Lords Sitting of 11 February 1932

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

CHANCEL REPAIRS BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to abolish proceedings in Ecclesiastical Courts for enforcing liability to repair certain chancels, and to substitute other proceedings in lieu thereof, and otherwise to amend the law relating to such liability; and to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE:My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, to inform us as to the business for next week?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I am glad to have an opportunity of explaining the business for next week. On Tuesday next there is a Motion, which stands in the name of my noble friend the Lord Chancellor, for the appointment of an additional Judge. There will also be taken the Committee stage of the Veterinary Surgeons (Irish Free State Agreement) Bill, and it is proposed to ask the House to take the Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill—a small Bill which is going to have its First Reading now, and only deals with minor questions and matters of detail which have arisen in connection with the administration of Northern Ireland. On Wednesday it is proposed to take the Second Reading of the Dangerous Drugs Bill, which is a Bill to amend the law with regard to dangerous drugs. I think that that again is completely non-controversial. The First Reading will be taken to-day. On Thursday it is proposed to
562
take the Second Reading of a Bill for the protection of the grey seal, which will be introduced by my noble friend Lord Strathcona, and also the Second Reading of the Chancels Repairs Bill, which has just been read a first time.

NORTHERN IRELAND (MISCEL LANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make miscellaneous amendments in the law applicable to Northern Ireland, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

DANGEROUS DRUGS BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Dangerous Drugs Acts, 1920 to 1925, so far as is necessary to enable effect to be given to a Convention signed at Geneva on behalf of His Majesty on the 13th day of July, 1931; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill he now read 1a.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

GREY SEALS BILL. [H.L.]
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make further provision for the protection of the grey seal, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
LORD LOVAT LORD LOVAT had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government—
1, What proportion of the moneys actually paid into the funds of the League of Nations are found by Greater Britain, including the Dominions:
2, What is the estimated cost of the Palace of Nations now being erected at Geneva:
3, How many contracts for the erection or equipment of that Palace have been given to firms of British origin:
4, What nations have received the principal contracts, what sums do these contracts represent, and what are the subscriptions of the successful nations to the funds of the League of Nations:
5, What action has been taken by the Department of Overseas Trade, the Empire Marketing Board, or other paid British officials resident or temporarily resident in Geneva in 1930–1931 to further the interests of firms from Greater Britain in this connection;
And move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before asking the Questions which stand in my name I would like to make it quite clear that I have not brought them forward in any spirit of criticism of the Government, who obviously could not in any way have been responsible for the points which I propose to raise later, nor do I make any attack on the civil servants and others who are carrying out their duty, or even on the amateurs, paid and unpaid, who are out there carrying on the work at Geneva. But I do make an attack both on what seems to me to be the very disgraceful amount of waste which is going on in connection with the points that I have raised in my Questions, and on the system which has made this waste possible.
Now, if you turn to my Questions, the first is what proportion of the moneys actually paid into the funds of the League of Nations is found by Greater Britain, including the Dominions. Very obviously, when one asks a Question in your Lordships' House one takes certain steps, to begin with, to make oneself thoroughly acquainted with the answer. In this case I travelled to Geneva—not, admittedly, in order to get the information, but for other business not connected with the League of Nations. You can easily ascertain, by looking at any book of reference, what we pay in theory, but it is another matter the proportion that we actually pay in fact. There is a large number of defaulters in the League of Nations who, while arguing their case and sometimes taking up a lot of time
564
at Geneva, do not pay what they are supposed to pay; with the result that a quite disproportionate amount of the money falls on the taxpayers of Greater Britain.
This is not satisfactory, but it is still more unsatisfactory when we come to deal with the position of the great new Palace of the League of Nations, which is being erected at the present time. About two-thirds of the construction is now done. This building was originally estimated to cost something like £1,000,000. I am satisfied to-day, from information I got on the spot, that at our present rate of exchange the sum that will be eventually expended on that building will be much nearer £2,000,000 than £1,000,000, even if the higher sum is not exceeded. I believe the cost of what has already been done, at our present rate of exchange, will be well over £1,250,000 sterling, and perhaps £1,500,000 sterling, and there are still certain things to be added. This is a matter on which I offer my opinion. I do not state it as a fact, but I hope to get information here in your Lordships' House.
In the building of this Palace methods have been adopted which certainly seem to us strange. To build this Palace there are no fewer than five Committees now sitting on the top of each other. Geneva is a great place for Committees. I believe there is no place where there are so many Committees, and no place where there are so many people anxious to sit upon them—quite different from here, where everybody wants to avoid them who can. Whether that is because of an over-leisured population I do not pretend to offer an opinion. But in the construction of this building there are no fewer than five Committees. First there is the all-important Committee of Architects, and then, after the architects, there is an Experts' Committee; and then, to look after these Committees, you have a Comité des Bâtiments. What that has to do with the two others I do not know. But on the top of these you have a Committee of Control. Very obviously if you have three Committees below you will want a Committee of Control above. And beyond that you have the Council above all.
I am informed—it is hearsay, I admit—that certain decisions arrived at by one

565
are turned down by another, and the story is told in Geneva—whether true or not I cannot say—that at one time when it was proposed to abandon a portion of the scheme one of the people foremost in opposing that proposal was the representative of a nation which has never paid a farthing for anything. I do not vouch for it, but at all events it was the representative of an Eastern Power which led the decision to spend this large sum.
I want to turn to a single one of these Committees, the all-important Committee of Architects. You would have thought that, as we subscribe such a very large sum, we should have had some say in that. Not a bit. There is not a representative of Great Britain on it. There are five members of that Committee, two of whom are French. When I ask my third question—How many of the contracts have been given to British firms? —I only refer to the single big contract. It so happens that the whole of the building, from roof to cellar—all the outside structure—is being done in a single contract. And I am informed—I shall be very glad to be corrected if I am wrong—that there is not one single penny of British money in this international building company which has done it. I am also told that the money to a very large extent follows exactly the representation on that Committee, and that the French, who have the largest. representation, have also got the majority of the shares in that building company. I have dealt, like most of your Lordships, at some time or other with that admirable nation, and we know when we are selling them goods that they are uncommonly good business men. There is no doubt in my mind why it is that the work follows the representation.
I have still one further point to make about this Committee of Architects. Not only are the members of this all-powerful Committee drawing their usual fees, but I understand—the noble Viscount will no doubt tell me if I am wrong—that they get a maintenance allowance as well. I, like many of your Lordships, have had the misfortune to deal with architects, and I candidly confess that I have never heard of a maintenance allowance in addition to the ordinary fee for the contract. I would like to ask the noble Viscount whether it is a fact that that maintenance allowance is paid, how much is paid per annum, and what is the scale
566
of fees which come into this big total. I have put the word "contracts" in my Question because I dare say there are minor contracts, though my Question really refers to the big contract made for the actual construction of the building. That there are other contracts to follow for the interior work I believe is certain. I should like to know whether any of these have been definitely issued and whether any of them have yet come into British hands. I also ask which are the nations to receive the principal contracts, or rather which are the nations interested in this big international construction company in which the British have no part?
With regard to my other Question, may I say at once that I do not wish to make any attack on a single individual who is out there. But I do wish to say that we have got into a position which is not fair, considering the amount of money that we as a nation put up. I hope the noble Viscount will tell us whether the total share of the cost that we have to pay is 30 per cent. or whether it is more or less. But I will take that as a basis. Seeing that we are contributing something approaching 30 per cent. of the expenditure, is it not right that we should have at all events a reasonable share in the allotment of the work? I sincerely trust that the noble Viscount in his reply will not take the line of argument which I am told by contractors has been taken by those concerned at Geneva: that is to say, that we are people who stand for British fairness and that we do not want to get hold of contracts for ourselves or any such matters. I hope that line will not be taken because, great as is my respect for the Civil Service, I think that many civil servants have not yet realised that there is a war on the economic front, and they are still working on the same lines as when we were a rich nation, which, alas, we are no longer.
It is most important that definite instructions should be given that our civil servants have to work for their country, perhaps not on the big lines which were in vogue before but so as to get work for our people in a country in connection with things for which we have to pay. Civil servants sometimes remind me of the story of the people who sat above an ice rink looking down on the turmoil going on below them, without any

567
interest except that it gave them a larger view of the sky above. In many cases I think our civil servants have not come down to the hard fact that we can no longer spend the enormous sums that We, used to spend and that it is essential that they should see that the economic interests of the country are looked after in the future. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, as none of your Lordships wishes to contribute to this discussion—though I should have been very glad if one of your Lordships who knows a great deal more about the League of Nations than I can claim had been able to say something—it falls to my lot to do my best to answer my noble friend and the five Questions he has placed on the Paper. He added a sixth in regard to which I have more difficulty because it was a matter of which I have had no sort of notice and about which I have not got quite the necessary detail. The first Question he has on the Paper is as to the proportion of the moneys actually paid into the funds of the League of Nations which is found by Greater Britain, including the Dominions. I am informed that the answer to that Question is that the total amount is just over 20 per cent., just over one-fifth. Your Lordships are probably aware that the contributions to the League vary in accordance with its annual budget and are calculated on the basis of units. There are so many units which have to contribute and the total budget passed by the League of Nations is divided among the units so that each unit represents so many pounds. Then the units payable by each country are ascertained under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, Article VI I think it is, according to the proportion of contributions which the various countries make to the International Bureau of the Postal Union. On that basis His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are rated at 105 units, Canada at 35, Australia at 27, South Africa at 15, the Irish Free State at 10, and New Zealand at 10. At any rate, I am informed that the sum total is just over 20 per cent.
LORD LOVAT: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount, but what I ask is what is the actual amount paid. A great many people do not pay.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I noticed that when the noble Lord was speaking he
568
emphasised the words "actually paid," and I asked those instructing me whether the calculation had been made on the actual payments or only on the nominal liability, and I was informed that it was based on the actual payments made. The noble Lord will understand that in all these matters I am speaking merely on what I am informed. It is not my Department, and I am only able to give the information which has been very carefully prepared, and that it is accurate I have no reason to doubt. The second Question relates to the estimated cost of the Palace of the Nations now being erected at Geneva. I am told that the facts with regard to that are that the Assembly of the League of Nations voted in 1930, that is eighteen months ago, a sum of 23,633,150 Swiss francs for the whole of the building excepting the library. The library is the very generous gift of Mr. Rockefeller and, therefore, requires no financial provision. At the last Assembly, in 1931, it was intimated that this figure would very likely be exceeded and a report has now been submitted to the Council suggesting a revised estimate of 25,577,150 Swiss francs, which is over £1,000,000 sterling calculated at the parity of exchange. I understand that on January 29 last the Council decided that building operations should be continued on the basis of that estimate; so that apparently the latest figure which we can give as the official estimate of the cost is 25½ millions of Swiss francs.
The third Question which the noble Lord submitted is as to how many contracts for the erection or equipment of that Palace have been given to firms of British origin. My noble friend explained to your Lordships that he knew quite well that there was only one substantial contract which had been let so far. In fact, I think there were two very minor contracts, one for preliminary drainage and the other for some preliminary excavation, which were let to local Swiss firms. The one big contract which has been let for some 12 million francs for the main skeleton of the work has not been let to a British firm. I do not think it can fairly be said that that is the fault of the League of Nations or of any British civil servant. The contract has in fact been let to a syndicate of five associated firms. One of those

569
firms is French, one is Italian and three are Swiss. Therefore, the French have not been quite so fortunate as my noble (friend had reason to believe. They have apparently one of the five.
What happened was that as long ago as 1930 the League of Nations announced that there would be contracts of this character to be let. Thereupon the Foreign Office, to whom that information was sent, communicated with the Department of Overseas Trade in this country. That Department then took very great pains to see that everybody in this country should have a full opportunity of tendering for the work. There were notices published in all the trade papers. There was a good deal of publicity given in the public Press. Circulars were sent to some 398 firms I think it was—anyhow to a large number of firms who were likely to be interested, and every possible opportunity was used to make sure that any one likely to be interested should have full opportunity of tendering. That preliminary notice invited those firms who were interested to register their names at Geneva so that they might be given an opportunity to tender. There were three British firms which so registered their names. All three of them were invited to tender. Two of them on receipt of the invitation declined to put in a, tender, and the third said that it was unable to tender on the terms asked for—that is to say, quoting a price—but expressed its willingness to carry out the work on some basis of cost and percentage, which was not in accordance with the terms of the tender. In those, circumstances your Lordships will see it was not altogether surprising that the contract went to some other group of persons and not to a British firm.
I ought to say at the same time that the Department of Overseas Trade took those steps to make the opportunity as widely known as possible. His Majesty's Consuls have already instructions to do all they can to see that every possible assistance is given to any British firm who might be interested. There are a number of minor contracts which, so far as our information. goes, have not yet been let. With regard to at least one of them—a somewhat important one—I believe that a British firm has put in a tender, and that matter is now under consideration. I cannot say, of course, whether that tender will be successful,
570
but I hope as heartily as the noble Lord that the British firm may succeed in obtaining the contract.
My noble friend went on, while he was discussing that question, to refer to the fact that there were four Committees besides the Council, and he said there were no British representatives on the Architects' Committee. I believe that is true. There is not a British representative on the Architects' Committee, but there is a British representative on one of the other Committees. I was told he was on the Building or the Experts' Committee. I am not sure if it is the Building or the Experts, but it is one of the two. That is Mr. Markham, who, I have no doubt, sees to it that fairplay at any rate is given to our own people. I was asked as to whether it is true that the Committee get maintenance allowance, and what are their fees. That, if my noble friend will forgive me for saying so, is not in his Question, and could not very well be guessed at out of his Question. I have made some inquiries, and those who are here inform me that they believe maintenance allowances are paid, but I am afraid they have not the information as to what the scale of allowance is. I understand that it is the practice of the League of Nations to give maintenance allowances, and that is probably done in the case of these Committees. I cannot be more definite than that for the reason that I had no notice of the Question.
My noble friend asks what nations have received the principal contracts. The answer, I think, is already dealt with in what I have said. There is only one principal contract, that of 12,000,000 francs. That has been given to a syndicate which is divided in the proportions which I have named. The subscriptions of the three countries, France, Italy and Switzerland, the three countries whose nationals are included in the syndicate, are: —2,600,029 gold francs in the case of France, 1,970,251 gold francs in the case of Italy, and 515,500 gold francs in the case of Switzerland. I ignore the centimes in each case.
My noble friend finally asks me what action has been taken by the Department of Overseas Trade or the Empire Marketing Board or other paid British officials to further the interest of firms from Greater Britain in this connection. I

571
think I have almost answered that question in what I have already said, that the moment the information was received every effort was made to give it the widest possible publicity in this country not only by a general notice but by a specific notice addressed to firms likely to be interested. That was done at end of 1930, and in November, 1931, when it was found that apparently not much response had been received to the invitation, there was again a similar series of circulars and trade notices in the trade and other papers in order to make quite sure that every one knew what chances there were going in case they were inclined to compete. So far as I have been able to ascertain there has been no slackness at all either in the Departments at home or in the efforts of the civil servants abroad. My noble friend pictured them rather as sitting remote from human affairs in imperial ease at the top of Olympus watching, without much interest, the struggle of us mere mortals below. I do not think that that is really an accurate picture. According to the information which is given me it is only fair, I think, to say that we have not received complaints of any slackness in safeguarding British interests.
No doubt it is true, as my noble friend said, that the proportion of the expense of the League of Nations which is borne by Greater Britain—by this country and the Dominions—is a very large proportion of the total, but he, I am sure, would be the first to agree with me in saying we must not measure the value of our contribution by the number of contracts which we may receive from the League of Nations. I think it would be a great pity if there was any attempt to compete for orders among the different nations merely on the basis of how much money each might happen to pay. Obviously consideration must be given to the greater economy which is provided by one tender rather than another, and I think there would be a legitimate outcry if British firms, for instance, were to get contracts which they had tendered for at very high prices in competition with other countries who tendered at lower prices, merely because Great Britain made a considerable contribution to the funds of the League of Nations. It is for other reasons we have joined the League of Nations and, as my
572
noble friend quite fairly said, we are not now discussing the utility of that League or the services which it renders to us and to humanity in general. I am obliged to my noble friend for having so concisely and so plainly stated what are the matters on which he sought information. I hope the answer I have given him fulfils his desire to be informed of the facts, as to which I am bound to say I think before this evening he knew a great deal more than I did.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, my noble friend who has just sat down was good enough to make an allusion which I fancy referred to myself, suggesting I ought to have taken part in the debate. The reason I did not rise before him was that I felt quite certain the information he would be able to give to your Lordships' House, would be much more complete and much more authoritative than any I could pretend to. As he has been good enough to refer to me, may I thank him personally for the statement he has made, and may I just add one or two little details—they are very unimportant—to what he has said. In the first place, I think the reason probably why the contracts went to the French and Italian and Swiss firms was merely geographical. The site of this building is in Switzerland: it is very close to the French border; and it is not very far from the Italian border. Very naturally, therefore, the firms from those countries would have a geographical advantage over other firms in other countries, and I think that was probably the reason why they were able to put in a tender which secured the contract.
There is almost only one other matter that I wanted to mention. My noble friend Lord Lovat said there were five Committees. In a sense that is quite true. The Council of the League, of course, and, he might have added, the Assembly of the League, have a general control over the whole of the proceedings in the League and in that sense control over these things. On that Council, in fact, sit—a fact which he did not mention—two British members. There is the Commission of Control. That also is a Commission which controls all the expenses of the League, the object of it being to see that the expenses are properly allotted and properly incurred. It consists, if I remember rightly, of five

573
or six experts, one of whom is a British subject, and I think its duties are generally admitted to have been performed with a very close attention to securing the best possible results from the expenditure. Those experts are the substitute for Treasury control in the League expenditure. Then he is quite right in saying that there is a Committee created to look after, so to speak, the interests of the League as opposed to the interests of the architects. That Committee is in effect the owner—the owner who has to watch what the architects are doing. I think I am right in saying that over that Committee presides a member of the Secretariat who happens to be a British subject. I believe I am right also in saying that there is another British member of that Committee.
Then we come to the Experts' Committee. I will tell my noble friend exactly what the Experts' Committee is. When it was decided—and I think if my noble friend is familiar with Geneva he will agree that it was rightly decided—that if the League was to go on it must have suitable buildings and could not continue being housed partly in an old hotel and partly in a hall in a relatively distant part of Geneva but must have buildings of its own—when that was decided, now several years ago, then the first thing to do was to ask for a competition of designs. A number of designs were sent in and they were submitted, I believe, to this Experts' Committee over which a British subject presided. I do not remember whether there were any British designs, but if there were they did not in fact secure any approval. There were several designs, five of them, which were thought to have some merit, and then, I think personally, a very great mistake was made.
Instead of selecting one of the five designs and having one architect, they induced the five architects to make an amalgamation of the designs and had five architects. It was a very bad plan and I do not think that anyone really considers it a good plan. It was not more expensive, because the one fee remained—I think it was the ordinary 5 per cent.—but it was divided among five architects. That, to my mind, was a very bad plan because it did not secure, as it ought to have secured, the close attention of one man. I am sure it would have been
574
better to have had one man. That decision, however, was made by the Committee of Experts presided over by a British subject very well known to my noble friend. It was not I. That is really what happened. It is not the least true, therefore, to say that there was anything like exclusion of British advice on this matter. I think we had a full and fair share of control over the matter, and I have no doubt that a building will ultimately be provided which will be worthy of its objects.
I will only add one other thing. My noble friend, I am quite sure, is not in any way desirous of joining in the attacks which have recently been made on the League of Nations, with the object apparently of destroying that institution, but he has adopted some of the arguments which I have seen mentioned in the quarters from which those attacks have come. I confess that I regret those attacks. I think it an immense pity that they should be made. If they were designed to lay the foundations for an alternative scheme for establishing peace I should not only not regret them but I should welcome them. But there is no alternative scheme put forward, nothing except a return apparently to the system which for centuries has proved unsuccessful in keeping the peace of the world. I hope my noble friend will not resent it if I say that I am sorry to see him in such company as that. That is all I desire to say, and I trust that my noble friend will feel satisfied, as I do, with the answer given by my noble and learned friend Viscount. Hailsham.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, may I ask my noble and learned friend one question? In spite of his very clear statement I am not quite certain upon one point. As I understand, there is an international society which has secured the contract which we have been discussing. What I am not quite clear about is whether the noble and learned Viscount said the French had a participation of £2,500,000.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: No, no.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am sorry I did not make the matter quite clear, but I do not think it was altogether my fault but rather the fault of the question. There were one French, one

575
Italian, and three Swiss firms concerned, but the figures I gave had no relation to the proportion in which each country or each firm was interested in the contract. I have no knowledge as to that. The figures I gave related to the amount of the contribution of each of the three nations to the funds of the League during the year 1931. That was the question which was addressed to me.
LORD LLOYD: Is my noble and learned friend able to tell us what the participation of the various sections is?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not know whether the figures exist, but I was not asked about that and I have not got the information here.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, in asking leave to withdraw my Motion I would like to thank the noble Viscount for the courteous answer he has given. I think, however, I must point out to the noble Viscount with reference to the figure of £2,000,000 which the building is likely to cost that if he takes the figure of 25,000,000 odd francs and works out the
576
rate of exchange he will find my estimate was not so far wrong. On another matter I would like to point out to the noble Lord that the President of the Construction Committee is not a British subject but an Italian. I think, my Lords, that at the present time it is really incumbent upon our civil servants to watch most closely over expenditure, especially when we see that at certain times assistance is not given, and see also that, when it is a question of the paid staff, organisations abroad get more than their fair share. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PREVEN TION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL. [H.L.]
Presented, read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at five o'clock.