Lords Sitting of 15 July 1936

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, LORD STANMORE on the Woolsack.
PILOTAGE AUTHORITIES (LIMITATION OF LIABILITY) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

HYDROGEN CYANIDE (FUMIGATION) BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to regulate the fumigation of premises and articles with hydrogen cyanide, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (ESSEX) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (NORTH HERTS JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (LANCASTER) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (RAMSEY AND SAINT IVES JOINT WATER DISTRICT) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (TEES VALLEY WATER BOARD) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (RIPON) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).

COST OF BUREAUCRACY.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE LORD MOUNT TEMPLE had given Notice that he would move to resolve, That the cost of Bureaucracy, and the crushing and complicated burden of compiling returns and making out forms for departmental and local government purposes, has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished; and would also move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to move the Resolution which stands in my name, I wish very respectfully to ask for the indulgence of the House if I use very copious notes, because it is almost impossible, unless you have the memory of a Bonar Law, to retain in one's head the figures, returns, extracts from documents, and papers which one is obliged to use if he is going to try to make a coherent picture of the abuses which he claims exist. Therefore may I ask for the indulgence of the House if I use notes very extensively as, thereby, I shall be able to make a far better case than if I spoke entirely extempore?
We all know, or should know, the book by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Hewart, "The New Despotism," published some seven years ago. If your Lordships have not read it, you should read it, because it is a very fine exposition, describing how the bureaucracy entrenched in Whitehall had even then, seven years ago, usurped the functions and authority of the Government, and even those of the Justiciary. It is not my intention this afternoon—it would be outside the terms of the Resolution—to deal with that aspect of the bureaucratic system, but what I do propose to try to show, with your Lordships' patience and support, is that the system of bureaucracy has a cramping and crippling effect on individual enterprise, that it fetters freedom of action, that it subjects us to endless irritating restrictions and regulations, that it suffocates the business and trading community with showers of forms and documents, and, finally, that it is slow and cumbersome in action and financially wasteful and extravagant. It is strange in these days to think that
798
only a century ago Governments concerned themselves almost solely with taxation, defence, foreign affairs, and the maintenance of law and order at home. How different is the position to-day. There is hardly a department of human life and activity which is not the direct concern of one Government Department or another. Trade, industry, transport, the transmission of power, public health, education, insurance, pensions—all come within their purview and receive their unceasing attention.
This remarkable development of Government interest in the life and work of the nation has come principally since the War, and it is particularly noticeable in trade and industry. Within the past few years we have seen the introduction of marketing orders, tariffs and quotas, the establishment of boards for milk, pigs, potatoes, bacon, hops, herrings, meat, eggs and poultry, sugar and sugar beet, and still more, we are told, are coming for vegetables and even raspberries. It cannot be said, I think, de minimis non curat the bureaucracy. Nothing is too great, nothing is too small for the bureaucrat to deal with. One of our most distinguished civil servants, Sir Ernest Gowers, who once served as Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, lectured at the Sorbonne in Paris three years ago and commented on the flood of legislation which now passed through Parliament every year. He said—you will hardly believe it—that the Acts passed in 1933 formed a volume of rather more than 1,000 pages. But he added that the regulations made by the bureaucracy under powers conferred by these Acts filled another 2,000 pages. The subjects covered were of the widest variety. Any seeker after such knowledge would find in them advice on the cultivation of gooseberries in Scotland and about the strange mysteries of the sack and bag trade.
Acts covering 1,000 pages, and regulations covering twice as many—3,000 pages in all—were devoted to the output of legislation for one year alone three years ago. It is surely staggering. Can all those regulations and Acts be really necessary? Our fathers and grandfathers in the Victorian era got on perfectly well without all these regulations and irritating formalities. I admit that life is more complex now than it was

799
a few years ago. You cannot expect the same laissez faire. A little of something may be good, but too much is bad for the system and bad for this country. I would like your Lordships when you go home to consider whether 3,000 pages devoted simply to recounting what is in Acts and regulations arising from them are not symptoms of a country which is too complacent and a bureaucracy that is too meddlesome. It would indeed be interesting to know the cost of printing and publishing this type of literature. A catalogue of Government publications issued during April of this year ran to sixty pages. The Government are offering now for sale sixty pages of Acts, regulations and Government publications. Can that be necessary? Can that really be for the good of the nation? We can get some idea of the expenditure of the Stationery Office by comparing the cost, £1,200,000 in 1914 with £2,200,000 in 1935—that is to say, the output of legislation appears to be, if you take the cost of publishing it to this country and the world as, a criterion, double what it was in 1914.
The regulations and restrictions imposed on tradesmen and the multitude of forms and documents which they have to fill up and return to one authority or another have been the subject of continued protests from representatives of trade organisations. Mr. Gilbert Shepherd, then President of the National Chamber of Trade, speaking at the annual meeting of the Chamber last year, said:
"The multiplicity of these departmental regulations is so serious that it is becoming more and more difficult for the mere layman to avoid, quite unconsciously, committing technical offences. In fact, it will soon be impossible for the man-in-the-street to get through any week of his life without having broken some regulation or other. My main claim on behalf of retail distribution is for freedom from the shackles of unnecessary control and restriction."
That is the opinion of the President of the National Chamber of Trade, a very important person occupying a lofty position. Then let us take what Sir Ernest Benn, an expert in his own walk of life, said quite recently. Sir Ernest Benn, describing the rules and regulations to which the ordinary tradesman has to submit, said:
"His scales, his hours, his wages, his premises are classified, inspected, tabulated and certified; his cash and prices recorded, regulated and taxed to such an extent that
800
much more of his brain power has to be applied to officials than he can spare for his customers."
In short, individual effort and enterprise are becoming more and more circumscribed by irritating restrictions and bureaucratic influence.
May I take another aspect of this question, the local government aspect? With your Lordships' permission, I will now proceed to describe the waste of effort and of public money that results from the unnecessary duplication by Whitehall of the machinery of local government in the counties and the chaos resulting from orders and regulations. When county councils were established nearly half a century ago their duties were limited and their staffs were small, untrained, and largely inefficient. To-day, I say it without fear of contradiction—and many of your Lordships serve on county councils—the county councils have important functions and responsibilities to discharge, and they have highly trained and competent staffs to undertake the duties assigned to them by Parliament. You would think, therefore, that Whitehall would leave the details—I stress the word "details"—of the administration of these duties to the officials and the councils themselves, exercising only a general supervision over matters of policy. It is, however, a cause of serious complaint that Whitehall does not delegate its powers to the councils but submits the councils to a constant and harassing supervision in matters of detail that is absolutely unnecessary and uneconomical.
Some remarkable instances of this were given in a memorandum submitted by an important county council to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1932, making suggestions as to how economy could be obtained in local expenditure. The conditions, however, remain to-day exactly as they were in 1932. Nothing has changed. The only result of the memorandum was that it was put into the waste paper basket, I presume. I will take three specimen cases, with your Lordships' permission. The first is the registration of electors, half the cost of which is borne by the Treasury and half by the county. The work is carried out by county officers and a considerable staff is engaged in the various registration units. Directions are given by the registration officer, a county council official,

801
who examines the accounts, disallows unnecessary or excessive charges, and forwards the claim for half the cost to the Treasury. It can hardly be believed that at the Treasury these accounts are again submitted to a minute examination and correspondence takes place over months on the veriest trifles. I suggest that if a registration officer is competent to prepare the register and to decide, subject to appeal to the County Court. Judge, the title to the franchise, he is qualified to pass accounts for disbursement. Indeed, I suggest he is far better qualified, owing to his local knowledge of the conditions under which the work is carried out, than someone in Whitehall I submit that from the point of view of justice to the county councils, economy to the ratepayers and relief to the work done in Whitehall, the county councils should be trusted to carry out the work properly. If they cannot be so trusted, it would be better to do away with county councils.
The next instance is in connection with road making programmes. Some years ago, as I am sure those of your Lordships who are members of county councils will remember, county councils generally undertook schemes of road improvement at the instigation of the Government for the purpose of providing work for the unemployed. It was understood from the outset that the schemes were to be completed within five years and that so far as they were not completed they would not qualify for increased grants. Surely the business-like method of tackling a large problem of that kind was to take the schemes in rotation, so that the normal staff without any large addition could cope first with the preparation of the proposals and specifications and then with the supervision of the work. But that was not so. When some of the schemes were in hand the county councils were notified that the grants would be withdrawn unless the engineering works of each scheme were started by a particular date. Protests to the Treasury regarding this uneconomical method of dealing with the matter proved unavailing. Additional staff had to be engaged with a view to expediting those schemes which were intended to be put in hand in the latter part of the fixed period, with the result that when it became necessary to call a halt one County Council—the Council of my own County
802
of Hampshire—and no doubt other county councils were left with a number of schemes which could not be completed and accordingly gave no return on the vast sums expended on them. If the county councils had been allowed to regulate the matter, half the schemes would have been carried to completion and some benefit would have been derived from the expenditure.
The last instance which I would quote in this respect is with regard to school building programmes under the Hadow scheme. Local authorities were urged to expedite building programmes in order to enable the reorganisation of education to be carried out, and a higher grant was promised on expenditure on new schools actually begun by a certain arbitrary date. I do not quarrel with that. This involved the engagement of considerable staff in the county architect's department and the purchase of a large number of sites. It was followed very shortly afterwards by a direction from Whitehall to discontinue the scheme. I suggest that no local authority left to their own discretion would have organised a programme in that way.
I consider that waste and overlapping are particularly evident in connection with education. Is it really necessary—I should like a reply to this point from the noble Marquess who I understand will speak for the Government—that the sanction of the Board of Education should be obtained for the sites of new schools? Surely this is a case where the knowledge of the local authority—namely, the county council—would be sufficient. Buildings, too, are always subject to Whitehall control and plans submitted by the experts of the local authority are altered. That generally means greater cost, and I think it is greater cost without any real addition to efficiency or amenity. Statistics of all kinds are kept by the local authorities, but these are not considered sufficient by Whitehall, which duplicates and supplements them. I would submit to your Lordships' House that this is the real point we have to decide. Either the local authorities are competent or they are incompetent. If they are competent their work should be accepted in these small matters by the authorities at Whitehall. If they are incompetent they should be dismissed and the work centralised in Whitehall, which the Government appear

803
to desire. To go on with the present system is quite hopeless and most wasteful.
Now, may I say a word or two about town planning? Attention was drawn to the complicated and cumbersome requirements under the Town and Country Planning Act by Mr. Ivor Jennings, Editor of the Local Government Chronicle, in an able paper read before the annual conference of the Rural District Councils' Association in 1933. I have it from Mr. Jennings that what he wrote in 1933 is exactly true in 1936. Nothing has been done to change it. In describing the procedure under a town-planning scheme, Mr. Jennings enumerated no fewer than forty-four preliminary steps which were required under the Act when a scheme for planning was about to be prepared. I hope your Lordships will allow me to trespass upon your patience. If it is boring to you to listen to these various steps, just think how much more boring it must be for the local authorities to have to put them through. There are forty-four steps preliminary to town-planning schemes which local authorities have to put through under orders from Whitehall, before they can proceed with a scheme. It is a sort of House that Jack built, as your Lordships will learn in a moment.
The first step to be taken is consultation with interested local authorities. No. 2, considerations of representations made under No. 1. No. 3 the resolution to prepare the scheme. No. 4, notice thereof by advertisement. No. 5, considerations of suggestions approved under No. 4. No. 6, amended resolution, if considered necessary. No. 7, submission of resolution to Minister. No. 8, notice of transmission. No. 9, local inquiry, if Minister thinks fit. No. 10, approval by Minister. No. 11, notice of advertisement and to occupiers that resolution has taken effect. No. 12, preparation of register. No. 13, preparation of preliminary statement. No. 14, notice of preliminary statement to interested local authorities. No. 15, consideration of representations received under No. 14. No. 16, modification of draft preliminary statement, if necessary. No. 17, notice of intention to adopt preliminary statement. No. 18, consideration of representations received under No. 17. No. 19, submission of preliminary statement to
804
Minister. No. 20, notice of submission. No. 21, local inquiry, if the Minister thinks fit. No. 22, approval of preliminary statement by Minister.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I have read half only of the programme which this wretched town planning authority has to go through. I will not worry your Lordships with the other 22, but I do submit that this is farcical. How anything ever gets done, I cannot imagine, through this barbed-wire entanglement of inquiries, representations and considerations. And this is not the last of it. Even these steps which I have indicated to your Lordships were described as only a summary, which did not give an adequate idea of the complications involved or the detailed information which has to be disclosed at each stage. It did not, for example, mention the number of maps or certified copies which must be forthcoming. "I am quite sure," said Mr. Jennings—and he confirms that to-day—"that much of the cost of advertisements, notices, maps and inquiries could be dispensed with without injury to anyone."
May I take an illustration from another Act: the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, which lays down that standard widths may be adopted by a highway authority by resolution approved by the Minister? Before the resolution is submitted for approval to the Minister it must be advertised in a form to be approved by the Minister in two newspapers circulating in the locality. I want the attention of your Lordships for this: it must be advertised in a form to be approved by the Minister in two newspapers circulating in the locality; and the form prescribed by the Minister is such that every length of road has to be described in detail. In one instance—I think it was in my own county—it took eighteen feet of single column advertisements in each of the two local newspapers, or thirty-six feet in all, to do what the Minister desired should be done. The cost of that to the ratepayers was £245. There were thirty-six feet of advertisements, eighteen in each newspaper. I will show your Lordships what one newspaper had to insert. It could not be done in one edition, of course; they had to do it in two or three editions. There is the length of the advertisement, one in each of the newspapers. Well,

805
my Lords, it was hardly a laughing matter; it is not a laughing matter to the poor ratepayers who have to find the money for them.
Now may I for a moment, if you will allow me, turn to agriculture? There the increase in returns owing to bureaucratic methods is, I think, more noticeable than in any other trade or profession. I have taken one of my own farms, because one can speak with more freedom and less accuracy about one's own things than possibly one would if one took somebody else's. But in all seriousness I have done my best, if you will bear with me—because it is really of a good deal of importance, especially from the farmer's point of view—to show the immense increase in clerical burdens, even if the farmers have the ability to fill up the forms, that have come to them since the War. Take a typical farm of 390 acres—260 acres of pasture and 130 arable. What a happy time it was before 1914 in this countryx0021; The farmer then had only to fill up three forms: his Income Tax declaration, the June or midsummer agricultural return, and the sheep dipping return. He no doubt grumbled then, but he would not have grumbled if he had known how well off he was. In 1936, instead of filling up three forms, he has to fill up forty-one returns, besides the stock book.
I estimate that it takes him one night per week all the year round to fill them up. Is it fair that the farmer, who ought to be able to rest after his long day out in the fields, should have to spend one night a week filling up a lot of forms that cannot be of any use to anybody? I should like to enumerate, if you will allow me, these 38 forms, so that you will know that there has been no exaggeration in my statement. What are the forms which the farmer has to fill up in addition to the three which he had to fill up before the War? They are the agricultural supplementary return, the voters' list, a return for the Milk Marketing Board, the annual contract, the application for his motor licence, the application for his driving licence, one horticultural return, a census of output of milk, a return of horses for remount purposes, a monthly return of invoices for milk sold wholesale, monthly unemployment and labour exchange forms, four quarterly returns for the Cattle Committee, and four quarterly returns for the Potato
806
Marketing Board. In addition to these, there is the book in which are recorded the movements of stock under the Movement of Animals Order, 1925. I calculate, having consulted other people down there, that at least eighty entries have to be made in that book every year. May I take a sideline on this? Who is to see that these entries are made? The police have to come round at uncertain times and inspect the books. That I do not complain of; what I do object to is the police being taken away from their proper work to do inspector's work. The police ought to remain free to prevent crime and punish malefactors, not spend all their time looking after sheep-dipping orders and that sort of thing. If you are going to have it at all, it ought to be done by a special inspector.
Now, if you will allow me, I will tell you the woes of my own estate office, because, after all, the estate office has to bear a similar burden to that of the farmer. Before the War my estate office had to send in fourteen returns; now I have to send in eighty returns instead of fourteen. I am not giving you any of them; I have brought them here, and if any noble Lord wants to see them, he can see them after the debate. I am not going to enumerate all these eighty returns, with the stock book as an extra, but I will tell you this: that owing to these returns, half of which I am sure could perfectly well be dispensed with, I have to keep a clerk working for six weeks in the year doing nothing else but fill up these returns. I may be able to afford it, but how is the small man able to afford to get a clerk or a solicitor to fill in these forms, which are largely superfluous and unnecessary?
With your Lordships' permission I will come to quite another aspect of Government activity—namely, the War Office. May I take for your consideration the returns which have to be submitted by a regimental commanding officer? When I say "regimental" I do not mean a battalion commanding officer, but in this case I mean the officer commanding a cavalry regiment, and I am sure the return will equally apply when they are mechanised. What has he got to do? What is he responsible for, the officer commanding a cavalry regiment? He has to send in every week a return of those attending Divine Service, and of the state of the coal supplies—nothing

807
escapes the bureaucrat! Every month there is a return of sick and lame horses, of charges for shoeing, of carcases removed by contractors, of Salvationists on the strength of the unit during the month—what this means I do not know, but anyhow that is what I saw printed, "Salvationists on the strength of the unit." There are hire charges of horses used for hunting, polo and show jumping, and repairs to wireless sets. There is a quarterly return of special-sized garments for Reservists, the yearly report on the bandmaster, and the return of the number of those who have passed driving tests. May I have your Lordships' attention for these? These, with many others, amount to 1,120 returns during the year, made up of 364 weekly returns, 26 fortnightly returns, 588 monthly returns, 80 quarterly returns, 30 half-yearly returns, 28 annual returns and 4 casual returns.
Remembering this, what must happen to the brigade? I was always brought up to believe that a brigade consisted of two or more units. Assume for the purpose of argument that a brigade is three units. Three times 1,120 is 3,360. Then a Brigadier must receive 3,360 returns every year. No one will tell me that they are ever read. I do not believe that the 1,120 sent up by the regimental commanding officer to the Brigadier are ever read. I do ask the noble Lord who is going to answer if he would not go personally into some of these Army returns, which are a serious matter. They take away from the efficiency of the unit. They require that there shall be a number of officers in the orderly room doing this work when they might be much better employed in their duties as soldiers. There is one direction where I am certain there could be economy of money and effort. At present when the War Office has a bright idea it sends a letter round containing the news to each Command; then each Command sends out one copy to each of its formations, each division sends one copy to each brigade; and each brigade sends one copy to each cavalry regiment or infantry battalion. This involves a considerable waste of clerical labour, office machinery and materials. Would it not be possible for the War Office to send out at the first instance sufficient copies to cover its distribution to all those for whom it is intended? It would economise labour and time by probably one-third, and a considerable amount of money would be
808
saved in stencil sheets, paper, etc., in the offices of the lower formations.
With your Lordships' permission I want to go to quite another subject—namely, coal. I received this morning from the noble Earl, Lord Scarbrough, who is unfortunately prevented by a previous engagement from being here this afternoon, the following letter or letters which I hope your Lordships will allow me to read. He says:
"I see you are raising the question of the cost of bureaucracy to-morrow, and send you attached in case you care to make use of it. It is a glaring case of centralisation given to me by a very active member of the Miners' Welfare Fund in Notts and Derby."
Then he says that he hopes I will bring it up. May I read this letter? It says:
"Dear Lord Scarbrough,
"I want to confirm the figures I gave you yesterday re administration cost in connection with welfare. As you know the Miners' Welfare Fund was created by Act of Parliament, 1920, under a levy of 1d. per ton on all coal raised in the country per annum. Later the Act was extended by a levy of 1d. on the royalties revenue, for installation of pithead baths, etc.… Now as to costs of administration."—
that is the point I want to bring out to your Lordships—
"In 1921 the London total expenses were £1,920. Since then I have had the following figures got out."
These figures show that in 1930 the total cost, instead of being £1,920, had risen to £25,846 in 1930, and last year had risen to £39,572. According to this correspondent of Lord Scarbrough, the expenses of the district committees, more or less local committees run by volunteers, had decreased from £12,340 in 1930 to less than £10,000 in 1935.
The writer, Mr. Mitton, goes on to say that the staff in London has now grown to 108, and that the Government now propose that there should be a superannuation scheme for their staff. He adds:
"On hearing of this the chairman of one of the districts wrote the Mines Secretary and asked if the scheme would apply to the district staffs, and the reply given was, No, as they are not Government officials."
You see everything is done for Government officials but people who are doing the same work in the country and who are not Government officials are not to have anything. Mr. Mitton goes on to say:

809
"It was also stated not a single person employed at the Welfare Department has or has had any connection with the coal industry. No wonder there is unrest in the districts."
If my noble friend who will answer will allow me, at the end of the proceedings, to hand him this letter, I shall be glad to do so. I take no personal responsibility for the letter except that Lord Scarbrough knows the writer as an able man. The point we have to investigate is why is there this increase in London if in the country districts there is a diminution of cost; why should not the people in the country be treated in the same way as the people in the districts; and why in the Welfare Department should there be nobody who knows anything about the coal industry?
I have produced ample proof in many cases, I submit, that there is a waste of energy and public money in administration, both national and local. We have seen that there are the same duties performed by two sets of officials where one would be sufficient. Then what are the numbers and costs of bureaucracy? The figures were recently given by Mr. W. S. Morrison in reply to a question in another place. Asked for the number of civil servants employed in Government Departments, and their cost to the Treasury in salaries and wages, in the years 1914 and 1935 respectively, Mr. Morrison gave the following reply:
"The approximate numbers and annual costs of the staffs employed in Government Departments (including industrial staffs) for the years in question are set out below."
These show that in 1914 the numbers of civil servants was 353,000, and in 1935 471,000, an increase since the War of 33 per cent. The annual cost is startling. In 1914 the annual cost was £31,000,000 and last year the annual cost of civil servants had risen to £87,000,000, or an increase of 180 per cent. since the War. Yet in spite of that Mr. Brown, for the Clerical Association, says he is going to strike and intimidate the Government, unless he gets his demands granted. Surely, bearing in mind those figures, Mr. Brown will not have much sympathy from the public if he goes on strike. It must, of course, be remembered that the cost of living has gone up by 44 per cent., but nevertheless I submit that an investigation into the whole question is long overdue when you
810
have the numbers increased by 33 per cent. and the annual cost by 180 per cent.
LORD BAYFORD: May I ask my noble friend whether these numbers include the postal service?
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I should imagine so. I can only read out the Government answer again:
"The approximate numbers and annual cost of the staffs employed in Government Departments (including industrial staffs)…"
I should think it would include the Post Office. Anyhow I am afraid I cannot go beyond what is in the answer. Are we any happier for all these extra officials. Do we have an easier time? And what about the pledges of economy we heard so much about in 1931 and 1932? If we have to spend additional money on armaments it is all the more reason why we should be more careful of our other expenditure.
May I remind your Lordships of a Report issued by a Committee of Private Members of the House of Commons in 1932? It suggested that large economies could be made by limiting the numbers and methods of the bureaucracy. It stated:
"We have proceeded on the basic assumption that the size of a staff and the cost of a Department are no measure of its efficiency."
That I think is a very important thing to keep in mind. They continue:
"Indeed, we incline to the view that the Civil Service is gravely hampered by growing circumlocutory methods, which impede the productive activity of the community with whom those Departments are brought into contact, and that many highly-placed officials tend to work too much along stereotyped lines and suffer from a lack of that great human endowment, a true sense of values. A reduction in the number of officials would, we believe, be in the best interests of the nation.
"We believe that a large reduction in staff could he made, without in any way reducing efficiency, by a simplification of the present procedure. The work of the Civil Service is passed through far too many hands, and minor details are considered by too many people.
"The number of forms used in different Departments at the present time seems altogether excessive."
This Report is now four years old, and no action has been taken to implement its findings. Red-tape and routine flourish, new Acts of Parliament add to

811
the number of officials and to the orders, restrictions, regulations, notices and forms which reduce our liberty and convert us into mechanical drudges without the capacity for independent thought or action.
The civil servants of this country are both upright and able, but they must understand that the electors are their masters, and not their servants. Less legislation is needed. Every Act breeds officials and imposes further burdens on the taxpayers and ratepayers. Finally there is the power of Government Departments to make rules and regulations—a most pernicious practice as at present exercised. What did the Lord Chief Justice say of this procedure in his book? I am sorry he could not be here to-day; he wanted to come. He said:
"There is in existence a persistent and well-contrived system, intended to produce, and in practice producing, a despotic power which at one and the same time places Government Departments above the sovereignty of Parliament, and beyond the jurisdiction of the Courts…. The consequences, unless they are checked, must be in the highest degree formidable."
Lord Hewart cites a number of Statutes, over forty, which give this Minister and that power to legislate by rules, orders and regulations. They give the Minister power to modify the provisions of Acts of Parliament at his discretion, power even to modify the provisions of the very Act which invests him with this power. Above all are the clauses which decree that the Minister's orders shall be final and that no appeal from them shall lie to any Court. In practice, as we all know, these powers are exercised, not by the Minister but by the Civil Service, and Lord Hewart draws the conclusion that the exercise of these powers is the offspring of a well-thought-out plan, the object and effect of which is to clothe the Departments with despotic powers.
Finally, I will read out part of the Town Planning Act, 1925, as an example of Acts of Parliament which place the Minister above the law, above the Executive, above Parliament, indeed above everybody. This is a paragraph of the Third Schedule of that Act:
"An order under this Schedule shall be of no force unless and until it is confirmed by the Minister, and the Minister may confirm the order either without modification or subject to such modifications as he thinks fit, and an order when so confirmed shall,
812
save as otherwise expressly provided by this Schedule, become final and have effect as if enacted in this Act;"
I want your Lordships to take note of this:
"and the confirmation by the Minister shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this Act have been complied with, and that the order has been duty made and is within the powers of this Act."
That is to say, if the Minister makes a regulation, the Courts cannot question it because that Schedule says it shall not be questioned in any way.
In those last few words we have been handing over to the bureaucracy powers to make laws at their own sweet will as long as they can get the Minister to sign them, and of course, he will sign anything that the Chief of his Department puts before him. Parliament and the country are partly to blame. If they will go on passing so many Acts of Parliament they will increase the cost of government and the number of officials. What we should do is to go back to our older and happier ways of having less legislation. We should then have a less expensive bureaucracy and smaller numbers to deal with. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That the cost of bureaucracy, and the crushing and complicated burden of compiling returns and making out forms for departmental and local government purposes, has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.—(Lord Mount Temple.)
LORD SNELL: My Lords, you will probably expect that those of us who sit on this side of the House should express a general attitude towards the problem which has been raised by the noble Lord. I cannot attempt to speak in detail as to how my Party would approach the issue that he has raised. The noble Lord is in any case sure of the sympathy of everybody who has to fill up forms. We are all of us victims of that passion which Whitehall seems to have for knowledge of other people's business. But that is the vice of Government Departments, and we all of us fret and fume and feel irritated, and sometimes we are in such despair about it that we think that refuge in a gas oven is probably the only relief. But that is not the whole of the story. We have to note in passing on this side that these evils of which the noble Lord has complained are not due to the last Socialist Government. As a rule that

813
explanation is offered for your Lordships' consumption, but in this case it was obviously impossible.
Let me say that in my judgment, whilst we sometimes wish these forms and those who produce them were in the personal keeping of the father of all evil, we nevertheless have to say that most of them, though annoying, are a necessity of the life we live in association with each other. This difficulty is not limited to government. Every man who runs a business has to deal with entries and cross-entries, and checks, and references, and an elaborate mechanism of invoices, discounts, and vouchers, in order to keep himself out of the Bankruptcy Court. If all that is necessary in a small privately run business, how can any one expect that a vast and complicated machine such as a nation, or even a local authority, has to deal with can run without this system of obtaining accurate knowledge of what it has to do? This matter is irritating, but it is not a living, burning issue, as is seen by the fact that your Lordships have not turned up in numbers in order to slay this bureaucratic ogre that has been described.
What is the alternative to all this? It seems to me that whilst bureaucracy may go too far, on the other hand anarchic inefficiency is something which is very much worse. If yon get freedom from the making up of forms, you do not at the same time get freedom from the evading taxpayer or the revenue crook. Somehow it is a fault of human nature that, directly an Income Tax paper appears, people get a sort of fatty degeneration of the conscience. The nation could not be run, I submit, without these inquiries into the conditions of people. I should be very happy if the Revenue authorities did not take such a lively interest in my meagre income, but I never grumble about it. It is one of the services I render to the community—perhaps not the highest service, bat a necessary service, and I gain in return a higher freedom of security, of health, through local government and the Ministry of Health, and I profit as well as pay. The objector to filling up these forms will always arouse general interest from those who hate to give service to the State in any form whatever. I do not associate the noble Lord with that class of people, but I cannot help saying, if he will not think it rude of me to do so, that this afternoon has been an occasion
814
of infinite enjoyment to him in that he has been able to bring a theme before your Lordships' House which aroused all his devotion and enthusiasm.
He had to fill up eighty forms! If the noble Lord tried to count his blessings as well as his afflictions he might imagine what might have happened to him if he had not had these forms to fill up. How would he have used the time? He might have become president of another Anti-Socialist Union, and your Lordships will forgive me if I say that his time was better employed in filling up these necessary forms for the State. Let him reflect on how dull a thing our civic life would be if we were debarred from these patriotic exercises. We know that the psychologists tell us that the real tragedy of life is to be unnoticed, to pass through life ignored, unwanted, dismissed. Here Government notices that we exist. It recognises that we are a unit in the process of civilisation which it has to sustain, and the noble Lord should think of the joy there is in splashing through and gambolling in a sea of official papers, of struggling day by day against these waves of forms that come to be filled up. He will know that by filling them up he gains a knowledge of himself and his own affairs that he would not otherwise possess. When the noble Lord passes on to discuss this matter in relation to local authorities, which he says are subject to constant and harrowing supervision, he arouses my very special interest. I cannot find it in my heart to say that on the London County Council we should not get on quite well without the attention of the Ministry of Health and without the attention of His Majesty's Government, but there is another side even to that. When we present our Money Bill to Parliament, that provides Parliament with about the only knowledge that it has of local government, so some good is obtained after all.
It is difficult to know just what is the limit to which bureaucracy can reasonably go. That is the real problem. A certain amount of bureaucracy, as it is called, there must certainly be. It never ought to run into a riot of excess, but if it is not sufficient then other influences begin to operate. I suggest that the whole thing has not to be judged as a matter of principle, but as a matter of expediency and utility. If you become a local administrator you are in very

815
close contact with the grumbling ratepayer, and some of the advice that you receive from aggrieved people is distressing. A gentleman wrote to a local authority not long ago, saying:
"Thank you for your letter informing me that although I have given you a banker's reference and a private reference, all in duplicate, you cannot dispense with a monetary deposit. To be perfectly thorough, you should insist on a fidelity guarantee, a deposit of collateral security, and a doctor's examination certificate also."
That is the kind of response which the administrator receives for his work.
I should like, before I close, to say that our country is not alone in this evil. If I want to go to a friendly country I have to fill up a form stating whether I am a polygamist or whether my grandfather was properly vaccinated or not. I cannot say that these things are not necessary—it all depends—but I am quite sure that the noble Lord is wrong when he attempts to belittle the information which must reside in central offices if our country is to be governed efficiently. I would like to comfort the noble Lord by saying that the London County Council prints fifty million forms every year. If he will add that little fact to his collection of horrors I am sure it will be comforting to him. It is astonishing how willing people are to fill up forms if they are not for the common good. A gentleman, in The Times of yesterday, boasted that he had filled up 2,000 crossword puzzles. There is never any puzzle about my cross words; they are usually quite direct and clear; but I have a feeling in my bones that this same retired officer who has filled up 2,000 crossword forms would grumble terribly if he had to fill up six forms for the country in which he lives. What is the way out? I say we must have efficiency at all costs, even at the cost of filling up forms for the Government. We must have simplicity if we can get it, and we must not bother people for needless information. There may be a case for a general inquiry as to whether the matter has gone too far; but speaking for myself, and myself alone, I shall never personally grumble at the effort that is required of me to fill up these few forms in return for the citizenship and the freedom of citizenship that I enjoy.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, I am only moved to address you briefly by the remarks which have just been
816
made by the noble Lord opposite to whom your Lordships always listen with attention. I think that he made a most unworthy jest of what is a really serious public matter. Nobody questions that such forms as are necessary should be filled up, but I honestly believe that the number of forms of all descriptions, and the Parliamentary Papers founded on the information in those forms, together constitute something that every member of your Lordships' House who has studied the actual facts must resent. The cost is enormous and so also is the waste of time that is involved. The Motion before the House only speaks of departmental purposes, but I will give your Lordships one instance which came into my mind while the noble Lord was speaking of the way in which checks and counter-checks are made.
I remember that when we had a very large Army brought together thirty years ago for operations in the Transvaal, I found that the whole of the War Office staff was being kept all day on Saturday and three-quarters of Sunday carrying out the usual investigations and the usual checks and counter-checks, following a system that had been adopted in time of peace. I do not want to go into details, but I know that we made in the course of one afternoon an audit of 320,000 different weekly figures which had already been audited in two places. I am certain that if the Government would appoint two or three people to go into the question of the needless returns which are issued perhaps as the result of an order of Parliament made in consequence of the Motion of some enthusiastic Member thirty years ago, a vast number of these returns could be stopped. Many of these returns, I have been assured, are never opened. They are distributed very often to every member of both Houses of Parliament and they are never opened. They consume an inordinate amount of time and cost a very large sum of money. I am just as keen as the noble Lord, Lord Snell, for efficiency in every department, but I believe there is a strong case for examination by some independent authority into this question of the great mass of information which is given either, as the noble Lord who introduced this Motion suggests, by an order from local authorities or, still more, by the orders of Parliament given thirty or forty years

817
ago. This sort of thing is being carried out at great cost to the country when the money could be better spent in other ways.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): My Lords, the noble Lord who has introduced this matter to your Lordships this afternoon has certainly laid before you a very wide subject touching upon every branch of the administration. With all the skill of a lightning artist he has selected a feature here and a feature there, he has put them together, and the result has been that he has presented to your Lordships a somewhat lurid picture of the system of government under which we all live.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: May I interrupt the noble Marquess for a moment? He says that I have presented a lurid picture, but does he question so far any of my facts?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The noble Lord has not given me very much time. The noble Lord spoke, if I remember aright, for some fifty minutes; so far I have spoken for one minute; perhaps if he will allow me a few more minutes I shall be able to deal with some of his facts. Let me now proceed to say that as a taxpayer I naturally have great sympathy with the noble Lord at the increasing cost of the administration. I am prepared to go further than that and to say that in the matter of filling up forms I have myself often experienced something of the irritation amounting, I admit sometimes, almost to the exasperation which the noble Lord himself has experienced when he has been filling up some of the many forms with which we all of us in the course of the year are expected to deal.
But let us ask ourselves: After all, who is responsible for all this? Who is responsible for the existence of bureaucracy? Who is responsible for these millions of forms? Why, of course, Parliament itself, Parliament directly, and public opinion indirectly. Public opinion in the country is always demanding of Parliament that it should legislate on this subject or that, and sooner or later Parliament has to respond, and whenever the noble Lord himself has either voted for or acquiesced in some measure dealing with social or industrial conditions of the people of this country he
818
has himself played a part in increasing both the size and the cost of the bureaucracy. These things are the penalty which we have to pay for living in a highly organised state of society. There are still parts of the world, in the dim recesses of Central Asia, for example, of which I have myself had some experience, where the noble Lord would find, if he cares to go there, that primitive simplicity which appears to appeal so strongly to him. There he will find no returns to fill up, he will find no organised sanitation, he will find no organised fight against disease, no organised education, and so on. But I think that after the noble Lord had lived there for a short time he would be quite willing to exchange the delights of the primitive simplicity of those parts of the world for the more highly organised complexity of this country, in spite of all the disadvantages of bureaucrats and forms.
It was suggested that some inquiry might be held into the extent to which the bureaucracy is superfluous and the expense of bureaucracy too great. Inquiries have been held into these very questions. Let me remind the noble Lord of the Inquiry which was held in 1923 by the Committee under Sir Alan Garrett Anderson into all these questions. What was the main and final conclusion to which Sir Alan Garrett Anderson and his colleagues came upon these matters? Why, the very conclusion which I have just laid before your Lordships. Let me quote this from the Report:
"The immense increase in the Civil Service pay roll has been imposed on the taxpayer for reasons which commended themselves to various Parliaments before and since 1914, and the conclusion we reach is that no power except Parliament can materially reduce the load."
Industrial and social legislation, however good it may be, means more staff and more taxes. Parliament, then, is responsible.
But we have had a further inquiry in more recent time, an inquiry which was conducted with great skill and great efficiency by the Committee under the Chairmanship of Sir George May. The conclusions to which Sir George May's Committee came were not altogether in agreement with the conclusions which the noble Lord has placed before your Lordships this afternoon. The noble Lord suggested that bureaucracy was always increasing and that no steps were ever

819
taken to exercise any control over the numbers of the civil servants or the cost of the Civil Service. This is what Sir George May's Committee said:
"But we are satisfied that the method of control adopted is well calculated to maintain a high standard of administration, and that such economies as are from time to time possible will be secured as opportunities arise and will not be accelerated by any recommendations we could make."
Sir George May and his colleagues go on to give examples of reductions which have been made from time to time in the numbers of civil servants in different Departments and of the different methods employed to reduce cost.
Let me give to your Lordships only one example. The Committee say:
"Reference should be made here to one particular form of staff economy, viz., the substitution of mechanical devices for routine labour. In this respect, we believe the Civil Service to compare favourably with the best organisations in British industry. During the last five years, as much as nearly £500,000 has been saved annually in some twelve of the largest Departments by the introduction of labour-saving machines."
Then they go on to say:
"That is not to say that the total of the Civil Service has been reduced. On the contrary, new duties are constantly being imposed on the Civil Service and the reductions carefully and laboriously achieved year by year are frequently undone by a single Act of Parliament…"
That being so, it is Parliament itself which is responsible and Parliament itself which, if it desires to do so, can make a change in the system.
Let me now come to one or two of the particular points which the noble Lord brought to the attention of your Lordships. He spoke about the burden which was imposed upon the farmer in filling up an ever-increasing number of forms. Only last week I listened with great interest to a debate on a Motion moved in this House by my noble friend Lord Phillimore and widely supported by members of your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, asked the Government what steps they were taking to make provision for adequate food supplies in time of war. Is it suggested that unless the Government had information with regard to the extent and the nature of production in this country they could possibly take any useful steps to provide for an adequate food supply in time of war? It was the late Lord Kelvin
820
who said that we know very little about anything until we have contrived to measure it. The measuring rod in cases of this kind is, of course, statistics and statistics cannot be compiled unless information is obtained from those who are in a position to give it—in the case of agriculture, necessarily the farmer himself.
After all, agricultural statistics have been compiled in this country for a great number of years. I think the system of calling for certain agricultural returns was first introduced in the year 1866 and it has been in force ever since. For the greater part of that time—not for the whole of that time, but for the greater part—the supplying of the information required was voluntary. Yet at no time have more than 3 per cent. of those who have been asked to provide the information declined to do so, even when the completion of these statistics was voluntary. Therefore I cannot help thinking that the noble Lord is perhaps a little inclined to exaggerate when he tells us of the vast burden imposed upon the farmer by the necessity of supplying essential information of that kind.
It is quite true, as the noble Lord said, that the number of forms and the amount of information required has in recent years largely increased. That is admitted. Until quite recently the charge against the Government has been that they have done nothing for agriculture. During the past few years, the Government, through my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, have done a great deal for agriculture. They have established marketing boards and so on. The noble Lord complains that under these marketing boards forms have to be filled in. Of course they have to be filled in. You cannot possibly run boards of that kind unless you have the necessary information from the producer. I do not know whether the noble Lord—he told us he is a farmer—is a producer of live stock. I happen to be myself, and I welcomed very warmly the passage not long ago of an Act for the licensing of bulls, a measure which is certainly calculated to improve the standard of live stock in this country. It is quite true that under that Act further information has to be given and further forms have to be filled in, but I have never heard any complaints from any raiser of live stock on that ground.

821
The noble Lord spoke rather, I think, as if not only the tenant-farmer but the landowner was called upon in connection with agricultural statistics to fill in a large number of forms. That, of course, is not so. It is the occupier in every case. No doubt in the case of a home farm the landlord is the occupier and it is as occupier that he is asked to fill in forms. Under the Rating and Valuation Act, of course, the landowner and the tenant have to fill in forms, but I would venture to point out that there the agricultural landowner and the agricultural tenant are in a better position than most people, because under the Derating Act they have only to make returns in respect of the actual dwelling house and not in respect of the farm land or farm buildings.
Now let me say a word about another department of Government to which the noble Lord referred, that of Education. I do not know whether the noble Lord is familiar with the record of the Board of Education in the matter of economies and reducing its staff. If he is, I should have thought he would have been pleased with what they have done, for the Board of Education during the past ten years have reduced their staff considerably; from 1,402 persons on the administrative side in 1925 to 971 in 1936, and on the inspection side from 400 in 1925 to 337 in 1936. The cost during the same period has been reduced from £456,000 in the case of the administrative side in 1925 to £332,000 in 1936, and from £359,000 on the inspection side to £335,000 in 1936, and that in spite of the fact that during the past ten years additional duties have been laid upon the Board of Education, including duties arising from the School Teachers Superannuation Act, 1925, itself. Moreover, the Board have had constantly under review all the annual forms and—this will appeal to the noble Lord—the returns which they require to be submitted. In the two years following 1926 an all-over reduction of between 30 and 40 per cent. was made in the number of the forms, and many of the current forms have been greatly simplified.
May I say that I agree profoundly with the noble Lord in his view that these forms, where they are necessary, should be as simple as possible, so that they are suited to the intelligence of the persons who are expected to fill them up? If they are not as simple as possible, you
822
are very likely to get replies which you do not expect. I will give your Lordships an example of what I mean. When the Indian Military Academy was established in India a few years ago, certain information was required from those who desired admission to it, and one of the questions which was submitted to the applicants was as follows: "Kindly supply by post the following measurements: (1) What is your size in hats? and (2) What is your size in boots?" These were very proper questions, since military headpieces and boots were to be supplied by the Academy. One cadet gave the not very helpful answer to both those questions of "Six feet." He had first measured his size in his hat but without his shoes and found that he was six feet in a hat, and he had then taken off his hat and measured his size in his shoes, and that had also come to six feet. So, as we can see, it is very important that forms asking for information should be simple and as easily intelligible as possible.
I only want to say one word about the War Office, to which the noble Lord referred. The War Office, naturally, are responsible for what may certainly be described as vast numbers of forms, but they have to administer a very vast organisation and one with respect to which it is essential that expenditure should be as rigidly checked as possible. The question of the Army forms was, however, specially reviewed by a committee under the head of the Department, and it is continually reviewed by a committee which exists for that sole purpose. As a result the number of Army forms in use, so I am informed, has been reduced between the year 1920 and the year 1936 from about 3,400 to some 2,100, a very considerable reduction. I give your Lordships these figures to show you that it is not true to suggest that the Departments themselves are not conscious of the necessity of doing what is possible, day by day, both to reduce the cost of their establishments and to reduce unnecessary and redundant demands for information.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: Would the noble Marquess mind, as he has alluded to the matter, giving us the numbers of the establishment of the War Office at the beginning of that period and at the end, and stating what the cost was?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I am afraid that, without notice, I am not in a position to give the noble Earl those figures.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: The noble Marquess is very fortunate not to have them in his possession!
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: That may be so. The noble Lord who moved this Motion brought another matter to the attention of your Lordships, and that was what he described as the existence of two staffs—largely superfluous, as I gathered from him—in the administrative system of the country, namely, the staffs of the local authorities, the municipalities and county councils, on the one hand, and the central staff on the other. He rather suggested also, I thought, that there was considerable friction between the two, and a good deal of suspicion in the central staff as to the capacity of the local staffs for discharging their duties efficiently. My Lords, I do not think that is really at all a fair picture. Your Lordships will be aware that very large sums are contributed every year from central revenues to services which are administered by the local authorities, and Parliament itself lays down that it is essential that, where that happens, a due system of inspection should be maintained to see that the funds provided by Parliament are efficiently and properly administered.
Then again, take the case of the Ministry of Health, which I suppose comes into contact with the local authorities over a wider area than any other central Government Department. The Ministry of Health is called upon by the Act of 1919 to secure the preparation, effective carrying out and coordination of measures conducive to the health of the people, including measures for the prevention and cure of disease. Epidemic disease cannot be shut up in watertight compartments within the jurisdiction of particular county councils or particular municipalities. It spreads widely across all boundaries of that kind, and in these circumstances it is surely only reasonable that the central co-ordinating authority should have wide powers of supervision in dealing with outbreaks of disease of that kind. Then it may be said: "Oh, but all the by-laws made by these local authorities require the sanction of the Minister of Health."
824
That is also quite true, but the reason for that is that you require, in a highly organised State, a certain measure of uniformity in your by-laws throughout the country, and it would be particularly embarrassing let us say, for example, in the case of the building trade, if they were controlled by one set of by-laws in one county and by a different set of by-laws in another county.
One word about what the noble Lord described as the cumbersome and complicated procedure of the Town and Country Planning Act. I should not have thought that the noble Lord would have had grounds for complaint in this particular instance. It is quite true that the procedure under the Town and Country Planning Act is a somewhat complicated one; but what are the reasons? The reasons are that Parliament, when considering both the original Act and the more recent Act, desired to safeguard the interests of the individual, and it was because so much care was required in the case of an Act of that kind, to safeguard and protect the interests of the individual citizen, that the procedure under the Act is so complicated. After all, it is not complicated for the individual. The noble Lord read out a very long list of the things which had to be done when a town planning scheme was being drawn up, but it is surely the bureaucracy which is entitled to complain, for it is the bureaucracy which has to undertake all these complicated measures, and not the individual himself. I think that those were the main specific points which the noble Lord raised in the course of his speech.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: What about the advertisements?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: So also do the advertisements have to be placed in the newspapers not by the individual but by the local bodies.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: May I interrupt? What I complained of was that owing to the instructions from Whitehall much too complicated advertisements have to be given out, when a simpler procedure would have sufficed.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: It is conceivable, of course, that that may be so, and I have no doubt that those concerned will give careful attention to the points made by the noble Lord in that

825
respect, but may I, in conclusion, say just a few words form a rather broader point of view? Under modern systems of government a Civil Service, or bureaucracy as my noble friend calls it, is essential. You cannot work the modern system of government without a large staff of civil servants. What is the ideal at which we should aim? The ideal, I think, was very well put by the noble Lord himself—that the Civil Service should be the servants and not the masters of the people. The dangers of the system are, of course, that the civil servants, or the bureaucracy, may become the masters of the people. A further danger is that they may occupy offices which become sinecures, and there is also, no doubt, a danger of corruption. My Lords, I would venture to say that in this country—and the noble Lord himself very properly, I think, said that—the reputation of the Civil Service for efficiency and for honesty stands as high as that of any Civil Service in the world.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: There are no sinecures, or if there are I in my modest experience of Government Departments have not discovered them. This, of course, is not to say that that was always the case. About 150 years ago Edmund Burke took grave exception to some of the Departments of State, and in 1780 he brought in a Bill the object of which was "The better regulation of His Majesty's Civil Establishments and of certain Public Offices, etc." The Department which excited his particular animosity was apparently the Department which in those days corresponded to the Board of Trade. He said:
"We want no instructions from Boards of Trade or from any other board; and God forbid we should give the least attention to their reports."
The Board of Trade of those days had been first established in 1668, and it had not survived very long, but it was re-established in 1696, and Burke, in speaking with regard to the re-established board, used these words:
"Perhaps it is the only instance of a public body which has never degenerated."
He hastened to explain that it had not degenerated because it could not possibly have been worse than it was at the beginning. He said:
"This board has had both its original formation, and its regeneration, in a job. In
826
a job it was conceived, and in a job its mother brought it forth."
I think it is quite possible that in those days the office of the Board of Trade was something of a sinecure, because I notice that one of its members was a gentleman by the name of Gibbon, whom your Lordships will recognise as a well-known author, and Gibbon appeared to have resented some of the observations of Burke, for he said:
"The fancy of a hostile orator may paint in the strong colours of ridicule 'the perpetual virtual adjournment and the unbroken vacation of the Board of Trade'; but it must be allowed that our duty was not intolerably severe and that I enjoyed many days and weeks of repose without being called away from my library to the office."
Happily, there has been great improvement in matters of that kind since the days of Burke.
And, after all, the attitude which you should adopt towards the Civil Service of a country has for centuries been a problem which has exercised the minds of public men. It is sometimes interesting to see ourselves as others see us. May I quote to your Lordships a short extract from an interesting and entertaining description of things in China which has recently been published by Mr. Lin Yutang. He writes upon this very subject—upon the attitude which a country should adopt towards its bureaucracy. This is what he says:
"The plain, inexorable, political and historical truth is that when you treat officials like gentlemen, as we have been doing in China, one-tenth of them will be gentlemen and nine-tenths of them will turn out to be crooks; but when you treat them like crooks, with prisons and threats of prisons, as they do in the West, considerably less than one-tenth succeed in being crooks and fully nine-tenths of them succeed in pretending that they are gentlemen. As a result, you have at least the semblance of a clean government. That semblance is worth having. That is what China should have done long ago, and that was Hanfeitse's advice"—
Hanfeitse being a public man in China some time, I think, before the Christian era—
"two thousand years ago, before he was made to quaff poison."
I am happy to think, as I said, that to-day in this country it is not even necessary to treat our civil servants as crooks in order to secure that standard of efficiency and honesty which we require. And I am happy to think also

827
that, whereas the critic of the Chinese bureaucracy two thousands years ago was made to quaff poison, the critic of the British bureaucracy in this year of grace, 1936, may continue with complete confidence and, so far as any risk of poison is concerned, I would venture to add with complete impunity, to eat and drink as he desires.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, after the very charming speech of the noble Marquess I should not dream of pressing my Motion to a Division, and therefore I ask leave to withdraw it.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ROAD ACCIDENTS TO CHILDREN.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER rose to call attention to the great increase in recent years of road accidents among school children, and to ask His Majesty's Government what steps they have taken to carry out the recommendations of the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee (England and Wales) on road safety among school children; and to move for Papers.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, some years ago I brought before the House this subject of road accidents among children, and I venture to bring the subject again before the House, because quite recently there has been published an extremely interesting Report by an Inter-Departmental Committee which was appointed to investigate the subject. The Report is a very valuable one and the Committee conducted an investigation much more thorough, I think, than anything of the kind before into this particular subject. Of course the whole question of road accidents among children has as its background the much larger subject of the general casualties on the road through motor traffic. I have only admiration for the vigour and perseverence of the Minister of Transport in his endeavour to reduce these casualties. But the position at the present time is far from satisfactory. In the figures given only a week ago of the previous week's casualties there were 137 deaths on the road and 5,092 injured, and in the same return it was stated that in the first twenty-seven weeks of this year there had been 2,999 deaths on the road and 106,000 injured, that is to say, a number rather larger than the
828
population of Plymouth and not far short of the population of a great city like Croydon. One-fifth of those who are killed on the roads are children under the age of fifteen, and it is stated that for one child killed on the road there are thirty injured, some of them injured permanently for life.
At the beginning of this century there were rather over 400 children who were killed on the roads. In the year immediately after the War that figure was raised to 800, and the last reliable figure I have, a figure given in this Report for the year 1933, shows that 1,245 children were killed on the roads. That was a slight reduction on the previous year, but it shows how enormous the increase has been during this century in the casualties among children, and we must remember that, in addition to the deaths, there are probably between 30,000 and 40,000 children who are injured more or less seriously. Not only are the children killed or injured on the roads, but there is grief and sorrow in many a family and, quite apart from those who are directly affected, parents in many cases are filled with an almost morbid anxiety throughout the day as to whether their child will return in the evening in safety.
I am sometimes amazed at the indifference which as a nation we normally display to these casualties on the roads. If a dozen people are killed through an aeroplane accident or in a railway accident there are announcements on the newspaper placards, columns on the first pages of the newspapers, Questions asked in Parliament, Committees set up to inquire; while, if 130 people are killed in a week on the roads and 4,000 or 5,000 injured the news is probably put on a back page, and we simply say: "Thank God the numbers are not larger than they are." It is quite extraordinary how apathetic we are as a nation to this continuous loss of life on the roads. Let me quote one passage from this Report, dealing with this question:
"The loss to the nation of upwards of a thousand children who are killed every year in road accidents, and whose deaths bring sorrow and distress to so many homes, is a matter of the gravest concern to everyone, and is an appalling price to pay for the increased amenities which the motor vehicle has conferred upon the community."
The Committee investigated the causes of the road accidents and it placed the

829
causes in two groups. There are those which are due to circumstances external to the child, through no fault of the child. Such circumstances are to be found in the fact that the child has to use the roads, and in 70 per cent. of the roads of the country there are no footpaths. The child must use the roads to go to and from school. In our towns, very often the child has to use the pavement for its games. It is all very well for you to say children ought not to be allowed to play on the pavements or in the roads of our towns, but frequently in our larger towns there is nowhere else where they can play, and along these roads there goes a swift traffic. Sometimes the traffic is reckless and careless, and an injured child has to pay its contribution and make its sacrifice to our mania for speed.
The other causes of accidents which form the second group are to be found in the child's own temperament. It would not be fair to say that all these accidents, or anything like all these accidents, are due to the carelessness or recklessness of motorists. All of us, I suppose, know how frequently, with the utmost care in driving, it is difficult to avoid children who suddenly dart across the road. Children are naturally impulsive, impetuous, thoughtless, sometimes adventurous, and they fail to recognise the reality of the dangers of the road. Any measures intended to reduce the casualties among children on the road must take into consideration these two great groups of causes. The recommendations put forward by this Committee are very comprehensive and pay regard to these special difficulties. I have no intention of going in detail into these recommendations. There are no fewer than fifty-one of them. Some of them seem rather trivial, one or two seem to me rather impracticable, but most of them are quite excellent.
The Committee, speaking quite broadly, recognise four lines of advance. First of all, they recommend the appointment of local child safety committees. These committees are to represent various interests, and their one purpose is to consider how children may be protected from harm in the roads in that particular district. They would have no executive power, they would be advisory bodies only; but they would discover the dangerous places, they would consider and recommend how these places might be made safer, and they
830
would see that propaganda was carried on among the parents and among the children. I attach very great importance to the recommendations of these local safety committees which are to guard the interests of children, and I should be very grateful if the noble Earl who is to reply could give us any information as to whether these committees have already been started or whether there is any intention of promoting them in the future.
The second line of advance is for the protection of the children going backwards and forwards to school. Under this heading are included measures such as more police to be placed at the spots where there is danger and where the children have to cross the roads. Where it is not possible to have police, they suggest there might be voluntary patrols helping the children to cross; there should be more crossings; there should be traffic light signals which might be used by children. The Committee also make the important suggestion—controversial, but into that I shall not go at this moment—that all cyclists—and there is a considerable number of fatalities among children who are cycling—should in future have a red lamp.
Then there is a third line—education among the children so that they may be trained to have a sense of the dangers of the road and how best they may use the roads with safety. I know this kind of education has been given for some years with success in London and I have no doubt in a large number of other centres. The education proposed here is, however, more thorough than is usually adopted. It is graded education, dealing with infants, with junior children, and with the children who have passed the junior stage. If, of course, this kind of education is given thoroughly, wisely, and systematically in the different schools the children will be trained to curtail their natural impulsiveness and thoughtlessness when they are near or crossing roads on which there is a large amount of traffic.
Another line of advance which is suggested concerns playing fields. We all recognise how important it is that children should have the opportunity of convenient and sufficiently large fields and places in which they can play. If playing fields are not provided they are bound, as I have already said, to play

831
on the pavements and in the roads, with danger to themselves and to others. The Committee recommend not only the provision of playing fields—not always an easy matter—but the provision of playing places for younger children nearer their homes. They also recommend that certain streets should be closed for so many hours in the week to all traffic so that in those streets the children may play. I remember making that suggestion in this House some years ago and stating that the experiment had been tried with success in America. At that time it was regarded as a somewhat impracticable suggestion. I had many letters pointing out how absurd the suggestion was, and I certainly had no encouragement from any responsible speaker in favour of it; but this has been tried in the Borough of Salford with great success and I believe also it has been tried elsewhere. Of course it is not popular among the inhabitants of the streets which are chosen, but the children play in those streets whether the inhabitants like it or not. If it is unpopular for that reason, it may be better to have some rotation of streets in which the children can play in safety.
These are the main lines on which the Committee recommend that action should be taken, and I should be grateful if the noble Earl will tell us how far any of these proposals have been acted on. I am not asking for a detailed reply, but I should like to know how far action has been taken to bring into existence the safety committees recommended. Also I should like to ask how far this Report has been brought to the notice of the education authorities. Directly the Report was issued the Minister of Transport sent it to the various highway authorities but I am not sure that the same was done to the education authorities. It is quite essential, if anything is to be done on these lines, that we should have the full co-operation of the teachers. The teachers are most deeply concerned in this matter, most anxious to safeguard the children committed to their care, and it is a matter of supreme importance that the teachers should have this Report brought before them. I think it would be advisable for the headmaster of every school to be asked by the proper authority to make his own observations as to how best the proposals can be carried out in regard to his school.
There is one other matter to which I desire to refer. As I said at the beginning, it is impossible to treat this subject entirely apart from the wider subject of the general casualties on the road. I feel quite certain that the recommendations of which I have spoken will not succeed to any large extent until much more drastic steps are taken to deal with reckless and selfish driving. I suppose my own experience is that of most of your Lordships. I am always travelling on the roads, in country lanes and towns, and also on the main high roads between London and the South coast; the only part of my diocese I cannot reach by car is the Channel Islands. My own experience is that the majority of drivers on the road are skilful, considerate, and cautious. I have no complaint to make against the great majority of those who drive on the roads, but there is a small minority of utterly reckless and selfish drivers who make the roads a menace to old and young alike. It is quite useless to appeal to their common sense. They have no common sense. It is useless to appeal to their courtesy. They have no good manners. It is useless to appeal to their conscience. That has been atrophied on this matter long ago. The only way to deal with them is by much more drastic penalties. For the sake of speed, for the sake of getting to their destination a moment or two earlier, they are willing to kill any man, woman, or child, or to risk the killing of any man, woman or child, who happens to be in their way. We shall never deal with this evil until the authorities who are responsible for administering the law take a much firmer, stronger and more consistent attitude in this matter.
There is one more quotation bearing on this which I should like to read to the House. The Report states:
"…we are strongly of the opinion that more consistent and vigorous action on the part of the authorities responsible for enforcing the laws relating to the use of the roads will materially assist in reducing the number of road accidents…in serious cases, or in other cases where repeated fines have proved ineffective, imprisonment is called for. Furthermore, we would emphasise the desirability of a more general use by the Courts of their power to disqualify drivers from holding or obtaining a licence. To remove from the road, either permanently or for a period, drivers who have been found guilty of dangerous or inconsiderate conduct, appears to us to be a peculiarly appropriate method of reducing the risk of accident."

833
This is a question which concerns the whole of the community, and I am sure that the more thoughtful members of the community would welcome it if the Government, the administrative authorities, and the judicial authorities took a much stronger line on this matter than they have in the past. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF CAVAN: My Lords, I hope you will allow me to detain you for two or three minutes while I speak in hearty support of the right reverend Prelate's Motion. I have read the whole of the Report of the Committee from which he has quoted. I liked it so much and considered it so extraordinarily interesting that I was able to increase the Government revenue to the amount of 6s. by selling twelve copies of it yesterday to the National Playing Fields Committee. Everyone ought to read it. I would like to draw attention if I may to three inexpensive ways by which I think this urgent problem can perhaps be mitigated. The first is in relation to the slum cleared areas. We are now engaged in clearing slums throughout the country. There are some perfectly excellent examples of what can be done in these slum cleared areas. I would first quote the Tabard Street site in Southwark, which is a magnificent example of what can be done for children in a crowded area. And Manchester is now proceeding with some excellent schemes. It is quite possible, I think, during the period between the clearing of the slums and the re-erection of other buildings to allot a certain portion of the area to children.
The second suggestion, which also I think is not expensive, is this. It is quite obvious to all your Lordships that the modern tendency in architecture is to build flat roofs. A great deal more use can be made of these roofs both on public buildings and certain buildings erected for organisations like the Y.M.C.A. The latter's building in Hornsey has an admirable flat roof which has been adapted to its needs. I would ask the Ministry of Health not to overlook that possibility. Thirdly, little corners. I am rather distressed in our work for the National Playing Fields Society to find, on approaching local authorities to obtain playing fields for children, that we are so often met with the response that it is quite impossible to find an area large enough in size. But there are in almost every city little corners which can be adapted
834
very cheaply. A small chestnut fence can be put round the corner, two cartloads of sand poured into it, and, if possible, an old log added. There is nothing so delightful to children as an old log on to which they can climb and from which they can jump. That can be done even if it is not possible to erect a swing or roundabout or anything of that sort.
Those things can be done, and are being done in various places. It is the increased use of these small areas that may help to solve this problem of giving the children somewhere to play. My chief point is that these recommendations are not expensive but they are urgent, and I think, however petty and small they may seem to your Lordships, that they will help a little till something better can be done to reduce the ghastly total of 18,500 children killed and 300,000 injured in the last fifteen years. But larger schemes must instantly be put in hand, even if it puts a half-penny or a penny on the rates. I cannot believe that any single British citizen would begrudge that penny to obtain the desired mitigation of the awful state of affairs as to which the right reverend Prelate has so eloquently appealed in his Motion.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I have only one adverse criticism to make upon the Motion of the right reverend Prelate, and that is that it is not sufficiently wide. We ought not to be considering simply the case of school children. Every class, every age, and every section of society is affected, and I think the right reverend Prelate might well have considered the case of those persons who, consciously or unconsciously, like myself, are approaching the age of second childhood themselves. The Report is one of a very moderate and temperate nature, and there is nothing sensational about the recommendations. They are recommendations to which I cannot imagine any reasonable person objecting. There is also a good deal of useful information which one can acquire. I learned, for instance—I did not know it before—that the number of mechanically-propelled vehicles in this country now reaches 2,500,000 and there are apparently 7,000,000 cyclists. That makes altogether a total of 10,000,000 possible dangerous objects which the pedestrian is likely to encounter in the course of a walk. And this does not exhaust the category, because fresh cars, if I am not

835
mistaken, are being produced at the rate of 500 a day.
Your Lordships can imagine what the result will be. At present the casualties are roughly near 2,250,000, and an average of 7,000 people are killed. Your Lordships can imagine for yourselves what the position will be with this continuous increase going on. It does almost stagger one's imagination. The cause of all this trouble is really defined in one sentence in the Report. This carnage and mutilation on the roads is entirely due, in the opinion of the Committee, to what they euphemistically describe as inconsiderate driving—in other words, driving much too fast and too carelessly. As the right reverend Prelate pointed out, the obvious explanation of this behaviour on the part of a section of motorists is that they are never, or very seldom, adequately punished. If the law were properly enforced and if they realised that they were going to be treated according to their deserts, these casualties would instantaneously diminish. I have before now commented on the extraordinary laxity with which the law with regard to motoring offences is administered and the extraordinary leniency which seems to prevail all over the country with reference to motoring offences. Every day one sees instances of this. Only a few days ago I noticed a report of two cases in which the magistrates who tried them were so anxious not to injure the offenders that, although both of them pleaded guilty, both cases were dismissed.
You can still, as far as I know, kill a person or mutilate him for life for a penalty of 40s., or possibly less than that. You can still smell of drink and find a doctor who will say that upon the whole alcohol is a great advantage for people who are in the habit of motoring. Every sort of excuse is found. What is perhaps more remarkable than almost anything else is the fact that in the case of convictions every opportunity seems to be taken not to endorse licences. I gathered from a statement made not long ago by, I think, the Home Secretary that out of 100,000 convictions for exceeding the speed limit, less than half of the licences were endorsed. There was a very remarkable case in London this month to which I think my noble friend Viscount Cecil intends to draw attention. On July 2, before a magistrate whose name I
836
think deserves to be commemorated, Alderman Colonel Eaton, a number of motor drivers were brought up for exceeding the speed limit in the City. They were fined small sums, but the Alderman declined to endorse the licences. When the Clerk of the Court, who presumably knows his business, told him that the endorsement, of licences was not conditional but was automatic, he still refused to do it. I suggest that action of this kind ought to be taken notice of by the legal authorities because it seems to me to be an impudent contravention of the law.
In these circumstances, how can you possibly expect any diminution in the number of casualties? There is no reason why they should stop at all. I sometimes wonder whether motorists—amongst whom I include myself—realise what an almost intolerable nuisance they are to the rest of the community. Motorists, amongst whom as I say I include myself, have I suppose killed and mutilated at least 1,000,000 people during the last ten years, although I am happy to say that, so far as I am aware, I have never injured any one in that period nor has any one in my service. But motorists not only shorten people's lives, they have made a considerable difference in their lives. They not only inflict appalling injuries upon them, but they alter the method of people's lives. Take the case we are discussing this afternoon. In former days when roads were really roads and were not unfenced railway tracks, children used habitually to play in them. To-day it is far safer for children to play upon a railway, especially on a railway that has been ruined by road transport, than in the streets.
On that particular point I would like to make a suggestion of my own to the Minister. I have not the least expectation that it will be adopted, because although it is simple it is drastic. What I suggest is that where there is no footpath—and there are no footpaths on 70 per cent. of the roads—the motorist really does not know where to expect to come across a pedestrian. He may be on the left, or he may be on the right, or he may be in the middle of the road. The suggestion I make is that where there is no footpath pedestrians should be compelled always to keep on the left. It would have the effect that the motorist would always be behind him, and therefore

837
fore it would ensure the motorist having to drive much more carefully, and in particular to be much more careful in going round corners. It would have the simple advantage that if the pedestrian was on the wrong side of the road the onus would be upon him, while if he was on the proper side of the road the onus would be on the motorist.
Of course that does not cover the case mentioned by the right reverend Prelate of children who dart across the road. I do not know how that matter can be dealt with, but I am sure this simple practical suggestion would have a considerable effect. I am emboldened to think so because I have done a good deal of motoring on the Continent and the casualties on the road on the Continent are far fewer than in this country. I believe that to be due to the fact that on the Continent they have the same rule for vehicles as for pedestrians, whereas we have one rule for pedestrians and another for vehicles.
This subject, like everything else, has been much clouded and obscured by a mass of propaganda. There are three kinds of propaganda. One proceeds from the motorists themselves, and the motorists themselves always try to convince the rest of the world that there is no danger in speed. I have even known them go so far as to say sometimes that the quicker you go the safer it is. They also try to convince us that the ordinary pedestrian is a person of suicidal inclination, who takes a perverse delight in causing his own destruction, and actually wishes to destroy the motorist. I do not believe that the ordinary pedestrian is animated by anything of the kind. The only class of people who seem to have suicidal inclination are the cyclists. I think that accusation might he brought against cyclists who do not ride on the tracks provided for them, who will not carry lamps and therefore run the risk of being run down by vehicles, and who thrust themselves into the most dangerous situations. It is a wonder to me that more of them are not killed than is the case.
The second kind of propaganda is on the part of the pedestrians. They are always claiming to be protected and are sometimes unreasonable in asking for a greater share of the surface of the road than that to which they are really entitled.
838
The third form of propaganda is that conducted by the Government, which consists of offering advice which shortly comes to this. They adjure the motorist to drive considerately. That to my mind is perfectly futile when applied to the class of persons described by the right reverend Prelate. You might as well advise the young, high-spirited, enterprising youth or maiden who has become the proprietor of a sports car to exercise moderation, as appeal to an alligator or a boa-constrictor to moderate his appetite. It is perfectly useless to appeal to people of that sort at all. The danger, I might almost say the ignominy, of being run over by one of these machines is, I always think, very much worse—at all events I feel that it is very much worse—than that of being run over by a commercial vehicle. At any rate in the latter case the man is earning his livelihood, whereas in the former case the people are out for their own amusement at the cost of human life. A sports car in the possession of a high-spirited youth or maiden is just as dangerous as a loaded revolver, and from that class of person we ought to be protected as carefully as we are protected from the vendors of poisons.
The moral is that it is no good relying upon propaganda. What, for instance, is the use of telling a pedestrian to be careful when he is walking? No pedestrian wants to be killed, and there is nothing in the Highway Code that any person of average common sense would not do of his own accord without looking at it at all. If you learnt the whole of the Highway Code by heart you would not be any safer than you were before; it would have about as much effect upon your conduct as learning the Thirty-nine Articles has upon an undergraduate's progress in the study of divinity. The remedy is perfectly obvious and perfectly simple. What you want is more drastic legislation. You want to make the motorist feel that if, by accident or by his own fault, he causes serious bodily injury he really will suffer; that he will not be let off with a nominal fine, but that he may be sent to prison, and that at all events he will be suspended from driving. When you do that you will really achieve some result.
We have a great deal for which to thank the present Minister of Transport, for he is the first Minister, as far as I know, who

839
has taken any really serious steps to protect the public from this danger, and I would suggest to him that there is really very little danger in embarking upon drastic legislation with regard to motoring offences. Of course there would be considerable opposition from one section, but on the other hand I am convinced that this would be one of the most popular measures a Government could bring in. After all, a great majority of people do not own motor-cars at all, and they would all welcome a change of this nature with enthusiasm. It would be equally welcomed by the great majority of motorists themselves. If you do this then we really shall see some change, but if we merely go on advising, recommending and deploring, nothing whatever will happen; the tide of slaughter and mutilation will continue to rise until it reaches a level which ought to make us ashamed of ourselves as a civilised country.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, the House owes a great debt of gratitude to the right reverend Prelate for bringing this matter once again to its notice. I could have wished that he had extended his Motion to cover the whole evil, but undoubtedly the point he raises is typical of the great scandal which now exists in the administration of this country. He referred to the apathy of the people, but that is nothing to equal the apathy of the Government—not of this Government only, but of all Governments. I cannot understand why, but they do not really take the slightest interest in the subject. They may, of course, do so in their own minds, but they do not really make any serious effort to cope with the evil. After all, the evil is terrific. I cannot understand why there has not been a greater outburst of indignation on the subject. Here are these thousands of children, hundreds of thousands of children, being killed and injured by perfectly preventable causes. That is the fact, there cannot be any dispute about it. We go on and allow it to happen year after year; and not only children but a number of other citizens are killed and injured. I never can remember figures, but I think the right reverend Prelate said that the children numbered about one-fifth of the whole. That means that you must multiply the totals by five to see what is the total of the deaths and suffering that are being caused by this state of things.
840
My only criticism of the right reverend Prelate's speech is that I doubt very much whether, if all the remedies which he proposes were adopted, as perhaps they will be, there would be a very great deal of difference. The remedy has got to be much more drastic and complete if we are really to deal with this matter. I know it is said that the main cause of these accidents, or one of the main causes, is the carelessness of the pedestrian. In the first place there are the children. It is fantastic to talk about the carelessness of children; that is one of the facts of human nature. You have to face the fact that children will not be very careful, and you cannot devise any penalty half as severe as that of which they run the risk if they are careless. Nothing can really be done to improve that side of the problem. You may try to persuade them to be more careful and you may have a result—nothing very much. Then it is said, as my noble friend Lord Newton said in his interesting speech, that you ought to have much more severe and drastic penalties for the motorist. I think that on the whole, particularly in some courts, the motorist is let off too lightly. There is undoubtedly a kind of fellow-feeling in certain tribunals, because they are conscious that they are owner-drivers themselves and they therefore have a certain sympathy with any driver who is brought before them. But I doubt very much whether a mere increase of penalties is going to produce a real remedy.
In my own view the great cause of this state of things is that we have never realised what is the problem with which we have to deal. Motors have always been treated as a kind of improved horse-carriage. All the legislation, all the way of looking at the subject, has been that to which we were accustomed when the wheeled traffic on the road went at something between five or ten or at the outside, twelve miles an hour. Once you introduce these machines which can go at up to sixty, seventy or eighty miles an hour and which commonly go at forty or fifty miles an hour on the road, you have an entirely different problem. It is a different state of things altogether. You have to deal with the same kind of problem as that with which you had to deal on the railways, and if the motor had been treated as a kind of railway train and the same kind of precautions

841
had been taken against accidents as were taken on the railways, we should have had a very different state of things. After all, the railways when they began did cause a number—nothing like this, but still a certain number—of accidents, and it was gradually found that the only way to prevent accidents was to confine the railways to certain tracks which should be fenced off. Nobody was allowed to cross the railway on the level except under very strict conditions. Bridges were more and more made over the railways, so as to prevent any common use of the road by railway trains and other traffic. You have by that legislation, coupled of course with very elaborate compulsory provisions for the safety of the trains themselves, achieved a very remarkable degree of safety, not only in this country but all over the world. This country, perhaps, is the safest of all, but all railways are comparatively safe things. You do drive trains of heavy weight, and going at enormous speeds, and you drive them with safety.
I believe that that is the true example of what we ought to aim at. As long as we insist upon using our roads for traffic which goes at forty, fifty or sixty miles an hour and, at the same time, for traffic going at four or five miles an hour, and allow children and cyclists and others to use the road in the same way as motors, I do not believe that any legislation which you can devise will materially or greatly diminish the slaughter by accidents on the roads. I have become myself convinced that the only remedy is to divide the roads of the country into speed roads and roads which are not speed roads. The speed roads you should treat exactly on the same lines as you treat railway traffic. You should provide up and down roads, and fences at the side to prevent unauthorised or dangerous intrusion on the road. On the other roads, which must exist for ordinary traffic, you should have a very strict and very severe speed limit, and as large a penalty even as Lord Newton would desire for any breach of the rules. Of course you would have to provide some kind of speed indicator, such as I have advocated, on each motor car. I believe that a remedy on those lines is possible, and likely to be of good effect, and I do not believe that any other remedy will be permanently effective.
842
I recognise that it is not a thing which can be done in a moment. It has got to be done gradually, but I would like to hear from the Government that they have some plan which they can put before the country showing that at some future date they would be able to have some scheme of that kind for road traffic. You could, for instance, say that no road should be without footpaths, and that if a road has footpaths there must be some speed limit, because you cannot allow roads to be used by machines going at this speed. I think you could have a provisional measure of that kind. I understand that they are trying experiments in the shape of fencing off the roadway from the footpaths. These would be preliminary measures which you could try and set going. In that way you might gradually improve matters. But in the meantime I entirely agree with Lord Newton that the law as it stands must be enforced, and enforced strictly.
I have put down the case to which he alluded, but I will not say anything more about it until I hear what the Government reply is going to be. I think, however, there is ground for saying that there ought to be a temporary and provisional measure before you can bring forward the reform for which I have briefly and perhaps inadequately pleaded. I think also there should be a way of trying these offences so that there can be a regular and ascertained penalty, and you will not have the scandal of seeing some offending motorists get off without penalty while others may be severely punished. These are the conclusions to which I have been led by consideration of this matter. My conclusions may be wrong, but I hope the Government will look at this problem from that point of view.
The present Minister of Transport began his term of office in a way which led many of us to hope that something effective was going to be done. He has done some good, and has I believe produced some diminution in the number of accidents in some parts of the country, but no one who has followed the frequent and proper statements as to the accidents on the road can help feeling grave disappointment that so little has been done. It is quite true that the number of accidents to motorists has

843
diminished, but as to the total number of accidents, although there is a slight downward tendency, it is very slight, and the latest figures published would indicate that that tendency has stopped. Until the Government realise that this is really one of the most important matters of administration in this country, and really take measures which are adequate to deal with it, not minding all sorts of little difficulties raised by the curiously selfish interests which are affected, they will fail to remedy this matter, and whether they suffer from it at the polls or not, they will certainly suffer for it from the verdict of history.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, I would, too, like briefly to express my gratitude to the right reverend Prelate for introducing this Motion, and my sense that the annual slaughter on the roads, and the public indifference to it, to which more than one noble Lord has referred, combine to present one of the most shocking features of modem civilisation. It does not present itself, as we have been reminded, in votes, but I venture to say, and I myself believe, that this problem, morally and socially, is as formidable and important as the problem of unemployment or the problem of the slums. The slaughter of children is of course the most pathetic, and probably the most wasteful, aspect of this most complex of problems. I believe it is a fact that the age group ten to fifteen provides the greater proportion of victims until you come to the group sixty-five to seventy. I must say that reading through this Report, I am left very strongly with the impression, which has been reported by at any rate one other speaker, that you cannot isolate the problem of the children from the problem of the roads as a whole.
About forty-five of the recommendations contained in the Report are recommendations which apply solely to school children—they are things which you can do specially for school children—but I am afraid that, as the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, has said, even if all are put into effect, they will be but mere minor palliatives. The only really hopeful proposals in my view are the first four or five in the Report, contained under the heading "General," which envisage, and assail, the problem as a whole. I understand that it is the noble Earl who represents
844
the Ministry for Education who is to reply, and I take it that for the purposes of this debate the Government envisage this as an educational problem to be tackled in the schools, but as we also see the noble Earl who speaks for the Ministry of Transport present, I trust it will not be thought out of place if I draw attention to one or two of the wider recommendations contained in the Report.
First of all, may I say something on the question of severer penalties, which has been dealt with from various angles by more than one noble Lord this afternoon? I am very glad to see that the Report refers to penalties being such as "to act as a real deterrent." There can be no possible shadow of doubt that in nine cases out of ten they do not act as a deterrent now. May I give one instance, and it is by no means abnormal? You could pick one yourselves out of every other issue almost of your daily newspaper. In Bradford a driver who was convicted of driving without a licence, without a third-party insurance, and of killing a woman on a pedestrian crossing, was cumulatively sentenced to a fine of three pounds, with ten shillings costs. Now Chicago is not a city to which we are accustomed to look for tenderness for human life, but some of your Lordships may have noticed in the Press lately a reference to a certain Judge Gorman in Chicago, who claims in three weeks to have reduced deaths by dangerous driving in Chicago by 50 per cent. And how did he do it? Every conviction for dangerous driving, or driving under the influence of drink, meant imprisonment, ten days at least in the county gaol, and Judge Gorman, I see, states that in his belief in six months there will not be a problem of dangerous driving and road casualties left in Chicago.
Well, I will not say we want more Judge Gormans in Great Britain, but I am coming reluctantly to the belief that it is no good going on appealing to magistrates and the rest to enforce adequately and uniformly the existing law. Appeals have been made in your Lordships' House and in another place and in the Press, and, I think I am right in saying, by the Lord Chancellor, and virtually no results have accrued. I am being driven myself—and I know others are also being driven—to the conclusion that the only ultimate solution

845
will be special Courts for motoring offences, where such offences, when convictions take place, will be dealt with adequately, and above all, as the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil says, uniformly—that is the essence of it.
Another general recommendation I am glad to see is with regard to the speed limit. The speed limit, there is no doubt, has done a great deal of good, but I myself feel quite confident—and I think most of your Lordships who have watched it up and down the country, probably feel much the same—that somewhere about 60 or 70 per cent. of motorists now break the speed limit. What it has done has been to put an end to the old murderous driving at speeds of sixty or seventy miles an hour. That, in built-up areas, has virtually disappeared. But something like 65 per cent. of motorists do drive up to thirty-five and forty miles per hour in built-up areas, when they have first assured themselves that there is no "speed-cop" at their heels. It is a fact—I have a diagram here illustrating it, published by the Transport Committee of the City of Edinburgh—that the difference between driving at thirty miles an hour (that is, legally) and forty miles an hour is a difference represented by the fact that it takes you fifty feet longer to pull up in case of emergency. That fifty feet may well represent the life of a child, and that, I think, is the relevance of the fact to this debate this afternoon. I hope that His Majesty's Government will continue to try to find some way of encouraging local authorities to enforce the speed limit more effectively than they are doing at present. They do not seem to like "speed-cops," as they are vulgarly called, and once more I find myself being reluctantly driven to the conclusion that the more drastic proposal of the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, which he moved as an Amendment to the Road Traffic Bill last year, that is, the compulsory enforcement of the carrying of a speed indicator, is the only ultimate and effective solution.
Your Lordships have been reminded by two noble Lords this afternoon that the law does actually require children who live, I think it is less than three miles from their schools, to walk to school along these high roads, these speedways which carry no footpaths. As an example of the deterioration of our standards in this matter of human life, may I ask your
846
Lordships to imagine what would have been the public outcry if, when compulsory attendance was first enforced by law, the children had been required to go to school along the railway tracks? Imagine the outcry! Politically an impossible thing to suggest, and yet far more safe than to go along the road to-day! The railway train goes along a predictable, regular track, and it is in reliable hands. The motor car goes along an irregular, unpredictable track, at the mercy of temperament and road surface, and, it may be, in the hands of a young gentleman who has just drunk three cocktails and is trying out a car which its makers advertise as possessing a cruising speed of seventy miles an hour. And those are the roads along which children are asked to go to school on foot, without footpaths. I do suggest to His Majesty's Government that the provision of more footpaths on the 70 per cent. of the high roads which do not possess them is an absolutely urgent necessity.
And if I may finally give three suggestions within the narrower sphere—that is, what I call palliatives, the measures which apply only to school children, which may do some good to school children, though, as I have suggested, what I believe is really necessary is the assault on the problem on the whole—firstly, there is this question of escorts. In the City in which I live—Oxford—there is a reasonably effective method which is referred to, I am glad to see in this Report, by which an adult escort is retained, who comes out in the middle of the road with a pole on which are the words "Stop! Children crossing." That, at any rate, is effective just at the point where the children cross the road to go to school. But I think it is obvious that, as the principle of the central school is developed, and as, therefore, the elder child is separated from the younger child, no longer going to the same school, the problem of escorting the young children to school will become increasingly serious. The elder children cannot do this, and the policemen, I suppose, cannot be spared, though that would be the most satisfactory method. I believe that in Croydon and Manchester the pedestrian-operated crossing signal has worked very well, and has not been abused by children, and I believe that in some areas it would be possible to establish rotas of parents who would take their turns in escorting, on a

847
more organised basis than they do, the children of their neighbours to school.
Secondly, one very small point, but one which is, I think, worth mentioning. I believe that some of the local education authorities are actually encouraging children attending their schools to do so on bicycles. It is cheaper for them than providing motor omnibuses, and I believe that they either sell them cheap or even give them to the children. All I wish to suggest is that this ought to be a matter for the parent to decide. There should be no pressure whatever by a local education authority to encourage a child to bicycle along high roads of the nature which I have described. The parent knows the temperament of the child and the local conditions and whether or not it is safe; and I suggest that the local authority should not put on any pressure in that direction. I hope that, as the school expansion goes on, the siting of schools may be deliberately controlled, so that they are not placed, as so many are at present, at danger points. We cannot change the present sites, but at any rate we can see that the future sites are better placed.
And, lastly, one suggestion to the noble Earl who represents the Ministry of Transport. If he agrees with what I am sure is the sense of your Lordships' House, that this is really an urgent moral problem, might it not be desirable for the Ministry of Transport for a short period, say the next six months or the next year, to take steps to be represented at every inquest on a child under fourteen, so that it may at first hand form its own impressions of the problem? It might even be desirable for the Ministry to make its own inquiries as is already done in the case of railway accidents. At any rate, I suggest it might be desirable for the Ministry to make that special inquiry in order to acquaint itself fully with the nature of this problem. I hope that the noble Earl who will reply, even though ho cannot speak for the Ministry of Transport and is not really responsible for the dimensions of this problem in any sense, will be able to assure us that the Government as a whole are determined to take this question seriously and to take every possible step to meet it.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I shall
848
not detain your Lordships more than a minute or two because there is other business on the Paper still to be dealt with, but I should like to call attention to one particular matter. In the first place, I was glad to hear the noble Lord who has just spoken advocating the desirability of instituting special Courts. I have always felt that that was really the only way in which you could properly deal with this matter, but the last time I made the suggestion my noble friend Lord Cecil thought it would not be possible to carry it out. The noble Lord who spoke last told us that in Chicago, by making imprisonment the penalty, a great improvement had been effected in the number of accidents occurring in that city. No doubt if similar drastic steps were taken in this country an approximately equal improvement might take place, but to inflict imprisonment is a very severe measure, and undoubtedly it would raise an outcry in this country. I do not think our people would stand the infliction of such a penalty with as much equanimity as appears to have been the case in Chicago.
There is another means which has not really been utilised sufficiently and that relates to endorsement and suspension. One point in regard to suspension and endorsement is this, that at present the bench which has suspended a man's licence for careless driving or whatever it may be, is allowed to revoke that suspension after a certain time. For instance, if a man is suspended for six months, and he appeals for a reduction of this suspension to the petty sessional bench after six weeks or two months, this is what happens, as I know from experience. The man comes before the bench and says: "I am out of work; I have a wife and six children; my employer is ready to give me a job again; I have had my lesson, and I shall not do this sort of thing again." The employer speaks for him too, and says he is very sorry but if the man does not get his licence back he will have to give the job to another man. That is what is put to the bench and, being soft-hearted people, they very likely agree to the request and give the man back his licence.
But as your Lordships are aware, the same bench does not sit on every occasion. You may get a totally different set of magistrates sitting on the bench to which the appeal is made, compared with

849
the bench which made the conviction. That amounts to an appeal from one court, which has heard all the evidence and given judgment, to a second court which has not heard any evidence and yet reverses the judgment of the first. I consider that is a very unsuitable method of carrying on business. I submit there ought to be a proper hearing of the case again. Either it ought to go to Quarter Sessions—though I hardly think that is necessary—or it ought to come before the petty sessional bench which should hear evidence again before granting the appeal. But just to allow the case to come before the bench in this way and have the judgment of the first court reversed without hearing any evidence, is, I think, a very casual way of doing things, with the result that this suspension is not so serious a form of punishment as it perhaps ought to be. I think that is a matter which requires very careful consideration by His Majesty's Government.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (EARL DE LA WARE): My Lords, it is quite clear that the House and the Government are under a great debt of gratitude to the right reverend Prelate for bringing up this most vital—I use the word in a literal sense—and important problem. There are some points which have been mentioned to-day that are not strictly relevant to the Question which the right reverend Prelate has put on the Order Paper. One of the advantages of your Lordships' House is that it has very few rules of order, though perhaps that is a greater advantage to the House generally than to the unfortunate Minister who has to try and reply to the debate.
I could not help regretting some of the points that were made by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, who made the discussion of a Report of a Committee appointed by His Majesty's Government as an earnest of their interest in this subject the occasion for a most violent attack on the Government for doing nothing whatsoever. Admittedly, at the end of three or four years of hard work, there is a vast amount of the problem still to be solved, but nevertheless the Government have reduced the number of fatal accidents. The noble Viscount talked with contempt of the figures, but they show a reduction of something over
850
12 per cent., and that during a period when there has been an increase in the number of cars on the road amounting to between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent. To suggest that we have done nothing is totally untrue and grossly unfair. I am sorry the point has been raised in this way, because I did not want to deal with that side of the matter at all. But in saying that 12 per cent. fewer have been killed than in the past, I do not want for a moment to be driven into the position of saying that the mere fact that fewer people are being killed in any way makes the position satisfactory. That is very far from the attitude of His Majesty's Government.
Perhaps I might now turn to the Question which is actually before the House. The reason why I am answering this Question and not the representative of the Ministry of Transport is that this Committee was, in conjunction with the Minister of Transport, first appointed by my noble friend Lord Halifax when he was President of the Board of Education, and the Report deals specifically with the question as it relates to children. It was recognised in that Report, as indeed it was recognised from the beginning by my noble friend who appointed the Committee, that there are questions connected with children that inevitably bear on the whole problem of road deaths and injuries. The right reverend Prelate gave your Lordships certain figures. In every case those figures are absolutely accurate, and in no way did he exaggerate the appalling gravity of the situation. For what it is worth I can tell the right reverend Prelate that last year the figures showed a reduction of just over 100, bringing the total down to 1,146. Again I do not think those figures can afford us any degree of satisfaction with the situation. The only interest of the reduction is that the figures give us some slight indication of the efficiency of the methods by which we are attempting to deal with this problem, and whether those methods are in any way satisfactory or are related to the facts and needs of the situation. Although a reduction has been brought about, it is clear that what has been done in the past is not satisfactory and is not sufficient.
Therefore we turn to the Report which is now before your Lordships and the country and look at its recommendations.

851
First of all we have the general question of the more drastic treatment of motorists. I think that noble Lords generally have shown a very clear appreciation of the fact that there are people on the roads at the moment who simply cannot be treated as responsible people. This matter has been before His Majesty's Government before, and it must continue to be before them. The question I am referring to is whether the treatment that is at present meted out, not by His Majesty's Government but by the Courts in the country, is sufficiently severe, and whether the machinery of the particular Courts is the most suitable for dealing with this problem. That is a question which must be considered by the Government when they review the matter as a whole and not merely the aspects of it which are dealt with in this particular Report.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, and I think the right reverend Prelate also, made the point that certain people say and think that in many cases it is the children's fault. As the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, said, that is an utterly ridiculous remark. We know perfectly well what children are. The right reverend Prelate used the word "impulsive" in reference to children. Which of your Lordships does not want the children of England to be impulsive? Of course they are impulsive, and we all hope that they will continue to be so. But, for that reason I was very glad that tremendous stress was placed on the importance of the proper and adequate provision of playgrounds. There is no doubt that a great number of children receive their injuries while playing in the streets. Where else can many of them play at present? A good deal has been done quite lately to increase the number of playgrounds, and I can tell your Lordships that my right honourable friend, the President of the Board of Education, has notified local authorities, particularly in congested areas, that he is prepared to give very special consideration in the matter of assisting them to make proper provision of playgrounds.
Then there is the question of existing playgrounds, as to whether they are fully used, and whether it might be possible, as has been done in some areas, to keep the playgrounds open in the evenings. There is also the general question of play centres in the existing playgrounds
852
which, I think, demands very careful consideration. There is further the question of whether we cannot increase the actual protection to children in the neighbourhood of schools. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who mentioned the new power that has been given by local authorities to adults to carry a notice with the words "Stop! Children crossing" and to operate that notice with the local authorities behind them. In addition to that there is the question of barriers along the side of footpaths. Again, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Education has notified authorities that he is prepared to consider special assistance for them.
One noble Lord mentioned the question of bicycles. It may be rather a trivial matter, but undoubtedly some accidents are caused as the result of bicycles being in a defective condition. Therefore steps are being taken to see that bicycles are kept in proper order, and are subjected to overhaul. Those are comparatively small points, I know. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, apparently has not much faith in the power of adults to impress the importance of this problem on the children themselves, but I do not think that is quite borne out by the experience that we have already had in certain areas where teachers and authorities and parents have acted in this matter. I think some good has been done in that way. We are taking every step possible to bring this question to the notice of teachers, parents and authorities. No fewer than 55,000 copies of this Report have already been circulated free—50,000 to teachers, and the other 5,000 to chief constables and highway authorities.
I think the right reverend Prelate also asked what was being done with regard to the setting up of children's safety committees. The Report is only just out but already local authorities have been circularised by the Minister of Transport. I do not think any committees have actually been set up, but the setting up of a great number is at present under discussion between the county councils and the local authorities, and steps are being taken to encourage local authorities to do that. I can also tell your Lordships that the County Councils' Association has already officially taken the matter up, and is urging all its constituent bodies to adopt

853
the Report, One particularly interesting and valuable thing about these committees which gives me very great pleasure is their constitution. It is quite natural that highway authorities, the education authorities, the police and the teachers should be represented, but in addition to that it is proposed that those concerned with parks and open spaces should also be represented, and in my own view those people will be an important and valuable addition to the composition of these safety committees.
There is only one more point I would mention. If your Lordships have the Report and will turn to page 36 you will see a diagram showing the time of day at which road accidents take place. There are approximately three accident peaks. One is between the hours of eight and nine, another between twelve and two, and a third between four and five. It is pretty high until seven o'clock. It is quite clear that the highest incidence of accidents is between twelve o'clock and one o'clock and between four o'clock and five o'clock. In both cases the figure is thirty-nine. Those are the times when children come bursting out of school on to the streets. It is very high at mid-day, and I am rather surprised therefore not to find in the Report any suggestion of the importance of local authorities endeavouring to encourage children to stay at school by providing canteens for mid-day meals. In the thirteen day period you have thirty-nine children killed during the dinner hour. That teems to me a very relevant point, and one which most certainly should be considered and will be considered by my Department.
I think I have covered the main points raised during this debate. This is a problem which no one in this country, not even the Government—although I know my noble friend Viscount Cecil suspects us of it—can for a moment think of with complacency. It is a problem that has got to be tackled. It is a problem that has been tackled and is being tackled, but I want to give an assurance that if there are any further suggestions which your Lordships or anyone else can make, His Majesty's Government will consider them, not merely in the spirit of the old-fashioned Governmental consideration, but with a real intention and desire to find if there is, in fact, anything
854
more that can be done to deal with what has properly been described as the appalling slaughter on the roads.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for his reply, not only because of the information he has given, but because he has made it plain that the Government do regard the problem as an important one. The figures he has given us show that there has been some reduction in the numbers of children killed on the roads, but, as he himself said, the reduction is so small that we cannot regard it with much satisfaction. There are still 1,100 children killed year by year on the roads. I hope that the Government will try every kind of experiment to reduce this appalling, useless and pathetic slaughter of children on the roads. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

MALTA DEFENCES.
LORD STRICKLAND LORD STRICKLAND had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask whether His Majesty's Government are prepared to cancel all undertakings restricting, in case of war, the use of poison gas and other weapons useful in self-defence and counter-attack; whether the education of the Air Force against the use of certain weapons will be altered; and whether it is realised that the efficient equipment of Malta as a point from which counter-attack in self-defence might be made irresistible, has been fully realised as the best safeguard of peace, and to call attention to British interests in the Mediterranean; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, life in Malta has been much closer to the dangers of war than in this country; so much so, that last summer it was in contemplation that the civil population should be evacuated and measures were actually begun for that evacuation. We are there in constant contact with rooms in houses and offices protected against gas from the air. Rehearsals and mock air-raids are periodical. Therefore I trust your Lordships will realise that, under that stress of thought, more has been done to work out what may happen in case of war and opinion has been formulated in advance of public opinion

855
in this country. That, I think, deserves the consideration of your Lordships' House. I will endeavour to submit my arguments at this late hour as briefly as possible. Air-minded nations, and perhaps the majority of English people, have come to the conclusion that conventions against the use of poison gas and other lethal weapons will not be observed in future in war. This opinion is not formed merely because of regrettable incidents in Ethiopia. In Morocco, when the ink was hardly dry on the conventions signed in Geneva, the liquid which when it evaporates produces mustard gas was used around the wells of the Riff tribes to prevent the watering of their stock and to contaminate the water supply of the civil population. It ended rapidly the war that had lasted more than a century.
There is a decided opinion amongst the most educated and the most mercifully inclined that there should be no restriction as to what should be done in self-defence in case of war. The democratically governed nations will certainly not in future be aggressors. Their armament is no menace to anybody because it is for self-defence in case of aggression. The aggressor will not enter into war except with the pre-determination of using every and any means. It is obvious to anybody that unless the defence use the same means, the aggressor will be rapidly and certainly victorious. Let us remember the attitude towards the use of submarines at the beginning of the Great War. Public opinion was so formulated against the treacherous character of submarine warfare that it was determined not to follow that treacherous example, but that noble attitude, that Christian and altruistic attitude, could not last. We either had to be defeated, to have our food supply entirely cut off, or the submarine had to meet the submarine.
With regard to air warfare, I put it to His Majesty's Government that we cannot avoid realising that that is the position. The worst weapons now existing, the most treacherous, the most poisonous, will have to be adopted in self-defence if there is to be any self-defence, and they will have to be used for surprise in the greatest possible quantity and without restriction as to those against whom they are to be aimed. That is the opinion formed by the air-minded
856
nations other, perhaps, than this country, but it is also the opinion of thinkers in this country. The real question before His Majesty's Government is whether we are by propaganda to enlighten, to open the minds of people in this country as to that which is inevitable.
It was recently thought expedient that Malta should be evacuated, face to face with the concentration within a few miles on opposite shores of tens of thousands of picked troops, when submarines were numerous in the waters around—though perhaps not so numerous as was depicted in the speech of a former naval Commander-in-Chief when he said that in his time they were observed on one occasion bobbing about amongst the ships like corks. Those conditions are changed. His Majesty's Government have since last summer seriously done their duty to the Empire and to their pledges to the population of Malta in arming with the greatest rapidity. I feel confident that that policy of His Majesty's Government has been a success and that at the present time Malta, if not impregnable, is as close to the position in which our greatest fortress should be as the means at present available allow.
The arguments put forward by those persons who think—and there have been people in authority in Malta who have so thought—that Malta could not be defended from the air, have also changed entirely in these twelve months. Propinquity of the concentration of possible hostile Air Forces and therefore the ease of attack was the main argument for the evacuation of the civil population and the abandonment of Malta, to be reconquered after a long war. Since then, the radius of action of aircraft has so increased that London is no more immune by reason of distance from air attack than Malta. Moreover, we know that more than one of the Great Powers has organised a section of its Air Force on the basis that a certain number of selected and specially-trained pilots are to go forth and not endeavour to come back; to do what their duty may be with the knowledge that their lives are to be forfeited. I do not know what they would be called in an Asiatic language, but in European language they are called piloti delta morte—pilots who are going to their death. That doubles the radius

857
of action of a certain number of aircraft, and that diminishes the arguments in favour of holding that Malta is less defensible than other centres.
As to Cyprus being more defensible, that theory also is disappearing in view of the rapid and ever-increasing efficiency of aircraft. The expense of constructing harbours in Cyprus and defending them has been estimated at £20,000,000 sterling. Whatever the cost may be it will be so great as to diminish the money that should be spent on other and more efficient forms of defence, as for instance aircraft carriers, which could do all that could be expected from Cyprus, apart from many other localities which are strategically more important from time to time. The proximity of Malta to centres of hostile aircraft is also suffered by Cyprus in the concentration of aircraft in neighbouring islands, not far enough in these days to make any appreciable difference in the relative distance of hostile bases from Cyprus and from Malta.
I wish to ask His Majesty's Government to consider that any expenditure on shifting from Malta the principal base of defence and of British power in the Mediterranean could be better spent in Malta. No use could be hoped from bases in Cyprus and Haifa unless aircraft can be operated from Malta and supplies can be brought there with impunity backwards and forwards. Without Malta those bases would very soon be starved out and obliterated. It would be putting the cart before the horse and would be of no advantage. On the other hand, at the time when professional opinion in Malta held the view that the Island could not be defended from the air and therefore should be abandoned, so that it was neglected and its defences were in a most deplorable condition, the best brains in His Majesty's service were of the opinion that the defence of Malta was merely a matter of money, and not much money in proportion to the advantages to be gained.
I put it to His Majesty's Government, and I hope to have the support of your Lordships' House for the view, that Malta could be made so strong in defence by counter-attack that there would be no war. It is generally acknowledged that the only defence worth considering against air attack from any country and by any country is a counter-attack. The
858
difficulty and the anxiety of the counter-attack is whether it will be possible to deliver it, and whether it will not be destroyed before it starts. In Malta there are conditions under which counter-attack can be so safely made and with such certain impunity that it will be made and can be made, not only at the beginning of a war but after the war has been going on for a considerable period, notwithstanding any concentration of adverse forces, that I think the organisation would be so deterrent to any Mediterranean Power—and that is the one place when there is danger at present—that there would be no war in the Mediterranean, and therefore no war in Europe in our time.
Malta is itself a rock of which the stone is of a porous character, soft and easily quarried, and we have a disused railway station at Valetta which is an enormous arch carved out of the rock. In Malta it is quite feasible, at small expense, to have underground hangars for aircraft cut in the face of the rock, and aircraft could be discharged not merely by slipways but even from down at the water's edge. That is all in favour of the organisation of a, certain possibility of counter-attack in self defence by air. What will happen in Malta, and everywhere at an outbreak of war will be attacks devised to convert aerodromes into a collection of craters and dust heaps, so as to make them impossible for the purpose of landings. Therefore a counter-attack which has to start from a land aerodrome may be rendered impossible by the adoption of those tactics even before the declaration of war.
Aerodromes for safe counter-attack must be so selected as to offer the possibility of alighting on the water, and taking off from the water. It may well be said that perhaps there is a slight diminution in the velocity when taking off from the water, as compared with taking off from the land, but that I venture to doubt. It is a matter to be dealt with by future developments. The bombers, however, who take off from the water have always the hope of alighting on the water when they return. It is not a matter of a forlorn hope. The record of forlorn hopes in the history of the English forces, naval, military and air, is a record of a series of brave deeds, but they have been performed with the hope

859
of coining back victorious—undoubtedly against heavy odds, but the hope of return has always been there, and hope must always be kept there in a Christian country. If we organise for a counterattack that is to return to the water, flying boats would not only be able to land near their homes, but on a vast expanse of water, either under the control of their own Government or neutral. Therefore the organisation of counter-attack from the water should be cultivated, in order to give our air pilots a much greater chance of doing brave deeds, and being able to do them not once but several times.
In Malta Providence has provided a bay that can be closed at very moderate expense—less than the cost of a second-class cruiser. Taking off from the water has only one difficulty—the water must be sheltered to a certain extent against a rough sea—and therefore the construction of breakwaters for the purpose of making the taking-off easy or practical, is the one difficulty to be overcome in the organisation in Malta, and that very soon, of such a force for defensive counter-attacks. It has been said in another debate that flying boats on the water were just as open to attack as aircraft on land. That answer did not satisfy me, because I never suggested that the bombers should sit on the water like wild ducks asleep. My suggestion is that they should be in a hangar, so that, as can be easily effected at Malta, flying boats would be able to go off at half a minute's notice. The facility for providing hangars in hidden localities is absolutely unique in Malta. The land aeroplanes might be an adjunct to the bombers which take off from the water, but they will find it very difficult to operate, because in heavy and difficult country such as exists in Malta it is made very difficult for bombers to land with safety, except on aerodromes of large size.
In his maiden speech the present Minister for Air informed your Lordships' House that the opinion of the Government was not in favour of extending and relying upon flying boats in Malta, but that they had decided to help the construction of an aerodrome for aeroplanes for civil aviation—that is for aircraft to alight upon the land. That policy has been carried out with rapidity and efficiency; but I wish to
860
congratulate Lord Strabolgi upon having obtained in the recent debate on the Air Navigation Bill an admission on the part of the Air Minister that his opinion had changed, and that he was now aware of the superior advantages possessed by the flying boat. That was an achievement and a consolation. The aerodrome being built now for aircraft which are to alight on the solid ground is a great additional asset to the defence of Malta, but it is more so to the development of civil aviation. Nevertheless, the construction of breakwaters to enclose a most inviting expanse of water most suitable for the purpose would be a much greater achievement, it would produce much more value for the money. And it is an achievement which would satisfy not only those who want defence—defence of the strongest description—but also of those who believe in the teaching of Holy Scripture that "When a strong man keepeth his house there is peace therein" (there are various interpretations of that text). But no one can be strong to-day unless he is ready to use the strongest weapons. Notwithstanding all that, the expenditure of money on the construction of breakwaters to make that unique bay, in the words of the late Lord Thomson, the "Clapham Junction of the air," would have a value which would be always increasing commercially. The air traffic of the old world must and will centre there. It will be remunerative, and begin producing interest before it is finished. That cannot be said of a cruiser, which does not produce any interest, and which, in perhaps ten years, has to be scrapped.
Now I come to the last point I have to make. These debates about the provision of underground hangars have been going on since ten years ago in another place, and have taken place every year in this House, but have met with very little encouragement. But times have changed. What was perhaps politely smiled at a few months ago is now realised as a necessity. I know that the best experts now fully realise that it is an urgent necessity to have these breakwaters and to construct these underground hangars in places which give easy access to sheltered water for alighting in. Without saying anything more as to the change in technical opinion, I wish to offer a suggestion from the point of view of administration. The Malta (Letters Patent) Bill has received His Majesty's.

861
Assent. There can be now no question as to the validity of Ordinances that may have been passed, whether fully justified as dealing with reserved matters or otherwise, and the time has come for an Ordinance to be enacted appropriating the unearned increment for say, half a mile around the South-East bay of Malta. Such an Ordinance should make that unearned increment subject to an option, so that the Government could acquire it at any time in the next few years at a certain number of years' purchase, and prevent the enormous increase of value immediately these works are begun going into the pockets of private landlords. I am speaking against my own class, but that unearned increment, created by English money and by the enterprise of the Defence Departments, should remain for the benefit of the Empire and of Malta, where enormous sums will have been spent in giving work. An Ordinance of that description would greatly facilitate future calculations, future estimates and future operations, and need create no real grievance. It is only a question of deciding on the number of years' purchase—thirty-three or thirty-five would be very near the limit—and saving the trouble of litigation.
I will say no more on this occasion in view of the lateness of the hour, but the question is a great deal too important not to be taken most seriously by His Majesty's Government. I hope it will receive the support, and the growing support, of members of the House, and that the first step will be the diplomatic setting aside of all restrictions which prevent this country from using every means and every weapon in self-defence in conjunction with the democratic countries, who will only act in self-defence. Otherwise we are finished, and finished quickly, in the next war. I beg to move.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, this is a very late hour to have started a great defence debate.
LORD STRICKLAND: I hope the noble Lord will propose the adjournment.
LORD STRABOLGI: But on this occasion I hope His Majesty's Government will give the noble Lord no consolation or encouragement whatsoever, as far as regards the main part of his Motion. I am not going to discuss the strategical position at Malta at all. With regard to
862
the noble Lord's proposal to denounce the Convention for the prohibition of poison gas warfare I want to speak on behalf of the Labour Party in this House and to say that we are utterly opposed to that proposal. Indeed, we feel that the Government have been most lax and most indolent in not taking more vigorous steps against the Italian Government for their disgraceful breaking of their signed treaties in Abyssinia. We do not at all despair of the possibility of bringing about a great measure of disarmament by agreement when the present mad fever has subsided. There is an absurd competition in armaments going on at present, but it cannot continue indefinitely because it will break the taxpayers' backs, and if we can get through this period without the danger of war materialising then there may be a great revulsion, and we can bring about a great measure of disarmament by agreement. Indeed, if we had not had the economic crisis between 1929 and 1931, which provided the opportunity to destroy the late Labour Government, and if the late Mr. Arthur Henderson had been allowed to continue his work, I believe we might have got a great measure of agreement with regard to disarmament, and had it carried out. We believe also that bound up with disarmament there must be a complete abolition of military aircraft—perfectly practicable—and a system of international inspection.
Many of the rules of war are of very ancient origin, and they have been wonderfully well kept. At sea we had certain recognised rules of warfare which, up to the outbreak of the last War, were maintained by the seamen of all nationalities. The Germans broke them by sinking vessels without the proper chivalrous conduct that had always been recognised, and what was the result? The United States came into the War and the Germans were completely defeated, whereas they might otherwise have managed to pull through with a stalemate. If the Germans had not broken their word and invaded Belgium I do not believe that this country would have been brought into the war, at least in more than a half hearted way. But we need not despair, because of the German misconduct in the late War and Italian misconduct on land in Abyssinia, of the rules of war being maintained and recognised, and I hope His Majesty's Government

863
will make it perfectly clear in their reply that they do not countenance the breach by the Italians of the Convention with regard to poison gas and other breaches of the rules of warfare, and that they are firmly determined to maintain, and strengthen if possible, the rules of war. And I hope also that they will strongly support the abolition of war altogether, because if war breaks out you cannot make it gentlemanly. At the same time, there are certain barbarities you can deal with, and I hope that His Majesty's Government will show no weakness in that direction.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, I do not intend to enter into a somewhat academic discussion with the noble Lord opposite as to what might have happened if the economic crisis of 1931 had not taken place and the Labour Government had remained in office. Personally I shudder to contemplate what might have been the result in such a contingency. I want to confine myself to the issues which the noble Lord, Lord Strickland, has raised in his Question on the Paper and also in the discussion this afternoon. There is one point in regard to which I can certainly reassure the noble Lord opposite. The noble Lord, Lord Strickland, has suggested that the Government should cancel all its undertakings, restricting in the case of war the use of poison gas and other weapons of that description, which His Majesty's Government have entered into in various ways. I can tell him quite categorically that the Government are not prepared to adopt a policy of that kind. This country was a signatory of the Gas Protocol of 1925 which definitely prohibits the use of poison gas or other gases, and I wish to tell him quite categorically that His Majesty's Government have no intention of in any way trying to shelve the undertakings and the obligations which rest upon them in connection with that Protocol.
The use of poison gas by Italy during the war in Abyssinia was generally deplored, and deplored no less by His Majesty's Government than by any other Government or any other section of people throughout the world. We have expressed our views in regard to that matter times without number, and I do not think any further
864
statement on my part is necessary; but I do want to say that if His Majesty's Government were to make any kind of suggestion that gas warfare should in future be legalised, I feel quite certain there would be widespread indignation on the part of the great majority of the people in this country and, indeed throughout the world. The Government intend strongly to support the maintenance of this Convention. That is our attitude. We want to do everything we can to support the Convention, not only because of the undertakings we have entered into, but because we believe the implementing of that Convention is in the fundamental interest of humanity. I want to add, as a corollary to that, that if any country were to break the provisions of that Convention, they would quite obviously cease to be entitled to rely on its benefits. I mean that if they broke the provisions of that Convention it is quite clear they would have to take the consequences.
But all this does not mean that the armed forces are not receiving instruction in defence against gas warfare. On the contrary they are most certainly doing so. I want to point out that the British ratification of the Gas Protocol, which took place in 1930, expressed a reservation to this effect, that the Protocol was only binding upon them so long as an enemy respected the prohibitions contained in it, and that reservation was made by the French Government as well, and by the Governments of many other countries. I would point out that the use of gas in Abyssinia during the last few months does not necessarily mean that the ban on the use of gas is likely to be disregarded in a war between western European nations. After all, in a case of that kind all parties to such a conflict would have at their disposal means of retaliation, and in my view this possibility of retaliation is the most cogent safeguard that we have for the observance of the terms of the Protocol.
Passing on to another portion of the noble Lord's Motion—that is, the efficient equipment of Malta with a view to its own defence and to what he terms "counter-attack," I can only draw his attention to the answer which was given in another place by the First Lord of the Admiralty not long ago. That answer was to the effect that we have no intention whatever of evacuating

865
Malta, and we shall certainly take every practical means to make its defence secure against any possible attack. That seems to me to be a very unequivocal statement.
LORD STRICKLAND: Unequivocal, but insufficient for defence.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: At any rate, I do not think I can do better than reiterate that statement on this occasion. Furthermore, I can say that the policy adumbrated so clearly in that statement is being implemented by His Majesty's Government. So far as the air defences are concerned, the noble Lord has alluded to the fact that we are building a second aerodrome, which is estimated to cost some £28,000. The work upon it was started last autumn, and it is expected that the aerodrome will be completed some time this year. As the noble Lord has said, the existence of this additional aerodrome will undoubtedly very greatly facilitate the reinforcement of the garrison in Malta at short notice. In addition to that, work is progressing in the direction of a general reconditioning of the military defences in the Island, first of all, with the object of providing adequate modern equipment for training, and secondly, in order to replace other equipment which is gradually becoming obsolescent. I want to point out further that this is being done in the normal course of the policy of bringing our overseas garrisons up to the necessary standard. Further than that, the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineer garrisons are in the course of being increased. They are naturally those who actually man the defences of the Island, and if your Lordships have studied the Estimates for this year you will have seen an item of about £14,000 which is to be spent in the course of the year on accommodation for the increase in the garrison and for storage accommodation.
I was a little bit puzzled when I read the Motion on the Paper as to what exactly the noble Lord meant by "irresistible counter-attack" in self-defence; but it has become clear during the course of the discussion that what he alluded to was a matter that he has mentioned on a number of occasions before in your Lordships' House—namely, the provision of a large force of flying boats in Malta in conjunction with underground hangars. I can only say that this
866
is a problem which has been investigated with the very greatest care by those who are competent to do so. I can assure the noble Lord that it is not a matter which has not been given sufficient attention. The matter has been investigated, but I can only tell him this afternoon that the Secretary of State for Air has not departed from the view which I expressed on his behalf I think almost exactly a year ago in this House, and that is to the effect that his technical advisers—and there are no more competent technical advisers in the country available—could not for a single moment agree with the noble Lord that the advantage would lie with flying boats as compared with land-based aircraft for the defence of the Island against air attack.
I do not intend to enter into an argument with the noble Lord over technical details. I do not think that we are either of us competent to do so, but I want to assure him once again that this is a matter which has received the very closest attention of the appropriate authorities, and they have definitely come to the conclusion that the best means of defence against air attack in Malta lies with land-based aircraft rather than with flying boats.
LORD STRICKLAND: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just sat down made reference to proposals to enclose the bay in the South-East of Malta where aircraft could take off in any weather if breakwaters are provided. The noble Earl in reference to that proposition said that he was repeating the reply that was given last year—repeating what has been said by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, in his maiden speech in this House. But since then the whole strategic atmosphere has changed. Then the policy was to evacuate and abandon Malta because it was considered indefensible. Now the policy is to defend Malta at all costs because the First Lord of the Admiralty, as quoted by the noble Earl, has announced in another place that it cannot be abandoned, and that Malta will be retained at any cost. The fundamental principle of strategy having changed I should have thought that the reply of the noble Earl would also have been accordingly changed—
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I do not accept what the noble Lord says.
LORD STRICKLAND: I ask your Lordships' House to accept it, and I hope

867
public opinion will accept it soon. As to the value of technical advice, may I say that technical advice given to-day and to-morrow must in the changed circumstances be different from the technical advice given a year ago. For one thing the reliance on flying boats has changed, and the speed of all aircraft has rapidly increased. The hypothesis for the report of experts is different. On the point that His Majesty's Government will also be inflexible in adhering to conventions for the non-use of poison gas, that is to be considered with new facts exactly on the same basis; inasmuch as more lethal weapons are daily developed. For instance, high explosives have become more destructive than gas, and other liquids have been invented and more poisonous gas in particular. On that point the noble Earl has given in reply a most valuable admission of which the publicity is worth a good deal more to this country and to the safety of this Empire than any propaganda. It is well worth the three quarters of an hour of this debate. The noble Earl has admitted possible exceptions and has informed your Lordships' House and enlightened our people on the fact—which, after all, is a psychological truism—that if in war nations break these anti-gas conventions then the conventions may be broken against them in self-defence: the aggressor will no longer be immune. Who, in studying the question in the light of human nature, is not perfectly certain that there are nations that may be aggressors and break these conventions? They must, if their mentality makes them aggressors, leave no stone unturned to win.
Their psychology is different from ours, and that is my main point. We are a religious nation, perhaps the most religious nation in the world. We keep our promises. Our trade and wealth are built up upon our keeping our pacts. We are trained to act as if our promises are bonds. Others are not or may not be in future. That is where the rub comes in, and that is where propaganda is necessary as to limitation of promises. The noble Earl says that if other people use poison gas we may perhaps do the same. Let us prepare for its use under such possibilities. Let us have thousands of containers of poisonous liquids in Malta. Let us have a factory for making poison gas under ground in Malta. Let
868
it be known that we will use it if we know that poison gas is to be used against us. Let it be known that it is there as a deterrent against aggression, and that, if there is any breach of the present Convention, there may and can and will be effective counter action.
NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL STANHOPE): The noble Lord is really not, under the Rules of the House, allowed to make another long speech in withdrawing the Motion. It is not customary in your Lordships' House to do so, although he has done it on more than one occasion. It is contrary to the procedure of this House.
LORD STRICKLAND: My Lords, I will certainly conform by very quickly bringing the reply to an end, although I have heard to-day (from the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr) that there are no laws of order in this House. Our customs are elastic, and I submit that this is an occasion that justifies a certain amount of latitude. Perhaps in reply I may be allowed to add one reference to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, in regard to restraints at sea; he doubtless alluded to the Declaration of Paris. With reference to that Declaration the great Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, recorded a pronouncement that adhesion to that Declaration was a great mistake. I hope that authority will be referred to as a parallel and that it will be decided that adhesion to the Convention referred to in this Motion will be modified, as being equally mistaken. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

HEALTH RESORTS AND WATERING PLACES BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, this is a very harmless and necessary Bill which puts the power of local authorities to advertise on a more businesslike and just basis. I understand it has the support of the Government and I beg to move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Mount Temple.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I should like to say a word about this

869
Bill. I had not seen it until a few moments ago, and I have not had time to compare it with the local Acts on which I think it is based. I think there is one point which perhaps will have to be taken into consideration. There has been a Bill before your Lordships' House dealing with a resort on the coast near Edinburgh. It was pointed out that this resort, although it was administered under a county council, was of an urban character. I should think probably something will have to be done to meet that point. There is also the point that the council of any borough or urban district may combine with any other local authority. On that I think it ought to be made clear that a rural district, although it cannot itself advertise, may combine with another local authority. Then I would like to ask the noble Viscount who will speak for the Government, if this Bill is to be incorporated in the Public Health Act. The two measures seem to be of the same nature. At the time of the passing of the Local Government Act, 1933, certain other measures dealt with at the same time were incorporated, and I would like to ask whether that is to be done on this occasion.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the Government are in sympathy with the objects of this Bill. For some time representations have been made that the time has come for modernising the Health Resorts and Watering Places Act of 1921, which is the only Statute under which local authorities have any power to advertise amenities. The Government feel that some of the restrictions in that Act might be relaxed. The real sponsors of the Bill are the Association of Health and Pleasure Resorts, and the Association have been in consultation with the Ministry of Health with regard to the proposals in the present Bill, In regard to the point raised by the noble Earl, the Chairman of Committees, about Midlothian, I am advised that in order to ensure the proper application of the Bill to Scotland certain Amendments will be necessary. We propose that those Amendments should be considered when the Bill is in Committee. I did not know that there was any doubt about the wording of Clause 1, which enables the council of a borough or urban district to combine with any other local authority,
870
organisation, company or person, but if there is any doubt I will certainly have the matter looked into, and will make further comments at the next stage of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FINANCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Templemore.)
LORD STEABOLGI: My Lords, I want to take this opportunity of asking the noble Lord opposite, Lord Templemore, if he can give us any further information with regard to the question raised here and elsewhere about the Jarrow steel works. I understand that a very important deputation was received by the President of the Board of Trade yesterday, and that further information was laid before the Government. I shall be glad to know if any conclusion has been reached. In asking this question I would like to make it clear that I realise that, as things have gone, it may be that the tide has been missed with regard to up-to-date steel works being immediately erected at Jarrow, although I hope that eventually that will be done. I am not pressing the Government on that point. What I want to ask is, whether in the circumstances, they are prepared to do anything else for Jarrow in view of the appalling state of affairs disclosed by the noble Earl, Lord Midleton. There is another question which I should like to ask, and on that I should like to have the particular attention of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. If a similar set of circumstances arises elsewhere, have the Government realised that it is not fair to leave the decision in the hands of those whose own narrow, sectional interests may be directly affected? I think one lesson to be learned from what has happened at Jarrow is that you cannot rely on justice being done if the decision is in the hands of people who may fear that, if a rival concern is started in the next town, their workpeople and share-

871
holders may suffer. There must be a higher authority, and I hope the Government will see that in the future that higher authority is provided by themselves.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for having given me notice yesterday that he was going to raise this important question. I am afraid I have not very much to add to what I said and what my noble friend the Earl of Dudley said to your Lordships two days ago. Your Lordships will be aware that a deputation to my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade was received by him yesterday. I understand that the proceedings lasted some two hours, and that my right honourable friend informed the deputation that the questions raised were receiving the most careful consideration of the Government. He also promised that the points that had been put forward by the deputation would be transmitted by him to his colleagues. I should like to quote what was said by the honourable member for Jarrow—Miss Wilkinson—who is a member of the Party to which the noble Lord himself belongs. She said to a newspaper reporter: "It was a most impressive deputation in every way. I have never listened to such an impressive case, and the Minister was most sympathetic." I understand that my right honourable friend is going to make a statement in another place to-night on the Board of Trade Vote, which is being discussed there. That statement, I understand, may not be made until nine or ten o'clock to-night, and I am afraid I am not in a position to anticipate what my right honourable friend will say then.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Bill reported without amendment.

HOUSING BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SOLICITORS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
LORD WRIGHT: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Wright.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 3, page 2, line 25, leave out ("and that").
LORD WRIGHT: My Lords, the first Amendment is merely drafting, and I beg to move that it be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Wright.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 3, page 2, line 28, at end insert:
("and
(c) in the case of any person who, before entering into articles, has attended a course of legal instruction specified in the regulations and has passed any examination so specified as a qualifying examination in relation to that course, the term shall be four years.")
LORD WRIGHT: My Lords, the second Amendment is to insert certain words at at the end of line 28 on page 2. That Amendment speaks for itself. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Wright.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 14, page 8, line 10, after ("in") insert ("Scotland and").
LORD WRIGHT: My Lords, the third Amendment is to insert the words "Scotland and" after the word "in." That is merely extending to Scotland a benefit which the Bill confers on England. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Wright.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, before we adjourn, I beg to state that I am afraid it may be necessary, unless your Lordships are able to finish the consideration of the Amendments to the Tithe Bill before dinner to-morrow, to ask the House to sit after dinner.