special provision of the law which makes insurance compulsory for that class of activity. But that is the only class of activity in which there is that protection. A man may be injured in a variety of ways other than by a motor car, and he has no remedy other than

    2233
    what the person causing the accident can pay. I believe that the particular case to which my right hon. Friend referred arose as a result of damage being done to a gas main, and it was held that the gas company were liable for injuries that were caused. When we have this effort being made by local authorities, many of which are public utility undertakings themselves, to give us protection against air raids, I think such a provision as this is justified. All that this Amendment says is that the public utility undertaker shall not be liable. In view of the great amount of this work which will be done by local authorities, who know where gas and electricity and water mains run, the sort of case we are legislating to deal with will, I think, be very rare.
    Mr. Gardner: Suppose something has been done under the advice of a public authority, will the public authority be liable?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: The public authority, under the Bill, is not liable unless it has failed to exercise due care. All I am asking the Committee to agree to is the quite narrow point, that if, in the erection of these air-raid shelters, a gas or electricity main is injured and damage, for which the public utility is in no way responsible, occurs, the public utility shall not be held liable.
    10.11 p.m.
    Mr. H. Morrison: I do not complain at my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) having looked twice or three times at any Amendment with which the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) is associated. I do the same. But I find it difficult to resist the argument that if there are works going on, without the consent or approval of the public utility undertaking but over their heads, so to speak, it is a little rough to hold them responsible for something which happens in connection with their physical assets but for which they have no responsibility. Personally, I cannot find any answer to that point which has been made by the Lord Privy Seal and the Chancellor of the Duchy. Nevertheless, the points my hon. Friend has raised, particularly in regard to the phrase "any loss of life," ought to be looked into. It may be that if there is loss of life by any person employed, action would lie against the person undertaking the work, but this ought to be very carefully looked into, in order to
    2234
    see that the injured party shall not be without remedy because of the protection to the public utility undertaking. Therefore, if the Government would be good enough to look into it very carefully, and perhaps confer with my hon. Friend before the Report stage, we might let the Amendment go.
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the point ought to be looked into, and I think I can assure him that it will be.
    10.16 p.m.
    Mr. Gallacher: I would like to direct attention to the fact that, if an employé meets with injury or death at his work, not only is the possibility of compensation ruled out, but the right of a claim at common law will be impossible if the Amendment is passed in its present form. That is a fact to be taken into consideration. I suggest, as the Chancellor of the Duchy says, that the local authorities will take very great care with all these undertakings, and that it will only be where there is the most urgent need that excavations will take place, where there are drains, electric cables or gas mains. It will only be in very special cases where the local authority will give directions for excavations to take place where these things are in existence. In cases where the national necessity demands that this work should be done, surely it is not too much to ask of the public utility company that they should adopt special safeguards arising out of the necessity for excavation work. It may mean not only special safeguards, but a little extra insurance to cover any danger that may arise, either in respect of their workpeople or people who live in the vicinity.
    I am of the opinion once again that we are approaching this matter in too casual a manner. If you look over this Clause, and the Amendment which is now suggested, it will be found that very serious undertakings are proposed that may cause a considerable amount of danger to the people in the area, and they are simply being accepted without anyone having ultimate responsibility. You may, therefore, have a situation where the ordinary passer-by or the resident in a particular neighbourhood has no more claim for consideration or for compensation than has a casual walker who is run into by someone carelessly riding a bicycle or

    2235
    something of the kind. There is no reason why there should be this casual approach to the question. It should be possible to find words in connection with this Clause to ensure the free opportunity of local authorities to excavate where it is considered necessary, the taking of measures for greater safety in respect of mains, electric cables and so on, and that adequate care is taken of the workpeople and people who live in the neighbourhood, so that, if an accident occurs, adequate compensation may be available.
    Sir Geoffrey Ellis: I hope that my right hon. Friend will see, in looking into this matter, that responsibility must be dependent upon liability, and that whatever else happens, no duty will be cast upon an authority or employer where there is no responsibility to deal with the question. That, surely, is the essence of the matter.
    Sir R. Tasker: There is another point I should like to put to the Lord Privy Seal. Very often in the back gardens of property there is what is known as a combined system of drainage, and it may be that in any attempt to put up a shelter they might interfere with the sewer. Whose liabiliy would it be? Will it be a liability of the local authority?
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    10.22 p.m.
    Mr. R. C. Morrison: This Clause deals with "the erection of shelters provided by the Crown" but I suggest that the marginal note should be altered so as to read "the erection and removal of shelters provided by the Crown." The removal of these shelters will arise in a more acute form in the near future. It has already arisen in the case of some local authorities where these shelters have been delivered and when there is information that alternative shelter is to be provided by the Government of bricks and cement, which is much better than steel. Already there has been a demand from people who have had these shelters delivered to them that the local authority should take them back. I suppose they consider the international sky is clearing or they want a different type of shelter. In the Bill there is no reference to the circumstances which
    2236
    will arise in the case of a local authority incurring an expenditure for the removal of these shelters. I know one local authority which has already incurred an expenditure of over £50 for the removal of these shelters, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not be too stern with them. I suggest that it might be worth while to see whether some additional powers may no be necessary to deal with the conditions under which these shelters may be dismantled or removed.
    10.24 p.m.
    Mr. Lathan: The Clause deals with the provision of shelters free of charge, and I should like to take this opportunity of inviting the Minister's attention to the unjustifiable anomaly which is associated with the provision of these shelters. The conditions are that a non-manual worker in receipt of £250 per annum or more is required to pay for the shelter, but no such condition Attachés to the manual worker whose income may be double or treble that amount. The conditions are based unjustifiably on the Unemployment Insurance Act and when objection has been raised over and over again the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Health have repeatedly promised to give the matter consideration. These conditions have been advised against by the statutory committee which advises the Government in regard to matters of this sort. The anomaly is so extraordinary, as to invite condemnation straightaway. You may have two employés of a newspaper, one engaged on the clerical or editorial side receiving £5 per week. He will be required to pay for the shelter. But a man on the composing side or in the machine-room who may easily be earning, especially in London, double or even treble that amount, will be provided with a shelter free of charge. There might be a case of a diamond cutter in Hatton Gardon earning £1,000 a year. Under the conditions laid down by the Minister regarding the provision of shelters free of charge, such a man would be entitled to receive a shelter free of charge, whereas a poor insurance clerk or a commercial traveller earning £5 a week would be required to pay for it. Nothing can justify such an anomaly, and I invite the Minister to give it his attention, and to sweep it away.
    10.26 p.m.
    Miss Wilkinson: I wish to ask the Minister one or two questions on this

    2237
    Clause which are of practical interest to London. I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), who is leader of the London County Council, for bringing up this matter. The questions I want to ask relate to a type of house which is very common in Central London. It is an old house, probably having four storeys, and having what used to be a garden, although nowadays it is usually undecided whether anbody in particular has access to the garden, and usually it is left to the cats and is completely neglected. A difficult situation may arise in such cases. The lower floors are rather more highly rented, and are usually rented by people whose incomes are normally £250 a year or over, but the top flat, the garret, may be rented by somebody whose average income is less than £5 a week. Such a person would apply for and get a shelter. Then the problem would arise. Could he put that shelter in the yard of that particular house? What would happen if the other people objected? Could they object? What would happen in the even more difficult case where the garden was not left to the local cats, but was more or less cultivated, and it was felt that the dweller on the top floor had not done his or her share, being somewhat out of the way, but demanded the right to put the shelter in the garden? Could the dweller in the top flat be denied the right to put the shelter, as supplied by the local council, in that more or less common garden? If that right was refused by the other dwellers in the house, could the person appeal to the local authority?
    Or what would happen in a rather more expensive house where one of the people bought a shelter and wanted to put the shelter in the garden and the other people either did not want to buy a shelter or resented its presence in the garden? There again, there might be a good deal of trouble. Would the local authority be the body to whom an appeal could be made, and would it have power to insist that the people, who bought the shelter on the advice of the right hon. Gentleman, should be allowed to have the ground on which to put it, seeing that the common garden belonged to the house? It is not a simple legal case where, say, the dweller on the ground floor has access to the garden. Where there is a clearly stated legal right, it is simple—at least, is it simple? Does the right of the
    2238
    dweller on the ground floor preclude the dweller on the second, third and fourth floors having such shelters as the right hon. Gentleman is providing? I am supposing that the shelters provided by the right hon. Gentleman are of some use. If they are, then surely somebody should have the right to say that the landlord, or the dweller on the ground floor, or whoever is supposed to have the right to the garden or piece of ground attached to each house, should not exclude the other people living in the house. This is rather important because, again supposing that these shelters are really intended to be used and are not merely to keep people quiet for the time being, the only piece of ground to which people have any possibility of access should be open to them. As there has been a great deal of heartburning on this subject in certain areas in Central London, I would like the right hon. Gentleman to give us a Ruling on the matter.
    10.31 p.m.
    Mr. Gallacher: This Clause gives me the impression of an utter lack of responsibility in regard to life and property. Hon. Members opposite are concerned about property. Hon. Members on this side are concerned about life, and although we might arrive at some measure of co-operation in connection with this Clause, I am not ordinarily much concerned about property. Nevertheless here we have the fact that property can be destroyed and that nobody seems to have any responsibility for compensation for that destruction. We are told in Sub-section (3) that if the local authority takes the necessary care in the work which it is doing, and if damage nevertheless accrues, the local authority will not be responsible. Who is to be responsible? According to the Amendment which was accepted, we find that, as a result of this work, men and women in the neighbourhood may be killed or injured but apparently nobody is to be responsible.
    That is an utterly impossible situation to allow to arise in connection with a Measure of this kind. This is supposed to be a Measure for the protection of people against air raids and yet it contains a Clause which would allow damage to take place without any responsibility for compensation. I do not say that damage will be wholesale or will result

    2239
    in many cases, but there is the possibility in every district of damage to property, or accidents to individuals, or the deaths of individuals. The Minister said that these words would be given further consideration. I suggest in connection with Sub-section (3), that where a local authority has shown all necessary care, the local authority should not be responsible for damage but the Department should take the responsibility for meeting any claims for compensation in that connection. If a public utility company can prove that accident, or death, or damage arose directly from work carried out by a local authority, or on the advice of a local authority, then the public utility company should not be responsible, but the Department. Surely the Committee will not allow a Clause to pass which permits of injury to people or destruction of property in a neighbourhood, without laying it down that, in the last resort, someone will be responsible for meeting claims for compensation.
    10.35 p.m.
    Mr. James Hall: I wish to ask the Minister what type of shelter it is proposed to arrange for part of my constituency where people live 237 to the acre. It is one of the most congested areas in the country. The average density of population for London is 59, and as we have 237 to the acre it will be appreciated that our area is very densely populated. There is no room at any of the houses there for the steel shelters to be erected. None of the houses have basements, and when I went with the present Minister of Mines, who then had charge of air-raid precautions, to see what could be done for the people there, we found that they would have to go at least a mile to find any shelter even against blast and splinter, and they would have to go through a labyrinth of turnings to reach it. I suggest that that is a problem which the Minister ought to keep in mind, and I would like to know what he considers to be the way of dealing with it short of deep bomb-proof shelters.
    10.36 p.m.
    Mr. E. Smith: A great deal of attention is being paid to London, but I want to ask the Lord Privy Seal to take notice of the fact that in the industrial area of Lancashire and North Staffordshire the density of population is more than double that
    2240
    of any other part of the country. I want the Lord Privy Seal to take notice of the special conditions and circumstances of that area and to give special consideration to them.
    10.37 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: A great many questions have been put to me on the simple issue that the Clause stand part. Many of the speeches that have been made did not seem to have regard to the fact that this Clause is concerned only with the circumstances in which a particular type of shelter can be installed. It has never been suggested that one particular type of shelter, as to the efficacy of which there is no doubt at all in the circumstances for which it is intended, could be relied upon universally. As regards the questions that were put to me by the hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson), I can only say that this Clause makes provision for the installation of the shelter of the type which is being provided free by the Government where the person for whom it is being provided has land in his occupation on which the shelter can be installed. It is only in that case that the provisions of this Clause are operative. There are undoubtedly numerous cases where other types of shelter have to be provided, but those cases are not dealt with in this Clause. There are the strutted basements, which are dealt with separately, and there are the various forms of concrete and brick shelters, and in certain cases reliance will have to be placed on communal shelters because conditions are not such as to make it possible for private shelters to be installed.
    Miss Wilkinson: It is not a question of the people being dissatisfied as to the type of shelter or asking for another shelter, but they want to know whether they can put a shelter on the only land that is available to them although technically it is in the occupation of the landlord, who may live 100 miles away.
    Sir J. Anderson: I thought I had answered that question. Where the land is not under the control of the person for whom the shelter is provided, and where that person cannot get control of the land, this Clause admittedly does not help. It is not designed for that case.
    Miss Wilkinson: Is there any Clause that does?
    Sir J. Anderson: There is provision in the Bill for the earmarking of premises which are suitable for communal shelters, and for strutted basements, and there are the general powers of local authorities under the Act of 1937. We are supplementing here the Act of 1937, and I suggest that it is not a valid criticism of a particular Clause in this Bill which meets a certain limited need to say that it does not go further and provide for all circumstances. That is in substance the point which some hon. Members who have spoken have seemed to contend for.
    As regards the distribution of the shelters provided free by the Government in the circumstances dealt with in this Clause, the Government are in this position: they had to decide whether such shelters should be provided free for everybody or whether the line should be drawn somewhere. They decided that it would not be justifiable to undertake the distribution of these shelters free of charge to everybody. Having to draw the line, they had to find a simple objective test. Any test must, I suggest, produce on one side of the line and on the other a number of anomalous cases. All I can say is that we have adopted the test which, in the opinion of the Government, is broadly fair, and if it errs it errs in the direction of providing free of charge shelters for which the persons concerned might in some cases have been reasonably expected to pay.
    Mr. Lathan: Does the Minister suggest that it is fair to provide individual A, earning £10 a week, with a shelter free of charge while individual B next door, who has £5 a week, is compelled to pay?
    Sir J. Anderson: I suggest that, if the arrangements are open to criticism, they are open to the criticism, not that people who cannot reasonably be expected to pay for their shelters are being compelled to pay for them, but that as the result of the automatic application of the test some individuals will be getting shelters free in circumstances in which they might reasonably have been expected to pay for them.

    CLAUSE 22.—(Affixing of appliances provided by the Crown for strengthening basements.)
    10.43 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 19, line 24, to leave out from "shelter" to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert:
    "then, unless the occupier of the basement refuses his consent, it shall be the duty of the local authority—

    (a) to affix these appliances, and

    (b) to take such steps as appear desirable in order to provide additional exits from the basement or in order to enable additional exits therefrom to be readily provided;

    and for any of the purposes aforesaid they shall have power to execute such works as may be necessary in the basement or elsewhere in the building, including works in any party wall, and for the purpose of providing additional exits or enabling additional exits to be readily provided they shall also have power to execute such works as may be necessary in or under any part of the highway adjacent to the building, and in or under any land occupied or used in connection with the building, or in connection with the building and other buildings; and they shall not be liable to pay damages in respect of any act which is reasonably necessary for the due exercise of the rights conferred on them by this Sub-section."
    The object of this Amendment is to meet a point which I must confess had been overlooked when the Bill was drawn. It is clear that in the cases which this Clause is designed to meet, the provision of strutted basements, it is necessary not only to provide for the fixing of the necessary appliances but also to take such steps as may be required to provide alternative exits from the basement or to enable additional exits readily to be provided. These deficiencies are made good in the Amendment.
    10.45 p.m.
    Mr. Duncan: This Amendment affects a good deal of property in my constituency. I am a little anxious about the words in the second line of the Amendment, which read:
    "unless the occupier of the basement refuses his consent."
    I can quite see that, generally speaking, an occupier would not refuse his consent, but in particular cases he may have a reasonable excuse for refusing. There may be unreasonable objections leading to refusal of consent, and I should therefore like to see words in the Amendment providing that the occupier of the basement

    2243
    shall not refuse his consent unreasonably. I imagine that the strutted basement shelter will be used in many cases not only for the occupants of the basement but for the occupants of the floors above. In my constituency and many other similar districts in London, houses are three, four or even five storeys high and are occupied by separate families in tenements. The basements will presumably be used for all the families in the house. It seems to be going a little far that the occupiers should be able, by their pig-headedness, to refuse to allow the basements to be strutted to protect not only themselves but all the other families in those houses.
    The last two lines of the Amendment read that the local authorities:
    "shall not be liable to pay damages in respect of any act which is reasonably necessary for the due exercise of the rights conferred on them by this Sub-section."
    Considerable structural alterations will have to be made in order to deal with strutted basements, and it may well be that occupants of basements may have to remove out of their houses for perhaps a week. Are local authorities to do this work and get away without paying compensation for damage and inconvenience caused to the tenants of such basements? I would ask my right hon. Friend to pay attention to the two points which I have raised. If he cannot meet them now, I hope that he will consider them before the Report stage.
    10.48 p.m.
    Mr. Neil Maclean: I understand that the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman will cover a few points of a succeeding Amendment, which would absolve the local authority from any liability to damage done so long as they exercised reasonable care. Is that repudiated in the Amendment which is now proposed?
    10.50 p.m.
    Mr. H. Morrison: I want to draw attention to one point mentioned in this discussion. Upon first reading this Amendment it looks as though it deals, as it must physically, exclusively with the strutted shelter in basements. The words of the Amendment state:
    "then, unless the occupier of the basement refuses his consent, it shall be the duty of the local authority
    (a) to affix"
    2244
    etc. Presumably this protection, however relatively effective or ineffective it may be, is to be provided in the basement in respect of the occupants of the whole building, including the floors above. If the occupier of the basement says: "No, I will not have this shelter," two things arise. The local authority cannot put it in, and, so far as I can see, the occupier of the basement is not bound to put it in. In that case, people who live on the floors above are to be victims of the unwillingness of the occupier of the basement to have the shelter put in. If such a situation arises, short of riot and revolution on the part of the occupiers of the rest of the building other than the basement, what about it?
    10.51 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: I am afraid that, unless these things can be installed by consent, the local authorities will have to move on and deal with the next case where consent is forthcoming. I have not been able to discover any method by which, in the case which this Clause is intended to provide for, the wishes of the occupants can be overridden. There is, of course, in the earlier part of the Bill a provision by which basements can be designated as public shelters, and there is provision there for compensation to all concerned. Here we are dealing with a case where basement strutting is employed as a method of giving protection to the occupants of a house, or to a number of occupants of a building, and I frankly confess that it is, as the Clause stands, in the power of the occupant of the basement, by withholding consent, to frustrate the purpose of the local authority in endeavouring to provide shelters. I have been able to discover no practical method of getting over that difficulty.
    Mr. Gallacher: I should like to ask whether this Clause which deals with "basement or elsewhere in the building," has any reference at all to tenements and the suggestion made at one time by the Minister of special material being provided for these tenements, or if the question comes up on Clause 24.
    Sir J. Anderson: It does not arise on this Clause.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 23.—(Restriction of removal of shelters and appliances.)
    Amendment made: In page 19, line 33, after "Majesty" insert "and with the consent of the recipients."—[Dr. Guest.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Maclean: On a point of Order. There is another Amendment to the Clause, in the name of myself and others of my hon. Friends.
    The Chairman: It is not being called.
    Mr. Maclean: Is there any reason for it?
    The Chairman: Certainly.

    CLAUSE 24.—(Power to make regulations as to construction, alteration or extension of buildings.)
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 20, line 16, after "fit," to insert:
    "and also with such associations of local authorities as appear to him to be concerned."
    Sir J. Anderson: I think it would be better not to include in the Statute itself a catalogue of the associations to be consulted in regard to the various matters dealt with in the Bill. This is not the only case in point. There are, for example, various matters arising under Clause 56 where it is most certainly the intention and the desire of the Department to consult with all those representative bodies which are interested. I gladly give the assurance, without any specific words in the Clause, that such consultation shall take place.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    10.54 p.m.
    Mr. Ross Taylor: I beg to move, in page 20, line 25, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that any building used, or required for use, for the purposes of their undertaking by public utility undertakers who carry on a water, gas, or electricity undertaking shall not be included in any class of buildings so specified."
    May I first mention the Amendment to my Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. A. Herbert). This Amendment and the Amendment to it have been put down in the hope that, even if the Lord Privy Seal cannot accept
    2246
    them, he may be able to give an assurance that the Clause will not normally apply to the buildings of public utility undertakings. The Clause relates chiefly to dwelling-houses and shelters as such, but it might also apply to the buildings of public utility undertakings, which are of a specialised nature, like retort houses, power houses and so on. It is felt to be undesirable that the local authority, which ordinarily has no jurisdiction in regard to these buildings, should be given jurisdicton under the Clause, but that the appropriate authority under which they have to work would be the proper authority to exercise this jurisdiction. I notice that the Clause makes provision for relaxation or non-applicatiion of the regulations in certain cases, and possibly my right hon. Friend may be able to give an assurance that these powers will be exercised and that normally the regulations will not apply to technical buildings owned by public utility companies.
    10.57 p.m.
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I can give an assurance that the Clause will be worked by my right hon. Friend with every consideration for the particular problems of these undertakings, and after making full use of the power of consultation with the appropriate persons. I could not, however, go as far as my hon. Friend desires. In view of the general purpose of the Clause, which is to prevent the construction of new buildings or extensions of existing buildings which would, to use a picturesque but common phrase, perhaps be death-traps at the time of an air raid, there is no strong case for excluding, say, the headquarters of an electricity company from the same obligations which apply to other buildings. There are men employed in the one as in the other, and the necessity for this power is as strong in the one as in the other. Circumstances may vary from time to time, but there will be ample consultation, and every effort will be made to make the Clause work without friction.
    Mr. Ross Taylor: In view of my right hon. Friend's explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made: In page 21, line 10, leave out "Ministers," and insert "Minister."
    In line 27, leave out "a further fine," and insert "further fines."—[Sir J. Anderson.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Foot: I rise to ask whether the Minister can give any undertaking as to these Regulations being laid before the House. The Committee may have observed that I put down two Amendments designed to ensure that the Regulations should be laid before the House in draft, and that the approval of both Houses should be necessary before the Regulations came into force. I think that that would be the better arrangement, because these Regulations will be of considerable importance. Sub-section (1) says that the Minister may make Regulations with regard to:
    "(b) such requirements as he considers necessary as to the provision of air-raid shelter for the persons using or resorting to the buildings."
    That is a matter which affects large numbers of people. Also, of course, the powers taken under this Clause in relation to buildings are very considerable, and it seems to me that the best method would be for the consent of the two Houses to be made necessary, but if the Minister cannot see his way to grant that, I think the regulations ought to be laid in the normal way.
    11.1 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: Most certainly I agree that the regulations under this Clause and the regulations under a number of other Clauses of the Bill should be laid before Parliament, and an Amendment has been put down so to provide, but it comes at a much later stage of the Bill. I ought to say straight away that I do not consider that the case of regulations under this Clause 24 is a suitable case for the affirmative Resolution procedure. These regulations will be of a very technical character, and they are not to be made until there has been consultation with various professional bodies. We propose that the regulations will be published in draft, so that there may be an opportunity for anyone concerned to call attention to any special feature or to any supposed defect. The proposal of the Government is that the regulations should be subject to annulment in the usual way if within a certified time objection is taken.
    Mr. Fleming: In view of the fact that I also have an Amendment down on this matter, I would like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman intends that publication in draft shall be under the Rules Publication Act, 1893, or under some special form?
    Sir J. Anderson: That matter is provided for in the Rules Publication Act itself. The Amendment proposed in this Bill will merely provide that regulations shall be laid before Parliament. These regulations under Clause 24 will be published in draft.
    Mr. Foot: I take it that when the right hon. Gentleman refers to the later Amendment, he is referring to the Amendment on Clause 71, in which it is provided in Sub-section (4):
    "Section one of the Rules Publication Act, 1893, shall not apply to any Order in Council, order, or scheme made under this Act."
    The Chairman: I think we had better not discuss that until we reach that point.
    Sir J. Anderson: I was careful in my reply to say that as regards regulations under this Clause, the effect of the Government Amendment which has been put down will be that the regulations will be published in draft.
    Clauses 25 and 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 27.—(Duty of public utility undertakers to make reports.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    11.4 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I should like the Minister to give me an answer with regard to the words in line 14, on page 23, "the due functioning." I was surprised to hear yesterday from quarters that I am bound to regard as authoritative that the words might merely mean the physical carrying on of the undertakings in the most technical sense, and that in the case of electricity undertakings all that "the due functioning" means is to provide that the cables shall not be broken and that any work of supervision other than the actual work of repair and maintenance would not be covered. That is a reading

    2249
    which I should not be prepared to accept. It seems to me that "due functioning" must mean the carrying on of the undertaking as a whole, to secure that the particular public supply which is guaranteed by the public utility undertaking will be supplied throughout the period of the emergency as far as is reasonably possible. I hope these words are not meant to be limiting words but all-embracing words, covering the carrying on under as nearly normal conditions as possible the work that the public utility undertaker is charged with.
    11.6 p.m.
    The Minister of Transport (Captain Euan Wallace): I am sure the hon. Member is entirely right in the interpretation that he wishes to put on these words. Part V refers to the application to public utility undertakings of certain provisions which have been made in previous sections of the Act in regard to factories and the like. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 23rd December announced in the House that the Government had accepted in the case of public utility undertakings the principle of a Government contribution towards the cost of measures taken by them for "due functioning" in addition to the contribution to providing shelters for their employés, which is the ordinary employer's obligation. "Due functioning" means the implementation of that undertaking in letter and spirit, and that is to carry on the public utility undertaking not only according to the normal standards but in order to enable them to cope with the extra demands which may be made upon them.
    Mr. Ede: I am much obliged.
    Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 29.—(General grant in respect of expenses in providing shelters for employés.)
    Amendment made: In page 24, line 36, leave out "and," and insert:
    "or preparatory measures are then being taken for the provision of the shelter and (ineach case)."—[Sir J. Anderson.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 30 and 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 32.—(Provisions as to dock and harbour undertakings.)
    11.9 p.m.
    Captain Wallace: I beg to move, in page 27, line 8, to leave out Sub-section (1) and to insert:
    (1) "If, on the application of any public utility undertakers who carry on a dock or harbour undertaking the appropriate Department so order, the preceding provisions of this Part of this Act relating to the provision of air-raid shelter for persons employed by public utility undertakers, shall apply in relation to the undertakers carrying on the undertaking as if all persons likely to be found during air-raids in the dock or harbour, or any such part thereof as may be specified in the order, were persons employed by the undertakers; and where any such order is made—

    (a) the order may contain such incidental and consequential provisions as the appropriate Department thinks proper, including provisions authorising the undertakers, notwithstanding anything in any contract or in any enactment or order relating to them, to do such of the following things as may be specified in the order, that is to say—

    (i) to make such increases in their charges as may be specified in the order;

    (ii) to recover from such persons or classes of persons using the dock or harbour as may be specified in the order such sums as may be determined by or under the order;

    (iii) to borrow such money on such terms as to security and otherwise as may be specified in the order;

    (b) the provisions of Part III of this Act relating to the provision of air-raid shelter shall not apply in relation to any factories or commercial buildings situate in the dock or harbour or, as the case may be, in the part thereof specified in the order, and

    (c) no grant shall be payable under Part III of this Act in respect of any expenses incurred in providing or securing the provision of air-raid shelter in the dock or harbour, or, as the case may be, in the part thereof specified in the order."

    This Clause deals particularly with docks, and the Amendment is to give effect to an arrangement which is to be agreed with the dock authorities. In normal circumstances only a very small proportion of the people who are in and about the docks during the day time are in the employment of the dock authority. It was, therefore, suggested that in the case of these large docks the shelters for the employés which attract the 27½ per cent. grant should be pooled by the dock authority and the cost should be recovered pro rata from the people who share in the scheme. It is a permissive arrange-

    2251
    ment and the dock undertaking is able to apply to the Minister for permission to adopt it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 27, line 36, after "a," insert "dock or."
    In line 39, after "the," insert "dock or."
    In page 28, line 4, after "to," insert "public utility undertakers carrying on."—[Captain Wallace.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 34.—(General duty as to factories, mines and public utility undertakings.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    11.11 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: We now come to Part VI of the Bill, which deals with a highly specialised part of Civil Defence. This Clause requires occupiers of a certain limited class of property to take steps to ensure that, in the event of war, their property shall not be a guide to the enemy. It deals with camouflage and the obscuration of lights. Speaking on behalf of a great group of local authorities, I want to say that we are seriously concerned as to what is to happen to certain other buildings, very similar to these, which in these days display a great quantity of light, which will have to carry on after war has broken out, and which may be as useful to guide the enemy as any that are included in the Clause. I think the Minister believes that, by some Defence of the Realm Act, he will immediately be able to make regulations that will cover this point. There must be some of these matters in respect of which he is relying on a Defence of the Realm Act and they should be known beforehand. If we are to accept the story that is told on the other side, last September we were within hours—it may have been minutes—of a situation in which aerial invasion might have been expected, and quite clearly no one was armed with the necessary powers to take these steps on the night when the Prime Minister left the House on his first visit abroad. We
    2252
    may be faced with a similar situation again, when the matter will go through to its final awful issue. Can the Minister give us some undertaking that there will be published, for the guidance of the public and local authorities, an indication of what the requirements of the Government in this matter will be?
    11.14 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity of clearing up any doubt that there may be on this point despite what I said in the Debate on the Second Reading. It is the intention of the Government that, under regulations which will be promulgated at the beginning of an emergency, conditions amounting to what we describe as a black-out should be imposed generally, all over the country. All visible external lighting will have to be extinguished and internal lighting will have to be so obscured as to give no assistance to approaching aircraft. This Bill is concerned with action which needs to be taken in advance, and the provisions of Clause 34 are limited to certain classes of premises for this reason. In the case of the premises in question, it may be important in the public interest that, notwithstanding the imposition of the requirements as to the obscuration of light, there should be no interruption in the productive processes going on in those buildings. It is for that reason that, in the case of factory premises the obligation is imposed, as it is not imposed on the owners or occupiers of other premises, to make arrangements in advance which will ensure the immediate obscuration of lights in the event of an outbreak of war. In the case of other premises an obligation to extinguish lights will be imposed, but if the employer or occupier concerned has not taken measures in advance, the only result will be that, until he has made the necessary arrangements the work will not go on in those premises during the hours of darkness. I hope that that makes the position quite clear.

    CLAUSE 35.—(Provisions as to processes involving flames or glare.)
    11.17 p.m.
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 30, line 10, after the first "premises," to insert "in any mine."
    This and the following Amendment are purely drafting in character.
    Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: As the Lord Privy Seal has already said, in the event of the outbreak of war, it will be necessary to dim lights as far as possible. There is the question of burning pit heaps in the country, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that it will be impossible, in a time of emergency, to dim these burning heaps after due warning has been given of an air raid. Is the right hon. Gentleman taking the necessary precautions now, in conjunction with the various colliery companies concerned, with a view to having these pit heaps treated so that there will not be any glare in the event of war breaking out.
    Sir J. Anderson Sir J. Anderson rose—
    Mr. G. Macdonald: On a point of Order. Are we discussing the Motion that the Clause stand part of the Bill?
    The Chairman: No, we are not. We are discussing the Amendment at the bottom of page 1286 on the Order Paper. I would say to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. W. J. Stewart) that I am afraid that his point hardly arises here. I am quite willing for the Minister to give an answer, if he wishes to do so, but I must guard myself against allowing a discussion.
    11.19 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: I was only going to explain that Clause 35 deals with an entirely different subject-matter from that dealt with in Clause 34. I am afraid that to deal with the point that has been raised would be out of order, but perhaps I might be allowed to say that it is the intention of my Department, in conjunction with the Department of Mines, to tackle the particular case of the burning pit heaps and see what can be done to ensure that beforehand and before any emergency occurs they are, as far as possible, put into a condition in which they will not be a menace.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 30, line 14, after "premises," insert "or a mine."—(Sir J. Anderson.)
    11.20 p.m.
    Mr. Fleming: I beg to move, in page 30, line 16, after "undertakers," to insert:
    "after consultation with such persons or bodies as the Minister considers representative of the industry concerned."
    As my right hon. Friend point out, this Clause deals with matters of flames or glare, and the Amendment, if accepted, merely asks that people in the industry should also be consulted as well as certain professional men as to the best method of preventing glare or flame. I put down the Amendment in order to obtain a statement on this point.
    Mr. H. Morrison: I cannot see how the Amendment will work, because it looks as though the industry as a whole would have to be consulted before every individual application was settled. I hope that the point will be taken into consideration.
    11.21 p.m.
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, and I ask my hon. and learned Friend not to press the Amendment, because it might have the effect to which the right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention. I hope he will be satisfied with the assurance that this is a technical problem which can only be solved after consultation with all interests concerned.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 30, line 16, at end, insert "the owner of the mine."
    In line 19, after "take," insert "or complete."
    In line 28, after "take," insert "or complete."—(Mr. W. S. Morrison.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    11.23 p.m.
    Mr. G. Macdonald: We have been talking about dealing with burning pit-heaps for many months, and the Minister has already indicated that some action is to be taken. I want to put a question to the Lord Privy Seal as to the amount of notice he intends to give colliery owners to deal with them. I hope he

    2255
    realises the importance of giving long notice. I think he is bound to give notice before war has commenced, otherwise war will be well on the way before anything can be done to extinguish these burning pit-heaps. It will be necessary to take early action on this matter.
    11.24 p.m.
    Mr. Tinker: I also want to call the particular attention of the Lord Privy Seal to this matter. I think that immediate consultations should take place so that owners may be told what will be expected of them as soon as the Bill becomes law. It is essential in the interests of the country that they should take immediate measures to deal with this grave danger. Every time we go to a colliery district we see these burning pit-heaps and we can realise what will take place should war break out, and we ask ourselves whether it is right to allow them to continue without taking steps to deal with them. I trust that the Minister will not wait until the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, but will tell them beforehand what we hope they will do in the interests of the country and of themselves.
    11.26 p.m.
    Mr. Gallacher: I am very much concerned about a few remarks that were made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He said, with reference to some remarks made on the Amendment, that consultation will take place with the mineowners and employers generally. That is very dangerous. I am very deeply concerned about this question—
    The Chairman: The hon. Member is apparently discussing the Amendment.
    Mr. Gallacher: I am discussing the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," and in my objections to the Clause standing part, I have to take into account some remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman.
    The Chairman: I must warn the hon. Member that he must not discuss over again an Amendment which has been dealt with and passed.
    Mr. Gallacher: I am sorry if I transgressed in any way, but I did not mention the Amendment, and I am not con-
    2256
    cerned about it. I am concerned about certain remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman which gave me the impression that he and the Lord Privy Seal contemplate, in connection with this Clause, having discussions with the mineowners prior to an intimation being given to the mineowners that they must put an end to this glare that is such a danger to the country. I want the Lord Privy Seal to make absolutely certain that, before there are any discussions of any kind, notice shall be sent stating that within a given time the glare must be ended. In my constituency, there is a glare that is a very serious menace to the whole area. As I have said before, it is in the neighbourhood of the Forth Bridge, which is bound to be one of the first centres of attraction to enemy aircraft from across the North Sea. The glare from that particular pit lights up the whole area of the Forth Bridge, and in North Queensferry the people are faced with the danger that arises from living near the Forth Bridge, a short distance from this glare.
    Lieut.-Colonel the Marquess of Titch-field: Can the hon. Member tell me how he would put out the fire at that bing? I do not think anybody knows how to do it.
    Mr. Gallacher: If the Minister is in any difficulties as to how to get rid of the glare, I shall be very pleased to give him advice on that matter. He should put on the employers the responsibility of getting the necessary unemployed men to get on with the job right away, and remove the red bing. There is any number of unemployed men who could be used, at trade union rates of wages, for important national work of that kind. There should be an immediate notification to the employers to get rid of the glare, and there should be no discussions with them beforehand. It is one of the most essential national responsibilities to see that in these areas glare is eliminated without loss of time. Once the employers have been given notice that the glare has to be removed within a given period, the Minister can have any discussions he likes for the purpose of assisting them in that task, but there should be no discussions until notice has been given.
    11.30 p.m.
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman will realise that this Clause refers to

    2257
    all kinds of glares, and my right hon. Friend is in consultation with all those concerned in relation to this very difficult problem. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not consider that consultation is necessarily merely a method of slowing up or retarding progress. There are many technical questions to be considered on which the advice of those concerned will be invaluable, in any sincere attempt to deal with the problem.
    Mr. H. Morrison: I assume that, so far as there is a general undertaking as to consultation with persons or bodies deemed by the Minister to be representative of the industries concerned, in all appropriate cases the trade union organisations will be regarded as included?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: Certainly.
    11.32 p.m.
    Mr. David Adams: The Lord Privy Seal will notice that Sub-section (2) states that the Minister "may serve on the owner of any mine," etc. I recognise that the Lord Privy Seal is probably the most energetic Member of one of the most energetic Ministries of modern times, and I ask him whether he is satisfied that the word "may" in this connection is sufficiently strong? Would he not prefer Parliament to state that this should be an obligation on the Minister, by using the word "shall," instead of leaving it optional and incurring the risk that the Minister, if he were on a holiday for instance, might overlook the matter. I submit that it should be obligatory on the Minister to give instructions to mine-owners forthwith.

    CLAUSE 36 (Camouflage.)
    Amendments made:
    In page 30, line 35, after "premises," insert "the owner of any mine."
    In line 37, after "take," insert "or complete."
    In line 38, at the end, insert "the mine."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    11.34 p.m.
    Mr. Tomlinson: There is one aspect of the question of camouflage about which I wish for some information. I find that the powers which are asked for in this Clause are already being exercised by default under or by the waiving of another Act of Parliament in connection with factories in Lancashire. The Factories Act insists upon mills and workshops being whitewashed each year and I am given to understand that on instructions from the Home Office this year, employers have been allowed to forgo this sanitary duty in the interests of camouflage, so that mills and workshops should not stand out as possible targets and interfere with the arrangements which are being made for rehearsal "black-outs" in various parts of Lancashire. Camouflage is being achieved by waiving duties imposed by another Act of Parliament on employers, for a specific reason and in the interests of the health of employés during the summer months, and I wish to know what steps are being taken to find some better method of dealing with this matter than merely waiving the regulations under the Factories Act. I have no objection to this waiving, provided some alternative method of meeting the requirements of the employés which have been insisted on by the Factory Acts is carried out.
    Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I would like to ask why this Clause is limited to factories, public utilities and mines. In the blacking out that is taking place it may be found that other buildings are conspicuous and likely to make landmarks leading aeroplanes to danger spots. Would not the Minister be well advised to take full powers to order practically any building to be camouflaged if desirable?
    11.36 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) has looked at the definition of "factory premises" in the Definition Clause. It is not an expression synonymous with "factory." As regards the point raised by the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson), I can only say it is entirely new to me and I will look into it.

    CLAUSE 37.—(Grants under Part VI)
    11.37 P.m.
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 31, line 3, to leave out from "person," to "grants," in line 5, and to insert:
    "in taking the measures specified in the two last preceding Sections, whether a notice has or has not been served."
    The effect of this Clause as drafted is that where a man gets on with the job and has not waited for this Bill to be passed, but has done what is necessary, he will not get a grant. If he waits and hangs about until he is served with a notice, the Minister will make a grant to him. I cannot think that that is a reasonable thing to do, especially in view of the appeals that have rightly been made by the Government for some months past that people in the country should regard this Measure as one that the Government will implement at sometime or other. Delays in passing it have been considerable, and it appears to me a wrong thing to penalise people who have got on with the job instead of waiting for notices to be served on them.
    11.39 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: I am afraid it is not possible for me to accept the Amendment as it stands, although I think I can satisfy the hon. Member that to some considerable extent, at any rate, the object that he has in mind has been met. Among the Amendments which we have just passed were Amendments to insert in Clause 35 the words "or complete." The purpose of adding those words was to enable grant to be paid where the employer, had taken the initiative and started operations before a notice had been served on him, but we do not wish to lose control completely of the measures which are contemplated in Clauses 35 and 36. They are the measures for the prevention of glare and for camouflage, and we think it is very important that whatever steps are taken should be taken not haphazard but in accordance with a well-thought-out plan and on the best advice possible. This is specially important in the case of camouflage, because a great deal of money can be completely thrown away if principles which are not sound are followed in obscuring the natural features of a landscape or concealing the presence of particular buildings. For that reason, although we have amended the Clause so
    2260
    that where work has been begun and completed in accordance with an approved plan grant can be made, we do not wish to place the Government under the obligation, which would be imposed on them if this Amendment were accepted as it stands, for other measures which have been taken by an employer on his own responsibility which may have involved wholly wasteful expenditure.
    Mr. Ede: In view of the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In page 31, line 9, leave out "taken under" and insert "specified in."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 38 and 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 40 (Provisions as to practice of dimming lights).
    11.43 p.m.
    Mr. Fleming: I beg to move, in page 32, line 6, at the end, to add:
    "(2) Nothing in any enactment or in any order or regulation made under any enactment relating to lighting of factory premises, mines, or public utility undertakings shall render it unlawful for the occupier of any factory premises, the owner of any mine, or the persons carrying on any public utility undertaking to cause the lights in his factory premises, mine, or undertaking to be dimmed or extinguished for the purpose of—

    (a) assisting a local authority in training or exercising any persons in respect of air-raid precautions; or

    (b) training or exercising persons employed in the factory premises, mine, or public utility undertaking in air-raid precautions."

    This Amendment deals with a similar matter to that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson), but it concerns the lighting of factories and workshops. The Clause provides relief to local authorities from their statutory duty with regard to lighting the streets in the case of air-raid precautions practices. I wish to grant similar relief in the case of industrial undertakings, because otherwise we should have the anomaly that while a black-out had been ordered the employer whose factory was working would still be subject to the provisions of the Factories

    2261
    Acts, which require him to have them well lighted as long as workpeople are on the premises. This Amendment would relieve industry from that disability during air-raid precautions practices.
    Sir J. Anderson: I am not sure that this Amendment is necessary, but, nevertheless, I am prepared to accept it.
    11.44 p.m.
    Mr. E. Smith: I hope that regard will be had to the research work dealing with this problem which is being undertaken by the electrical industry. A tremendous amount of research has gone on, and I know that a lamp has been practically perfected, to the satisfaction of that industry, which will allow the maximum amount of light to be used inside a factory without its showing outside the building. Therefore I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will have regard to the new lighting system.
    Sir J. Anderson: I hope the hon. Member is right in what he has just told us. No one will be better pleased than I if we can have some reliable device which will have the effect which he has just described. I suggest that this Amendment is not affected in one way or the other, because it makes clear that employers, by obscuring lights, will not be infringing some other provision of the law.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 41.—(Powers of Minister of Health.)
    11.46 p.m.
    Mr. Bernays: I beg to move, in page 32, line 29, to leave out "undergoing treatment in any place," and to insert:
    "persons of unsound mind and mental defectives from the place in which they are being treated or maintained."
    This Amendment and that which follows make it clear that the Minister can arrange for removing mental patients as well as ordinary patients, to other institutions.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 32, line 30, after "treatment," insert "or maintenance, as the case may be."
    In page 33, line 21, after "expression," insert
    "'treatment' in relation to a hospital does not include treatment in a first-aid post, and the expression."—[Mr. Bernays.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 42.—(Duties of local authorities.)
    11.49 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 33, line 36, after "buildings," to insert "and the extension of existing buildings."
    The Clause was the subject of negotiation with the local authorities before it was drafted, and they understood that the works alluded to were of a minor character. It now appears possible that the works might include such things as the erection of wards or a block of wards or the extension of existing buildings. I do not think that would be regarded by the local authorities as carrying out the arrangement which was made between their representatives and the Ministry. I hope that it will be made clear that the works do not include those of the magnitude I have just indicated.
    Sir J. Anderson: I can give the hon. Member the assurance that "new buildings" is intended to include a block of new wards or other structures of that kind within the existing hospital, and not merely a new hospital or other complete building. I am assured that this is, in fact, the proper interpretation of the Bill as it stands.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made:
    In page 34, line 3, leave out "medical stores" and insert:
    "drugs and other medical stores, beds, mattresses and bedding and other ward."
    In line 7, leave out "ordinarily used in the hospital."
    In line 8, leave out "so used" and insert "used in the hospital."—[Mr. Ammon.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 44.—(Financial provisions.)
    Amendment made: In page 35, line 17, leave out "by" and insert "in the area of."—[Sir J. Anderson.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 45.—(Powers conferred by this Part to be in substitution for powers under Act of 1937).
    Amendment made: In page 35, line 41, leave out from "that" to "every," in line 43.—[Sir J. Anderson.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 46.—(Provisions as to combination of councils.)
    Amendment made: In page 36, line 20, leave out "county" and insert "counties."
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of Bill.
    Ordered, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Captain Margesson.]
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Two Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.