Lords Sitting of 15 December 1936

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The EARL OF ONSLOW on the Woolsack.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND GOVERNMENT OF BURMA ORDERS.
MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, I have to convey to the House the following Message from the King:
"I have received your Addresses, praying that the Government of India (Federal Court) Order, 1936, the Government of India (Audit and Accounts) Order, 1936, the Government of India (Governors' Allowances and Privileges) Order, 1936, the Government of India (Federal Legislature Amendment) Order, 1936, the Government of India (Defence Appointments) Order, 1936, the Government of Burma (Governor's Salary, Allowances and Privileges) Order, 1936, the Government of Burma (Legislature) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order, 1936, the Government of Burma (Defence Appointments) Order, 1936, the Government of India (Commencement and Transitory Provisions) (No. 2) Order, 1936, the Government of India (Family Pension Funds) Order, 1936, the Government of India (Provincial Legislatures) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order, 1936, and the Government of Burma (Audit and Accounts) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the respective drafts laid before your Lordships' House, but subject, in the case of the Family Pension Funds Order, the Provincial Legislatures (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order, and the Burma (Audit and Accounts) Order, to the Amendments approved by your Lordships' House. I will comply with your request."

INSTRUCTIONS TO GOVERNORS OF INDIAN PROVINCES AND THE GOVERNOR OF BURMA.
MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, I have to convey to the House a further Message from the King:
"I have received your Addresses, praying Me to issue Instructions to Governors of Governors' Provinces in India and to the Governor of Burma in the form of the respective drafts laid before your Lordships' House. I will comply with your request."

DEFENCE: ROYAL AIR FORCE RE-EQUIPMENT.
LORD SEMPILL LORD SEMPILL rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the statement recently made by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence that he is not satisfied with the output of airframes for the Royal Air Force re-equipment programme, this House may be assured that all the resources of the aircraft industry in this country are being fully utilised; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I make no apology for returning to a subject which I outlined in my previous remarks in your Lordships' House in October last. Indeed, the recent statement made by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence in another place makes imperative your Lordships' consideration of the progress of aircraft production for the Royal Air Force re-equipment and expansion programme. The matter gives rise to great anxiety to those who, like myself, have had some fairly considerable and lengthy experience of aircraft matters in all its branches. In common with other members of your Lordships' House I have a somewhat intimate knowledge of the subject and this knowledge makes us realise very definitely the need for offering constructive criticisms and suggestions in anything that we might say relative to this matter. I hope, therefore, your Lordships will bear with me, and agree that others of us who are concerned with aviation may be able to offer helpful suggestions to the noble Viscount the Minister for Air in the tremendous task which faces him.
If there were any doubt in your Lordships' minds of the necessity of inquiring into the present position it may be

975
briefly justified by referring to the Government programme initiated in May of 1935, when it was promised that seventy-one new squadrons would be formed by March, 1937. It is now December, 1936, and but thirty of these new units have as yet materialised, although since 1935 the urgency of the situation has vastly increased. I should therefore like to ask your Lordships to bear with me for a few minutes whilst I outline the existing position of the aircraft industry, an industry which, unfortunately, is divided within itself. Like any house in such circumstances it cannot stand as a permanent and satisfactory structure unless the cause of this division is removed and real unity and single-mindedness of purpose are established. It will be the desire of your Lordships and of every responsible person that the aircraft industry should, whilst serving the urgent purpose of the present expansion programme for the re-equipment of the Royal Air Force, at the end of this period be in such a position that it can continue to uphold worthily British prestige in the markets of the world. There can be no two opinions as to the desirability, nay, the imperative necessity, of our having an aircraft industry which is in a position to bring to this country a growing volume of trade which will enable us to keep our place as the foremost producer of both civil and military aircraft.
In his various speeches in your Lordships' House on this subject the noble Viscount the Minister for Air has referred to the "aircraft industry," and your Lordships would naturally have had the impression that the entire aircraft and aircraft equipment manufacturing facilities of the country are referred to. As I pointed out in your Lordships' House a few weeks ago, this is in fact not so, as the Air Ministry policy followed without deviation since 1920, divides the aircraft producing facilities into two distinct categories—that of the approved and that of the unapproved firms. The approved firms, selected, as your Lordships may remember, as far back as 1920, were originally limited to four aircraft engine manufacturing firms and eighteen airframe manufacturers. Since then, by retirements, amalgamations and mergers, these approved firms have been reduced to twelve aeroplane manufacturing
976
organisations, the four aircraft engine manufacturers remaining.
Since 1920 many new firms within the category of aircraft engine and airframe constructors have been created, but all of these are classed, as your Lordships will be aware, as unapproved, and there is no case on record for the past sixteen years of one of these unapproved organisations being promoted to the approved category, although quite recently an approved airframe manufacturing firm became an approved aircraft engine firm. The unapproved firms, some sixteen in number, represent a capital outlay of approximately £5,000,000, and I would like to emphasise to your Lordships that it is prudent and in the interests of economy that the whole capacity of these firms should be fully utilised in the national interest prior to the setting up of any fresh organisations financed from Government funds. The situation is such that the approved companies have an agreement with the Air Ministry that all invitations to tender and orders for new designs and productions shall be confined to them.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (VISCOUNT SWINTON): My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but I feel that I must intervene at once. That is not so. It is perfectly open and always has been open during the whole period of time for the Air Ministry to place contracts wherever it pleases. What is more—this is no new invention of my own, but has been the case for many years—whenever the Air Ministry has placed a contract with an aircraft firm it has always been a term in that contract that the Air Ministry could use the designs of that firm and get the engine or machine made by any other firm. I am sure the noble Lord would not wish to mislead your Lordships' House.
LORD SEMPILL: I thank the noble Viscount for his remarks. There appears to have been some doubt on the part of the Air Ministry as to the policy of restriction of design, for towards the latter part of last year the non-combine firms were asked to tender for the design of a high speed military machine, and the tendering firms were particularly encouraged to submit designs of a radical kind. This break with tradition was quietly abandoned without any explanation after many firms had spent a considerable sum of money for which they

977
have received so far no recognition or recompense. With the historical background which I have briefly explained to your Lordships an industry has been created, as I have previously mentioned, which is divided against itself. There are, in fact, within the aircraft industry two distinct parties—the approved firms, who naturally seek to maintain their position, and the unapproved companies who are fighting to be included. It is common knowledge in the aviation world that at the present time very strong representations are being made, by the representatives of unapproved firms to the approved companies, that steps should be taken to do away with privilege and to co-ordinate the industry as a whole.
It is interesting to record that a similar ring situation in aircraft manufacturing circles existed at one time in America and Germany, but the air authorities in those countries, unlike our own authorities here, saw that stagnation in design had resulted from this ring system of approved firms and decided to open the door to the Fresh air of competition. In consequence, new firms are now on the approved list of the Governments in question and are competing with the older firms. This has probably helped the recent great advancement in aeronautics in the countries in question and is ore explanation of the favourable position in which the constructors of civil aircraft in the United States in particular find themselves in the world market, at this moment. The motives which actuated the two countries mentioned were perhaps different, but in the case of the United States the change of policy was undoubtedly dictated by financial considerations, as it was found that the previous state of monopoly made for higher expenditure. But, what is at present a matter ox the greatest moment is the profound influence that their civil designs have had upon the character of our most advanced military types. I shall have to dwell on this point as later in my remarks its full significance will become evident to your Lordships.
Your Lordships will appreciate it cannot be left to an industry to adopt a policy which reflects far-sighted statesmanship, if a strong body within itself is not seeking to promote at all times those things that are best for the industry as a whole, but which is perforce weighing all matters in the loaded scales of
978
its own immediate interest with its judgment biased by sectional prerogatives. It is from the products of the unapproved firms in particular that the present supplies and the future designs of civil aircraft will be largely drawn. In a time of national emergency these organisations should be given an opportunity to share in the expansion which has been decided upon. In explaining the shadow scheme, the noble Viscount, the Secretary of State for Air, omitted to visualise the effect on these firms, or to explain to your Lordships the logical result of their being left out in the cold. Entirely on their own initiative and at their own expense the organisations in question have built up technical and production facilities which make them entirely suitable to be entrusted with a share in the re-equipment programme. These organisations are, for the most part, managed and staffed by those who have left the service of the approved firms because they felt their opportunities cramped and confined. The splendid work they have done already increases the admirable potentialities they possess. If they are not now allowed to participate in the fullest measure, the inevitable result will be to transfer all their skilled designers and mechanics to the shadow firms. That, in fact, is already taking place to some extent, and it means their loss to the creative side of the industry. Further, it will lead to the setting back of our position as suppliers of civil aircraft, and not least, when the shadow factories at present visualised are no longer required, this expert personnel will find itself without employment and without the hope of being re-absorbed in the aircraft industry which will, as the result of the Air Ministry's present policy, be reduced to a skeleton organisation so far as the civil side is concerned.
When explaining the, shadow scheme the noble Viscount informed your Lordships in the White Paper that he had called the well-known automobile manufacturers into consultation with him, but he has said nothing about calling the aircraft industry as a whole into consultation. Although it is my intention to confine myself to constructive remarks, I am sure your Lordships will allow me to utter a word of suggestive criticism on the course taken in this

979
emergency. When there is such a huge demand for aircraft production, unequalled in modern times, surely the reasonable and immediate step for the Air Ministry to take would be to go to the whole aircraft industry and say to them: "Gentlemen, we need during the next few years a production of aircraft which will tax you beyond your present capacity. We want you to co-ordinate the whole of your industry in such a way that every available source of supply or asset you have may be applied to the immediate purpose in view." Air Ministry failure to have done this lays a very heavy responsibility on the noble Viscount, the Secretary of State for Air, particularly as he has in fact decided to create a shadow industry outside the realm of the aircraft manufacturing organisation.
I want to assure your Lordships that I support the principle of the shadow industry in its right place, but the support of a high principle does not mean that we must of necessity accept the mistaken application of this principle. In criticising the action of the Air Ministry I do so only with the desire to put forward an alternative constructive scheme which it is not yet too late for the noble Viscount to put into effective operation. The noble Viscount may have had it in his mind that had he pursued such a course he would have got into an embarrassing situation at the end of the expansion programme, by having encouraged the aircraft industry to make great extensions in factory plant and machinery only to find, at the finish of that period, that the industry was burdened by a o millstone round its neck of extensions for which there was no future use, except in the melancholy event of war. With this in view he too readily jumped to the conclusion that he could cut out any possible embarrassment in this direction by the creation of the shadow industry.
I believe, however, that your Lordships will agree that a suggestion which I am about to make—made as it is as a compromise to the existing status of the sections comprising the aircraft industry and one which would perhaps be welcomed in that respect by the authorities concerned—is worthy of the close consideration of the noble Viscount, and it is put forward with a view to assisting him in the quandary with which he is faced. I submit, my Lords, that a sound and constructive
980
policy would be for the Air Ministry to bring the representatives of the whole of the existing aircraft industry together to invite their co-operation and to define their requirements broadly on the following lines. The firms on the present approved list and those who are now in the unapproved category are invited to co-operate fully for the purpose of assuring the Air Ministry of a given supply of aircraft and aircraft engines. In order to achieve the intended production the constructing firms will be required to make addition as necessary to their factory plant and equipment, the cost of which will be borne by the Government. The purchase price or rentals of these extensions and the cost of upkeep when not in use will be agreed and guaranteed by the Air Ministry so that at any future time they can, if they so desire, buy or rent the factories from the Government after the present emergency has passed. If at that time they have no wish to do so they can at least be assured against loss by the action of the Government, who will have guaranteed the agreed payment for care and maintenance. The approved and unapproved firms will have the same opportunity of participating in the re-equipment programme to the extent of their present resources and capacity for expansion, but those firms mainly engaged on civil work will be expected to keep their existing programmes going and expand them.
By this arrangement the whole industry would have been co-ordinated and strengthened, and the Government would have ensured that the best use was made of every bit of available experience in the form of management, design, and technical and skilled personnel. At the end of the present expansion programme the industry would be provided with ample capacity to carry on with what will presumably be regarded as a permanently increased volume of aircraft replacements and progressive re-equipment. The Air Ministry could then decide who in the future should enjoy the limited orders which it would pass out to the industry on what I would hope would be a similar basis to that successfully adopted in the United States of America, to which I have already referred: selection on merit. The other firms would return to concentration upon the civil markets with organisations right up to date, well-equipped, with great potential strength

981
for ample production, but again without the embarrassment of the upkeep of too vast a plant and equipment. They would therefore be in a powerful position to take a lead in the civil aviation markets of the world.
Undoubtedly the development of new designs and technique in this sphere would be invaluable to military progress, and those making substantial contributions in this field should be encouraged to apply their art to military requirements without having to scale the almost impregnable barrier of privilege when that time came. The policy I propose recognises that the essential in any situation of emergency is the existence of organised bodies of trained specialists, experienced in working together and ready and capable of absorbing an increased number of personnel as the pressure rises, without confusion or inefficiency. Had the noble Viscount taken that action at that time he would have saved the country millions of pounds spent in creating, without due preparation, a shadow scheme outside the aircraft industry. What has actually happened is the result of not consulting and co-ordinating the aircraft industry: the Ministry is faced with an industry which is lighting amongst itself for the spoils when it should be working wholeheartedly and with single-mindedness in co-operation to obtain the very best possible results.
I should perhaps state at this juncture that three of the unapproved or non-combine firms have received one order each from the Air Ministry, but this is begging the whole question, as the firms mentioned have ample additional capacity and all their efforts to induce the Air Ministry to utilise it have failed utterly. At the same time it should be stated that the Air Ministry are indebted to certain unapproved firms for the supply of monoplanes for training purposes. The new types of Service aircraft are largely of monoplane design, and the only firms who were able to supply aircraft of similar construction to train the new pilots being recruited while the Service types were being built were the organisations which the Air Ministry had refused to place on their approved list. This country has been lamentably behind other countries in the design of monoplanes, which are
982
now being adopted generally for all purposes, and there was therefore definite reason why these unapproved firms, who had had the foresight to concentrate on this type of design, should be given an opportunity to share in the design and construction of Service aircraft.
We have therefore a substantial part of the aircraft industry, the unapproved firms, with an adequate capital of some £5,000,000 sterling, being thwarted in their efforts to get work from the Air Ministry, except in the cases to which I have just referred, where the necessary training machines could not be obtained elsewhere, while this section of the industry has been struggling to uphold British civil aviation prestige abroad. At a time when it might be expected to share in a programme which would strengthen its position it is being despoiled by the section comprising the approved firms on the one side and by those who have been given the terrific task of organising the shadow scheme on the other. So we see the dismal picture of a Ministry, which could be and should be strengthening the aircraft industry at the present time, by its mistaken action inadvertently disorganising and destroying one section of it. One deplorable result of the lack of support given to that section of the industry which has been chiefly employed in civil work, which has not escaped the attention of the noble Viscount, is the permission which he has recently given to a British-subsidised air line operating from these shores to buy American equipment. Since that decision the Dominion of New Zealand has followed the example of the Home Government and sanctioned the purchase of similar equipment to replace British machines on their air lines.
Again I feel your Lordships will agree that the noble Viscount cannot escape criticism in this matter, as he is as much responsible for civil as for military aviation. In view of his expressed intention to safeguard by every means in his power the interests of the manufacturers of civil aircraft, he should have been looking ahead and placing orders for the right type of aircraft with British firms. As it seems, by our meagre support of British air lines—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Pardon me, may I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment on that argument? Is it suggested that

983
His Majesty's Government should place the orders which are usually placed by civil air lines? Is that really what the noble Lord is suggesting?
LORD SEMPILL: In answer to the noble Viscount's remarks, it is suggested that His Majesty's Government could have facilitated a situation whereby the firms specialising in that matter could have made more progress than they did and have therefore avoided the placing of orders with America. In view of the expressed intention to safeguard the manufacturers of civil aircraft, he should have placed orders along the lines suggested or facilitated the placing of those orders. Your Lordships should appreciate that some of the things that have been said might be construed by the uninformed as being a criticism of the British aircraft industry. This is not so. The British aircraft industry is like all other British industries. When freed from hampering restrictions and unnecessary interference, British industry has always proved itself capable of competing successfully with foreign competitors. While it will succeed with a certain amount of the loading of the dice against it, there is obviously a point beyond which it cannot go. A striking example of this in the aircraft industry is that owing to the archaic system of testing new aircraft, it has admittedly been years before a new type gets into production.
The plain fact is that the elaborate technical and testing departments of the Air Ministry, which were built up to ensure our technical supremacy in aircraft, defeated their own object, in that their main energies were devoted to equipment and not to superiority of performance. Such was their careful and conscientious application to detail that by the time prototype aircraft were fitted with the various accessories and items of equipment to the satisfaction of the specialised departments of the Air Ministry, and the aircraft tested and passed as ready to be put into production for Service use, the design was six or seven years old. A case in point which might be referred to is that of the night bomber produced by one of our oldest firms, designed some years ago, the first production model of which has just been delivered, and of course its performance is hopelessly inadequate to compete with modern machines possessed by other countries. This system has proved a great embarrassment to the
984
noble Viscount and your Lordships must sympathise with him, for not only has it prevented the production of machines until they were obsolescent, but it has tended to foster a lack of initiative amongst the designers of the supplying firms who thus lacked the inspiration of knowing that their efforts would get prompt recognition.
Faced with the urgent need of expanding the Royal Air Force he found himself with the alternative of speeding up production of obsolescent types which under the system in vogue comprised our first-line aircraft, or take the bold and unprecedented action of ordering in quantity from up-to-date designs hurriedly prepared by the designers of our manufacturing firms. To his lasting credit the noble Viscount, when faced with this impossible situation, cut through red tape and threw himself entirely upon certain manufacturers in the aircraft industry for support. As he has stated in public utterances, he has made a virtue of necessity by adopting a procedure which he has rightly described as ordering "from the drawing board.'' One must admire the courage shown by the noble Viscount in coming to this decision, which throws a great onus of responsibility on our aircraft designers and manufacturers, and if this policy succeeds, as we all sincerely hope and trust it will, although it is most disconcerting to have to admit in the case of one of these new machines at least that these anticipations are not being realised, we shall owe a great debt of gratitude to the designers attached to those aircraft firms who have been responsible.
The noble Viscount will undoubtedly endorse my statement that those selected firms did not fail him and that within a very short time they were able to produce an entirely new set of designs for machines in various categories, which will, it is hoped, result in the Royal Air Force attaining a standard comparable with that of other countries. Colour is lent to this possibility by a recent statement made by the noble Viscount that all the countries of the world were coming to him to buy our new machines. Although your Lordships can hardly believe he desired to convey that included among those aspirants were the great Powers of Europe, with the possible exception of Russia, we do know that the predicts of our aircraft industry have

985
always appealed to those smaller countries who have not been in a position to build their own equipment, although of late years we have lost trade in certain directions to other countries.
In the light of policy now decided upon by the Air Minister it is perhaps pertinent to ask what is to be the function of the elaborate, and within its scope admittedly competent, machinery, comprising the scientific and technical research organisation of the Air Ministry. Are the personnel to be loaned to the constructing firms to assist in the inevitable teething troubles to which the new types will be subject as they pass along the band of mass production? The noble Viscount claims that years will be saved by the method which has been adopted; and I have quoted one case which illustrates the truth of this contention. Are we to assume that when the present emergency has passed this time-wasting machinery will be reinstated, or is it the intention to disband an institution which it would now appear can be dispensed with?
I submit, my Lords, that we cannot afford to lose any technical or scientific skill or experience in aircraft matters. Knowledge of aviation has been built up by dint of supreme application; every available source must be conserved and utilised if we are to remain a first-class Power, but it must be rightly directed. If through the competency of our aircraft designers the risky policy of ordering "off the drawing board" is justified in this instance, we cannot make such a practice a normal procedure. Even if the noble Viscount's confidence is proved to be based on sound conjecture, we must not rest on the present programme. New designs both of military and civil aircraft and aircraft engines must be encouraged and a number built and tested out so that we shall never have to take such risks again. There is no finality in aircraft performance and we must always be in a position to build craft of the very latest design in such quantities as may be necessary. There is no doubt whatever of your Lordships' desire to see the rearmament programme of expansion proceed with the utmost dispatch, and there can be no doubt of the wish and intention of the noble Viscount the Minister for Air to speed up the expansion of the Royal Air Force, which is his special responsibility. I
986
have emphasised and dwelt upon one fundamental reason, as I see it, why he has not so far been able to press forward as rapidly as we should have liked.
The noble Viscount has inherited an out-of-date system, useful perhaps in the leisurely times of secured peace and prosperity, but shown to be entirely inadequate to meet the present emergency, and many examples could be instanced to prove what a handicap it is under present circumstances. I will quote but two. In the recent armament debate in your Lordships' House a question was asked as to the Air Ministry's attitude to the use of heavy calibre armament in aircraft, and the noble Viscount has told your Lordships that his advisers are not convinced of the superiority of the use of this type of attack over that with machine guns of smaller calibre. Be that as it may, the Air Ministry, it is understood, have placed a development order with an approved firm of aircraft manufacturers for a cannon engine, a power unit which experience shows will take from three to five years to develop. If this is so, the irony of the situation is that a firm of British unapproved aircraft engine constructors are in the position to offer the Government an up-to-date cannon engine thoroughly tested out at the present moment, and adopted as standard equipment by our gallant allies across the Channel, and used by them in considerable numbers in their latest fighting aircraft. Although the noble Viscount has indicated the Air Ministry policy in regard to this new form of armament, I would emphasise to your Lordships the desirability of not falling behind in its development. It is admitted that the type of cannon engine to which I have referred, the constructing licence of which has been acquired by a British firm, is of foreign origin, but I would point out that its adoption, at least for trial purposes, would not be a precedent in the use of foreign design as, to quote only one instance, the Ministry has adopted a controllable pitch airscrew of American origin which is to be put into production in quantity in a shadow factory to be built for the purpose.
I feel that your Lordships are unaware, and I am compelled to the conclusion that the noble Viscount is unaware, how vitally the sectional differences of prerogative of the firms within the aircraft industry are affecting the task to which he

987
has put his hand. As a result of the policy the Air Minister has embraced, a courageous policy which, I repeat, does him credit, there is a lamentable though perhaps inevitable hiatus during which production is slowed down. The new designs of aircraft which have been decided upon necessitate a vast amount of preliminary drawing office work, and the drawings have not been available to ensure the full concentration on production of the approved firms, particularly in regard to airframes, and the, sorry spectacle is to be observed of certain firms within that category coming to the unapproved firms to ask them to give them work in order to keep on their skilled personnel. The unapproved firms, who might be busier with civil production had they received more support, in fulfilling requirements of British air line operators who are purchasing with Air Ministry approval foreign equipment, are no better placed. Your Lordships will be surprised, when it has been so emphatically stated in this House that there is a dearth of skilled labour, to know that hundreds of skilled men are being paid off weekly by the combine as well as the non-combine aircraft-producing firms.
I desire to state most definitely that I am, as I am sure your Lordships will realise, not merely suggesting the introduction of measures to harmonise the domestic differences of the aircraft industry, but that steps should be taken to eliminate any weakness which is calculated to clog the machine, the efficiency of which is so essential for the purpose in view. It would be absurd to minimise the difficulties the noble Viscount has had to surmount and still has to surmount. Let him therefore first insist on putting the house in order so that all concerned may give of their best in the gigantic task which lies ahead. The noble Viscount has taken a bold line in the right direction in trusting certain experienced designers in the aircraft industry in this emergency, and they have not let him down. In this he has broken the shackles of tradition; let him continue the courageous course and be determined that he will use all the aircraft administrative, managerial, technical and skilled personnel in this country, irrespective of precedent, together with all the specialised manufacturing resources, and their capacity for expansion, of the
988
approved and unapproved firms. The Treasury have already approved financial grants to approved firms for the extension of plant, which, I submit, should be extended to unapproved firms. If this is not enough then bring the shadow scheme into full operation.
The noble Viscount has a momentous rôle to fill. Of all those who are responsible for the defence of this country he, as the Secretary of State for Air, stands closest to the great problem this country has to solve. On the decisions he may make the destiny not only of this country but of the world may depend. The noble Viscount has a great opportunity, nay, an inviolable duty, to ensure that nothing is left undone which will secure the safety and welfare of this country. If he does this, he will deserve and obtain the lasting gratitude of present and future generations. We have a Royal Air Force with splendid personnel, of the utmost efficiency, being rapidly augmented by the cream of our young manhood. I suggest to your Lordships that this magnificent arm of defence should not suffer a shortage of the necessary aircraft and equipment which is seen to be the result of that most un-British policy of relying on a "ring" or combine of one section of the manufacturers concerned. Your Lordships will be under no misapprehension of the urgent need for the pilots of our Air Force to become familiar with new types of high performance machines, and how necessary it is that no stone should be left unturned which will ensure the required equipment being available at the earliest possible moment. May I therefore seek the assurance requested in the Motion I have submitted and trust that if this cannot be given, as I am sure your Lordships will realise that it cannot be given unequivocally, His Majesty's Government will assure your Lordships that steps will be taken to co-ordinate the whole aircraft industry of this country and utilise it to the full extent without further delay? I beg to move.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I have listened with great attention and interest to the speech which the noble Lord has just read; I gather that he was not in his place in your Lordships' House on June 17 last. I wish to take the opportunity to-day, however, of asking the noble Viscount the Secretary of State a

989
question of which I have given him private notice, and which is not alien to the Motion on the Paper. That is, if he can give us some information as to the work, and the progress of the work, which is being done by Sir Hardman Lever's Committee. A reference has been made from time to time to the work of this Committee, and I am sure that your Lordships will agree that the noble Viscount was very wise in availing himself of the advice and the assistance of men of such experience and knowledge as Sir Hardman Lever and his colleagues. As the House and Parliament are adjourning almost at once, I think it would be of some interest both to Parliament and to the country if the Secretary of State could tell us on this occasion what is being done by that Committee.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, before the noble Viscount replies—to which reply I look forward with keen anticipation in view of the very strong statements by the noble Lord on the Cross Benches—may I say a few words on behalf of the Opposition? I want to apologise to the noble Lord for missing the first few minutes of his speech, but I shall have to read the whole of it to-morrow in order really to grasp its full significance. It was so packed with statements and facts and attacks and compliments to the Air Ministry and other details that, unlike the noble Viscount who has just spoken, I did not grasp the whole meaning of it; but I heard enough to make me reluctant to intervene in this pretty quarrel. In speaking from this side of the House I must not be taken as endorsing everything that fell from the noble Lord, if I had managed to appreciate all he was saying. I have known the noble Lord for many years now from the hectic days of 1916 and 1917 and I have always regarded him as knowing this particular subject very intimately indeed. I understand from such information as I have been able to gather, as I ventured to say on the last occasion when we had a full dress debate on defence, that the shadow scheme gives us an enormous potential which can be put into operation at very short notice when the occasion arises.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: We are actually in production.
LORD STRABOLGI: Yes, but the new shadow scheme factories themselves will not be built for some months yet. They
990
are in the process of formation. They will have a sort of trial run, and will be put into part production, but then they will be able to multiply that production to an enormous extent when required. The criticism I ventured to make on the last occasion—not a very serious one—is that it might have been started rather earlier. I think I am right in saying that the shadow scheme, the factories and plant, are being paid for by the State. How is it proposed to amortise the capital expenditure of that great undertaking? That is a matter that more affects another place, but it would be interesting to know what the finance of the scheme is. It seems to me that the problem before us is to obtain an answer to this question: Is there sufficient emergency to-day to justify using every possible means of producing parts of aeroplanes, parts of engines, planes, etc.? Some people say there is, that the situation is very critical and that we ought to be acting with tremendous energy to utilise every possible man and machine and tool and jig that we can lay hands on for aeroplane construction. Or is our rate of actual production now sufficient? I do not know; that is the Government's responsibility.
But I think one is right in asking this: Is there free competition in design? I do not know. I have heard the statements which were made by the noble Lord this afternoon repeated outside, and I know there is a certain amount of criticism, but I have no means of checking its accuracy. That, however, is one question that needs clearing up. Do the Air Ministry allow open and free competition in producing the best possible types of engines and machines for certain particular purposes? And I think also that the noble Viscount might consider answering that question put by the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, which has been repeated several times, twice at least, by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and which is repeated in certain circles continuously: Is it a fact that we are behindhand in large monoplane designs compared with other countries?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I will answer that at once. Certainly not.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am very glad to hear that. That is, at any rate, a very

991
useful intervention that I have drawn from the noble Viscount. On this side of the House—I must repeat this on every possible occasion because I do not think it can be said too often—we are in favour of nationalising the war aircraft industry, and we are in favour not only of nationalising but of internationalising all civil aviation, and if our policy could be adopted we would have none of these difficulties.
Having said that, I want to make a suggestion to the noble Viscount. In the case of the world's Navies, we are given very full information about the exact strength of all the principal Fleets of the, world. We know how many warships there are, of all types, their speed, their armament, their tonnage, the horse power of their engines, and other details of that kind. We have laid on the Table of Parliament every year a most useful Return known as the Dilke Return, which gives all these details of the seven or eight principal naval Powers. I wonder if it would be possible to issue some sort of return of that kind, not giving away secret information, but stating the relative strengths as far as can be ascertained, of the different air Powers. I quite appreciate the plea of public interest and the need for secrecy, but there must be some more information that could be given. Deliberate attempts are being made by certain newspapers to alarm the public as to our alleged weakness in the air and the tremendous strength and lead other Powers have over us, both in numbers and design. I do not know if there is any justification for these alarmist statements or not. I think the Government might consider—I do not want an answer from the noble Viscount to-day—the advisability of issuing some statement once a year, if possible, showing what the relative strengths are. If it is possible to do that in the case of Navies, is it not possible to have more information than we have at present with regard to Air Forces?
I want to say this in defence of the noble Viscount, the Secretary of State for Air, if he will allow me to defend him for a moment, and on behalf of the policy of his Department; and now I address myself directly to the noble Lord, Lord Sempill. If we go "all out" now and manufacture a tremendous number of aeroplanes of various types, and
992
they are not needed, we shall find ourselves later on with a lot of semi-obsolescent machines. In other words, the longer you can hold back from your great production the better. You will thereby have more up-to-date machines. That is always the case with regard to any armaments, whether you are making a mechanised force for land fighting or warships or any type of armament, but it is particularly the case with aircraft, because the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, knows as well as anyone in the House that this is an industry that has developed and is developing with giant strides. The existing machines of to-day will be obsolete or semi-obsolete or obsolescent in twelve or eighteen months' time. The rate of progress of aeronautical engineering is tremendous, and of the Services that are holding back at the present time from building more machines than is absolutely necessary, I suggest that the Air Ministry is the one with that duty most clearly defined.
Just two other points. I must return, if I may, to a question I asked before about the cannon engine. That was the part of the noble Lord's speech with which I found myself most in agreement. I am not very happy about this cannon engine, quite frankly, and I was not altogether satisfied with the noble Viscount's reply on the last occasion. It is quite possible to build to-day armoured aeroplanes with all the vitals armoured, and machine-gun bullets will be practically useless against such machines. I, myself, for many years, even during the War have thought the large calibre gun would have the advantage. The noble Lord, Lord Sempill, knows that certain papers from my pen reached the Air Ministry, when I was on the Admiralty War Staff, urging them to go very much further into the matter of heavy calibre cannon to be carried in flying machines. The French Government have this engine. We can get the designs and the jigs and the drawings right away. If it is a fact, as has been stated in the French newspapers, that they supply these to the Russian Government, we surely can get them too. I do not want the noble Viscount to say anything that is not in the public interest, but I would like an assurance that this matter is being seriously considered.
The other question—it may sound a little cynical but it is not really intended

993
to be cynical—is: Is there an Air Attaché in His Britannic Majesty's Embassy in Madrid? I do not want to go into the rights and wrongs of the unhappy situation in Spain, but there the latest designs in machines are being tried out in actual fighting. I had related to me a conversation by a Frenchman the other day who was saying: "Of course we Frenchmen are against any kind of intervention in Spain. We would not think of anything of that kind, but we are glad to find that our fighters are faster than the Germans." There are lessons to be learned in Spain to-day. We are not intervening in that sense. Cur intervention is more moral intervention in the wrong direction. But we have a unique opportunity of finding out a great deal about the actual performances on service of the air machines of other countries. We on this side of the House will await the reply of the Air Minister with great attention, but, apart from the one or two questions I have put and the two opinions I have expressed, we take no sides in this quarrel.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, let me deal first with one or two points raised by the noble Lord opposite. He Las asked me whether it would be possible to produce a return, year by year, of the strengths of Air Forces in all countries. I dealt with this matter rather fully when I spoke in the big Defence debate in this House. We do, as a matter of fact, give more information about Air matters than probably any other country in the world. The British Government would welcome a very wide disclosure all round of the reality of Air strengths, and I go further and say a disclosure of future programmes. I believe that would be a very, useful thing in a world which is very suspicious, as I said in the last debate, in a world where, if one does not know, one is bound to magnify, and where certainty does give assurance. But, as I said on that occasion, that kind of disclosure would be one-sided. We would welcome any wide measure of disclosure of strengths from the principal Governments of the world, and if at any time we could get that, we would be only too glad to co-operate to the full in such disclosure. But I am sure the noble Lord will realise that it would be quite true to suppose that every country
994
possesses a good deal of information which it cannot disclose. He would not ask for that, nor certainly would he ask me to make disclosures on behalf of this country which might be damaging and unwise if one cannot get similar facts disclosed by other countries. I am entirely at one with him, that if we could get a wide measure of publicity I believe it would be a thoroughly good thing.
I am not going to enter into a technical argument with him on the desirability of the cannon as against the machine gun. If I may say so I do not ever intend, as long as I am Service Minister, to make the mistake of trying to usurp the whole functions of a General Staff in my own person. We must be guided in these matters by the considered views of a General Staff. I can give the noble Lord this assurance, that the last thing in the world the Air Staff of this country are doing is thinking in terms of the past. They are thinking all the time in terms of the future, of what the future aeroplane is going to be like. Whatever decision we may conic to as to the relative merits of this or that kind of armament—and whether that decision in the long run be right or wrong, nothing except the sad arbitrament of war can ultimately settle, and perhaps that will not completely settle, such argument—that decision, I can assure him, will be taken without prejudice as the result of experiment and as the considered judgment of a Staff that is looking always to the future and the possibilities of the future, and not at all relying on experience merely of the past.
The noble Lord asked a question about the shadow scheme, and I will deal with that. I know he is a keen advocate of the shadow scheme, and I think practically everybody in this House is, too, except the noble Lord, Lord Sempill. He asked what steps are being taken to amortise the cost of the Government factories of which he so fully approves. I cannot really answer that. As a matter of fact that is all bound up with the way that the whole armaments programme is paid for. As the noble Lord knows, a large part of that is being paid for out of income. Some of the cost will not be able to be met out of income, and will necessarily be met by borrowing. I think the simple thing to do is to take the whole of the armament programme together. Taking it by and large, and

995
having in view the great contribution which is made out of national income as compared with what has to be met, and will have to be met, in future out of borrowing, the noble Lord may take it that this is not being treated as a borrowed capital charge, but probably is being paid for at a much more rapid rate than even the most liberal principle of amortisation would demand.
I come now to the interesting essay, if I may say so, which was read to the House by the noble Lord who moved this Motion. I always feel it—and I apologise for it—much more difficult to follow a read essay than I do to follow a spoken speech like that made by the noble Lord opposite. That is my misfortune, and therefore I may not have appreciated all the points which the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, read out. So far as I was able to follow it, it seemed to me that the great majority of the questions which he raised had been most exhaustively dealt with in the three days' debate on Defence which took place in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord repeated a certain number of misstatements, if I may say so, which he made on a previous occasion. I ventured, as regards those which I thought it really immediately necessary to correct, to take the rather unusual step of intervening in his reading in order to make plain that certain suggestions he was making were very remote from the truth.
He stated—and indeed he read the statement out again; I am sure it was his mistake, because he had it already written down—that we were precluded from placing contracts with any firms. That is absolutely untrue. I hope the noble Lord will not repeat that statement again. There is no agreement of any sort or kind entered into by the Air Ministry, or so far as I am aware any Service Department of State, which ties that Department up to placing orders with any particular firm. Indeed, if it were so, I should never have launched the great scheme of the shadow factories. Let the noble Lord disabuse himself of that mistake once and for all, and do not let him repeat it again either in this House or outside it. It is perfectly true that a large number of important orders have been placed with a large number of well-established firms. Is that bad business? Is that foolish policy? After all,
996
the noble Lord said to me—and indeed I recognise it without his admonition—that I have got a very responsible job to fulfil. Believe me, my Lords, I realise that to the full. I may fail in it, but it will not be for the want of trying to do my best, and it will not be for want of getting the very best advice I can, inside the Government or outside it, in any industrial part of the great adventure on which I am engaged.
Let the noble Lord really pay some attention to great industrial opinion on what is an industrial question. Let him study the views of men like Lord Weir. I do not shelter myself behind anybody for a second. I take full responsibility for anything I do in my Ministerial career. But let the noble Lord take and consider and compare the suggestions he has made to the House with the considered, impartial opinions of a man like Lord Weir, with his unique industrial experience and his unique experience of the Air Ministry and air needs, the man, indeed, who created the Air Ministry and the Air Force in the War, the man who was responsible, I suppose, during his great tenure of office, for producing every kind of aeroplane that took the field in France. Let the noble Lord consider the considered view given in this House in our recent debates of a man like Lord Hirst, speaking with tremendous industrial experience, speaking, as he told your Lordships, not only from his own personal experience of industry but as the spokesman of perhaps the greatest of al the industrial organisations in this country, the Federation of British Industries, and also, I think, for all the chambers of commerce. He recorded as his considered opinion and their considered opinion that the course of industrial practice which we were pursuing was wise and sound. I do not seek for a moment to be a judge in my own cause, but I do suggest that when you get impartial opinions of men of great experience such as those, they are at least to be weighed in the balance against the homilies which have been addressed to me by the noble Lord.
I shall not weary your Lordships with a very long speech, because I really dealt with so many of these points at great length on a previous occasion. Let me turn to one or two of the things that the no ale Lord suggested. Let me take in the first place something that appears

997
as part of his Question. I am asked to do this by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence because of the words that appear in the noble Lord's Motion. The words are:
"whether, in view of the statement recently made by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence that he is not satisfied with the output of airframes for the Royal Air Force re-equipment programme…"
I am asked to say by the Minister for Coordination of Defence, who cannot be in this House to speak for himself, that he never made any statement to that effect at all. So far as he has made a statement, or I have made a statement, neither of us has ever said that programmes have been up to original forecasts, but so far as he has made a statement he has said that he was reasonably satisfied with the progress which has been made. Do not let us, therefore, frame a Motion by representing a Minister, who is not here to answer for it, as saying something he has not said. I am here to answer, and I answer both for him and for myself when I say that is a misrepresentation of the attitude of the Government.
Let me put in a few sentences really what is the answer to the noble Lord. What we are engaged on is a programme. It is not a case of going to this or that firm and saying: "Could you produce something for me?" As I ventured to say on the last occasion you cannot buy aeroplanes as you buy a box of mixed chocolates. My noble friend Lord Hutchison, with his great experience in the War, knows that there is nothing more hopeless than to try to go into great military preparations with a mass of different types of material. To do that is asking for trouble. My sole job, and the job of all of us, is to get a particular programme carried out in the most effective way. It is a very large programme. It includes a vast number of aeroplanes and a vast number of air engines, but the design of the aeroplane in every case governs the engine. Those aeroplanes which have been selected for the programme are those which in the considered opinion of the Air Ministry are the best type which can be produced within the period of the plan, the best types for their work. We have to take great care, while seeking to get really good types, to reduce the multiplicity of types as much as possible.
998
I am going to speak quite frankly to the noble Lord. He has talked about a lot of firms and suggested that it would be a very good thing if we could buy this or that product. But if those products are not of the least use to the programme I would not say "thank you" for them, and I should be wasting public money if I ordered them. It rather reminds me of the divinity student who, when asked to give a list of the minor prophets, said that here it would be well to give a list of the Kings of Israel and Judah. He did not reach a very high place in the divinity paper. It is no satisfaction to me to be offered bits and pieces which we do not want. It is essential that all who can play a part should come in and be willing to play that part, but not to play a part in producing what they would like to produce: they must produce what is required to meet the national need and produce what the programme of the Services requires. If the noble Lord can tell me of a firm which is prepared to take a sub-contract for a particular type of machine that forms a part of the programme, a firm that is efficient to produce it, and that cannot get a subcontract from the main contractors, I or my director will take up the case to-morrow. Let him give me particulars if he has them, but do not let him, directly or indirectly, try to divert us from the main object of getting this programme through, or ask us to substitute something quite different which would not be of the least value for our purpose.
I was not very clear whether the noble Lord was congratulating me or not upon ordering off the drawing board. On a previous occasion I thought he said it was very unwise. I have no doubt that it was wise and right. We could very easily have ordered machines of an older type, as I said on a previous occasion, and we could have got them in large quantities. That would have been wrong. When we saw the chance of getting production of machines of new type of high performance, although the prototypes had not been proved, we deliberately took the risk. We placed orders for those machines. It is true that that has caused, some delay, but that is being made up. There is not a country in the world that has not had that kind of delay. But observe what happens. A big production order is placed ahead of

999
the proof of design. Material is ordered, the factory is laid out, jigs are provided, and all the work is carried forward to such a point that the moment you have overcome the difficulties which you always get in a new type you can go ahead with production. You do not have to wait years to get the big mass of machines coming forward. You have got a big contract there swinging forward. You may have had a delay of months, but you will have saved years in the case of some of the important machines. What is wanted in air programmes and in other programmes is that firms should do the job that is required of them.
I apologise to your Lordships for repeating so much that I have said before, but exactly the same points have been raised by the noble Lord. If you had control, every one of these firms would be taken over to-morrow and told to do exactly what is required for the programme. I do not believe for a moment that it is beyond the good will and capacity of industry in this country—of which I have seen so many evidences—without control, to get co-ordination so that firms will do what is required of them. When the shadow factories policy was put before your Lordships' House I did not think that any member of the House had any doubt about the wisdom of that policy. The noble Lord has talked about lack of experience. What does he mean by that? I have not asked these firms for designs. The designs are there, the machines are laid out, and what I want now is production, big production. Does he really suggest that certain firms which he has talked about, small firms, have a greater production experience than vast motor manufacturing companies like the Austin, Standard, Daimler, Humber, people who are in this shadow scheme? Could he suggest such a thing? I think that aircraft production as this shadow scheme works out may learn not a little from the great production knowledge of these vast motor firms. I am quite sure that we should have been very foolish not to take this step.
What has been the anxiety which has been expressed? Noble Lords sometimes sit on the Cross Benches who have great experience of strategical needs. Their questions always are: "What are your plans? Are they paper plans or are they real?" Those are pertinent
1000
questions. By the shadow scheme, under which you take great firms which in war would be diverted to war use, give them experience of the kind of production that will be required of them in war and set up the State-owned factories side by side with their own, managed by them with all their experience, are you not doing exactly the thing that our critics have told us, and rightly told us, hat we ought to do: not only to be planning the war potential but also to be making sure that the war potential can be an effective reality if ever the time of danger comes? The shadow theme is the considered policy of His Majesty's Government. I do not apologise for it for a single second, and I tell the noble Lord that there is not the faintest chance that we shall abandon that scheme in favour of any of those which he has put forward to-day.
The noble Lord asked whether we were going to abandon our scientific work at the Air Ministry, and if not, how we were going to use it. Of course we are not going to abandon it. Incidentally, I had the experience, only a week or two ago, of a very difficult manufacturing proposition which had defeated the manufacturers of two countries being solved by a technical member of the Air Ministry staff. It is now going into production in both countries—this and the friendly country of origin. How is the whole of the work done at the great research establishment at Farnborough, where the greatest of the designers come, I was going to say, almost day by day? It is done in the only effective way in which research is applied: it is done, of course, by the day-to-day contact of the technical branches of the Ministry, of those engaged in the technical research which goes on at Farnborough and places like that absolutely all the time, with the manufacturers who are engaged in production. That is the only way in which such a plan can work.
I do not want to say more about the noble Lord's speech and the problem that he has raised, but the Motion he has made and this occasion lead me to make some observations from a national point of view about the formation of new companies. The noble Lord was not for a moment advocating anything of that sort; I am not suggesting that; but I think that certain events have made it desirable

1001
that I should take this opportunity—a convenient one—in your Lordships' House to make a considered statement on the part of the Government on this subject. If a company is launched purely as a speculative enterprise, that is not my concern, except in so far as I share with other Service Departments a natural anxiety that the limited resources of skilled labour should not be unnecessarily dissipated. But when suggestions are made in a prospectus on the lines that the formation of a particular company would put it in a position to undertake Air Ministry work, or words of that sort, then I think have a duty to speak, for such vague phrases might well lead investors to suppose that there was some connection between such a company and the Air Ministry and they would be gravely mistaken in making any such assumption. Where a company is engaged on Air Ministry work, or has been invited to undertake such work, the company is fully justified in stating the facts, and would, I am sure, do so with perfect accuracy and fairness; and great extensions have been made by a number of firms in their factories to enable them to undertake their work under the programme. But a case such as I have referred to, of a new and speculative concern, is wholly different.
I have tried on several occasions, and again to-day, to make the position plain. We are committed to a very large programme. That programme is represented by a great number of aeroplanes and engines of approved types. Our job is to get that programme produced. The direct orders are placed. Both the firms with whom the direct contracts have been placed and their sub-contractors will have plenty of difficulty in securing the necessary labour, particularly of the skilled labour and personnel. They are also making great demands on the machine tool industry, which is being most helpful. The Defence programme must be carried out. We are, however, most anxious that these programmes should be executed with the minimum interference with the regular flow of civil industry. But, after consultation with my colleagues and with their full approval, I feel it my duty to say that the Defence programmes and the work of the great civil industries of this country will not be helped but hindered at this time by
1002
an unnecessary and speculative dissipation of the labour and manufacturing resources of the country.
My noble friend Lord Mersey asked me a specific question about the work of the Hardman Lever Committee, and I am very glad to have the opportunity of making clear the work on which they are engaged. We at the Air Ministry are very deeply indebted to them for much valuable work, and for work which at the outset of our programme was quite invaluable. At the outset I invited Sir Hardman Lever and his colleagues to help me as regards the general principles which should govern our contractual relations with firms, the data which should be afforded by contractors, and the application of those principles in a number of specific cases to the detailed work of our Contracts Department. In regard to the latter class of work I should like to say how much we are indebted to Mr. Reeve, who has very wide experience and who in liaison, with the Lever Committee gave our Department great help.
At that time—and I go back to the time shortly after I took over—the Air Ministry was engaged on an expansion programme in advance of the programmes which have since been authorised for the three Services. The development of these programmes, the programmes of all the Services, has led to the establishment of a Treasury Inter-Services Committee, which is working regularly to ensure co-ordination and common action in the field of Service contracts. That Committee is continuously at work. Of course, individual contracts are and must be the responsibility of the Minister concerned, but in certain special cases of particular importance and novel character, as, for example, the agreements with the firms managing the shadow factories, the terms of those agreements have throughout received the special consideration of the Treasury and of Ministers. These particular agreements have been altogether outside the purview of the Lever Committee. In the light of altered circumstances I considered how I could best utilise the experience of Sir Hardman Lever and his colleagues, and I entirely agree with my noble friend that it is of the greatest value. It appeared to me that there were two functions which they could perform, and perform, indeed, better than anyone else. The first was as advisers on questions of

1003
principle, and the second was as arbitrators in cases where the Air Ministry and a particular firm were unable to agree on the terms of a contract.
The detailed day to day work of a contracts department, the fixing of prices in particular contracts, must be the responsibility of a Minister and his staff. Nor, indeed, would it be possible to ask the same people to act as advisers on the detailed terms of a particular contract, and subsequently to act as arbitrators on that contract in case of dispute. It is the latter position, that of arbitrators, which the Lever Committee will occupy in relation to individual contracts. At the same time I am glad to say that I shall have their valuable advice on questions of principle. I am glad the noble Lord raised this, because it gives me an opportunity of making that position plain, and it gives me also an opportunity of saying, on behalf of myself and of my staff, how much indebted we are to the Committee for their work. Anybody who knows, as some members of your Lordships' House can recollect, the remarkable work which Sir Hardman Lever did at the Ministry of Munitions in the War will, I think, agree that we are fortunate to have the assistance of a man like that. I apologise in one sense for having gone again over the ground which I covered in an earlier debate, but I think it was necessary in the circumstances, and I am glad to have had an opportunity of making certain statements which I think it was really desirable should be made.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I ask before the noble Viscount sits down whether he can answer the question which I put to him, as to the presence or otherwise of a British Air Attaché at Madrid?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: No, we have not got an Air Attaché at the moment in
1004
Madrid, but that does not prevent us from knowing a certain amount about what is happening.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I have listened with very close attention to the remarks which have been made to your Lordships by the noble Viscount, and I should like immediately, if I may do so, to apologise to the Minister for Coordination of Defence through the noble Viscount, for having inadvertently misrepresented the views which he expressed in the House of Commons with regard to the hold-up of air production. I gather from the noble Viscount that he is doing all that is possible to bring about the fullest possible use of all the facilities in this country for aircraft production. I gather that the noble Viscount said in his remarks that he had not been fully able to follow some of the pints that I raised, but I hope he may be able to take the opportunity of doing so upon another occasion. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD SNELL: Can the noble Viscount the Leader of the House say anything about further business?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, it is proposed that the House shall meet at eleven o'clock to-morrow morning, and take some purely formal business. There will be a Royal Commission at half past eleven, after which the House will be adjourned for public business other than judicial business until Tuesday, January 26, or such earlier date as the Lord Chancellor may appoint.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before five o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
THE LORD SPEAKER THE LORD SPEAKER acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
Trade Marks (Amendment) Bill, [H.L.]
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY (POWERS) MEASURE, 1937.
Text of the Measure: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed.
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMITTEE.
Sixty-ninth Report, being the Report by the Ecclesiastical Committee upon the Queen Anne's Bounty (Powers) Measure, 1937: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed.

CLEARING OFFICE (TURKEY) (No. 2) ORDER, 1936.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That they have examined the Special Order as required by the Standing Orders of the House; that in their opinion the provisions of the Order raise important questions of policy and principle which have been accepted already by the House when passing the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1939, under which the Order is submitted for approval; that the Order is founded on precedent inasmuch as similar Orders have been submitted for the approval of Parliament under the Act although these Orders dealt with other countries; that in the opinion of the Committee the, Order cannot be passed by the House without special attention, but that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolution to approve the said Order:
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

PONTYPOOL GAS ORDER, 1936
WATFORD AND ST. ALBANS GAS ORDER, 1936.
HARTLEPOOL GAS ORDER, 1936.
ST. IVES (CORNWALL) GAS ORDER, 1936.
BOGNOR GAS ORDER, 1936.
BURGESS HILL AND ST. JOHN'S COMMON GAS ORDER, 1936.
BATH GAS (No. 2) ORDER, 1936.
SOUTHAMPTON GAS ORDER, 1936.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petitions have been presented praying to be heard against the Special Orders and that there is nothing in these Orders to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House:
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

KIRKBURTON SHELLEY AND SHEPLEY GAS ORDER, 1936.
TAUNTON GAS ORDER, 1936.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Orders; that they have considered additions proposed by the Board of Trade and recommend their adoption by the House; that in the opinion of the Committee there is nothing in these Orders to which they think it is necessary to call the attention of the House:
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

TOTTENHAM AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1936.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That they have examined the Special Order as required by the Standing Orders of the House; that a petition against the Order has been presented by the Hitchin Urban District Council and that having considered the points referred to in subsection (6) of Standing Order No. 212, they are of opinion that there ought to be a further inquiry by a Select Committee:
Read, and agreed to.

INDIA AND BURMA (BURMA MONE- TARY ARRANGEMENTS) ORDER, 1937.
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), for affirmative Resolution and referred to the India and Burma Orders Committee.
FIREARMS BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, with Amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House: Bill to be printed as amended.
CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
First Report from the Joint Committee, being a Report on the Firearms Bill [H.L.] made, and to be printed. The Minutes of Evidence (with the Proceedings of the Joint Committee) laid upon the Table, and to be delivered out.

Preamble
The House met at half past eleven of the clock, The EARL OF ONSLOW on the Woolsack.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
The Lord Faringdon—Affirmed.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, I have a Message from His Majesty the King, signed by the King's own hand:
" I have received with deep satisfaction the loyal Address of the House of Lords upon My Accession to the Throne. The Queen and I thank you for the expression of your devotion. You may be assured that it is My determination to do all that lies within My power to safeguard the liberties of My people and to promote their prosperity and contentment. I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon My Reign. "

INDIA AND BURMA (EXISTING LAWS) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

PUBLIC ORDER BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Marquess of Dufferin and Ava.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Prohibition of uniforms in connection with political objects.
1.—(1) Subject as hereinafter provided, any person who in any public place or at
838
any public meeting wears uniform signifying his association with any political organisation or with the promotion of any political object shall be guilty of an offence:
Provided that if the chief officer of police is satisfied that the wearing of any such uniform as aforesaid on any ceremonial, anniversary, or other special occasion will not be likely to involve risk of public disorder, he may, with the consent of a Secretary of State, by order permit the wearing of such uniform on that occasion either absolutely or subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "meeting "and insert "visibly wears any distinctive dress or insignia signifying his membership of or adherence to any association prohibited under Section two of this Act shall be guilty of an offence. "The noble Lord said: I think it was very generally agreed in the Second Reading debate that whilst the intentions of this Bill were quite clear the definitions contained in it were very far from clear. In particular I do not think the Government themselves dispute that no definition of what is a political uniform is possible. At any rate, if it is possible it is probably not advisable. That is, of course, an understandable position, but it is surely very hard on the subject if he has no means of knowing whether or not he is about to commit an offence or whether or not he has committed an offence. There seems no particular reason why he should be placed in such jeopardy without at least the question having been given the fullest possible consideration.
The suggestion which I venture to put before your Lordships assumes that the person whom Clause 1 intends to hit is the person who belongs to a prohibited or illegal association. The mere wearing of a black shirt or a green boot is not in itself offensive. It is only when the wearing of the black shirt or the green boot signifies that you are a member of an association which is out to usurp the functions of the police or the military that you become an offender. In fact, being deprived of the possibility of defining what is a political uniform, my Amendment attempts to meet that difficulty by suggesting that evidence that you are a member of an illegal association is shown by your wearing the insignia of that association, and therefore you can be prosecuted. I regret that I

839
am no lawyer, and I had hoped that some of the legal members of your Lordships' House might have grappled with this difficulty in a better way, but I submit that my Amendment means all that the Government want and deals more fairly with the citizen. I have yet to learn what objections, if any, there may be to the course which I humbly suggest your Lordships should follow. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, leave out from ("meeting ") to end of line 18 and insert ("visibly wears any distinctive dress or insignia signifying his membership of or adherence to any association prohibited under Section two of this Act shall be guilty of an offence ").—(Lord Phillintore.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Your Lordships will see that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has on the Paper an Amendment to leave out lines 11 to 18—the proviso in subsection (1). In order to save the noble Lord's Amendment I will put the question in this way: that the words from "meeting "to the end of line 10 stand part of the clause.
LORD STRABOLGI: My noble friends rather like the look of this Amendment, and we are not shaken in that by the explanation given by the noble Lord who introduced it. There is, however, some little doubt in my mind. Let me say at once that I would like to bring in the matter of insignia as well as uniform. I remember that at the beginning of the Great War some very pungent articles were written by Mr. H. G. Wells in which he suggested a levy en masse of citizens to act in case of emergency, and he suggested that they should wear brassards so that they might not be treated as regulars and shot accordingly. It is quite conceivable that people with ingenuity might get round the words in the Bill and I hope that the Government can do something to meet the cogent arguments put forward. I should have thought that some words dealing with insignia might come at the end of Clause 2. Otherwise, unless I am mistaken, this Amendment somewhat narrows the Bill. We want to get rid of the parading of political uniforms; we are all agreed there. If I understand the Amendment it would narrow the Bill to this extent, and that in addition you would have to put in something dealing with provocation by the wearing of uniform obnoxious in certain places—red
840
shirts in Park Lane or black shirts in the Mile End Road, and so on. I hope the Government will do something to bring in insignia in such a way as not to narrow the Bill.
LORD WRIGHT: The noble Lord who roved this Amendment rather appealed to any lawyers who might be present in the House to-day. May I therefore say s. few words particularly on one point to which he has drawn attention—namely, I is view that there should be a definition of the word "uniform. "With the greatest respect to those who have suggested that there should be a definition, I venture to express the view that it would be most unwise and indeed disastrous to attempt any definition of that word. The word "uniform "is a perf.3ctly simple word in the English language, a word in common use and a word to be construed according to the understanding of ordinary people. When you see a man in Italy in a complete black c3stume you know that he is wearing a uniform. I have not seen them, but I believe there are to be found in this country, in not inconsiderable numbers, individuals who wear a somewhat similar uniform. Nobody doubts that that is a uniform, and it is that evil which this cause is intended, primarily, to meet and dispose of.
There are two difficulties which may hive to be considered. One is that if the word is not defined it may be possible for people to sail very near the wind and to produce something which they think will not be considered a uniform. That danger would be much accentuated if you had a detailed definition, because that would give so much more warning to the it -disposed individual as to what he should avoid. I do not feel impressed by that difficulty. After a somewhat long and tedious experience of construing Acts of Parliament, I have come to the conclusion that one of the greatest difficulties in draftsmanship is too much elaborati3n, too much definition. Take the case of a stipendiary magistrate, who, so far as my knowledge goes, may be assumed to be a person of judgment and knowledge of the world, and suppose he has brought before him a case in which a man is wearing something which he says is not a uniform but which is very like a uniform: 14 will decide on the facts of that particular case whether or not it is a uniform. If he is wrong in that decision, or

841
if it is questioned, the matter can be taken to the Crown Court and adjudicated on by a Court consisting of the Lord Chief Justice and two Puisnes, or a Court sincerly constituted.
I do not myself believe that when it comes to a practical question there will be any real difficulty about the meaning of the application of this word "uniform. "I am speaking simply from such experience as I have had, and with the greatest respect to any others who have taken a different view, but I am bound to say that this is my settled conclusion on this question of whether any objection can properly be taken to the word "uniform "simpliciter. I do not think that the culprit, if he wears a uniform, or something so like a uniform that a Court holds that it is a uniform, has any ground of complaint. I think it is quite clear enough for the ordinary purposes of criminal law.
The proposed Amendment which the noble Lord has moved would be very inadvisable for two reasons. One is that it would take out of the Bill something which is generally regarded by the country at large, and was so regarded by the House of Commons, as of vital importance. It would narrow the Bill, in the words of the noble Lord who has just spoken, in a most vital sense. The other reason is—and this is more a matter of law--that it would have the effect of throwing a very great burden upon the prosecution. The prosecution could not move a step in their proceedings until they had established. the existence and character of the organisation referred to in. Clause 2; whereas, of course, the whole purpose of Clause 1 is simply to prevent the wearing of political uniforms—a comparatively simple matter. The word "insignia, "it seems to me with submission, would be a very obscure word, infinitely more obscure than "uniform, "and would not, so far as I can follow from the Bill itself, in any way fulfil the purposes of, or add to the advantages provided or sought to be provided by Clause 1.
LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH): After the observations which have fallen from various noble Lords, I think the Committee will excuse me if I do not say what I had originally intended to say but direct such remarks as I can towards clearing up some difficulties which have
842
been raised. I think that my noble friend Lord Strabolgi, and indeed my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls, thought that this Amendment, by referring the question of uniforms to Clause 2, narrowed the Bill very considerably. What I should like to point out is that in the case of the uniform you already have to establish the existence of the organisation, because you have to prove the association of the accused with a political organisation. That requires "organisation. "Now all you have to establish under the second alternative, under paragraph (h) of subsection (1) in Clause 2, is that it should be organised and equipped. If you equip a person with uniform, you have both the conditions. You are possibly in some ways even widening the clause. You have only to have a political uniform and the fact that it is equipped.
You have further, of course, the intention to display physical force, and I was very forcibly reminded, when the suggestion was made just now, of the words of the noble Marquess, Lord Dufferin. He said, when he referred to political uniforms:
" Political uniforms ' may not sound, in words, of a very great importance, but in practice we all know that once you take politics into the realm of uniform you are making politics something more than a matter for civilians. "
That, of course, is the intention. You are taking politics into the realm of physical force in promoting any political object. If my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls objects to the word "insignia," that is a reason, perhaps, why it had better be replaced by some such word as "badge." I do not know whether he would agree to the Amendment with that alteration.
My noble friend the Marquess of Zetland gave us a definition when he said:
" The definition given in standard dictionaries is that the expression uniform ' connotes sonic dress, or at any rate the substantial part of some dress, and that the wearing of a mere emblem such as an ordinary rosette would not be regarded as uniform, and that the dress or part of the dress must be distinctive and peculiar to the persons wearing it."
We should remember that people dressed in ordinary double-breasted grey flannel suits are not distinctively dressed. You could not call that a uniform. But suppose that fifty or a hundred people turn

843
up at a meeting all dressed in similar grey flannels with the addition of a. rosette or any emblem; I think you would there have at once the very mischief that this Bill was intended to avert, and have it in a very aggravated manner. My noble and learned friend who has just sat down has assured us that "uniform" is a common word in the English language. I quite agree, but would he say that it has a common significance in the English language? 1 have looked for the definition given by my noble friend the Marquess of Zetland, and I have been unable to find the dictionary in which his definition occurs. I have been through ten dictionaries and have found nothing in any way resembling it. I found the word "uniform" as an adjective defined as "something similar to itself," and I can only say that there is nothing uniform in the definition of "uniform" given by various lexicographers. There is, of course, one other expression to which I ought to refer: "visibly" wearing. Supposing somebody likes to wear this uniform in circumstances in which it is not a crime; he wears it and then goes off hurriedly to a meeting. If he puts on a greatcoat I venture to submit there is no mischief occurring, and that makes it a little less offensive.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: May I ask the noble Marquess a question? What will be the position if the members of an organisation invariably wear a helmet, which is the most visible of all things, and the most conspicuous? If you get people walking on parade and if they do so with a tin helmet, will it be regarded as equivalent to the wearing of a uniform?
LORD SALTOUN: I suppose the uniform depends upon the reason for which it is worn. Surely a uniform is anything by which any group of men distinguish themselves from the rest of mankind for any purpose whatever. That I imagine to be what the Government wish to suppress when it is used for the purpose of introducing physical force in politics. That, I think, is the real point of the Amendment, because if that is really the meaning of uniform, then anybody who wears a party badge of any kind is guilty of wearing a uniform. That I believe is the case. I believe that the cropped heads of the Roundheads who
844
fought against Charles I were uniforms. The object of the Amendment, so far as I can make out, is to confine the attack upon political uniforms to those which the Government really wish to attack and which the Government believe to be a danger to the reign of law, which I believe to be the greatest political principle which can be supported at any time.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): The Amendment would give effect, if carried, to a suggestion which was made in the course of the Second Reading debate, I think, by Viscount Cecil of Chelwood, a and naturally the Government have given their most careful consideration to it with a view of seeing whether it would or would not interfere with the carrying out of the objects which they have in view in introducing this Bill. They have come to the conclusion that it would seriously interfere with the carrying out of the objects which we have in view. It was quite clear from the speech made by Lord Phillimore, who moved this Amendment, that the view of the Government on this question differs substantially from his view. The noble Lord said that the mere wearing of a uniform, or rather a political uniform, was not offensive. In tie view of the Government the mere wearing of a uniform for political purposes is most undesirable, and it is the unanimous view of the police authorities, who are responsible for maintaining law and order, that the mere wearing of a uniform is in itself provocative, and that once you get one organisation wearing a uniform you very soon get other organisations copying that example and wearing uniforms also.
Why does the noble Lord want to wear a uniform in his politics? Surely politics is this country are purely a civilian matter. We do not want to militarise our politics in this country, as has been done in certain other countries. Surely the example of those countries who have militarised their politics is one which we in this country do not want to follow, and I am beginning to wonder whether Lord Phillimore, under the impeccably respectable outer garments which he wears, may not be found to be we acing a shirt of green, brown or even black. It is very undesirable in our view that uniforms should be worn at all

845
for political purposes. A great deal has been said about the difficulty of deciding what constitutes a uniform; and the noble Marquess asked me whether a large number of people wearing tin helmets would be regarded as wearing a uniform. Under the provisions of the Bill that would be a matter for the Courts themselves to decide. The noble Marquess no doubt has his own view as to what the answer to his own question would be, but since this is a matter to be left to the decision of the Courts I do not myself venture to give a definite answer to his question.
Then, I am not at all sure that the noble Lord who moved this Amendment will realise quite what the effect of it might be. In practice, if the Amendment was carried, it would be almost impossible to proceed against any one wearing a political uniform until a case had been brought against someone for organising a body for the purposes which are prohibited in Clause 2 of the Bill, and it would therefore enormously handicap the authorities in bringing to an end the undesirable practice of wearing political uniforms even when they were used for the purposes prohibited in Clause 2 of the Bill. It will probably be within the knowledge of many of your Lordships that this is a question which has had to be seriously considered in recent times not only in this country but in many other countries, and in such countries as Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland, countries governed more or less on the same sort of constitutional lines as we are in this country, have all found it essential to prohibit absolutely the wearing of political uniforms.
Now may I say one word with regard to the phrasing which the noble Lord proposes to introduce in place of the word "uniform"? He would prefer to use the words "distinctive dress or insignia." In the view of the Government those words are by no means an improvement on the word "uniform." They would make it an offence for any one to wear a badge or an emblem of any kind, and we think that it would be too drastic an action to make the wearing of badges an offence. I hope, therefore, that in view of what I have said the noble Lord will be willing to accept the view of the Government on this matter, and will agree with us that it really is the wearing
846
of a political uniform that we wish to prohibit.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I am rather horrified to find that I have been poaching on what were really the preserves of the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil. The truth of the matter is that some of us thought over this subject for several hours after the debate, and I think it was lost sight of that the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, had made very much the same suggestion that I have made. I regret that I did not leave it to him, because he would undoubtedly have made a much deeper impression on the Front Bench than I am able to make. On the other hand, I do not feel that it is a weakness that I have his support. I would like to get clearly from the Government what is their attitude in this matter. I appealed to the law and I got from the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls the judgment, if I may put it that way, that a magistrate would be able easily enough to say what uniform was. That is not my point. My point is, can the ordinary citizen tell what uniform. is? When he gets to the magistrate he has already suffered the indignity of arrest, and possibly, to my mind, unjustifiable arrest.
I think that the noble Marquess who replied for the Government did not throw much light on this. At one moment he said that I should agree with him—as I do—that we do not want to introduce military dress or military anything else into politics. He made a rather sweeping statement that any sort of dress which distinguished a political organisation was to be deplored. Does he mean in so many words that the Conservative Party voter or the Liberal Party voter or the Socialist Party voter is not to wear his Party dress? I dare say that is not a great loss, but does he mean it? I believe that in some constituencies a Conservative Party voter wears no less than three different badges or articles of dress. Is that uniform or is it not uniform I Can anybody say? On the other hand, when discussing the words suggested by me (to which I do not cling), the words "distinctive dress or insignia," the noble Marquess said that was going too far. Altogether I do not understand whether the person aimed at by Clause 1 is the same person who is included in the association aimed at in Clause 2. If he

847
is—and I have thought up till now that he was that person—it seems to me that his real offensiveness entirely depends on whether he is a member of an organisation which attempts to usurp the functions of the police. Therefore it is from that quarter that you should strike it.
I cordially agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wright, that it is not advisable to define what is uniform. What I am attempting to define is the offence, and the offence is being a member of an organisation which is illegal or which has been stopped or restricted. Being a member of that organisation you wear a dress showing that you are a member of it, and therefore you strike fear into the hearts of peaceful citizens. Surely that is the Government's policy. If it is not, I submit that it is not clear from the Bill what that object is. I think in the circumstances I ought to go to a Division.
LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH): May I ask the noble Marquess this: Where is there any prohibition in the Bill, as it would be amended, requiring that the main bodies should be prosecuted before the wearer of the uniform can be convicted?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I do not quite follow the noble Lord's question. What I said was that if this Amendment were carried it would be practically impossible to proceed against the person wearing a political uniform unless you

CONTENTS.

Halifax, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

Dunedin, V.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Hindlip, L.

Argyll, D.

Ridley, V.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Swinton, V.

Jessel, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Manners, L.

Bath, M.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Milne, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Reading, M.

Aberdare, L.

Portal, L.

Zetland, M.

Addington, L.

Portsea, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Shaftesbury, E. (L. Steward.)

Amulree, L.

Redesdale, L.

Airlie, E.

Arnold, L.

Rennell, L.

Albemarle, E.

Basing, L.

Rhayader, L.

De La Warr, E.

Cautley, L.

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clan william.)

Iddesleigh, E.

Sherborne, L.

Iveagh, E.

Davies, L.

Stanmore, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Elton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Munster, E.

Faringdon, L.

Templemore, L.

Onslow, E.

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

Wigan. L. (E. Crawford.)

Plymouth, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Wright, L.

Gainford, L.

had proceedings against someone under Clause 2.
LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH): Perhaps I did not make myself clear, but I thought the noble Marquess had the Bill before him, and I wondered where that impossibility occurred and, if it does occur, would he explain where it is?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: Under the noble Lord's Amendment it would not be an offence to wear a political uniform unless the person who wore it was a member or an adherent of an organisation prohibited under Clause 2. It is really at that point that what I described as the substantial difference between the noble Lord and the Government exists. The noble Lord asked me again what is the policy of the Government. The policy of the Government is to prohibit the wearing of political uniforms at all. That is the policy of the Government—not only in the case of persons who are banded together with a view to usurping the functions of the police or under paragraph (b) of Clause 2 (1), but to make it an offence to wear a political uniform at all. I quite agree that there is a difference of view between the noble Lord and the Government and that difference, I am afraid, will continue to exist.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 6.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Mansfield, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), L.[Teller.]

Phillimore, L. [Teller.]

Saltoun, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Lawrence, L.

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved to leave out the proviso in subsection (1). The noble Lord said: This Amendment is to leave out words permitting the chief officer of police in certain circumstances to grant the right to wear uniforms. I was very surprised indeed to hear the reiterated and forceful explanations of the noble Marquess, the Secretary of State for India, on the Amendment of Lord Phillimore. He said that it was undesirable that uniforms should be worn at all for political purposes. I was so struck by his words that I wrote them down. In the same forceful and clear phraseology he said that the policy of the Government—I listened with the greatest attention to this statement of the policy of the Government—was to prohibit the wearing of uniforms at all. This new definiteness is most refreshing. I go on to read the rest of the subsection and it says that, provided the chief officer of police is satisfied, he can give permission on any ceremonial, anniversary, or other special occasion.
I should have thought that if there was something provocative and irritating to the ordinary lieges in the wearing of these foreign, alien uniforms, to allow them on certain special and formal occasions would be even more annoying to the general public. What really have the Government in view? Funerals of political adherents in certain countries where there are disorders frequently give rise to the fiercest of street fighting. In France even, and certainly, I believe, in the North of Ireland, such funerals have led to many broken heads. I grant the Government weddings. If people wish to get married in black shirts or red shirts, these are happy occasions, so let them have them so long as they do not drink too much. But imagine on Armistice Day the feelings of ex-Service men and others on seeing parades of these provocative uniforms. After all, what is a ceremonial occasion? Any parade, any procession of men, is ceremonial. The daily parade of a regiment is ceremonial. The mustering of men on the quarter deck of a man-of-war for prayers is ceremonial.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: But not political
LORD STRABOLGI: "Ceremonial" can be in connection with anything. And then apparently permission can be given for these uniforms to be worn subject to the Secretary of State, who may be sympathetic and give a very wide interpretation of the measure. My noble friends are very disturbed about these words which make a very large hole in the Bill and, if I may be allowed to say so, nullify the firm words used by the Secretary of State for India. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, leave out lines 11 to 13.—(Lord Stralolgi.)
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I am afraid we cannot accept this Amendment, and for a very good reason. It has been made abundantly clear that this clause has not been an easy one to draft. It has been very difficult to define the word "uniform," and it has been extremely difficult—in fact impracticable—to give a set list of organisations which should be exempt from its provisions. In view of these facts it has been necessary, as is again abundantly clear, to legislate in the very widest and most general terms. When you legislate in very wide general terms it is highly desirable to have some elasticity in your Bill because otherwise, of course, you have to have an amending Act should it subsequently appear that you have legislated too drastically against, in this ease, organisations which perhaps should not be included under the working of this measure. The noble Lord opposite made great play with the speech of my noble friend behind me about the undesirability of political uniforms, and indeed I fully agree with every word my noble friend said, but the point that we are really aiming at, when we are trying to crush political uniforms, is the disorder they create. It is not so much the uniform we are trying to kill: it is the disorder consequent upon that uniform that we are determined to eradicate from the State.

851
I would call your Lordships' attention to the fact that this exemption is only to be granted by the chief officer of police in consultation with the Secretary of State when he is convinced, knowing his own district, that it will not involve any risk of public disorder, and I suggest to the noble Lord that if he had read those few words which occur in line 14 of page 1 of the Bill he would not have produced those particular arguments in favour of leaving out this proviso. We do not want to deal harshly with an organisation which is not going to provoke public disorder, if any such exist, or may exist in the future, and we think that it is right that we should give this permission through the chief officer of police, should he be convinced in his own mind that no public mischief will result from a procession upon an anniversary or whatever the occasion may be, and after consultation with the Secretary of State, who, after all, remains to be shot at in Parliament should a mistake be made by him in accepting the advice of the chief officer of police. Under those conditions and with those safeguards we think it is right that we should have this elasticity in the clause.
LORD STRABOLGI: I do not want to press this Amendment, but I am still very dissatisfied even after the explanation of the noble Marquess. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, to take note of what the noble Marquess said. He said that the object of the Bill is to prevent disorder. I thought one of the objects was to prevent this example of wearing uniforms from spreading, and thus to prevent any disorder that might be likely to arise if it became the fashion to wear political uniforms. When every political Party begins dressing itself up you are asking for trouble, and I thought the object of the Bill was to prevent that, but now it appears that that is not so and that its object is to put down disorders. I think the words are open to abuse and are dangerous, but I do not propose to press the matter.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2
Prohibition of quasi-military organisations.
2.—(1) If the members or adherents of any association of persons, whether incorporated or not, are—
852

(a) organised or trained or equipped for the purpose of enabling them to be employed in usurping the functions of the police or of the armed forces of the Crown; or

(b) organised and trained or organised and equipped either for the purpose of enabling them to be employed for the use or display of physical force in promoting any political object, or in such manner as to arouse reasonable apprehension that they are organised and either trained or equipped for that purpose;
then any person who takes part in the control or management of the association, or in so organising or training as aforesaid any members or adherents thereof, shall be guilty of an offence under this section:

Provided that…
(3) If upon application being made by the Attorney-General it appears to the High Court that any association is an association of which members or adherents are organised, trained, or equipped in contravention of the provisions of this section, the Court may make such order as appears necessary to prevent any disposition without the leave of the Court of property held by or for the association and in accordance with rules of court may direct an inquiry and report to be made as to the affairs of the association and make such further orders as appear to the Court to be just and equitable for the application of such property in or towards the discharge of the liabilities of the association lawfully incurred before the date of the application or since that date with the approval of the Court, in or towards the repayment of moneys to persons who became subscribers or contributors to the association in good faith and without knowledge of any such contravention as aforesaid, and in or towards any costs incurred in connection with any such inquiry and report as aforesaid or in winding-up or dissolving the association, and may order that any property which is not directed by the Court to be so applied as aforesaid shall be forfeited to the Crown.
(4) In any criminal or civil proceedings under this section proof of things done or of words written, spoken or published (whether or not in the presence of any party to the proceedings) by any person taking part in the control or management of an association or in organising, training or equipping members or adherents of an association shall be admissible as evidence of the purposes for which, or the manner in which, members or adherents of the association (whether those persons or others) were organised, or trained, or equipped.
(6) Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the organisation of a reasonable number of persons to be employed as stewards to assist in the preservation of order at any public meeting held upon private premises, or the instruction of those persons in their lawful duties as such stewards, or their equipment with badges or other distinguishing signs.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved, in paragraph (a) in subsection (1), to leave out "enabling them to be employed" and insert "employment." The noble Lord said: I think I had better anticipate any suggestion that I hanker after a tie of any particular colour in order to show my political principles. My chief political principle is a belief in the rule of the law, and I am in no way, nor wish to be, a supporter of any organisation that wants an authoritarian State. The noble Marquess in charge of the Bill pointed out a moment ago that the Government had been unable to make a list of the societies that they wished to include under a. Uniforms Bill, and those which they wished to exclude, and if the Government are unable to do that I do not see how the ordinary citizen can do it. My principal criticism of both Clause 1 and Clause 2 is this, that Clause 1 states that anybody who does a certain thing is guilty of an offence, and the next clause states that no prosecution shall take place except by the Attorney-General. I venture to think that it is a menace to the rule of law that people should go about careless whether they commit an offence under the Statute knowing that, although they may be committing an offence, they will never be prosecuted. That is the form of the Bill, and the object of my Amendment is to make it possible for people who read this Bill when it is passed into law to know whether they are committing an offence under Clause 2 or not.
It appears to me that the word "enabling" in paragraph (a) either has a meaning or has no meaning. If it has no meaning it is better out of the clause. Under the Bill as it stands it is an offence to manage an association which trains members for the purpose of enabling them—that is, of giving them the capacity—to usurp the function of the police or military. If the Amendment on the Paper be adopted it will only be an offence to train members for the purpose of usurping these functions. We all know what our purposes are, and if we are engaged on perfectly innocent purposes we can go ahead knowing we are not offending. If on the other hand we are not engaged on perfectly innocent purposes the Attorney-General no doubt will quite rightly attack us. At every agricultural show in the country you see Boy Scouts used for the purpose of traffic
854
control or other similar duties. They are chosen because they have learned to obey and to use their wits. By reason of that they are better than other boys and are very useful in discharging the functions of the police. That is an instance at the bottom of the scale. It will be quite as easy to point out that Automobile Association scouts, whom nobody wishes to attack, are definitely trained to perform the functions of the police.
The noble Marquess who replied for the Government on the Second Reading said he did not think that anybody could say that men co-operating with the police were usurping their functions. If the Amendment be adopted that is a perfectly good answer, but as the Bill stands that is not a good answer because there can be no doubt at all that persons capable of discharging the functions of the police or military are ipso facto in changed circumstances capable of usurping those functions. The purpose referred to in the Bill is "enabling," it is not the purpose of "employment." That is why I have substituted the word "employment." If this is not done then Boy Scouts in a low degree and the Automobile Association scouts in a very high degree, and a host of other useful organisations in between, will all be in doubt as to whether or not they are covered by the Bill. Of course they know perfectly well they will never be prosecuted, but that to my mind makes the position worse, because it allows men to think that it does not matter what is in an Act of Parliament provided they know they are safe.
It is possible that I may be given the answer that these words "enabling them to be employed" are necessary to enable the Government to prove purpose. I do not think that really can be the case, because if your Lordships will consider the wording of subsection (4) of this clause, you will see that the powers of proof introduced there are so great that I do not think that if there is legitimate cause for prosecution there can be any difficulty in proving purpose. There is one other small point that has reference to the consequential Amendment to paragraph (b) which I have on the Paper, in which I propose for the words "enabling them to be employed" that there should be substituted the word "employment". The change from "employing

855
them" is intended to deal with a case, which occurred to me as possible, of a society training its members and then handing them over to another society for the purpose of employing them to usurp the functions of the police. I think the word "employment" will avoid that difficulty, and is therefore the proper word to be used.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 15, leave out ("enabling them to be employed") and insert ("employment").—(Lord Saltoun).
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I can sympathise very warmly with the object which the noble Lord has in view in moving this Amendment. If I understood him rightly his fear is that under the clause as at present drafted such organisations as the Boy Scouts and the Automobile Association scouts, and any number of others—I think he said a whole host of other societies—might come within the mischief of this clause. I think the noble Lord must have overlooked exactly what is said in this clause. If the noble Lord will look at subsection (1) (b) he will see that it refers to bodies of persons
"organised and trained or organised and equipped either for the purpose of enabling them to be employed for the use or display of physical force in promoting any political object…"
Surely the noble Lord does not suggest that Automobile Association scouts are employed for promoting a political object, and I should have thought it would be equally true to say that Boy Scouts are not organised for promoting a political object.
LORD SALTOUN: I think I must have expressed myself badly, because the noble Marquess does not seem to have appreciated my point. The point is that when you have trained people with certain qualities those qualities can be used either for a legitimate object or for an object that is not legitimate. In the case of the Boys' Brigade, if they are not able when we have done with them to undertake and usurp within the limits of their strength the powers of the military, we should have failed in our task and we should not have given them the training we desire. It is not that I think that they will be used in that way, but our purpose is to give them the capacity although we do not direct their minds and wish them to be used in that particular way.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: What I have said I think still holds good. The important words are "promoting any political object." If the noble Lord will read subsection (1) (a) he will see that it refers to a body of persons
"organised or trained or equipped for the purpose of enabling them to be employed in usurping the functions of the police…"
Surely it cannot be maintained that the Automobile Association scouts are being organised or trained or equipped for the purpose of enabling them to be employed in usurping the functions of the police. That is really the whole point. I want to make it quite clear to the noble Lord that really the fears he entertains are groundless. He may ask: "Well, but in those circumstances what objection have you to accepting my Amendment?" The objection which the Government have is the objection which the noble Lord himself mentions. If this Amendment were carried it would be perfectly possible for the manager of a political organisation of this kind to lend the people he had organised to somebody else and escape scot free himself. It was really for the purpose of preventing him being able to do that that the clause was drafted in the particular words to which the noble Lord objects. I hope I have succeeded in satisfying the noble Lord that really the risks he fears do not exist, and that it is very desirable that these words should remain in the clause.
LORD SALTOUN: I do not press my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF READING THE MARQUESS OF READING moved in subsection (3), after "made" ["inquiry and report to be made"] to insert "as to any such property as aforesaid and." The noble Marquess said: I move this Amendment because in the text of the Bill as it stands there seems to me, by an unintentional oversight, to be a gap in the machinery. The scheme of subsection (3) is apparently this: if the Court is satisfied that an association has committed an offence or appears to have committed an offence under Clause 2 (1) the Court then has power to grant an injunction restraining that association from parting with any property held by or for it, and it then has power to order an inquiry and report into the affairs of

857
that association. The gap appears to be that, whereas the injunction covers property held by or for the association, the inquiry and report are restricted to the affairs of the association itself only. Therefore if an association had a trust company which held all its funds, and that trust company used its funds for the purpose of equipping members of an association for an illegal purpose, that company should be the subject of inquiry too.
I think the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill agrees that the Amendment is necessary. It is merely to extend the inquiry and report over as wide a field as is given by the injunction. It is to allow the inquiry and report to be made not only into the affairs of the actual association, but also into the affairs of any company formed ad hoc for the purpose of holding its funds which otherwise, under the words of the Bill as they now stand, would altogether escape the inquiry and report. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 4, after ("made") insert ("as to any such property as aforesaid and").—(The Marquess of Reading.)
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: All I can say is that we are very grateful to the noble Marquess for his Amendment which we are very glad to accept. He has pointed out an obvious deficiency in the machinery of the Bill, and, if I may say so without impertinence, being a younger man, it shows what a very valuable acquisition this House has lately received.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "any person taking part in the control or management of an association or in organising, training or equipping." The noble Earl said: I have not put down this Amendment because I am satisfied with it or because I hope it will be carried by your Lordships. I must confess at the outset that I have not been able to draft an Amendment which actually meets the objection which I have to this subsection of Clause 2. At the same time I sincerely hope that we may have the assistance on this point of the noble and learned Lords whom we have the good fortune to have with us this afternoon. I should like to point out that we have no lawyer either on the Opposition or
858
on the Government side this afternoon, and that this is particularly unfortunate when we are dealing with a measure which, if passed through Parliament, would modify very considerably our code of criminal law. I therefore feel that the appeal which I should like to address to those noble and learned Lords who are with us is one with which all members of your Lordships' House would wish to associate themselves, and I am making it on this Amendment because I feel even more strongly here than I shall feel later on the need for the advice of an eminent member of the legal profession.
The object of this subsection is to lay down what evidence, when adduced in a Court of Law by the prosecution, will be regarded as valid if used against a political Party or organisation that is accused of being run on military lines. It is perfectly clear that a political party or organisation, not being a corporate body, can only be convicted or acquitted on the basis of the behaviour, the publications, the actions or the written words of its supporters brought in evidence against it. What are the supporters of such a body? We may divide them into three categories: there are the officers, there are the members, and there are the adherents or the hangers-on. When this subsection was first introduced into another place it was so drafted that the supporters whose actions could incriminate a political party included its members and its adherents, without even a definition of the term "adherent." That, clearly, was far too wide and gave an opportunity for the enemies of such a party to make use of the agent-pro-vocateur or, indeed, of casual spectators at a political meeting. On the Report stage in another place the subsection was considerably narrowed and its present form was adopted.
If I am not mistaken, the subsection as drafted at present would make an organisation of this kind only responsible for the actions of its officers; not even for the actions of its members, far less for the actions of its adherents. That seems to us to be far too narrow. What we desire is that the happy mean of a reasonable responsibility of a political association for the actions of those with whom it is directly associated and for whom it is directly responsible should be

859
accepted. We feel that the object of the Government might be defeated if this clause were left in its present very narrow form. What I want to ask for, therefore, is that between now and the Report stage of the Bill the Government should give the subsection further consideration in order to find a form of words which would really meet the object which I think both we and the Government have in view. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 22, leave out from ("by") to ("members") in line 24.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I have naturally given very careful consideration to the point which the noble Earl has just raised, but I am afraid I cannot really offer him very much hope that anything will be done between now and Report. I speak with all due deference to noble and learned Lords, but as a layman I see the point in this way. It has been necessary to a small extent to alter the Common Law of evidence in order that a Court may have the opportunity of obtaining evidence of the nature of the organisation the leader of which is being prosecuted. It would be quite impossible under the normal law of evidence—I speak with all due respect—or almost impossible in most cases, to obtain sufficient evidence of the character of an organisation unless some subsection such as this were put into the clause. On the other hand it was thought in another place, and we feel very strongly now, that it would not be right that evidence should be admissible—and I would remind your Lordships that the evidence is only admissible; it is not conclusive, it is weighed on its merits—unless it came from the speeches, the actions or the pamphlets of responsible members of the organisation in question. We cannot possibly—as I think the noble Lord said, and I think he agrees with me—open the door to agents-provocateurs, or to the low-class hangers-on of an organisation who might give evidence for their own purposes against the leader. Therefore these words are inserted into the Bill, and I suggest to your Lordships that they accord with all our common notions of justice: that no evidence should be admissible in such a case unless it came from a man who had occupied an accredited and responsible
860
position in the organisation. I think, therefore, that the noble Earl and I are at one, and I cannot see why he wants to leave out words which fulfil our purpose admirably.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Our objects are exactly the same, precisely identical; but the noble Marquess is surely excluding the evidence of members of an association. If I read this clause rightly in its present form, it is taking into account the evidence of officers:
"any person taking part in the control or management of an association or in organising, training or equipping members or adherents"—
but not necessarily members themselves. That surely defeats his object. I am not going to press this point—naturally, because, as I said, I do not like my own Amendment. I feel, however, a great deal of uncertainty, and I hope that the Government will give further consideration to this subsection. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA moved, in subsection (6), to leave out "organisation" and insert "employment." The noble Marquess said: If I may, with your Lordships' permission, I will take the whole of my "organisation" Amendments together. If they are so taken, subsection (6) of Clause 2 would read as follows:
"Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the employment of a reasonable number of persons as stewards to assist in the preservation of order at any public meeting held upon private premises, or the making of arrangements for that purpose, or the instruction of the persons to be so employed in their lawful duties as such stewards, or their being furnished with badges or other distinguishing signs."
The object, of course, of subsection (6) is to remove any doubt as to the practice of promoters of meetings on private premises of arranging for stewards to assist in the preservation of order, but it was suggested to us, and some people were afraid, that as at present drafted subsection (6) might allow political organisations to maintain large standing armies of people under the pretext, of course, that that army was only intended for use as stewards at various meetings. In our opinion the subsection as amended would be an improvement on the words as at present drafted, and I think it would prevent any such possibility arising.
Amendnent moved—
Page 4, line 7, leave out ("organisation") and insert ("employment").—(The Marquess of Dufferin and Ava.)
LORD ARNOLD: The Amendments suggested by the noble Marquess are undoubtedly an improvement on the subsection as it stands in the Bill. In fact I will go further and say that his Amendments are a great improvement, but I am sorry that I cannot give him top marks for them, because I am not satisfied—and this is a very serious subsection—that the words do in fact sufficiently protect the position. I have two or three Amendments down to this clause, but I may not have to move them all. That will depend upon what emerges from the discussion. As the Bill was originally introduced, this subsection was not in it at all. It was inserted in another place because it had been suggested that the legitimate employment of stewards might conceivably be held to be contrary to the Bill, and the subsection, as unamended, was put in. A very long discussion took place in another place upon the subsection, and as a result the Government undertook to consider what had been said, and we now have their Amendments.
The main point is this. Does the subsection, as now read out by the noble Marquess, sufficiently definitely prohibit the taking round from one town to another of an army of stewards for the purpose of assisting in keeping order at public meetings upon private premises? It has been alleged. that that is what has been going on—in fact an army of trained stewards, who have used unnecessary violence at meetings not only in one town but in more than one town, and I think we should all agree that that ought not to happen and ought not to be possible. It is going beyond the ordinary functions of stewards. Incidentally, may I say that the ordinary purpose of stewards is not for keeping order but seeing people to their seats. It is mainly the duty of the chairman to keep order at a meeting if he can do it. Apparently there has been what can be called an army of stewards, trained and organised, who have been going round from town to town, and disgraceful and violent scenes have occurred at meetings. It is desired to stop that.
It is with a view of stopping that, in addition to other precautions, that I
862
have put down an Amendment to the effect that these stewards shall only be employed "locally"; that is to say, you cannot take them from London to Edinburgh, as was in fact done. About 150 stewards were taken from London to Edinburgh, and disgraceful scenes occurred at Edinburgh. It is true that they led to prosecutions, but that is a very cumbrous procedure, and may not cover everything. If possible, there should be better machinery for dealing with the matter than that. The Government, by changing the word "organisation" to "employment," and putting in the other Amendments which the noble Marquess has read out, claim that they have sufficiently protected the position and that under the subsection as it now stands, combined with other clauses in the Bill, it will not be legal to do what we all want to prevent being done—namely, the taking from town to town of an army of trained stewards. I join in the appeal of my noble friend Lord Listowel. We have two very eminent Law Lords here. I am not at all complaining that on the Government Bench there is no lawyer. We are accustomed to that here, but these are very difficult matters, and our chance is now. It does not matter twopence what is said about the meaning of the clause, but what does matter is how it will be construed by the Courts, and it is our duty to see, here and now, that the words are sufficient and unambiguous.
Again and again Amendments have been inserted in Bills which have led to great litigation, and there has been great doubt about what they meant. I remember reading a biographical notice of the late Lord Sumner, in which it was said that "sometimes he appeared almost to take delight in construing Acts of Parliament differently from what the Legislature intended." If that was so, then there is all the more reason why we should take every precaution to see that we get the words right. I cannot see that the substitution of "employment" for "organisation" has the conclusive virtue which the Government appear to think. In my view you want something more, and for that reason I have put down an Amendment to insert the word "locally." That would mean that the stewards can be employed from the neighbourhood or district in which the meeting is held. I do not say that I am

863
Entirely satisfied with the word "locally"—I am not—but at the present moment it is the best I have been able to do. It is a very difficult matter, but I should have thought that the united intellects of the Government, the Home Office and the Government draftsmen could have evolved something which would make the clause more watertight than it is at the moment.
That is the main submission I want to put to the Government. If they can convince your Lordships that the subsection, as amended by the noble Marquess, is sufficient, beyond any peradventure, to stop what it is desired to stop, well and good, but for my part, and I have looked at it very carefully and with every good will, I cannot see that the position is sufficiently protected. I know that you can go back to Clause 2, and say that with Clause 2 there what I fear under Clause 3, subsection (6), cannot happen. I should like to hear arguments about that, because subsection (6) modifies Clause 2, and was put in for that purpose. The Home Secretary said in another place that, whilst he was not convinced it was necessary to put in the subsection, on reflection he thought perhaps that it might be safer to put something like this in, as there might conceivably arise the difficulty which had been suggested. That shows how very complex these matters are. I should like to have a further statement from the Government. What would give me the greatest relief would be that one of the noble and learned Lords who are here would say that they are satisfied that the words mean what the Government say they mean and that the position is sufficiently protected. I think if that could be done your Lordships would feel assured. The point is a very serious one, because if this loophole is in the Bill it will go a good way to undo the usefulness of the Bill.
LORD WRIGHT: I would begin by protesting in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Roche and myself against being placed in the invidious position of being treated as the only lawyers present in the House. I see my noble and learned friend Lord Dunedin, I see my noble and learned friend Lord Amulree, and I see my noble and learned friend Lord Alness, so that
864
an invidious responsibility, I think, is being placed upon us. May I say a very few words about the question which has been raised, simply as a question of construction, in so far as it occurs to me? No one, of course, can be other than sympathetic to the proper employment of stewards, and no one desires that that excellent function should be abused. The difficulty, as I read subsection (6) as originally drawn, was the word "organisation," which seemed to suggest—I think did suggest—preparations made beforehand which might be on a very elaborate scale and might be such as to be capable of application in different parts of the country. Therefore, as I understand it, the new proposed subsection avoided that word "organisation"—a word which also rather throws one back to the offence dealt with in Clause 2 (1). That word was avoided, and the word "employment" was substituted.
Now the employment which is permitted must be, according to the language of the clause, an employment of a reasonable number of persons as stewards, and it seems to me that the word "reasonable" there ought to afford all the protection which the noble Lord who has just spoken desiderates. No Court would for a moment hold, as I see it, that the use of 150 stewards, brought from London to Edinburgh, at a public meeting was an employment of a reasonable number of stewards. The number would be quite unreasonable, and the mere fact of their being trained and organised, as I understand, might bring them within the offence set out in Clause 2 (1). With great respect to what the noble Lord has said—and I quite sympathise with the difficulties which he feels—I should not myself like to see the word "locally" added. It would, I think, unduly restrict the operations of people who want to employ stewards. I think the clause itself is only dealing with the employment of stewards for some particular public meeting. It deals with the employment of a reasonable number of persons as stewards to assist in the preservation of order at any public meeting—it is an employment, I think, for the purpose of that meeting. I do not know what word could be inserted, but I think the word "locally" would not quite give effect to what the noble Lord desires, and I should myself think

865
that the language as it stands would meet all that he requires. I can only say how it strikes me at the moment, but I should, as at present advised, prefer to see it stand as it is now suggested with the noble Marquess's Amendments.
LORD JESSEL: We have had a most interesting speech from the noble Lord opposite, but I should like to know what this meeting was at Edinburgh at which there were employed 150 stewards sent from London. Was it the Labour Party Conference? Perhaps the noble Lord will reply. But it seems to me it all depends on the size of the meeting. If there were 3,000 or 4,000 people at the meeting surely 150 stewards would not be excessive. I remember one meeting at Premierland, at which Mr. Walter Long made a distinguished speech, attended by at least 3,000 people and a great many stewards were employed. I may say that most of them were given double pay if there was no row, which is a good way, I think, to get stewards to look after a meeting. I should like to know a little more about this meeting at Edinburgh. At the same time, as the Master of the Rolls has said, it all turns on the word "reasonable." What may be an excessive number for a small meeting would not be at all too many for a very large meeting.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: In this very interesting discussion I am inclined to think that the Government proposal is certainly the wiser, for it seems to me that to attempt to define the word "locally" would make confusion worse confounded. What does the word "locally" mean? Would it mean, within the same constituency? It might well be that the meeting would be of a kind which was not affected by constituencies. If it is to be within the same town, it might mean that you could not bring people in from just across a river, as in the case of Manchester and Salford. If it were to mean the next ward the results, I suggest, would be even more ridiculous. While it is perfectly true that a certain organisation in this country, which is directly the cause of this measure being introduced, does go round with a vast number of stewards to protect its leader from attack, not merely in towns of the size of Edinburgh but small places like Dumfries, that is no reason for assuming that it would not be legitimate to have a peripatetic body of stewards.
866
I have no doubt that members of your Lordships' House who have been candidates for another place have suffered from the attentions of peripatetic bands of hooligans who have followed you from meeting to meeting. Sometimes they have come from the constituency one is contesting, sometimes from outside, but there are many areas in this country where it would scarcely be advisable to speak unless one had a considerable number of stewards in reserve, and it might be, and even is, essential to bring them in from outside. In these circumstances, although the position is an exceedingly involved one, I think it would be wise on the whole to leave it to the good sense of the law to decide how far the presence of the stewards is necessary, whether their numbers are excessive or not, and whether the whole attitude of those controlling the meeting was really what it ought to have been or was intentionally of a provocative character.
LORD ROCHE: I intend to offer only a few observations in the same sense as the observations of my noble friend Lord Wright, the Master of the Rolls. I take it that the object of this clause is, in the first place, to hamper the activities of quasi-military organisations, bodies who would operate by force, whether those bodies pretend to belong to the Right or to the Left in politics, while at the same time subsection (6) is intended not to hamper the employment of a reasonable number of stewards as we have long known them in this country, in order to preserve liberty by allowing the people who hold a meeting to express their opinions. I suggest that my noble friend was perfectly right when he said that the use of the word "employment" was better than that of the word "organisation," which originally stood part of the Bill, in effecting the first object—namely, in hampering the activities of the quasi-military organisations. For that reason I suggest that the adoption of the Amendment would be proper.
At the same time it is perfectly true—and I only say this as the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, asked for our opinion—that the Amendments which stand in his name would in my view unduly operate to diminish the employment of stewards as was understood in old time and before we were troubled at all by quasi-military organisations. I join in the protest

867
of my noble and learned friend with regard to our being over-much appealed to. There are lawyers who are more experienced than ourselves in the House, and it was only out of courtesy to the noble Lord and to your Lordships that we responded. But we must not be asked authoritatively to lay down what magistrates in the country will decide. We can only give the Committee our own opinion.
LORD ARNOLD: As in the circumstances I will not move my Amendment to insert the word "locally," perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say a few words before this Amendment is disposed of. First of all, I would like to express profound apologies to the distinguished legal Lords who are present apart from the two noble and learned Lords on the Cross Benches. It so happened that I had not seen them, that is all. I am a crushed heap of apologetic misery in having overlooked their presence, because there are some very eminent legal Lords present. I thank the noble and learned Lords very much for responding to the request that they should give their views on this matter. I have listened to what they have said with the greatest interest. I entirely agree—in fact I said so—that better words could be devised than the word "locally" to protect the situation. It was with a view to getting something done which would make the subsection more watertight that I put this Amendment down and that I have spoken as I have done to-day.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wright, raised the question about a reasonable number of stewards. I can connect that up with the question which the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, asked. There was this meeting. I am simply taking account of what was said in another place. It was a Fascist meeting in Edinburgh, and the statement made was that 150 stewards or thereabouts were taken from London to Edinburgh. The Usher Hall in Edinburgh, where the meeting was held, will hold 2,500 to 3,000 people. It might be held that 150 stewards for such a meeting was unreasonable—that is one to twenty. But I do not think it would be unreasonable to have one steward for every thirty or forty people. That would mean you would have from seventy-five to a hundred stewards, and you might have as much mischief done by them as
868
by 150. As the noble and learned Lord said, we are all agreed that the word "employment" is a great improvement on the word "organisation," but you are laying it down in an Act of Parliament that it is permissible to employ stewards in this way without any restriction as to where they come from or as to the other points which I have mentioned. Therefore, I am not entirely satisfied, but I will not move my Amendment to-day. I will confer with my noble and honourable friends here and elsewhere as to whether we shall take any further steps on the Report stage.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: The next Amendment in subsection (6), to leave out "to be employed," is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 8, leave out ("to be employed").—(The Marquess of Dufferin and Ava.)
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: The next Amendment is also a rafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 10, leave out ("instruction of those persons ") and insert ("making of arrangements for that purpose or the instruction of the persons to be so employed").—(The Marquess of Dufferin and Ava.)
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: My last Amendment to subsection (3) is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 11, leave out ("equipment") and insert ("being furnished").—(The Marquess of Dufferin and Ava.)
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD moved, in subsection (6), after "equipment," to insert "on such premises." The noble Lord said: This Amendment I can deal with very briefly. It is put forward with the same object as the previous one in order to make the position doubly sure. There may be no need for this Amendment. Is it possible, if these words are not put in, that these badges and so forth which the stewards can have are not confined to be worn upon the premises where the meeting is held? They may be worn in

869
the streets. It is true that in certain circumstances, if that were done, it would come under the previous clause of the Bill, but are there any objections to making it clear that these badges for stewards must not be worn outside, but only worn at the place where the meeting is held?
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 11, after ("equipment") insert ("on such premises").—(Lord Arnold.)
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I really do not think this Amendment is necessary at this place. After all, we know political uniforms are not affected by this clause. They are prohibited in any case, and I do not think it is necessary to say, supposing a steward is going along in the Tube to a meeting, that necessarily he must be prohibited from wearing his badge if he so desires. That would be an unnecessary prohibition, and I think the point in any case is not of great importance.
LORD ARNOLD: I did riot suggest it was of great importance, but I thought it was worth raising. If that is the Government's view, I will leave it at that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD moved in subsection (6), before "badges," to insert "suitable." The noble Lord said: Is there any objection to putting in the word "suitable" before "badges"? Do you not otherwise run the danger of stewards being dressed in a way that may approximate to uniform? If you put in the word "suitable," I think it would be an additional precaution, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 12, after ("with") insert ("suitable").—(Lord Arnold.)
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I am sorry I have to be so stubborn. I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. It is impossible to imagine what is a suitable badge. What is the definition of the word "suitable"? It would be a danger to put a word of that kind into a Bill of this character.
LORD ARNOLD: If that is the view of the Government, I am sorry, because would point out that the word "suitable" would not only apply to badges but to other distinguishing signs. I cannot see that there is any objection to
870
the word being inserted, and I think it would be a very real safeguard.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Powers for the preservation of public order on the occasion of processions.
3.—(1) If the chief officer of police, having regard to the time or place at which and the circumstances in which any procession is taking place or is intended to take place and to the route taken or proposed to be taken by the procession, has reasonable ground for apprehending that the procession may occasion serious public disorder, he may give directions imposing upon the persons organising or taking part in the procession such conditions as appear to him necessary for the preservation of public order, including conditions prescribing the route to be taken by the procession and conditions prohibiting the procession from entering any street or public place specified in the directions:
Provided that no conditions restricting the display of flags, banners, or emblems shall be imposed under this subsection except such as are reasonably necessary to prevent risk of a breach of the peace.
(2) If at any time the chief officer of police is of opinion that by reason of particular circumstances existing in any borough or urban district or in any part thereof the powers conferred on him by the last foregoing subsection will not be sufficient to enable him to prevent serious public disorder being occasioned by the holding of processions in that borough, district or part, he shall apply to the council of the borough or district for an order prohibiting for such period not exceeding three months as may be specified in the application the holding of all processions or of any class of procession so specified either in the borough or urban district or in that part thereof, as the case may be, and upon receipt of the application the council may, with the consent of a Secretary of State, make an order either in terms of the application or with such modifications as may be approved by the Secretary of State.
This subsection shall not apply within the City of London as defined for the purposes of the Acts relating to the City police or within the Metropolitan police district.
(3) If at any time the Commissioner of the City of London police or the Comrnissioner of police of the Metropolis is of opinion that, by reason of particular circumstances existing in his police area or in any part thereof, the powers conferred on him by subsection (1) of this section will not be sufficient to enable him to prevent serious public disorder being occasioned by the holding of processions in that area or part, lie may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, make an order prohibiting for such period not exceeding three months as may be specified in the order the holding

871
of all processions or of any class of procession so specified either in the police area or in that part thereof, as the case may be.
(4) Any person who knowingly fails to comply with any directions given or conditions imposed under this section, or organises or assists in organising any procession held or intended to be held in contravention of an order made under this section or incites any person to take part in such a procession, shall be guilty of an offence.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA moved, in subsection (1), before "procession," where that word first occurs, to insert "public." The noble Marquess said: This Amendment is really inspired by some of my noble friends behind me who have shown by their own Amendment, which I hope they will subsequently withdraw, that the purpose of the Government is not altogether clear. The purpose of the Government is, quite obviously, that all the processions which are dealt with by this clause should be public processions, and therefore we propose wherever the word "procession" occurs in the clause to preface it by the word "public." Later I propose to move an Amendment in Clause 9, the Definition Clause, to define a "public procession" as "a procession in a public place." With that explanation I hope that some of my noble friends behind me who have suggested many Amendments to the same effect will be satisfied.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 15, after ("any") insert ("public").—(The Marquess of Dufferin and Ava.)
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: On this question I will ask the noble Marquess whether he can give the Committee a definition of a "public place," and whether that definition will be inserted in the Interpretation Clause. I would particularly ask the noble Marquess whether a church which is open for public worship is a public place or not.
LORD PHILLIMORE: May I say before the noble Marquess replies that I should be very much obliged if he would define what is a procession in a public place or a private one.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I am very grateful to my noble friend who has just spoken for reducing the first question that the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, addressed to me to a
872
reductio ad absurdum. It is quite impossible to define every single word in a Bill. Noble Lords really must take a little on trust. I cannot possibly promise that at any stage or however long I thought about it I could give a definition of a "public place"; therefore it follows that, as I have not a definition, a definition will not be inserted in the Bill. As to the question whether "public place" includes a church I can give the noble Earl the definite assurance that a church will not be a public place.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I cannot help thinking that I have read in some Act before now a definition of a "public peace. "It may have been only for the particular purpose of that Act, but I should have thought that a definition might be found in previous Acts of Parliament, and perhaps the matter will be looked into before the next stage of the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I will look into it again. I think in fact it will be found impossible to define "public place," but it will be looked into.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: Would it be possible for the Government to consider—I know there is little time, but it is the Government who are rushing this Bill through—before the Report stage excluding certain places from the expression "public place." There is the question of a churchyard, and the question of the grounds of an ecclesiastical establishment. All these may be used for processions. I think the point is genuinely one of some importance, and I would be grateful if the noble Marquess would consider the possibility of defining that certain particular places are not public places.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: In reply to the appeals which have been made we should be only too pleased to look into the point. I am not a lawyer and do not pretend to be familiar with the actual phraseology of large numbers of Acts of Parliament, but I think myself that the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, is correct in saying that in certain Acts "public place" has been defined. I think it has been defined in certain of the Police Acts. I am certain the definition "public place" includes a street, but whether it is desirable or not to insert in this particular Bill a definition of a "public place"

873
either as it has been defined before or as modified to suit the particular provisions of this Bill I do not know, but I am prepared to look into it before the Report stage.
LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH): I am much obliged to the noble Marquess for the assurance he has given us and for having met us in that way. There is one thing I should like to mention—I mentioned it privately but it might be well to remind the noble Marquess—and it is whether, if "public place" includes a street, it might not be complicated by the Fact that the phraseology in line 25 is "any street or public place."
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: We will look into that.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved to leave out subsections (2) and (3). The noble Lord said: This is not a legal question so far as I know. It is a perfectly plain issue of policy—or shall I say of nerves? Surely we are getting rather unduly nervous of each other and of our fellow subjects when we say that at the instigation of a chief officer of police, who perhaps has had a bad night or two, backed up by a possibly frightened local authority, the Home Secretary may prohibit any procession whatever for as long as three months in any given area. I do not suppose that the Committee will agree with me in this, and if they do not I do not propose to go to a Division, but the Bill does seem to me to ignore the value of these processions as a safety valve. After all, I am retaining under my Amendment subsection (1) of this clause, which enables the police to divert any procession in any particular direction, or prohibit it from going in any particular direction. But to say that a body of people who wish to go for a walk shouting, for instance, "Down with Lord Dufferin," should not be allowed that salutary exercise seems to me, if I may say so, foolish. What harm does it do Lord Dufferin? None whatever.
Is it not an established process in our history? How much more troublesome the Chartists Would have been, if they had not walked about the country and occasionally stopped at a good country house about supper time and had a good meal from the squire and then gone on somewhere else! How much more
874
troublesome the Suffragettes would have been! And is there the slightest reason to suppose the Duke of Wellington's Government, with the Home Secretary included, would not have jumped on those processions in favour of the Reform Bill which took place before 1832? It seems to me that really we are treating ourselves as if we were the last suburb of Cawnpore or Lahore. There is no necessity for this drastic measure. On the contrary, it is most advisable that this safety valve should be allowed.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 30, leave out subsections (2) and (3).—(Lord Phillimore.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: In order to save the next Amendment, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, I will put the Amendment in the form: that line 30 as far as the word "police" stand part of the clause.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: I have put my name down in support of my noble friend Lord Phillimore on this Amendment, and I should like to say immediately that I am very much impressed by the arguments he has brought forward on the general question. I hope that the Committee is as much impressed as I am. But I am going to deal with a particular issue and that is the religious issue. The subsections in question give power to the police to prohibit all processions of all classes and characters, and that includes undoubtedly religious processions. I want to ask a question on that. I am afraid the noble Marquess will think that my interrogations are rather persistent, but they arise from a genuine desire for information. Is this power really a new power or not? The point was raised by noble Lords opposite in the Second Reading debate, but I do not believe they got an answer. So far as religious processions are concerned, is this a new power which is being granted to the police? It will be within the recollection of your Lordships that a very important religious procession was prohibited in 1912. That was a Roman Catholic procession. I am wondering how far this power is in fact new.
If it is new, I would venture to make three comments. In the first place, it is a question on which there might easily be very keen feeling. In the second place, if this power is to be taken there

875
really should have been some opportunity for consultation and consideration on the part of a large number of persons. There has not been that opportunity, owing to the fact that this Bill is being treated as an emergency measure. In the third place, I would point out that there was no mention of this question in the very able speech which the noble Marquess made in moving the Second Reading of the Bill. He then described processions as "a traditional and hallowed way of expressing disagreement, or even agreement, with the policy of the Government." I am now referring to processions with a very different object. I would venture to ask whether if this Amendment is not accepted the Government will consider excluding the religious issue altogether from this Bill, which is drafted to deal with a totally different range of questions, and leave this matter open for later and fuller consideration.
LORD ALNESS: Perhaps although, as the noble Lord who moved this Amendment said, this is not a legal question, and although I am a lawyer, I may be permitted as a Scotsman to deal with it. The noble Earl who has just sat down asked the question whether or not this is a new power. Speaking for myself I am amazed at the moderation of the two subsections which it is now proposed to delete, because they are fenced with safeguards to which I shall allude in a moment. I would say in reply to the noble Earl that, so far from this power being a new one, it has been in existence in Scotland for many years and has worked extremely well. The power was conferred by the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, more than forty years ago, upon the magistrates of burghs to regulate or prohibit processions. The word "procession", being used in its most general form, would cover of course religious processions. That power has been moderately used. In addition to that there are certain City Acts in Scotland which confer a similar power. For example, the Edinburgh Corporation Act gives the Edinburgh Corporation power to prohibit processions. That, I hope, answers my noble friend's question about novelty.
I am informed that in England—I will not make any comment—no such general power exists at the moment, but it is now
876
proposed to follow what I may perhaps without offence term the good example of Scotland in this instance. If noble Lords will be so good as to look at the subsections they will see how restricted is the power which it is proposed to confer upon the chief officer of police. The intendment of the section, as I understand it, is that the power should exist in urban districts, where exceptional circumstances make it desirable, but it does not extend to rural districts. Moreover, the power cannot be exercised even in the modified and limited form in which it is given without the consent and cooperation not only of the chief officer of police, but also of the local authority and of the Secretary of State, who, of course, as noble Lords know, is responsible in his place in Parliament to answer for the use or, if it is conceivable, the abuse of the power. I have informed your Lordships that this power has been tried out safely for many years on the other side of the border, and, in its limited character in these subsections, I venture to suggest that it would be a great mistake to delete them.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: Is there not something to be said for the retention of these subsections in the interests of the people arranging the processions themselves? Is it not possible that some day the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, might be leading a procession himself and might find himself wishing that the subsections he now seeks to strike out had remained in the Bill?
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: The noble Earl, Lord Iddlesleigh, has taken exception to the possibility of religious processions being banned. Unfortunately, as far as Scotland is concerned, and I believe to a lesser extent in Liverpool and other places in England, various religious processions have led to disorder and sometimes even to bloodshed. In these circumstances I think it would be advisable that religious processions, although they could not well be banned on political grounds when they had started, but which often degenerate into religious-political brawls, might well be kept within the scope of the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: After the admirable speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Alness, there is really very little left for me to say. I agree

877
with every word he uttered, and I am happy to think that not for the first time the people of this country are going to follow the example of the people whose usual domicile is further north. No one will suggest, I think, for a moment that the people of Scotland are not as tenacious of their liberties as any other people in the world, but they have realised long since how desirable it is that this power of prohibiting processions in very exceptional circumstances—it is only in very exceptional circumstances that it would be used—should exist.
It is quite true, of course, that the police under the Common Law, in pursuance of their duty of maintaining order, can stop a procession when it has actually assembled, but in the circumstances which we contemplate to wait until a procession had actually assembled would be to wait until it was too late. It is very possible that, if the police waited until the procession was about to start, their action in prohibiting it would be more than likely to cause immediate disorder. It is in order to place the police in the position in special circumstances of being able for a limited period to prohibit processions in advance that these subsections are included. I need not say more about the safeguards included, because they have already been stated—the safeguards of the agreement of the local authority, the publicly elected body, and of the Secretary of State, who of course is answerable to Parliament. All these safeguards surely make it quite certain that the powers given in these subsections will not be abused. In these circumstances I regret that I cannot oblige my noble friend by accepting the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, near the beginning of subsection (2), to leave out "is of opinion" and insert "has reasonable ground for apprehending." The noble Earl said: I think your Lordships must agree that the exceptional powers that the Government propose under these subsections are in themselves desirable, and that occasion may arise when it becomes necessary to prevent processions from being held in certain areas in order to save the inhabitants of those areas from the effects of riots and public disorder. At the same time the noble and learned Lord, Lord Alness, and
878
I think most of the other noble Lords who have spoken, have laid great stress on the desirability of safeguards against abuse of this very important power. The object of my Amendment is to provide an additional safeguard beside those which are already included in Clause 3 (2).
I envisage the possibility of the abuse of this power unless the Bill is amended. Let us take a concrete example. A chief of police in a certain town decides that a procession which a certain political Party is to hold ought to be banned, in order to prevent serious breaches of the peace, for a period of two months. He then applies to the local authorities for their consent to his decision. The local authorities, if they have given their consent, appeal to the Home Secretary in order to have their decision confirmed. In the first place, the chief of police, the local authority and the Home Secretary are people with definite political sympathies and antipathies. They will be biased to some extent, if they are human, by their political feelings. If there were a Conservative chief of police, backed up by a Conservative local authority, backed up by a Conservative Home Secretary, a Labour or Socialist procession might well be banned. In the opposite case, with a Socialist chief of police, a Socialist local authority and a Socialist Home Secretary, noble Lords opposite might well have misgivings about processions organised by responsible elements in their own political Party. The object of this Amendment is to take the whole matter out of the sphere of politics.
We should like to see a right of appeal to the Courts against a decision of this gravity taken in these circumstances. It is perfectly clear that if the chief of police has in public and, if necessary, in the Courts to give his considered reasons for acting in this way, he will be less likely to act hastily or with bias, and the public will have a more certain guarantee that such action will only be taken in the exceptional circumstances that warrant it. They will have some assurance that a perfectly unbiased and unprejudiced mind will be able to express itself on the circumstances of the case. That is the sort of thing that we want to do by getting this Amendment put into the Bill. A very similar Amendment was moved to subsection (1), in which these

879
words have actually been included. The two subsections are not, of course, identical. The noble Marquess will notice that subsection (1) says "has reasonable ground for apprehending," and that those words have taken the place of the words "is of opinion." I am not saying that the two subsections are the same; they are not. I am saying that if a guarantee of that kind is given in order to prevent the abuse of the power to alter the route or alter the place of a procession, it ought also to be given to prevent abuse of the farther-reaching power to cancel processions altogether. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 30, leave out ("is of opinion") and insert ("has reasonable ground for apprehending").—(The Earl of Listowel).
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I think that the noble Earl who moved this Amendment is under some misapprehension when he tries to argue that, because these words are put into subsection (1), therefore they should be put into subsection (2). I would remind him, if I may, that there is a very great difference between the two subsections. In subsection (1) the Chief Constable forms his opinion and, having formed it, he acts upon it immediately and there is no one to say him nay. He routes the procession or does whatever the powers conferred upon him allow him to do. Therefore we thought that in that case it was right that there should be some possible form of appeal against his decision. But it is a very different position in subsection (2), because, as the noble Earl who moved this Amendment points out, this subsection so bristles with safeguards that the chief of police who tries to do wrong will, in fact, find it. impossible.
After all, his opinion merely sets a train of events in motion. He thinks that the procession ought to be banned for such and such a period; he then has to go to his properly-elected council and persuade them that his opinion is right; then, if they agree with him, the Secretary of State has to affirm again that his opinion was right. Even supposing that all those three people are animated by these low political motives which the noble Earl suggested might influence them, nevertheless the Secretary of State stands to be criticised before
880
Parliament for any decision he makes in the matter which was obviously animated by political bias. On those grounds alone, therefore, the safeguards are quite adequate as the Bill stands.
There is, however, another very great reason—and I will urge it upon your Lordships, because it is important—why these words should not be here inserted. As the noble Earl said, the purpose of their insertion is that at some time there should be an appeal to the Courts against the decision of the chief officer of police. This subsection is a very peculiar subsection, and one which we hope will apply very seldom in the future. It is an emergency subsection, upon which the chief officer of police will act when he feels that there is a really grave and immediate danger. In that sort of case I suggest to you that it is highly important that action should be taken swiftly and at once, as swiftly, that is to say, as the conditions of obtaining the consent of the council and of the Home Secretary allow. If this appeal to the Court which is in the noble Lord's mind is put into this subsection, one of two things will happen: either the noble Earl means that he thinks there will be a possibility of appeal against the chief officer's decision before the procession is made—
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: No.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: The noble Earl thinks not, and so he will agree with me that that would be fatal to the whole purpose of the clause, because that would cause delay. We do not want the organisers of processions to be able to get an injunction of some kind preventing action. The only way in which legal effect could be given to the noble Earl's Amendment would be that after the procession had been banned the person who organised it would continue to hold it and, when charged under subsection (4), plead in his defence that as the chief officer of police had not acted on reasonable grounds in the first place, therefore the whole conviction must necessarily fall to the ground. Those, as far as I am advised, are the only two possibilities that might follow upon the insertion of these words. As far as the second of those possibilities is concerned, do your Lordships really consider that this is a

881
valid defence? A man holds his procession in defiance of the Home Secretary, in defiance of his local council, and in defiance of the chief officer of police. The local council has endorsed the opinion of the chief officer of police, the Home Secretary has endorsed it, and Parliament may have endorsed it either by its silence or its votes. Do you really think that in any court of law it would be a valid defence to say that, after all those people had endorsed the Chief Constable's decision, he had no reasonable ground for making it? He may be wrong, but right or wrong he must have had reasonable ground for all those people to agree with him.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I think, if I may say so, that the noble Marquess has given an extremely good and well reasoned answer to the observations that I have just put forward. At the same time, I should like to point out to him that the gravest objection that might be raised was that an appeal might be made at the earliest possible moment, that is to say, before the procession was held, in which case the whole object of the clause would be defeated, because the Executive could not act in an emergency. There is considerable difference of opinion between lawyers on that point, which again is one on which we should like the most learned legal authority. So far as the second occasion on which the charge might be brought against the chief of police is concerned, I think that although, as the noble Marquess said, it is not one likely to be borne out in the Courts, it would act as a further safeguard, not so much in the use of it as in the possible use of it, and make the chief of police more careful not to do anything in haste or in a, state of bias. Although I am not going to press my Amendment, as it has not been supported, I feel that the greatest number of safeguards are required, and that further safeguards, if not of the kind I have suggested at least of some other kind, should be inserted before this Bill becomes law. I am not, frankly, satisfied that the public has every possible guarantee that its present right of self-expression by organising processions will not be curtailed more than is required for the preservation of public order, but I will simply register my dissatisfaction and ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: The Amendments down in my name are all drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 35, at end, insert ("public").
Page 4,line 40, after ("all") insert ("public").
Page 4,line 40, after the third ("of") insert ("public").
Page 5, line 15, after ("of") insert ("public").
Page 5,line 18, after ("all") insert ("public").
Page 5,line 19, after the second ("of") insert ("public").
Page 5,line 23, after ("any") insert ("public").—(The Marquess of Dufferin and Ava).
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Prohibition of offensive weapons at public meetings and processions.
4.—(l) Any person who, while present at any public meeting or on the occasion of any public procession, has with him any offensive weapon, otherwise than in pursuance of lawful authority, shall be guilty of an offence.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved, in subsection (1), after "him," to insert "with intent to cause a breach of the peace." The noble Lord said: This is the question of the offensive weapon if brought to a meeting or public procession, and the words which I have put forward for insertion are "with intent to cause a breach of the peace." In other words, I am seeking to make it impossible, or improbable, that a purely innocent person shall be proceeded against for bringing some weapon, which can be described as an offensive weapon, to a public procession or public meeting. For instance, we know that Long John Silver had a wooden leg, that he did a great deal of execution with it, and that he was not a very reputable person. Still, a one-legged man cannot do much in a procession without his wooden leg, and if subsequently he takes a swing with it, and that is to be treated as an offensive weapon, where are we? In fact, it is in all these cases a question of definition, and I submit that the only way to define what is an offensive weapon is to define it by its purpose. If you bring an offensive weapon with intent to commit a breach of the peace, well and good, you can be

883
prosecuted, but if not, you will go free. I hope that the Government will in this case accept this Amendment, or that at any rate, if they will not accept it, they will explain what is an offensive weapon in their view.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 29, after ("him") insert ("with intent to cause a breach of the peace.")—(Lord Phillimore.)
LORD STRABOLGI: May I in a few words support the Amendment? I think, if I may be allowed to say so, that it is very necessary. Take the case of a bottle. I am told that damage is sometimes done in night clubs by people who lose their tempers and who use bottles as weapons. A man may be assisting in a public meeting or procession as a spectator with a bottle in his pocket, and if a riot breaks out and he happens to be apprehended—innocent people are sometimes apprehended—he may be held to have been attending a public meeting or procession with an offensive weapon, because other people, with intent to commit a breach of the peace, have armed themselves with bottles. There was the case mentioned by Lord Saltoun, on the Second Reading, of a man with a walking stick. There was a time when it was the fashion of the jeunesse dorée of the period to carry a big cane, and I can imagine that being held to be an offensive weapon, especially if the person carrying it bore the badge of some political party. Yet he might be perfectly innocent.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The two noble Lords have made a persuasive appeal to the Government to accept this Amendment, but in spite of that persuasion I am afraid I am not in a position to do so. If I followed Lord Strabolgi aright, he spoke about hitting people over the head with bottles at night clubs coming under the mischief of this clause, but surely he will not argue that a mêlée at a night club would come under the wording of public meeting or public procession. I should hardly have thought so.
LORD STRABOLGI: I said I had heard of bottles being used at night clubs, but not at processions, although I imagine they could be with very serious effect.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: They might be, and in that case it would be a question for the Courts. If a person at a public procession walked about with a bottle in his pocket and happened to be charged with an offence under the particular section, the Court would have to decide whether the bottle, in the circumstances of the case, should be described as an offensive weapon. But really the object of this clause is to prevent people who take part in public meetings and in public processions from carrying with them offensive weapons. There is no object in carrying with you an offensive weapon at a public meeting or in a public procession unless you have some intention of using it; and if the Amendment were accepted it would be quite possible for a man taking part in a public meeting or in a public procession, with a large number of stones in his pocket, to say that he had not committed an offence because he was a collector of fossils. There appears to me to be another objection to the noble Lord's proposal because it would give rise to this really almost absurd situation that, provided a person had lawful authority, it would be no offence for him to possess an offensive weapon with intent to cause a breach of the peace. I do not know whether the noble Lord has realised that that is what would be the effect of his Amendment. For these reasons I regret that I cannot accept it.
LORD SALTOUN: May I ask whether a lady's hatpin is an offensive weapon?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: It would no doubt depend on the use which was made of it.
LORD SALTOUN: May she take it to a meeting? That is the point.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: That is a matter which she would have to decide for herself.
LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH): The Secretary of State has just defined, in replying to the last question, an offensive weapon by the motive of the person using it, which is exactly what my noble friend Lord Phillimore said was so excellent and I understood the Secretary of State to say was entirely wrong.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Prohibition of offensive conduct conducive to breaches of the peace.
5. Any person who in any public place or at any public meeting uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned, shall be guilty of an offence.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved to leave out "to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned, shall be guilty of an offence" and insert "to incite racial or religious prejudice whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned, shall be guilty of an offence." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is moved on behalf of my noble friends. The present state of the law, I understand, is that if a man behaves badly at a public meeting, uses abusive language and so on, as is frequently done when political feeling runs high, and there is no great harm done in the long run—there is a great deal of exaggeration about this question—then in the ordinary way, I believe, he is fined 40s., or in default, a week's imprisonment. But now the Government come along with this Bill and propose that this man shall be liable to a maximum penalty of £50—I admit it is a maximum—or three months' imprisonment, or both. I think that can be used oppressively against the subject at times of political excitement, I want to narrow the new offence, for so it might be construed, to those who incite racial or religious prejudice, which I imagine the Government want to put down, and there they have our support.
This incitement to racial or religious prejudice was dealt with, if I may say so, with great force and ability by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, in his admirable maiden speech on the Second Reading, and I am sure he carried the whole House with him. Indeed the whole of Parliament is, I believe, determined to put down this cowardly and anti-British outburst of anti-Semitism which has caused such suffering, fear, and disgraceful disorder in the East End of London and one or two other centres of population. There we are with the Government, and we want to punish these people, some of whom have plenty of money behind them, some of it from foreign sources, as the Home Secretary said in another place. But this same
886
power may be used against the poor collier, perhaps in the North of England, who goes to a political meeting, gets excited, calls the speaker a liar—which he probably is—and then becomes liable to a fine of £50 or three months' imprisonment, and it is ruin for him.
I want to say something about so-called disorders at ordinary political meetings, of which I have had some experience, with other noble Lords. I have been shouted down on political platforms, I have been threatened with murder. I remember going into a remote town in Wales on a winter's evening to oppose Mr. Lloyd George at the height of Mr. Lloyd George's power. As I came into this darkened town a bell was ringing like a tocsin, and I was met by two or three alarmed political supporters of mine who said: "We are so glad you have come, Commander Kenworthy, they are going to murder you to-night." I went into a hall packed to suffocation. It was a hall full of people really seething for trouble, where, the previous night, a most accomplished orator of my Party—I was in the Liberal Party in those days, I was supporting the anti-Lloyd-George Liberal—Captain Wedgwood Benn, a predecessor of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India, had not got a word in. Fortunately I saw a very large coastguard sitting in there. I had a private word before the row started, and he promised to stand by me. The candidate began. They would listen to him neither in Welsh nor in English. I tried in English for a long time, and eventually I began to talk about Ireland, struck a responsive note, and got in a five-minute speech. But during the whole of that campaign in Mr. Lloyd George's stronghold that was the only five minutes of free speech allowed. No one was any the worse for it. It was wrong, against all our principles of democracy, but our candidate got a very big poll. He did not win then, but he carried that seat at the next Election.
In the constituency I had the honour to represent in the North of England, in Hull, my opponents in certain wards, I am sorry to say, used to get shouted down at every Election. That embarrassed me because it lost me votes, and I knew it. I used every endeavour to prevent my excited supporters from doing it. I said: "Go out canvassing. Don't go to your opponents' meetings, then you

887
can behave yourselves," and this had some effect. But my opponents, supporters of noble Lords opposite, used deliberately to provoke the people. They used to send people down from London—it was admitted afterwards. I was always on very good terms with the opposing candidate, and afterwards we used to talk about the events of the campaign, and he used to admit it. He said: "Oh, yes, it did me good." And some of these professional speakers from the Central Office were very adept at provoking people; they went down to the Division and insulted the electors. No heads were broken. I suppose there were a couple of black eyes on polling night, but most of it was comparatively good humoured. Well, under this Bill, all these people—including the speakers from the Central Office, of whichever Party it was—would be liable to these very heavy penalties.
I really think that we need a sense of proportion in this case. The calling out of interjections at public meetings may be bad manners, but it adds to the liveliness of the occasion, and in those days when I used to have a lot of public speaking—indeed I do to-day—I welcomed the heckler. If you know how to deal with him, and especially if you deal with him courteously and wittily, you can very often bring him over to your side. Some people, if they are met with a few boos and interruptions at a meeting, spread exaggerated reports in the Press that their meetings are being broken up, that the violent Reds have been smashing up the Conservative meetings, and things of that sort. No, there is a good deal of exaggeration in it, and if the spirit behind this clause is carried too far it is going to reduce the politics in this country to a farce. No one is more intent than my noble friends to preserve the rights of free speech and no Party, in its early days especially, has suffered more from organised hooliganism than ours. But I think this particular clause goes too far in preventing ordinary manifestations of public indignation which sometimes are very good and useful. In fact, my complaint in this country is that people do not protest enough. They put up with far too much. I do not advocate violence, but the public are becoming too mealy-mouthed and allow abuses to continue without sufficiently denouncing them. But when it comes to provoking
888
religious or racial feeling against what must always be a, minority, that is cowardly, and in that regard I would support the Government in the strongest possible penalties. For these reasons I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 39, leave out from ("intent") to the end of the clause and insert ("to incite racial or religious prejudice whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned, shall be guilty of an offence ").—(Lord Strabolgi.)
LORD JESSEL: I should like to say a word upon this Amendment before the Committee part with it. The noble Lord has given a very interesting description of his electioneering experiences. I can sympathise with him, because I know that any one who speaks, as I used to do in London, has to go through the same experience as the noble Lord has done. He talks about the public being mealymouthed and all the rest of it, but your Lordships must recollect that the noble Lord is well able to take care of himself, having been champion boxer of the Navy, and so he does not mind a row. To a less strong individual, however, it can be a very painful experience. What is the good of a meeting if nobody can speak? I have been at meetings where not a single word has been heard from anybody. There has been a continual howl and noise all over the place. What is the good of that kind of thing? I quite agree with him that to have a dull meeting is not at all amusing. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition made a very interesting speech last night at a public banquet in responding to the toast of "The Houses of Parliament," and I heard him complain that this House was a dull place, that you never get a cheer, never get a "Hear, hear," or an interruption. Perhaps that would make our proceedings more lively. I agree that heckling done in a decent way certainly elicits answers from the candidate and makes the meeting go, but the organised opposition which goes on, especially in certain parts of London, on the part of the noble Lord's Party especially—
LORD STRABOLGI: Against us.
LORD JESSEL: —does no good at all. Surely we can leave it to the discretion of the chairman. To say that you should have a general row at a meeting—I cannot see the good of that to anybody. As

889
regards this particular Amendment, it seems to me a pity to single out one or other kind of incitement. It would be difficult to put such a clause into practice, and I think it better to leave it in general terms, as the Government have put it down, rather than pass a discriminatory Amendment of this kind. Only the other day there appeared a letter in The Times from a man who knows the East End better than anyone else, strongly complaining of the rowdyism that goes on now at public meetings in the East End. If this Bill does anything to prevent that rowdyism and allows free speech and the free expression of thought in a quiet manner, it will have done a very great service to the community.
LORD SALTOUN: I was very interested in Lord Strabolgi's experiences, and I also paid great attention to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Snell, on the Second Reading when he detailed to us the difficulties of his political career. In both of them I noted a non-recognition of what very often does occur in the case of speakers on our side. That is that organised bands of men come together and follow a candidate round, especially in a place where he has a lot of opposition, intent on starting and keeping up turmoil at meetings and ending very often, as it all tends towards, actual physical violence. That is a thing that candidates on our side have frequently to face. I have been very fortunate myself in political speaking. I have never had any trouble, but that does not make any difference, because I know of many cases to the contrary. I think the difficulty of this clause is rather the other way, because I do not think any candidate will really invoke this clause. It would not be to his interest to do so, and my fear is that the clause will remain a dead letter.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I do not think it is necessary for me to go into the argument of the noble Lord who moved this Amendment, as to the value or otherwise of persistent interruptions. I would like, if I may, to bring the Committee back to the specific Amendment which is before us, and which is to limit this clause to the incitement of racial or religious prejudice. I agree with Lord Jessel when he says it would be very unwise to single out that particular offence, however large it
890
may bulk in our political life at the present moment. This Bill is not going to be a. Bill that will pass away in three or four years. It is going to stay on the Statute Book for a long time, and it would be unwise at this moment to be carried away by our immediate concerns and not go for the more fundamental concern, which is the preservation of free speech.
LORD STRABOLGI: I do not want to press this, but in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, who complained of speakers being followed about by organised gangs, may I point out that that is dealt with in Clause 6, the one that follows? I am not resisting Clause 6. I think there is something very valuable in Clause 6, but Clause 5 does not deal with people who go round in gangs breaking up meetings. This clause would apply to a fellow who gets up and asks "What about the means test?"
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
LORD STRABOLGI: That might be held to be provocative if it prevented the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, from finishing his speech. I am not in favour of breaking up meetings at all, but I do want to resist anything which in my opinion will limit the rights of the subject to protest. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clauses 6, 7 and 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Interpretation, etc.
9.—(1) In this Act the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say:
"Chief officer of police" has the same meaning as in the Police Pensions Act, 1921;
(4) The powers conferred by this Act on any chief officer of police may, in the event of a vacancy in the office or in the event of the chief officer of police being unable to act owing to illness or absence, be exercised by the person duly appointed to act as deputy for the chief officer of police.
LORD GATNFORD LORD GATNFORD moved in the definition. of "Chief officer of police," to insert "Third Schedule of the" before "Police Pensions Act, 1921." The noble Lord said: I am not going to press this Amendment if it cannot be accepted. I bring it forward because I know that

891
the public as well as many of your Lordships dislike very much legislation by reference. In the earlier clauses of this Bill the words "chief officer of police" occur frequently, and great responsibility is placed upon him. I am sure the ordinary member of the public would like to know who the chief officer of police is. The reference in Clause 9 is to the Police Pensions Act, 1921, but that Act is a little bit complicated. You have to refer to Section 30 of that Act, and there you find that the expression "police area" means "one of the areas set forth in the first column of the Third Schedule to this Act," and this Schedule speaks of "police authority," "chief officer of police," and so on. Then you have to find out what the Third Schedule refers to in order to discover what really is the definition of the "chief officer of police."
I should like it to have been set out in this Bill who the chief officer of police is. That is rather complicated, because there may be five different chief officers of police. One is the Commissioner of the City of London Police, another the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police District; then there is the Chief Constable in a county, and the Chief Constable in a borough, and the Superintendent or other officer having chief command of the police in connection with the River Tyne within the limits of the Acts relating to the Tyne Improvement Commissioners. It is too much to insert all that, but I suggest to the Government that if it could be referred to as in the Third Schedule any person who wants to know would be able to ascertain by reference who the chief officer of police might be. If this Amendment cannot be accepted at the present time, I suggest that it might be considered before the Report stage.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 33, after ("the") insert ("Third Schedule of the").—(Lord Gainford.)
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The noble Lord will realise that I have had no notice of this Amendment. I would not like to accept it forthwith because there might be technical objection to its acceptance. At the same time I am bound to say that, listening to the noble Lord, I thought that what he said in support of the Amendment was entirely
892
reasonable, and, subject to there being no technical reason why the Amendment should not be accepted, I shall be glad to bring it forward on the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA moved to insert at the end of subsection (1) "'Public procession' means a procession in a public place." The noble Marquess said: This is the definition of "public procession" which I promised to embody in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 4, at end insert ("Public procession' means a procession in a public place").—(The Marquess of Dufferin and Ava.)
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "appointed to act as deputy for" and insert "authorised in accordance with directions given by a Secretary of state to exercise those powers on behalf of." The noble Marquess said: This is a technical Amendment, but I shall be very short. It is in order to provide a deputy to fulfil the functions of the chief of police, who may be ill or absent or may have died, and whose office has not been filled. The question does not really arise as far as the county police are concerned, because a deputy always is appointed, but, in the case of a borough police force, very often a deputy is not appointed, or if one is appointed his functions are limited to internal discipline of the police force and matters of that kind. It is in order to make it perfectly plain that a deputy should be appointed to discharge the duties laid upon the chief police officer by this Bill that this Amendment is inserted.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 22, leave out ("appointed to act as deputy for") and insert ("authorised in accordance with directions given by a Secretary of State to exercise those powers on behalf of").—(The Marquess of Dufferin, and Ava.)
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD JESSEL: May I ask what is meant by "recognised corps"? Certain religious bodies, like the Church Lads Brigade, have corps which are run by

893
religious institutions. Are they recognised corps, and would they come under this Bill
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: It is rather a difficult question, and I have had very short notice. I understand that a recognised corps is a corps that is recognised by the Secretary of State. I cannot go any further than that.
LORD JESSEL: I would be very much obliged if, on the Report stage, an. answer could be given, because considerable alarm has been expressed by some of these bodies.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hutchison of Montrose.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, before going into Committee I would like to say a word or two with regard to a matter which I have previously mentioned in this House. In accordance with the suggestion of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, no discussion took place on the Second Reading, and I take this opportunity of referring to a subject which I have mentioned on four or five previous occasions in connection with Expiring Laws Continuance Bills. Section 2 of the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, applies the procedure to purchase for the various purposes mentioned in Part 1 of the Schedule to the Act. Amongst these are the provision of aerodromes under the Air Navigation Act, 1920, and the power to make purchases under the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935. There are certain powers which are renewed annually under this particular measure. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the circumstance that this is not a very tidy way of legislating, and I Suggest to my noble friend that steps should be taken to regularise this procedure and put it into some Statute which would make it
894
permanent. Obviously the Government intend to apply this method of purchase to matters other than those in connection with purchases for the purposes I have mentioned, and I suggest that they should take the matter in hand at an early date and put it into some permanent Statute.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE): My Lords, I do not know what the noble Earl would wish, but perhaps I might clear up the point which he has just raised. It is a point which he has raised on other occasions, and various promises have been made to him in the past by representatives of the Government who have spoken from this Bench on the question of bringing the particular Act into some form of permanent enactment. Most of the points which have hitherto been covered by this Act are now dealt with by permanent Acts, such as the Air Navigation Act and the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act. Now the only authority which really has to do with the use of this Act, which is to be continued, is the Public Health Department. I have been in touch with my colleagues who assure me that the Government mean, at the earliest possible date, to bring this into the form of a permanent Act. I cannot give what I may call a closer date than the earliest possible moment. I assure the noble Earl that I will express his views to the Government.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I think this is an opportunity to raise one or two questions in connection with the Special Areas Act, which comes under the series of measures now presented for renewal. It is especially convenient to do this, as quite recently the Commissioner for England and Wales has presented his third Report. I want to take this opportunity of expressing the widespread disappointment which so many feel at the continued decay of the Special Areas and of the failure of the Government to introduce before now a Bill which would amend and strengthen the Act which we are asked to pass again. Of course, a good deal has been done under the Act. I do not want to minimise in the least the valuable work which has been done by the Commissioner, and the number of

895
very useful measures which he has succeeded in carrying out. With the cooperation of others he has arranged for the transfer of a number of the men from the districts. He has started a good deal of work, temporary work it is true, but work which will leave behind useful results, and he has also given a great deal of help to various organisations dealing with welfare, education and other things, which have helped to keep up the morale of those who are suffering from prolonged unemployment. Then of course we recognise, and recognise gladly, that to a certain extent even these districts have benefited by the revival of prosperity throughout the kingdom.
But, when all that has been said, the hard fact remains that there are over 280,000 men registered as unemployed, among whom are 25,000 juveniles under the age of eighteen, 40,000 between the ages of eighteen and twenty-four—though it is only fair to say that a considerable number of these have had occupation from time to time—and at the other extreme 24,000, I think that is the figure, of older men who have been out of work five years or more. The matter can be put in a rather different way. It was put by Professor Marquand in his book on planning for South Wales, when he said that if you took from that district alone 60,000 men and dissipated them into thin air you would still find left plenty of men to do the work available, and you would still find unemployment there in the same proportion as you find it elsewhere in the country. These dry and cold figures mean an enormous amount of unhappiness and misery. Mr. Malcolm Stewart refers to it in his Report. There may not be actual starvation, but there is deterioration in physique and, what is often worse, there is great mental suffering—I think he uses the expression mental agony—on the part of men who year after year are unable to do any work and have no prospect of doing any.
You find whole communities which have over them the paralysing shadow of unemployment. If this is felt by all men, it is felt especially by the younger men. There are some striking passages in his Report referring to this. He says that these younger men have grown up in an atmosphere of idleness. They have
896
never had a chance of experiencing the inspiration of work or the pride of earning a living for themselves and their families. He says that "they are in fact demoralised by the seeming inevitableness of unemployment." I know that it is sometimes asked why these younger men do not join the Army. I think there is a twofold answer to that. A large number of them are not physically fit to join the Army. Prolonged unemployment has injured their physique. But quite apart from that, it would be the worst possible thing for the Army if in it there were several thousand men who had been driven there simply by tie recruiting agency of the fear of starvation. It would be one thing to have national service applied to all classes throughout the country; it is quite another thing to compel through hunger men from one district to join the Army.
In these districts you have a vast mass of unemployment, and at the moment, as far as I can see, there is no prospect of any material improvement. Mr. Malcolm Stewart says that practically all that is possible has been done under this Act. He has, he says, perhaps carried out all the major schemes that are possible under it. He has made a number of recommendations which I hope will be kept in mind when the Government introduce the Bill which they have promised to introduce after Christmas. Your Lordships need not be alarmed. I do not propose to go through the twenty recommendations which he suggests at the end of his third Report, but there are two or three recommendations to which I want to allude. First of all, he points out in all his Reports how he has been somewhat unexpectedly hampered in his work by various restrictions and regulations which I think at the outset he hardly anticipated. In the first of his Reports he mentions nine different ways in which he has found himself checked in his work by some unexpected regulations. In the last Report he returns to the same difficulty.
More than once you find in his pages mention of the fact that he has been unable to do this or unable to do that by the terms of the Act. He points out also that he is not able to take any direct action. He says the Commissioner can propose the initiation and prosecution of

897
any number of measures, but in questions involving new principles or substantial expenditure of public money he is obliged to get the agreement of the Minister, who in turn has to comply with normal departmental practice in regard to Treasury sanction. The result is that the Commissioner is one stage further from final authority in matters of expenditure than an ordinary Government Department. He ends up by saying that the procedure which generally has to be followed in dealing with important administrative issues "can hardly be described as rapid or direct."
In regard to finance he says in his Reports that he can lot supplement any grant which has been made or promised by a Government Department for some specific purpose. If, for instance, a Government Department promises 60 per cent. towards the cost of a road which will give a good deal of employment and the local authority rind themselves unable to raise the ether 40 per cent., he may by the terms of the Act be unable to give anything. Let me take another instance. He is unable to assist local authorities because grants are payable to them, and the word "payable" has been defined as relating to money which: might be paid in the future if they ask for help for certain specific purposes. Therefore he is unable to give financial assistance towards the construction of roads, bridges, tunnels and so on. Again, he is unable to make any grant for new industries operating for profit. Undoubtedly there ought to be restrictions over granting money in that respect, but this has operated in such a way that he has been unable to encourage new industries to go into this area. Again he has been unable to make grants towards migration schemes. He is unable to make grants for the establishment of hostels to which boys who have been removed from these districts might be sent. He does not make here any specific recommendations as to what might be done, but he quite clearly hints that the way out of the difficulty is to appoint—I believe the noble Lord, Lord Portal, has mentioned this on previous occasions—a Minister without portfolio who should devote the whole of his time to the work of these areas, who would think and plan for them, and the whole of whose energies would be devoted to the attempt to restore prosperity to these districts.
898
Now I will turn to another class of recommendation—recommendations for the reduction of unemployment in these districts. In regard to that there is, of course, the possibility of removing some of the younger men who have been out of work for a long period. This policy has been carried out, I think, with great success. A very large number of young inert have been transferred, and the rate of transfer has greatly increased during the last eight months. I do not criticise that in the least. I believe it to be absolutely necessary that where there are no possibilities of work the younger men should have the chance of moving else-where. But I want to point out a drawback connected with it. You take away the cream from the milk; you leave behind the older men, the men who have little initiative, and you leave those districts in a very much weaker condition. The special investigator who wrote two very interesting articles in The Times a few weeks ago said:
"As a sole policy it would leave behind an ageing, shrinking population, living poorly, costing the country a lot, anxious for work but sometimes lacking the will."
This policy of transferring people from the districts is probably coming rather near its limits.
Next there are various proposals for reviving industry in the districts. I only want to refer to one of them, for it sounds a singularly attractive proposal—namely, that the Government should help in setting up, possibly should undertake the whole expense of setting up, the plant for producing oil from coal. This would give the men an opportunity of returning to their old work; it would produce what is urgently required in this country, and it would produce it in districts which are not so exposed to air raids in case of war. I think it is correct to say that where oil has been produced from coal in other countries, that has been very largely due to the support which has been given by the respective Governments. But, most important of all, the proposals made by the Commissioner are those which are concerned with persuading or encouraging new industries to come into these areas. This is really the key to the whole situation. You will never get prosperity in some of these areas again unless you are able to encourage new industries to come into them.

899
If there had been time, I should have been very tempted to say something about a somewhat drastic proposal which is made by the Commissioner—namely, that in future the area round London should be put out of bounds for the building of new factories in the hope that, when the capitalists found themselves unable to look towards London for places for their new factories, they would look towards the Special Areas. But, of course, even if London were put out of bounds in this way, that would not be sufficient to induce industrialists to move to these areas. Positive attractions must be held out, and the Commissioner makes several suggestions such as exemption from rates, special privileges in connection with Income Tax, and loans at a low rate of interest for a long period. I do not want to go into any one of those details, but what I do want to press as strongly as I can is that I think it is now generally agreed that there can be no revival of industry in these districts without positive Government help, and that it is necessary for the Government to plan and to hold out special privileges and advantages in the exceptional case in which these districts now find themselves. Unless that is done in a new Bill, the new Bill may make slight improvements here and there but it will not deal with the core of the question. What I want to press upon the Government as strongly as I can is the importance of further planning in these districts, so that industries may be encouraged to come into them.
There is one other thing I want to say. I am very thankful to hear that a Bill will be introduced soon after Christmas. but I hope it will not only be introduced but also speedily passed into law. The matter is one of really great urgency. The various plans and proposals made by the Commissioner are not new. Most of them are found in Lord Portal's Report, made when he was investigator for South Wales. Many of them are found in the Commissioner's first Report of eighteen months ago. Most of these proposals have been before the Government for a considerable period, and the matter is urgent, because every month's delay means more suffering and distress to the people in these districts. A few months or even a few years are a very short period in the history either of a city or of a nation, but the three or four
900
years which are short in the history of a nation are a very long period in the life of a human being. Every month that is allowed to pass means that the iron of unemployment enters more and more into the personality of the individual and there is the greater danger of his drifting into the ranks of the unemployable.
If I may venture to do so, I will quote a sentence from that very moving account of his own life which is given by the noble Lord, Lord Snell, who leads the Opposition. Speaking of his own experience of unemployment, he says:
"It leaves its sinister mark upon both mind and character, and it may so take the light out of a man's life that he lives there after in a darkened world. When wages are again forthcoming hunger departs, but memory remains."
It is to obviate, as far as we can, memory becoming bitter from prolonged unemployment that I hope the Government will do its utmost, not only to bring in a comprehensive Bill, but to bring in a Bill which will deal at once with this most urgent and difficult problem.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will allow me to add a few words to the very effective speech which the right reverend Prelate has delivered. We are at a new point; we have a new Commissioner for the Special Areas and we have a promise from His Majesty's Government, which they will undoubtedly fulfil, to produce a new Bill, and I hope a new policy, in the coming year. I should like, if I could, in a few words to urge upon the Government, as the right reverend Prelate has done, the pressing character of this problem. I hardly need remind your Lordships of the sort of problem with which we have to deal, but let us bear clearly in mind the difference between general unemployment and the unemployment in these "black spots." As far as general unemployment is concerned, every sign is on the whole favourable; things are moving in the right direction. But these black spots remain a running sore, of which I venture to say that this country ought to be heartily ashamed.
I had the advantage not long ago of meting a deputation from South Wales, from Merthyr Tydfil, and the speakers who came from that town explained to us that the adult male unemployment of that town amounted to 60 per cent., and I

901
think in some parts of the town to 70 per cent. Just conceive, my Lords, what that means in demoralisation and misery! This is not a new thing I think I am right in saying, and I shall be at once corrected if I am wrong, that there has been going on for nearly seven years a state of things approaching to the description which I have given. It is clear that, if it is within the compass of administration or legislation, we ought to find an effective remedy, or effective remedies, for such a state of things as that. I am sometimes surprised at what I must call, if I may be allowed to do so, the pedantry of some criticisms which are made against State assistance such as I have described.
How can it lie in the mouth of a Parliament and a country which has got the Poor Law arid the system of the "dole" to shrink back as if it were something rather shocking that we should be asked to subsidise, for example, new industries such as the right reverend Prelate has mentioned in these areas. I cannot understand how people, with the legislation and the law as it exists in this country for the relief of distress, and for the subsidising of the individual—what is called the "dole"—can shrink, from what I must call a. pedantic feeling, from the necessary expenditure for bringing industry back to these spots. The right reverend Prelate has said that that is the key of the situation, and I believe he is perfectly right. You must produce, if you can, in those black spots, either a revival of old industries, or the introduction of new industries, and I think the right reverend Prelate is right in thinking that it must be rather the introduction of new industries than the revival of old. But the point is to provide the necessary money from the general taxpayer in order to wipe out what I must call a disgrace to this country—the continuance of these black spots.
I am afraid that there are some influences which are rather difficult to overcome—that there is a certain jealousy of a competitive spirit which sometimes checks the good impulses which the Government or Parliament may have in these respects. I do not pretend to be familiar with everything that happened at Jarrow, but I must say that I have been shocked by what I heard. Why was the revival of the steel industry in Jarrow stopped—effectively stopped? It could have been
902
done. Of course it was said: "if you revive Jarrow, you militate against the success of other steel industries all over the country." What a selfish reply. My Lords, these steel industries all over the country live upon the protection which this Parliament has given them. The action of Parliament itself has made their success, and yet they resist an impulse, I believe a, perfectly genuine impulse, of compassion and shame in this Parliament and in this Government to put right, if possible, the unemployment in Jarrow. If I am wrong, I hope I shall be corrected. I have no desire to slander any man or any body of men, and if I have clone so I apologise to your Lordships, but I say that it does not lie in the mouths of people who are benefiting by the protective policy of this country to resist the necessary effective action of Parliament to help these black spots, these areas such as exist on the Tyne, and such as was shown in the case of Jarrow. I do not know whether it is too late to do anything there, but I give it as an instance of what ought to be resisted when we deal with this subject.
I know how short time is, and I am not going into details, but I merely recite the fact to which the right, reverend Prelate has called your attention, of the Parliamentary difficulties which arise if there is interference by Government Departments with the Special Commissioners. All that Should be got rid of. We want to shake off the shackles which check the Government. I know they desire to help these places, and I hope they believe, what I certainly believe myself, that the great body of public opinion in this country—not only in the House of Commons and in this House, but right through the country—is anxious that they should act promptly in relieving these black spots. Let me call your Lordships' attention to one figure. I believe the capital expenditure which has been engaged up to now in these areas is about £2,000,000. I am not quite sure whether I am speaking of the black spots generally, or only those in Durham and on the Tyne, but I think it is generally, and I believe that there are further commitments which are now definite of £5,000,000. Just consider these figures. Five million pounds! Compare that figure to the figure of the relief which is now going on in these areas in the shape of Poor Law relief

903
and the "dole." The figure this year amounts to over £7,000,000. Not £7,000,000 capital, but £7,000,000 a year is spent in relief.
In this connection if you will allow me to use such an epithet, compare this miserable £5,000,000 of capital with the £7,000,000 a year given in outdoor relief and in "dole," and just think for a moment if you capitalised £7,000,000 a year what sort of figure you would have. You would have at least £200,000,000 capital. So that really, my Lords, we need not shrink from a really generous expenditure, even if we were niggardly in the matter, if we really realise that at present, in mere relief which has no future to it, and is purely negative relief, and is not fertile in any way, we are now spending what is equivalent to £200,000,000 and that money could be used by the Government for the relief of these distressed areas with immense effect. I do not suggest of course any particular figure for the Government to use, but I want your Lordships to realise how much money is being uselessly spent now—when I say "uselessly" the relief of distress is not useless, but it does not lead to any revival. But if we can get these industries to work again it means happiness and prosperity instead of misery and demoralisation. Therefore I would venture to urge upon your Lordships, not merely because of the misery and demoralisation of these areas, but upon a purely financial ground, how liberal the Government might be in their new policy, and yet be within the limits of prudence and wisdom. I earnestly urge upon them therefore—as I am sure my noble friends desire to do also—to have the courage to embark upon this policy without reserve, to do something to wipe out what I have described as a disgrace to this country.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, no doubt it is very difficult at this hour and in this particular manner to discuss what is admittedly a problem in the very forefront of national emergency. But this is the only opportunity, I suppose, of bringing this matter before your Lordships and before the Government until they bring in their promised Bill. I do not think the Government can be surprised that we continually press upon them the urgency of this matter. I should
904
like to support what has been said by the Bishop of Winchester and so sincerely and. forcibly by the noble Marquess. To speak the truth, we are getting a little tired of speeches with which we have become almost too familiar in this matter—speeches which assure us that the Government are giving the most careful attention to all the recommendations of their Commissioners, that they hope very soon to introduce useful reform in this matter and the like speeches which were rather wittily described in another place as having the character of gramophone records. It is not really assurances of a sense of the importance of the matter, bur definite, bold and constructive proposals that the country demands. And the plea of the Commissioner cannot be resisted that in this matter it is a case for the adoption of unconventional principles.
I do not want to elaborate what has been already so effectively said in the two speeches to which we have listened, least of all to inflict any figures on your Lordships. May I only mention one or two which have struck my imagination. In the North take Sunderland. Thirty per cent. of the unemployed in Sunderland have been unemployed for more than three years. Take the area of Durham County Council. One out of three of the insured workers is unemployed, and about 30,000 have been unemployed for more than three years. Or turn to South Wales, to Merthyr Tydfil, to which the noble Marquess alluded, where 75 to 80 per cent. of the people are unemployed, many of them young men who have never been employed at all.
May I supplement what the Bishop of Winchester said, quoting the Report of the Commission:
" It is hardly surprising in the circumstances that young persons with this background and upbringing should be ready victims of all manner of demoralising influences.…It is these young men who present the most tragic aspect of the problem of the Special Areas, and one fraught with great danger to the State."
I do not think the position could be put better than by one who has himself undergone some of this trouble, in his very remarkable book which is called "Cut of the Pit" Consider this:
" The Durham pitman has always been noted for his independence…but that's going now, and in some ways it's the

905
greatest tragedy of all; men who earned a. hard living, were disciplined by the iron discipline of the put, were proud of themselves and their work, now coining cap in hand to take anything that's offered."
He ends by saying "It's a…business"—using an adjective which I will not presume to mention in these august premises. That is a cry from the reality of the situation.
And let us not forget the other side, the astonishing patience and courage and even continuance of hope when hope long deferred may have made the heart sick, which characterise these people, I am sure in South Wales, and to my knowledge in the North of England. Here I feel bound to say that in no respect have I reason to admire them better than in this, that I know from these areas, particularly the County of Durham, that the one thing that these people, finding it hard to live themselves, refuse to let down has been the support of the churches to which they belong. Whether it be their economic plight or the wonderful patience with which they have endured it, there is a double claim, not only on sympathy—that is obvious—but upon resolute and determined effort.
If we turn to the measures which have been taken, I must say I think my friends of the Party represented opposite have been a little too contemptuous of the efforts that voluntary societies have made, at least to relieve the tedium of idleness and to maintain the morale and physical fitness of the unemployed. I think they have -been less than generous in recognising the good that has been done. After all, they will remember that this is the only way in which the general public have been able to give effect to their sympathy and to rid themselves of the imputation that they have nothing but sympathy to offer. In many ways good has been done, and I am sure the position of the workers, both in the North and in South Wales, would have been infinitely worse if it had not been for the way in which these voluntary efforts have maintained at once their muscle and their morale.
But of course these are only palliatives, and we must look deeper than what has already been done. A good deal has been done and is proposed in regard to land settlement. I understand that the Commissioner regards his commitments
906
in that direction as taking £2,000,000 out of the £7,200,000 for which he has budgeted. But that is a very costly business, and it only affects a few carefully picked families. It cannot go very far to meet this immense difficulty. Then there is, secondly, the transfer of labour. It is good up to a point. It is necessary, in some respects it is natural, but I do beg your Lordships and the Government to consider that it brings as much regret as it brings hope, because it leaves these communities, as my right reverend friend has said, deprived of all the youth and energy and leaves behind communities of middle-aged and old persons. In the words of a very forcible paper written by a member of the Labour Party in another place, it leaves these places cemeteries of old people and buried hopes.
When I think of the pride that these communities, especially in the North of England, took in themselves, how sons were proud to follow their fathers into the pit, how whole communities were knit together in virile strength, I cannot bear to think of the great majority of the younger men leaving and abandoning these places to the middle aged, the old, and the dying. Therefore, however much may be done in the way of transfer, it does not take us to the heart of the problem. It is obvious that the only solution—it is a mere commonplace to say so—is the introduction of new work. No doubt a great deal has been done. I am the last to deny the efforts that have been made, particularly on Tyneside, where there has been some real improvement, and I suppose the new Team Valley Estate may be taken as an example which may yet be followed elsewhere. I think there are over a thousand employed there already; but beyond Tyneside there is little sign of the inflow of these new industries and, with these new industries, new hope. The tide, such as it is, has not reached South Wales. I do not know why it is that there should be this apparent reluctance on the part of industry to embark on that area. It may be that the rates there are mounting beyond control, arid I think there is much that the Government will consider in the suggestion of the Commissioner that in places such as that there should be some relief of the rates given by the Government. But it is not for people like me to

907
suggest these remedies. I am not an expert. The Government have recourse to all the expert assistance that is needed.
I do indeed think that the problem of Greater London calls for some consideration. It is swelling to such an extent that it has become almost a danger. One-fifth of the whole population is in Greater London, and I am told that within the last five years the number of insured workers in London has grown by over a quarter of a million. This is due mainly to the introduction of new industries which, so far as one can see, might equally well, and with far greater value to the community, have been introduced elsewhere. All I ask—and I am sure that the request comes from all of us—is that in this matter, as the noble Marquess has said, the Government will be prepared to take a bold and constructive line. I think it was The Times newspaper which said that it surely was not to be admitted that it is beyond the resources and the machinery of the modern State to prove itself capable of removing the reproach of these areas.
I pause for a moment at that word "machinery." There is a great deal of machinery in the modern State that is admittedly hindering and hampering the solution of this problem, and I know that some people, like the Commissioner himself, have felt that some of their proposals get lost in the corridors and entangled in the red tape of public Departments. I am sure an immense amount may be done to assist in trying to get rid of these needless difficulties. Certain it is that this is, and will prove to be, a test of economic statesmanship, one of the most necessary, one of the most severe, that ever any Government has had to meet, and it is the hope of all of us that by boldness of imagination and courage of action His Majesty's Government may prove equal to the test.
LORD DAVIES: My Lords, in a few words I should like to support everything that has been said by the speakers who have addressed the House already, and in doing so to tell the Government that this vital subject is one which is not only debated in the country and debated in another place but which I am sure concerns every member of your Lordships' House. We are now discussing the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. Probably
908
some of us would have desired to move the omission of the Special Areas Act from the Schedule of that Bill. In the discussion in another place, however, it was agreed that the Special Areas Act should come to an end in any case on May 31 next year instead of on March 31, 1938. The Government, we understand, have promised to introduce new legislation at the earliest possible moment dealing with the subject which we are now discussing, and particularly with those abnormal conditions in the Special Areas. I entirely agree with what fell a moment ago from the most reverend Primate that this is a matter of extreme urgency. We cannot ignore the time factor. We have had so many promises in the past that all these questions were going to be considered and dealt with that I am not exaggerating when I say there is a feeling of profound disappointment and despondency, especially in South Wales and in the other distressed areas and "black spots," that no drastic measures have so far been elaborated and carried into effect by the Government.
We have had the Report of the noble Lord, Lord Portal, we have had the Report of the Commissioner, and there is ample material obviously for new legislation, so that the Government cannot tell us they have no material upon which to base the new legislation which they have promised. I suggest that this whole question of unemployment should be regarded from a new angle and that the Government should introduce a new policy. During the last few years—at any rate since the operation of the insurance scheme—we have spent something like £1,000,000,000—£991,000,000—in endeavouring to deal with unemployment. What have we to show for it? A great army of unemployables. Therefore I suggest that this is a matter that cannot be dealt with piecemeal, but is one to which we must endeavour to apply a bold, courageous policy. After all, your Lordships will remember, it is not a new problem. I remember many discussions in pre-War days in another place on this vital question of unemployment. When the War came there was no unemployment, because there was a terrific demand for workers, and as the result we had an accelerated process of mechanisation of industry from one end of the country to the other. That mechanisation and displacement of labour

909
continued after the War, and I believe it is in a large measure responsible for the situation in which we find ourselves. That this situation has persisted for so long is in my opinion due to that fact and to the increasing mechanisation that goes on every year.
The Government must not regard this as a permanent feature in the social life of our country. We must not throw up the sponge. There has always been some measure of unemployment, and there always will be a certain amount of it. During the past few years there has been, first of all, industrial depression, followed by financial stringency. That has been an excuse, possibly, for lack of effective action on the part of the Government, but I would point out to your Lordships that that depression and financial stringency have been, to a great extent, removed, and that there is in consequence a complete change in the attitude of the public throughout the country towards the question of unemployment. The other day the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in another place:
"I think it is particularly the position of South Wales which is afflicting the conscience of the House."
It is not only afflicting the conscience of another place, but, also the conscience of our fellow-countrymen, and I believe it is also afflicting the conscience of your Lordships' House.
I believe that one of the reasons for this new attitude on the part of the Government is the glaring contrast between prosperity in many parts of the country and terrible poverty in other parts of the country. In the Midlands, and in the South Eastern Counties, there is a boom of prosperity, but in South Wales and the North and other places, poverty is still rampant and unemployment stalks abroad. It is this terrible contrast which has struck the imagination of the people of the country, and especially the representatives of the people, and they now demand that something drastic must be done, to end this state of affairs. Then there are the Commissioners' Reports which have been already alluded to drawing attention to this problem. It is true there is a decline in the number of unemployed. The fact that the figure of 2,900,000 has now been reduced to something like
910
1,600,000 means that this problem is neither so huge nor so intricate as it was formerly, and with the revival in trade and the return to prosperity which many parts of the country are experiencing at the present time it has become a feasible and practical proposition to deal with 1,600,000 unemployed, whereas formerly it was a gigantic problem to have to deal with 2,900,000. Therefore we ought to demand from the Government that they shall not be satisfied merely with providing palliatives.
We ought to ask that in the new legislation that is promised there shall be a recognition of what I may describe as the principle of the right to work. In the past we have recognised the principle of the right to subsist, and we have handed out millions of pounds in unemployment relief; but surely in an industrial community such as ours we are responsible not only for seeing that the unemployed man does not starve but also for seeing that he has an opportunity of doing some useful work. Therefore I suggest, whatever legislation is introduced, that that principle should be recognised, because I believe that the vast majority of unemployed people really do want work. I know there are some who say that there are thousands of unemployed who will never work again, but the truth of the matter is that many have never had an opportunity of working. In the Report of the Commissioner and in other documents we are told quite clearly that the vast majority of unemployed people would be only too glad to work if they had an opportunity of doing so. Therefore, I suggest that what we want to try to do is to extinguish unemployment, and the only way we can extinguish unemployment is by providing work and in that way get rid of the "dole."
I am afraid it is impossible at this late hour to deal fully with this question. No one wants to disparage the work which has been already done, and I think the right reverend Prelate was right when he said that the two things which are essential are, first of all, a revival of basic industries, and, secondly, the introduction of new industries. That point was put very forcibly in another place by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In South Wales our basic industry is the coal trade. The vast majority of the

911
companies in South Wales are concerned with the export of coal to other countries. As your Lordships know, in pre-War days this was a very prosperous trade, and its prosperity was built up on the quality of the coal which was sold abroad, the proximity of the collieries to the sea-board, and the shipping facilities which were available. These factors still exist, but post-War conditions have been such that, owing to the competition of oil and the diminution of trade, and especially trade with South America, to the chaotic condition of the exchanges and to other reasons, the pre-War prosperity of this great industry has seriously diminished.
As a result of legislation during the past few years, and as a consequence of the efforts which foreign Governments have made to support the coal industry in their own countries, there have been inroads of foreign coal into the markets which were previously supplied by the South Wales coalowners. Your Lordships will probably know that since 1929 the amount of coal exported from South Wales has dropped by something like 10,000,000 tons. That is due not only to the causes which I have already described but to the fact that foreign coal-owners are subsidised and assisted by their respective Governments. For instance, in Germany to-day on all the coal sold inland there is a charge of 6s. per ton which is utilised to subsidise the export of coal from that country. We in this country have had to fight not only the ordinary natural competition of other coal-fields but also the. subsidies and Government support which have been accorded to them. Your Lordships will probably agree that that is a very unfair condition of things and that it subjects the coal trade in South Wales to unfair competition.
Not long ago the Government made an agreement with the Scandinavian countries which had the effect of increasing the export of coal from the North-East Coast to ports in Scandinavia. The result of that agreement so far as South Wales was concerned was very disastrous because the Polish coal which had hitherto gone to Scandinavian ports was diverted to Mediterranean and other ports where it came into competition with South Wales coal. Therefore we feel that the Government should do something now to assist the coal industry in South Wales.
912
What we suggest is that they should give us a subsidy to break down the unfair competition which now exists. For my own part I have always been opposed to subsidies. I have always been in favour of free competition and fair competition. But when one finds that our competitors abroad are subsidised by their respective Governments, then it appears that there is no possibility of our being able to compete successfully unless our own Government are prepared to assist the industry.
Allusion was made by the noble Marquess who spoke a few minutes ago to the iron and steel industry. It is quite true that that industry has been assisted by the Government in order that it might secure a fair share of the quotas under international agreements. A short time ago the Government agreed that a 50 per cent. tariff should be imposed upon imports of foreign iron and steel unless fair quotas could be agreed upon. That tariff was never put into operation because immediately the Government came to the rescue of the industry it was possible to agree upon fair and reasonable quotas. We feel that a similar policy should be adopted by the Government in dealing with the coal trade and assisting it to fight the competition with which it is faced. There is also a proposal made in the Commissioner's Report that the Government should assist the coal industry by helping to finance propositions for extracting oil from coal. Already a great many experiments have been undertaken privately in connection with this, but it really is far too costly a proposition for any private enterprise to engage in it successfully. It is a matter which calls for Government assistance. There are many other ways in which the Government could assist the coal industry in South Wales. We understand that they are going to introduce a Rill for the nationalisation of royalties. In that connection they could assist, if they wished, by equalising royalties and wayleaves and so helping to relieve the industry of a great many burdens which it now carries.
I come now to the question of new industries. I gather from the Commissioner's Report that it would be exceedingly difficult to compel promoters of new industries to establish their plants in the Special Areas. He does not suggest that the Government should take compulsory powers to make then do so. Therefore we come back

913
to the promotion of public works and utility companies. In connection with the Government's defence programme I would like to suggest consideration of proposals which have been made from time to time for the construction of underground hangars and even, possibly, underground aircraft factories. We all know that the whole strategy of warfare has been revolutionised, and that in future everything will depend upon our ability to defend ourselves against a surprise attack. So long as the present system of competitive national armaments exists, we shall always be liable to a surprise attack, especially from the air. The Government have already recognised the importance of husbanding our resources in oil and in food and they have appointed a new food department under the Board of Trade. I would suggest that they should go still further and find out what is necessary for the defence of the country in providing underground storage accommodation for food and oil. That matter also is referred to in the Report of the Commissioner. The configuration of the country in Glamorgan offers considerable scope for the provision of underground hangars and also underground storage of oil. I understand that in Germany and in France considerable provision for underground storage of this kind has already been made. In one place alone I believe there is an underground hangar capable of providing accommodation for 130 aeroplanes. Therefore I will return to the suggestion which I ventured to make a few moments ago, that the Government should consider these questions.
So far as South Wales is concerned, we appeal to the Government to assist in the revival of our basic industries and at the same time to take advantage of the natural configuration of the country in order to provide for our defensive requirements. The right reverend Prelate told us a few moments ago that there has been a lack of initiative and a failure to carry out the proposals which have been made from time to time by the Commissioner, and that this was due in very large measure to the fact that no Minister was directly responsible for seeing that the plans, schemes and proposals were carried into effect. I hope that this state of things will be remedied in the new Bill which the Government propose to introduce after Christmas. They
914
should consider, I suggest, a very old proposal which has been under consideration for many years—the creation of a Welsh Office analogous to the Scottish Office, so that we may have a Minister in Wales responsible for seeing that all these urgent reforms are carried out. Our patience in Wales is nearly exhausted. I sincerely hope, therefore, that when my noble friend replies he will be able to assure us that he means business this time, and that in the new Bill which we hope will be introduced in another place as soon as possible we shall see some real reforms which will extinguish, or go a long way towards extinguishing, unemployment in our country.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: My Lords, we have heard a good deal about coal distillation as a remedy for the Special Areas. I am sure most of us are disappointed at the slow progress that is being made in finding new industries for these areas. I have never heard a really good reason why coal distillation has not been tried there. It cannot be from want of money, because the other day the Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking in another place, said that the Government had spent over £8.000,000 in assisting the Special Areas and that if he could find suitable new industries he would gladly spend eight times that amount. We know that the worst of the Special Areas are the mining areas. What more suitable industry is there to start in a distressed mining area than coal distillation? Some noble Lords who represent the Government will say that coal distillation is too experimental. It is not experimental. There is a Government Board called the Fuel Research Board, composed of the greatest experts on coal in this country. They have examined over a hundred different systems of coal distillation, and to my knowledge they have reported on more than a dozen systems which in their opinion are technically efficient, by which they mean that these processes will do what they say they can do. Why not, then, bring coal distillation into the distressed areas if it is technically efficient? We want all the oil that we can produce for national defence. The Navy cannot guarantee a sufficient supply of imported oil in its present weak state. Some people are inclined to pin their faith on storing oil in large steel tanks. These, however, we know to be most vulnerable to aerial

915
attack. It is also proposed to store oil in subterranean tanks. Why should we spend money in making expensive subterranean tanks when nature already stores our oil below ground in the form of coal? All we need is plant put down at the pithead to extract the oil as it is wanted for our national necessities. I appeal to noble Lords representing the Government to show a little more energy, spirit of adventure and abandon, and to push coal distillation in the Special Areas even though they may think they are taking a risk.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I will not make the conventional apology for detaining your Lordships at this hour, because if there is any blame to be allotted it must be placed on the Front Bench opposite. We have had this debate several times, and if the Government had dealt with the situation, as they have constantly promised to do, we should not now be here making speeches remarkably similar to others we have made. I believe I could make exactly the same speech as I have made more than once before and it would be equally germane to the present subject. That seems to me to be the ultimate reproach to the Government. Speaking in another place on this Bill, the Chancellor seemed to me to show most regrettable complacency, and I am afraid that this com placency is the reason for this debate and the reason why we are so late. I trust that the unanimity which has been shown on every side of the House this evening will at last force the Government to relieve us from the necessity of attacking them on these grounds.
The Chancellor took credit for increasing employment in the Special Areas. That, of course, is entirely fallacious in our opinion on this side. Though it is true that the employment has slightly increased, it has not increased to anything like the extent that it has increased in other parts of the country. In fact, proportionately to the rest of the country it has not increased. We have just received the Commissioner's Report. I have made a list of all his proposals and, with the exception of four, which are very nearly consequential proposals, they are exactly the same as he made in his first Report. The Government asked that this Act should be put into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill in order that it may be carried on and that they may have
916
time to consider the Commissioner's Report and produce another Bill. A year has passed since the last Report, two years since the Commission was established, and at least five years since some-thing ought to have been done. The fact that the Government, within three months of the expiration of the Act unless it is renewed, must now, according to their own arrangements, have to the end of May to think out another Bill, seems to indicate that they have not spent the last year extraordinarily profitably. We s could like to have some hope, and I am afraid that I myself have little, that the Government will at last do something. As I think the most reverend Primate said, it has to be remembered that these months may seem short and busy to us who are well fed and well occupied, but in the Special Areas these months are a continuance of long-drawn-out catastrophe. I hope the Government will find time. There is time, and time can be made for a problem as urgent as this, if Parliament were convinced that the Government really had a scheme and intended to use it. Time could undoubtedly be made to pass it into law.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place said that there were five lines of approach to this particular problem. He mentioned the revival of these industries. We on these Benches are convinced that these industries can be revived under the system for which we stand. That is not a point of view which I am going to elaborate, but we believe it is capable of demonstration, although your Lordships have not been persuaded of that. Revival, to a certain extent, is possible. Very little has been done, if the Government will excuse me for flatly contradicting them, in this matter. The Commissioner has done his best but on his own showing has been hopelessly handicapped, and the new Commissioner will be equally handicapped, so that there seems little hope that more will be done than has been done. The Chancellor of the Exchequer went on to suggest new industries, and also training estates. The latter must take time, and it is a form of development which does not, in my opinion, give vary much scope for dealing with the problem.
On the other hand, I should like to press upon the Government the desirability of placing in these areas the new

917
industries that are being forced into existence by the Government's rearmament policy. In another place it was said that it had not been found possible to place the new factories which are being built in these areas, because speed was of the essence of the problem of rearmament. That does not seem to me to be particularly convincing. Why is it easier to build munition factories in an area where there are comparatively few unemployed, or none at all, than it is to build them in these areas where you have unlimited labour waiting to be employed, and labour which has the reputation of being amongst the best and most skilled in England? In addition to that I have, on other occasions, urged upon your Lordships, and the Commissioner has urged upon the Government, and my noble friend Lord Ridley, who is a recognised authority on the subject, has also urged, the desirability of licensing new factories. There is no sign that the Government will do anything in this matter. For some reason the scheme has been turned down.
Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer turned to land settlement, which we know is a costly and slow business. I know that it has been and is being successful to a certain extent, and I should like to suggest, as does the Commissioner, that it might be done on a larger scale. Transference, the right reverend Prelate spoke of, as I gather, as a regrettable necessity, but one which is there. Finally, the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke of social services, and on those lines I believe a great work has been done. The right reverend Prelate said that we, on this side, had been somewhat ungenerous towards those who were doing voluntary work in this direction. I assure the, right reverend Prelate that there is no lack of generosity on our part in this matter. As he said, it is a palliative, but a small one, in this matter, and one which we think ought not to be developed by private persons but taken in hand by the Government.
I will detain your Lordships only a short while in order to make one short quotation from one of the Government's enthusiastic supporters in another place, in order to show that my view in this matter is not partisan in any way. We have, on this side, tried most sincerely to help the Government as much as we
918
can by suggestion and advice. We have tried to give it in a spirit of the purest helpfulness. The honourable Member for East Aberdeen, Mr. Boothby, treating of the same matter and examining the Report of the Commissioner, said:
" 'Re-organisation of coal sales machinery, and reconsideration of the quota scheme.' This was held to be unsatisfactory and was not done. 'Reorganisation of iron and steel industry.' Not done. 'Establishment of central bureau of information to help industries to select factory sites.' Not done. 'System of licensing in specified industry to control erection of new factories.' Not done."
I could not improve upon that, and he, my Lords, is an enthusiastic supporter of the present Government, driven to extremity and weary of the mess.
I am just going to mention one matter which is perhaps not entirely germane to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, but which is indicative of the Government's extreme unwillingness to cope with the problem. On the Special Areas Reconstruction (Agreement) Bill I was reproached by Lord Rhayader for the attitude which I took on the Bill. I think he did not appreciate that mine was not an attitude of opposition, but of criticism and doubt as to the efficacy of that Bill. That doubt seems most entirely to have been confirmed, for the performance of the Association under that Bill has not been very encouraging. I find that there have been 358 applications, of which 64 were out of order, 104 were indeterminate, 189 were genuine, and 14 loans were granted, amounting to £52,000. That seems to me to confirm the feeling which we have, and which it seems that the whole House has, that the Government are not doing anything: that their measures are insufficient and are not being pushed with the spirit which we all believe to be absolutely essential.
One of the new suggestions in the Commissioner's Report was the twentieth, and last. His suggestion is that preferential treatment involving unconventional principles is still required for the Special Areas. I have an idea that that is the stumbling block. As the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said, one cannot help feeling that there is a certain pedantry in the Government's attitude. They are not prepared to take measures which may smack perhaps of our policy on these Benches. But I think that the Special

919
Areas are making Socialists on every side of the House and in every corner of the country.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, I think you will all be agreed, after the debate that has taken place on the Special Areas Act that, introduced as it was in the first place as an experiment, that Act is undoubtedly in need of revision, and it is very gratifying to know that the Government have announced their intention in another place of bringing in another Bill. It was said to be an experiment when it was introduced. I do not think that the experiment can be said to have succeeded, except that it has been very useful in showing in what direction a further and more practical experiment can be made. I do not want to belittle what has been done by the Commissioner and his staff. Within the limits imposed by the Act of Parliament they have worked hard. But I would like to take this opportunity of suggesting to the Government one or two points which from a practical point of view and from an observation of the practical working of the Act do seem to me essential when a new Act is to be brought in.
The real limitation—which has been referred to by the Commissioner himself in his Report—is the question of the actual control of his activities. It has been suggested that the Special Areas Commissioner should be put under a special Minister of the Crown and that he should be given direct access to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and other alternatives have been suggested. I do not know what is in practice the best way of getting the Commissioner rapidly and effectively into touch with the responsible heads of the Government, but I feel certain that that is one of the most important and essential things in order to make the Act a really operative measure. I would ask your Lordships to consider a comparison between expenditure undertaken by a local authority with the assistance of the Commissioner, and expenditure undertaken without the assistance of the Commissioner. In the ordinary way the local authority has to get a grant from a Government Department, and has but to satisfy that Department and obtain Treasury approval. In the case of the Commissioner, the local authority has to satisfy the District Commissioner, who then has
920
to get the agreement of the Commissioner in London, who then has to get the agreement of whatever Government Department is concerned; and he also has to get the approval of the Ministry of Labour under whose authority he is, and finally Treasury approval has to be given. I do not think that can be said to show that the machinery that is provided is as rapid as it might be for dealing with this very difficult problem.
From a study of the various Reports of Commissions, surveys and recommendations that have been made by innumerable bodies, starting in the first place from the Government's investigating Commissioners, it seems clear that the basis and real effect of the trouble—I do not say the cause of the trouble—is twofold. First of all there is the disorganisation of the finances of the responsible local authorities by the excessive cost of the public assistance in their areas. I would remind your Lordships that the average rate for public assistance purposes alone throughout the country is something like 2s. or 3s, whereas in Special Areas, particularly in the County of Durham, the rate is somewhere between 8s. and 9s. That is a situation which cannot allow the local authority to do the necessary work, and it cannot allow them to carry on their proper duties without assistance from the Commissioners. I think that taking a long forward view some measure either to equalise the rates, to make a special grant in addition to the block grant, or some other possible measure to reduce this enormous rate which has to be paid for public assistance, is required.
Another salient point is the measures that can be taken to revive the prosperity of these areas, which are to be found scattered in the various recommendations that have been made by the Commissioners and others for the encouragement of new and different types of industry in those areas. I would ask the Government to take a very serious interest in trying to work out these proposals and to introduce them in the Bill they are bringing in. I do not know how the Special Areas Reconstruction Association, which has been referred to, can really be involved in this particular Bill, although it is one of the important elements in helping the recovery of the districts. I would like to ask the Government, at the same time as they are considering what steps should be taken to amend the Act, to amend the

921
Act which enables the Special Areas Reconstruction Association to function. It has not been found in practice that there has been sufficient flexibility in the scope allowed for that Association's work to permit it to do very much that cannot be done by ordinary banking organisations; and that, so far as one can make out, was the intention and object of Parliament in setting up that Association.
There is one other point, and that is the question of the inclusion of new areas in the Special Areas Act, or the exclusion of areas which can be said to have recovered. It does appear that the basis for adding or removing any districts should be that of the unemployment percentage, combined with a figure for the public assistance rate, arrived at perhaps in much the same way as the weighting of block grants. But I would like to remind your Lordships that certain areas which appear to have made great recovery, due to an improvement in their percentage of unemployment have enjoyed this improvement by reason of the present rearmament programme. It, cannot be denied that a great deal of work has come, particularly to Tyneside, and I think it should certainly be borne in mind that the present rate of rearmament is not likely to continue very long, and if supplementary measures are not continued in that district, as well as in other parts of the Special Areas, I feel that the situation might very well repeat itself in a few years' time. I would like to repeat that it is useless for the Government to say that they do not know what to do, or cannot suggest what should be done. All the information and suggestions are practically unanimous from those who have studied the problem in practice, and I hope that the Government are prepared to make a further and much bolder experiment to try, to correct the economic balance of these districts.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, my excuse and, I hope, also my justification for detaining your Lordships at this very late hour is that I can claim to have some personal acquaintance with several of the Special Areas, having made a number of tours both on Tyneside and in Durham and also in South Wales with various members and colleagues of the Imperial Policy Group. The result of these tours makes me convinced that the wave of indignation which is passing
922
through this country now is well justified. In this matter the record of no Government for the last dozen years is enviable. I only hope that this present Government will take really drastic measures at once to put a stop to a position which is as cruel as it is humiliating to us as a country.
The conditions on Tyneside are deplorable, and in the Durham coalfields they are equally deplorable. It is not merely the sad spectacle of mile upon mile of empty wharves and empty pits. We were taken there by a public employment official to see a man who was supposed to be the one who had been longest out of work in that street. When we addressed this man he said: "Oh no, you mean my brother. I have not been out of work long." When we asked him how long he had been out of work he replied: "Only four years." His brother had been out of work for ten years, and every day every week during that period he had gone to the docks vainly looking for work. In some of the South Durham mining villages the unemployed are living under conditions in which you and I, my Lords, would not like to see our dogs housed. As far as South Wales is concerned the position is very similar. There we have, around Merthyr and down the Rhondda and similar areas, a long succession of villages whose names are unknown to, and unpronounceable by, people outside that district. In these villages are hundreds and thousands of unemployed, and in these main streets anything from 25 to 75 per cent. of the shops are closed simply because there is no money left to pay for the goods they used to sell, and those which remain open are selling goods limited in quantity and exceedingly poor in quality.
I would ask your Lordships to consider very briefly one or two of the recommendations of the Commissioner. I do not ask you to go through all of them. I am going to confine myself, chiefly, to a few which deal with this question of starting work, but not with relief works, agricultural schemes, and the like. First of all, as to the control of industry in Greater London. Although I dislike in principle all interference with industry, I think this is a, case where the Government should consider very carefully whether it is desirable to have this centralisation, both from the point

923
of view of assisting distressed areas and also from the point of view of national security, for the centralisation of these new industries in the London area is becoming, in these days of aerial menace, a danger to national safety. At the same time I should like to see the Government set up munition factories and other manufactures of the sort at Merthyr Tydfil and other particularly distressed parts of South Wales. The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, said that the public assistance rate in Durham amounted to 8s. or 9s. in the pound. In some parts of South Wales I believe it is 15s. or 16s., and in Merthyr. Tydfil the rate is close on 30s. Even with de-rating there is still a very heavy burden to be faced.
Recommendation No. 2 of the Commissioner deals with inducements to industry to go to distressed areas—that is, by assisting the manufacture of oil from coal and by investigating the possibilities of setting up a calcium carbide factory. At the same time it might be well to investigate the suggestion as to other inducements such as relief of rates and the reimbursement by the Government to the local authorities. Personally I think this goes a little too far and that any industry ought to pay at least a few pence in rates. With regard to long-term loans to industry, I should like to hear under what conditions that Corporation is at present supplying funds, because I have found in South Wales several small factories producing at a low cost and doing well in the matter of orders, but with no capital behind them with which to expand and produce more economically. Then there is the question of relief of men out of employment. It is suggested that every man who has been on the register for five years should be taken off. The Commissioner does not suggest how this should be done, but merely suggests that it ought to be done. I think it might be difficult to accomplish, but I hope the Government will investigate the matter. Then there is the question of the equalisation of the public assistance rates. This no doubt would meet with great opposition in other parts of the country, but I think it is well worthy of investigation if we are to see industry restored in South Wales. Lastly—and the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, has stolen my thunder in this respect—I would urge
924
most emphatically the recommendation in favour of preferential treatment and unconventional treatment for the distressed areas.
To sum up, there are five reasons why we should deal with this matter and deal with it at once. First of all, there is the question of national prestige. Our enemies abroad—and they are not few—are for ever making capital out of the fact that we have a situation in various parts of our country such as we have been discussing to-day and which for our own self-respect ought to be abolished forthwith. Secondly, there is the political danger which arises. More and more, people are losing faith in all forms of established government. Sooner or later they are likely to swing into some more violent political movement, whether of the Right or of the Left, whether Red or Black; and may I say that I look upon Fascism as merely a modification of Communism. Then there is the question of financial waste. We are pouring million upon million into these areas year after year and obtaining no return save the satisfaction that we are, at any rate, keeping body and soul together in the people concerned.
Then there is the question of danger to health. The hospitals in South Wales are full of men and women suffering from intestinal troubles, particularly gastric ulcers. This is largely caused by insufficient food, and food wholly unsuitable in character and poor in quality. Although it is quite right to say there is no starvation in any of these areas, there is an appalling amount of malnutrition. Men, women, and children by tens of thousands are getting food which, although sufficient in quantity to keep them alive, is sufficient neither in quality nor in quantity to maintain them in a fair state of health. If ever an epidemic were to reach this country such as smallpox or even influenza, I shudder to think what the result would be in those areas where nine out of ten are suffering from malnutrition; and if ever disease breaks out it will not be confined to those areas. Finally, there is the ethical reason. I cannot believe that anyone who believes in Christianity can complacently regard the continuance of conditions such as we are discussing. I hope the Government are going to take drastic, if expensive, remedial steps. It is to their own interest

925
to do so. They will gain by it to-day, and in time to come their memory will also gain. I hope therefore that they will lose no time in taking measures to put an end once and for all to this appalling sore in our body politic.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: My Lords, at this late hour naturally will have to try and condense my remarks on a subject which really demands a very close and long reply to the very excellent suggestions that have come from noble Lords. If I may say so, I thought that the right reverend Prelate was extremely helpful in all that he said and in the various suggestions that he put forward, and I was very much impressed with the speech of ray noble friend Lord Mansfield. I am proud of a fellow-countryman who can contribute as he has done to this debate. The reason why we have had this discussion to-day is that the Special Areas Act is in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. Your Lordships will note that it is only extended for six months, that is till the 31st May; not, like other Acts, for a year. I think that shows more than anything can do that the Government have in view the bringing in at the earliest possible moment of a new Bill to deal with this very serious and difficult problem.
I was surprised by some of the speeches that noble Lords have delivered this afternoon. They seemed to think that the Government has not a soul and a conscience, and that soul and conscience belonged only to the critics. We are men. I can assure your Lordships that the Government feel the great responsibility of dealing with this problem. It is one thing to criticise, it is another to deal with such a very stubborn problem as this. The last Report from the Commissioners is a very valuable document, and no doubt will form the basis for the new Bill that is in process of being drafted. But I wish to point out that a good deal has been done since we last debated this problem in your Lordships' House. It must be remembered that the Act, which is known as the Special Areas Act, was, in itself, an experimental Act. That Act stated that certain ways of dealing with this terrible problem were going to be tried out, and the Commissioners attempted to start certain schemes. Those schemes are not of small dimensions. The original Act allowed expenditure up to about £2,000,000. That money has been
926
spent, and additional schemes have now been entered upon which will entail an expenditure of another £7,000,000 between the present time and the period when the next Act comes along.
Undoubtedly things will move forward rapidly towards developing schemes which, for the time being, it is difficult to begin. The beginning of schemes always has been the very great difficulty. I know from my own personal experience, being: in close touch with the industrial world in the North, how difficult it has been to get things going, and I am sure the Government are right in trying, as far as possible, to revive the old existing industries. They can much more easily be put in train to employ people in the districts in which they are carried on. That is particularly true, I think, of areas in Scotland, on Tyneside and in East Durham. I do not say it is so with regard to South Wales, but I will touch on that in a moment In certain of these areas which were dependent on the heavy industries, such as iron and steel and shipbuilding, there has been a definite improvement, and I am very glad indeed to see it. Not that there is any reason for self-satisfaction, but it does really give some hope that the additional powers, which I know the new Bill will give to the Commissioner, will result in further improvement, and will still further assist the attempt that is being made to remove this great evil.
I might say, in relation to South Wales, that the problem there is an extremely stubborn and difficult one to deal with. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, it is a coal problem. You see small narrow valleys with a village, a railway, a small river, and a coal mine. What new industry can we put there? It is a case either of reviving the pit or removing the people. Therefore, in South Wales you have a problem that in many cases will not be cured by new industries. The chief cure is to be found in a revival of the old industry. As my right honourable friend Sir Robert Horne said the other day in the other House, it is the revival of the export coal trade in South Wales that is going to do most good in reviving the hopes of employing the people there. I quite agree with the right reverend Prelate that it is very sad to see young, active, fine fellows taken away from those areas to Leicester and other places in the Midlands where they have been found work. As he said

927
it is the cream that is being taken away, but you must do something to try and help these people. We are removing something like 400 or 450 every month. That is, from one area to another, and it is not beyond possibility that many families will follow the pioneer youths into the new areas. As a matter of fact, I know cases where the older members of the family have followed the younger members into new areas. That at least is one of the things we have to do in facing the difficulty in South Wales. There the problem is peculiar and not at all the same as that in other areas.
I know that the Government realise what they are up against, and I feel sure the new Bill will give additional powers to the Commissioner to enable him to deal perhaps in an unorthodox manner with many of the problems. Noble Lords have referred to the establishment of new industries, and this is where I agree unorthodox methods will be necessary. I think a very great deal can be done to introduce new industries to take root in new places, but, business being business, you have to give some genuine inducement before new businesses will be established in these areas. I was very pleased indeed to read the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place when he said that he accepted, in principle, that unorthodox methods would have to be resorted to in dealing with these areas. I do not suppose any Chancellor of the Exchequer before him, with the possible exception of Mr. Lloyd George, has ever said what the present Chancellor of the Exchequer said.
This is what he said:
"I will give an illustration. Take the proposals which the Commissioner makes for certain reliefs of Income Tax and rates for new industries. How is that to be done? I have not had time to think it out, because the Report has not been in my hands very long, but, as far as I can see, the simplest way to deal with it is that new firms should pay their Income Tax and rates in the ordinary manner on the assessments made in the ordinary way, and that they should then be recouped by the Commissioner to the extent of the relief to be given them."
In other words, they pay and then receive a rebate from the Commissioner of the money they have paid, which rebate will be provided by Parliament under the new Act. Therefore we see a Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is bound to protect the money of the taxpayer, saying that he is going to tackle this matter on the
928
lines I have indicated. I think that gives us hope that some new thing is going to be done.
There is another point I should like to touch upon. Many of these unfortunate people have been unemployed for a very long time. Not only have they gone down physically, but their moral standard also has fallen, as a consequence of the agony of continued unemployment. Social services to tackle this aspect of the problem have already been instituted and have been helped by the Commissioners. I think that the movement in the direction of building up not only the body but the mind, in building up hope, has certainly done a very great deal for these people in South Wales. The Commissioner referred to it in his Report and he acknowledges the very great help he has had from various people. We cannot but thank those people for their help. It must be recognised, however, that the Government have also helped and that they are coming forward with money to help still further in the direction of social development and the general raising of the conditions of life in these areas. It must be remembered that many local authorities, as the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has pointed out, are not able, owing to the pressure of rates., to afford those social amenities which ought to be provided in these areas. There is a great deal to be said for the equalisation of rates, at least to some extent, and the Government have that in mind. Something will have to be done, and I know it will be done, in dealing with that very difficult problem of rating. It is one of the main reasons why new industries will not go to these areas. They fear the heavy rates that would come on their backs.
I would like to say one word in reply to the question why more munition factories are not set up in South Wales. On the same lines the noble Lord, Lord Davies, talked about underground aerodromes and food storage. Your Lordships must remember that this defence programme is urgent, and that it is vital that we should get things done as quickly as possible. Factories have been started in Scotland and Durham and in Wales, but in order to get the necessary speed it has often meant that the old contracting firms have had to expand instead of new special factories being built in other places. I am satisfied that when thin need for speed is over the distressed

929
areas will benefit by the defence programme which undoubtedly must go on for many years to come. It is a point which is well known to the Government, and I know that all Departments have always considered the feasibility of starting new industries in the areas where unemployment is worst.
Another point raised by several noble Lords, and I think by the noble Marquess, refers to the number of factories that are allowed to come into the area of Greater London. I am certain that not only the Government but the London County Council hate this tremendous expansion of factories, with all the difficulties it entails in the matter of water supply, electricity and drainage, and the great and growing menace of the vulnerability of London, but if by some scheme of town planning you prohibit the arrival of new factories in the London area, there is no certainty that the factories would go to the distressed areas. They would probably go to Birmingham or to some other equally prosperous place. It is a difficult matter to get these factories, which come to Greater London in order to be nearer their market, to go elsewhere. It is only by inducements in the matter of Income Tax and rates that you will get new industries to go to the distressed areas. The Government have that in mind, and I am glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recognised the point. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Duke referred to the question of oil from coal, and various suggestions have been made that the Government ought to do this and do that.
May I say that all the speeches which have been made in this debate will be read most carefully by those concerned with the production of the new Bill. They will be read with every consideration, and I am perfectly certain that all those concerned are anxious to absorb new ideas. I have read in the Report of the Commissioner his complaint of the various doors that he had to go through in order to get at the money. Those ought to be removed as far as possible. Simplification of machinery is bound to be one of the most important things to be dealt with in the new Bill. I remember, when talking to Signor Mussolini on one occasion, suggesting that he had too much to do in dealing with five different Departments. He replied: "It eases my
930
work, I have no correspondence with those Departments." It is always true that the fewer Departments you have to go through to get to the Treasury the better.
This problem, which must be dealt with, is exciting the conscience of the people. It has been said that it is really rather a disgrace to the nation that these areas should continue to exist. I agree. It is with the object of trying to remove that terrible blight that the Government are going on with this new Bill. I do not think it is necessary for me to say more now about this problem. We shall have opportunities when the new Bill is introduced of discussing our plans. It is very easy to criticise and to minimise what the Government are doing. What I think we should do is to approach this problem as one which, as Mr. Baldwin once said in another connection, should be dealt with by a Council of State. This is no Party question. It is a question of the good of the nation and everyone must contribute to the common pool, as I must admit they have done to-day, believing that the Government honestly mean to get this great evil out of our midst. That I believe the Government will do, given time.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses agreed to.
Schedule:

SCHEDULE.

PART I.

1.

2.

3.

Session and Chapter.

Short title.

How far continued.

(8) 20 & 21 Geo. 5. c. 50.

The Public Works Facilities Act, 1930.

The following provisions, that is to say, Section two, except the words "or statutory undertakers'" wherever those words occur; in Section three, the words from the beginning of the section to the word "undertaking"; subsections (1) and (2)of Section six; Sections seven and eight; and the First Schedule.

LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE moved, in the references to the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, after "undertaking," to insert "Section five." The noble Lord said: The reason for this Amendment is that when this Bill was being considered in another place a section was omitted from this Act which dealt with special Electricity Orders issued by the Minister of Transport. It is in order to have this simple method of procedure by Special Order and thus to save time and money that the Minister wishes this section to be retained. Since 1930 some 80 per cent. of the Electricity Special Orders coming before the Minis-
932
ter have been dealt with under this section, and if it were not continued by this Amendment, some of the poorer electrical undertakings would be placed in a difficulty and would not be able to promote Special Orders. I therefore beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, column 3, line 22, after ("undertaking") insert ("Section five,").—(Lord Hutchison of Montrose.)
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past eight o'clock.